JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 11th July 2008, 10:30 AM   #761
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Ciphers:

Positive max. fluctuation from 1860 to 2006 = 0.75 K
Nevative max. fluctuation from Jan 2007-May 2008 = -0.48 K

Total fluctuation = -1.23 K

I have given the sources of databases to you.

Now prove that the results are wrong.
Which results? The ones you posted to begin with or these? You've changed the latter figure, haven't you?

Which is right, -0.774 or -0.48?
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:32 AM   #762
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Once again... It is not the difference from one peak to the baseline; get the amplitudes introducing the wavelengths and the Series Expansions. Is it so difficult to you????
Yes, mind reading is *very* difficult for me.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:35 AM   #763
biocab
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
It is not worth trying to dialogue with people that take one thing for another by lacking of knowledge. You don't know even how to calculate amplitudes!!! Besides, you offer graphs but not databases or graphs made by yourself! Incredible!!!
biocab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:39 AM   #764
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
It is not worth trying to dialogue with people that take one thing for another by lacking of knowledge. You don't know even how to calculate amplitudes!!! Besides, you offer graphs but not databases or graphs made by yourself! Incredible!!!
Who are you replying to?
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:39 AM   #765
biocab
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Which results? The ones you posted to begin with or these? You've changed the latter figure, haven't you?

Which is right, -0.774 or -0.48?
Ooh! Sorry... You're right; it is -0.774 K, then the sum is wrong also, it should have been -1.524 K. Hah!
biocab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:40 AM   #766
biocab
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Who are you replying to?
Hellbound
biocab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:41 AM   #767
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,911
Aha.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, you took the highest above-baseline value from 1880-2006, and the lowest below-baseline fluctuation from 2007-2008?

Well, let's try something here:
Negative max. fluctuation from 1860 to 2006 = -0.63 K
Positive max. fluctuation from Jan 2007-May 2008 = 0.8418 K

Total fluctuation = 1.4718 K

But that's as invalid as your calculation. What's your reasoning for comapring only the negative max fluctuation and the postivie max fluctuation?

Or, if I assume your looking for whatever had the highest absolute value of distance from baseline:

Max fluctuation 1880-2006: +0.8199 February, 1998
Max fluctuation 2007-2008: +0.8418 January, 2007

For a total warming of 0.0219

I don't see the validity of your data choices, and I still don't see where you got your temperature measurements.

A better option would be to comapre MAX-MIN for both date ranges (which I did above with peak-to-peak amplitudes and general fluctuation); or MIN to MIN and MAX to MAX for each range:

MAX 1880-2006: 0.8199
MAX 2007-2008:0.8418

MIN 1880-2006: -0.63
MIN 2006-2008: 0.198

Again, I'm using the NOAA combined land and sea surface temperatures; if you are using the troposhperic temp database from the NSSTC for your number, let me know and I'll run those (of course, I don't see how that could be the case as it starts at 1978). At this point, I'm not getting matches on any of your numbers.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:49 AM   #768
biocab
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Aha.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, you took the highest above-baseline value from 1880-2006, and the lowest below-baseline fluctuation from 2007-2008?

Well, let's try something here:
Negative max. fluctuation from 1860 to 2006 = -0.63 K
Positive max. fluctuation from Jan 2007-May 2008 = 0.8418 K

Total fluctuation = 1.4718 K

But that's as invalid as your calculation. What's your reasoning for comapring only the negative max fluctuation and the postivie max fluctuation?

Or, if I assume your looking for whatever had the highest absolute value of distance from baseline:

Max fluctuation 1880-2006: +0.8199 February, 1998
Max fluctuation 2007-2008: +0.8418 January, 2007

For a total warming of 0.0219

I don't see the validity of your data choices, and I still don't see where you got your temperature measurements.

A better option would be to comapre MAX-MIN for both date ranges (which I did above with peak-to-peak amplitudes and general fluctuation); or MIN to MIN and MAX to MAX for each range:

MAX 1880-2006: 0.8199
MAX 2007-2008:0.8418

MIN 1880-2006: -0.63
MIN 2006-2008: 0.198

Again, I'm using the NOAA combined land and sea surface temperatures; if you are using the troposhperic temp database from the NSSTC for your number, let me know and I'll run those (of course, I don't see how that could be the case as it starts at 1978). At this point, I'm not getting matches on any of your numbers.
Get amplitudes and you'll have the correct numbers.
biocab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 10:55 AM   #769
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Those are anomalies. My source is the database provided by the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) at the University of Alabama in Hunstville. You can get there from BioCab's article on temperature variations. Look for NSSTC link and left click on it:

http://biocab.org/Temperature_Variat...9_to_2006.html
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karln. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low -and high- resolution proxy data. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Ooh! Sorry... You're right; it is -0.774 K, then the sum is wrong also, it should have been -1.524 K. Hah!
Could you also confirm that the datasets you used are the ones you directed me to in the 2 quoted posts above and that you obtained -0.774 from the first and 0.75 from the second?

Thanks.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 11:00 AM   #770
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,911
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
I'm getting exasperated... Don't you know what is a "baseline" and what is Standard Temperature (ASTPk)? You think that amplitudes is peak minus baseline? Hah! You're very, very confused.
Yes, I am, because what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Amplitude only matters relative to the baseline you measure from. Amplitude is the distance of one point on a graph curve from the defined baseline. I understand very well what Standard temperature is, as well as what a baseline is. For example,t he baselines for the NOAA data are NOT "Standard Temperature", but the temperatures given on the table in the page I've linked earlier. The data is the fluctuaton of temperatures from that baseline.

And yes, a basic amplitude IS the peak minus the baseline. A peak-to-peak amplitude is the peak to the next trough. An RMS amplitude is the root-mean-square (used in electrical calculations) and is representative of the area under the peak curve. You've yet to identify what you're measuring your amplitude from. Maximum variation month-to-month? year-to-year? Over the entire time range (total fluctuation)?

Originally Posted by biocab View Post
It is not worth trying to dialogue with people that take one thing for another by lacking of knowledge. You don't know even how to calculate amplitudes!!! Besides, you offer graphs but not databases or graphs made by yourself! Incredible!!!
I know how to calculate amplitudes, thank you. In fact, I know how to calculate all the differnt types of amplitudes, as well as what an amplitude is.

At this point, I no longer believe you arrived at your values in any valid manner. You refuse to give any clear answers, you refuse to "show your work". You seem to have a severely deficient understanding of mathematics, as shown by the fact that you sem to believe amplitude has only a single meaning and requires no baseline.

IN short, the data I've presented already refutes your assertion. You've given no reasons for using the absolute values of the highest maximum fluctuation in one period and the lowest in another. You'veyet to clarify the databases you're using for each date range. No one seems to be able to re-create the numbers you claim are "simple amplitudes".

I've tried to be repsectful and give you more than the benifit of the doubt. The best I've gotten are non-answers, and now you go straight to insults and childishness.

I'm done. Your data is refuted, unless you can show the problems with my calculations (all of which contradict yours).

Byt he way, that self-made graph is based directly on the NOAA data; I averaged the monthly fluctuations into a yearly fluctuation (a simple mean), and plotted those against time. You can easily recreate my work in an Excel spreadsheet:

1. Copy the data from the NOAA data set into a text file, and import that file into Excel.
2. Filter the data so that only the rows with a month of "12" show up.
3. In each of those rows, enter the excel function =AVERAGE(C-11:C), replace C-11 and C with the references for the cell 11 rows up in the temp column and the current row int he temp column. This produces an average for the year.
4. Remove the filter, and scroll to the bottom. Delete June to December of 2008 (as there is no valid data there) and use C-4:C for the reference range and the AVERAGE function next to the May 2008 cell.
5. Now, filter to just those rows that have your yearly averages, copy them, and paste them in a new sheet. You can then use Excel's chart function to make your graph.

That (above me) is a good example of what is meant by "How did you arrive at those numbers?". In fact, I would be willing to bet that anyone ont his thread can reproduce my numbers by what I've posted. The same cannot be said for you.

Last edited by Hellbound; 11th July 2008 at 11:01 AM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 11:04 AM   #771
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,911
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Get amplitudes and you'll have the correct numbers.
I DO have amplitudes. That you cannot understand this reveals your own ignorance.

Please, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude and tell me what amplitude you are measuring.

The NOAA data set is a recor dof deviation from an average temperature. In other words, it's already an amplitude compared to the baseline temps.

The maximum month-tomonth fluctuations I calculated earlier are also amplitudes, specifically peak-to-peak amplitudes, which rely on no baseline (because you measure trough-to-vally, a difference, so any baseline cancels out).

Please, tell me how you calculated your "amplitude". Go ahead, prove us wrong.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 11:59 AM   #772
fsol
tinCAN Kiajaroovah
 
fsol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I understand and respect the fact that you have a genuine intellectual curiousity as to the issues and have not participated in the trolling, flamebaiting and insults, but a discussion by analysis 93% content as excerpted below it is my choice not to participate in, rather than be considered one of the obvious group of morons and fools.

Neither would it be worthy of respect to give numerical methods and calculations to people whose best analytical thinking is thus -
  1. If this is your reply to that graph, I can only classify you as an idiot or a troll. or both...
  2. This looks like common spam. Or a Turing experiment?
  3. I'm quite sure biocab is genuine. We've met the type before, after all; when I was biocab's age I met quite a few. Just another pimply youth.
  4. It's hard to believe so many forumlas could amount to so little science.
  5. Not so many years ago, nearly all scientists were amateurs. Many more are professional scientists now - they make their living at it - and there is room in their ranks to hide and pretend to be one of them.
  6. We've seen that behavior here, and it sickens and angers me.
  7. I'd like to add to this. If he has a PhD from a respectable, accredited university, I will eat my boots. I don't have a PhD (So pointless for Engineers, though I might be picking up a Masters soon) but I damn well know science when I see it, and I know nonsense when I see it.
  8. And btw, stop lying about being a scientist... it was funny at first, but now it's plain offensive.
  9. Are you sure you aren't a sock puppet of Amy Wilson? That statement you just made was so naive it's bordering on trolling.
  10. Did you notice how much he behaved like a high-school student? The smilies, the posturing, and the 'ha-ha-ha!'s weren't consistent with any scientist that I know of who is trying to get people to take his work seriously.
  11. These guys are just like the truthers except they won't go away once we ditch chimp-boy in January.
  12. Now, as for your puerile website,
  13. Your reply betrays, once more, that your knowledge of science is lacking.
  14. All of the above make me believe that you are not a scientist.
  15. Bet you 100,000,000 US dollars I'm a scientist. Accept it before witnesses? You don't have that money to bet...
  16. You don't appear to know the first thing about science, regardless of the degrees that you've accumulated (not that you've provided any evidence of nor even claimed, unless I missed it, any relevant degrees).
  17. Unfortunately for you, you don't understand how a responsible adult is capable might act, and you are clueless of how a scientist is likely to act, so your impersonation is laughable at best but common and tedious in general.
  18. Now, be nice. I'm sure his mom loves him.
  19. Stop lying.
  20. Prove it or be damned by your failure to do so.I want it in writing from the university.
  21. This is sophomoric, riddled with sophomoric mistakes.
  22. Could be, more likely it is the mish mosh you made of it.
  23. So you are a true believer out to defend your dogma, I posted a valid critique of that graph and you resort to a soap box rant about science.
  24. Poseur, fake, charlatan, you just are unable to engage in critical debate so you shift the goal psost.
  25. What a self-regarding fart this biocab is.

Yes but what do YOU think about biocabs figures?
__________________
I make things that sound like this.

"Those who claim to forecast the future are all lying, even if, by chance, they are later proved right."
fsol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 12:29 PM   #773
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by fsol View Post
Yes but what do YOU think about biocabs figures?
I have no reason to add or delete from my prior response, however, you all are starting to show weak evidence of thought (judging from the recent posts, of course their correlation to thinking may be circumstantial).

Thus as a tribute to the best Warmer science now ongoing I submit evidence of their scientific work, data collected and methods:





Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 01:13 PM   #774
Megalodon
Master Poster
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,822
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I have no reason to add or delete from my prior response, however, you all are starting to show weak evidence of thought (judging from the recent posts, of course their correlation to thinking may be circumstantial).
Since you are a coward and refuse to answer questions, as well as a known liar, your attempts at insulting your intellectual betters are depressing...


Quote:
Thus as a tribute to the best Warmer science now ongoing I submit evidence of their scientific work, data collected and methods:
It's funny, although I compared the methods of delayers and IDiots a long time ago, it hadn't occurred to me that you were a creationist until you linked to that cesspool you frequent. But it makes sense that it's more than a methodology similarity...

Of course, I will accept your word if you say you aren't a creationist...
__________________
Stupid is depressing...

Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 01:52 PM   #775
fsol
tinCAN Kiajaroovah
 
fsol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I have no reason to add or delete from my prior response, however, you all are starting to show weak evidence of thought (judging from the recent posts, of course their correlation to thinking may be circumstantial).

Thus as a tribute to the best Warmer science now ongoing I submit evidence of their scientific work, data collected and methods:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...7b3b2ef08b.png


Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study
So as usual you have nothing of any substance to contribute. Figures...
__________________
I make things that sound like this.

"Those who claim to forecast the future are all lying, even if, by chance, they are later proved right."
fsol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 03:48 PM   #776
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I understand and respect the fact that you have a genuine intellectual curiousity as to the issues and have not participated in the trolling, flamebaiting and insults, but a discussion by analysis 93% content as excerpted below it is my choice not to participate in, rather than be considered one of the obvious group of morons and fools.

Neither would it be worthy of respect to give numerical methods and calculations to people whose best analytical thinking is thus -
  1. If this is your reply to that graph, I can only classify you as an idiot or a troll. or both...
  2. This looks like common spam. Or a Turing experiment?
  3. I'm quite sure biocab is genuine. We've met the type before, after all; when I was biocab's age I met quite a few. Just another pimply youth.
  4. It's hard to believe so many forumlas could amount to so little science.
  5. Not so many years ago, nearly all scientists were amateurs. Many more are professional scientists now - they make their living at it - and there is room in their ranks to hide and pretend to be one of them.
  6. We've seen that behavior here, and it sickens and angers me.
  7. I'd like to add to this. If he has a PhD from a respectable, accredited university, I will eat my boots. I don't have a PhD (So pointless for Engineers, though I might be picking up a Masters soon) but I damn well know science when I see it, and I know nonsense when I see it.
  8. And btw, stop lying about being a scientist... it was funny at first, but now it's plain offensive.
  9. Are you sure you aren't a sock puppet of Amy Wilson? That statement you just made was so naive it's bordering on trolling.
  10. Did you notice how much he behaved like a high-school student? The smilies, the posturing, and the 'ha-ha-ha!'s weren't consistent with any scientist that I know of who is trying to get people to take his work seriously.
  11. These guys are just like the truthers except they won't go away once we ditch chimp-boy in January.
  12. Now, as for your puerile website,
  13. Your reply betrays, once more, that your knowledge of science is lacking.
  14. All of the above make me believe that you are not a scientist.
  15. Bet you 100,000,000 US dollars I'm a scientist. Accept it before witnesses? You don't have that money to bet...
  16. You don't appear to know the first thing about science, regardless of the degrees that you've accumulated (not that you've provided any evidence of nor even claimed, unless I missed it, any relevant degrees).
  17. Unfortunately for you, you don't understand how a responsible adult is capable might act, and you are clueless of how a scientist is likely to act, so your impersonation is laughable at best but common and tedious in general.
  18. Now, be nice. I'm sure his mom loves him.
  19. Stop lying.
  20. Prove it or be damned by your failure to do so.I want it in writing from the university.
  21. This is sophomoric, riddled with sophomoric mistakes.
  22. Could be, more likely it is the mish mosh you made of it.
  23. So you are a true believer out to defend your dogma, I posted a valid critique of that graph and you resort to a soap box rant about science.
  24. Poseur, fake, charlatan, you just are unable to engage in critical debate so you shift the goal psost.
  25. What a self-regarding fart this biocab is.
What is this?

Is it just a way of attempting to divert attention from your utter inability to contribute in any constructive way in this thread? You made a list. Why not just quote the originals?

Thanks for setting a new low in dishonesty and spinelessness.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 04:25 PM   #777
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo
Posts: 15,718
Now back to your studies, TS. But do do your job of generating a concise summary of Biocab's hints , that was a good idea.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 07:32 PM   #778
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,876
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Aha.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, you took the highest above-baseline value from 1880-2006, and the lowest below-baseline fluctuation from 2007-2008?

Well, let's try something here:
Negative max. fluctuation from 1860 to 2006 = -0.63 K
Positive max. fluctuation from Jan 2007-May 2008 = 0.8418 K

Total fluctuation = 1.4718 K

But that's as invalid as your calculation. What's your reasoning for comapring only the negative max fluctuation and the postivie max fluctuation?

Or, if I assume your looking for whatever had the highest absolute value of distance from baseline:

Max fluctuation 1880-2006: +0.8199 February, 1998
Max fluctuation 2007-2008: +0.8418 January, 2007

For a total warming of 0.0219

I don't see the validity of your data choices, and I still don't see where you got your temperature measurements.

A better option would be to comapre MAX-MIN for both date ranges (which I did above with peak-to-peak amplitudes and general fluctuation); or MIN to MIN and MAX to MAX for each range:

MAX 1880-2006: 0.8199
MAX 2007-2008:0.8418

MIN 1880-2006: -0.63
MIN 2006-2008: 0.198

Again, I'm using the NOAA combined land and sea surface temperatures; if you are using the troposhperic temp database from the NSSTC for your number, let me know and I'll run those (of course, I don't see how that could be the case as it starts at 1978). At this point, I'm not getting matches on any of your numbers.
[parody]
ha you know nothing lackwit, now you have agreed to my methods and now you must yeild!
Yoicks and away![/parody]

I can't wait to read the dodge and weave and arm waving this will produce!

Thanks Hellbound!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:06 AM   #779
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
So that there can be no accusation of misrepresenting Biocab, I include below all his posts relating to his 0.75 warming, 0.774 cooling claim. If I've missed any, please say.

I have removed 3 smilies to meet the limit of 30.

Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Satellite data cooled 0.774 C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 C, we haven't had any global warming anymore.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
I wrote cooled 0.774 C, that is -0.774 C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:

-0.774 C - 0.75 = -1.524 C... Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.

So... A napkin for you to wipe the cherry juice off your face
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
This is the problem when dealing with fluctuations, not with absolute numbers. I will explain it for you can get the fact:

From a negative fluctuation of 0.75 C to 0 there are 0.75 units, correct? If we continue computing the figures towards the negative quadrant of the database, we find that in the last two years the fluctuation of the temperature goes down to -0.774 C. We count 0.774 units from zero to -0.774 C. Now we sum the units and the total is 1.524 units. Since the maximum fluctuation of temperature ocurred before 2007, and the minimum fluctuation occurred after 2007, we know for sure that the Earth is cooling, so that, the totalized units are negative, right? Consequently, the total fluctuation from 1860 to 2008 is -1.524 C. That cannot mean another thing, but a cooling. It is evidence.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Wow! Megalodon has discovered that there are not 1.524 units between -0.774 C and 0.75 C... Publish it immediately for that problem of copyrights! Your discovery will revolutionize mathematics field...
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Let's say that the total amount from the peak to the trough is 1.524 C. This is not the problem; the interpretation is what has been the problem here. As the peak occurs in a period before the trough, then the trajectory of the amplitude has been decreasing from the peak to the trough, that is, from 0.75C to -0.774 C, which is a decrease, as of the maximum 0.75 C, by which, the change is negative. This is verified by the sum of both quantities:

-0.774 (last measurement or trough) - 0.75 (prior measurement or peak) = -1.524. How much the temperature has changed from past to present day? As we are talking of amplitude, the change is negative because the present day change of temperature is lower than the past temperature. This is ∆T or total fluctuation of temperature.

If it was the opposite, that is, if the current change of temperature was 0.774 C (positive or amplitude above zero) and the change of temperature was -0.75 C (negative or amplitude below zero), the total fluctuation since 1860 would be 0.774 - (-0.75) = 1.524 C, a positive fluctuation or a warming.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Another equation is adding the change to the absolute temperature:

273.15 + (-0.774) = 272.376 K for the current change, and
273.15 + 0.75 = 273.9 K for the previous maximum change.

Now, let's get the difference. How much the temperature has fluctuated from 1860 to present?

∆Tcurrent - ∆Tmax. in the past = 272.376 K - 273.9 K = -1.524 K
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Following the mathematics of someone here:

-5 ||||0||||+5

How many degrees (or marks) are between -5 and +5? Someone here said there would be -5+5 degrees, that is 0 degrees, even though you have computed 10 degrees (or marks). You're seeing them...
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
If you are on the higher step of a stair, let's say that you are on the tenth step above the floor, and you start descending for the stair downstairs, step by step, or meter by meter... Are you going downstairs or upstairs? As you reached the middle of the stair, if the stair is 10 m long, how many meters have you gone downstairs? Goooood! You have counted well, 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5 m Ok! Now continue going downstairs to the floor... Wow! You have completed your walk downstairs. How many meters have you descended from the middle of the stair to the floor? 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5. Very well... Now, let's assume that the steps above the middle of the stair are positive, that the middle of the stair is zero and that the steps below the middle of the stair are negative. Now tell me... How many meters did you go down, from the top of the stairs to the floor? Oh, oh! You are wrong... you didn't go 0 meters down from the top from the stairs to the floor. You've got an F. In statistics, you have to count each meter you descended from the top to the bottom, and the number will be negative because you're descending. Well, take your calculator and sum -0.774 K - 0.75 K... What's the result? Oooh! Perhaps Tx Inst. are not producing good gears...
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Those are anomalies. My source is the database provided by the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) at the University of Alabama in Hunstville. You can get there from BioCab's article on temperature variations. Look for NSSTC link and left click on it:

http://biocab.org/Temperature_Variat...9_to_2006.html
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Meberg's database.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karln. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low -and high- resolution proxy data. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Once you have the databases, get the amplitudes of the variations of temperature. Then, make the arithmetical calculation.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Poor man this Megalodon...
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
First of all, the reconstruction of Moberg ends up to 1979. The fluctuations of temperature from the standard have been collated with instrumental data and both, Moberg and instrumental coincide since 1857. The last is valid for Loehle database not based on treering proxies. Before someone says something weird, I should say that the official thermometry begun in 1857.

Another thing is that if someone rejects reconstructions, then how could we know that there is a warming, or a cooling, or that it hasn't be the first warming or the worst warming, etc.? If someone from AGW barrier rejects reconstructions, he'd be rejecting also his/her GW... Heh!
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Highest amplitude before 2001 = 0.75 K
Lower amplitude from 2001-2007 = -0.774 K

The last goes first because it follows the time trajectory:

-0.774 K - 0.75 K = -1.524 K

Don't worry, the cipher has been corroborated by other scientists from the world around. You should know, it is not my cipher and I am not the first on saying it. If you continue your inquire, you'll get many surprises.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Meaningless for you... Not for scientists. And, yes I am wrong in dates. The last amplitude is for the warming (heh!) from 2007 to 2008. Get a life... I'm always have talked on amplitudes... Do you know how to calculate amplitudes or you wish I explain the process for you? It's easy, believe me... I could give you an example with stairs and tiny lines.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Well... It's good to know that you have the basics. I've given you the references, thus go on... get the databases and make your calculations. I will then review your results, or better than this, we will then compare your results with the original source.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Hmm! You said you know more than I and cannot solve a simple calculation?

Go on, do it... When you've finished, I'll come back to review it... Heh!
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Heh! Make the calculation by yourself, if you know more than I.

You have the databases because I gave them to you; you asked for them... Now, go on the calculations.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Now you make the calculations. Hmm... It's simple, believe me. Well, I'll give you a clue:

First, you have to obtain the absolute fluctuation from Jan 07 to June 08.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Second, get the absolute fluctuation from 1860 to 2006. Got it?
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Is it my fault you cannot solve a simple equation? I justified since the moment I gave you both databases. See for yourself that my numbers are correct. O lo quieres dado y arrempujado?
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Exactly, mHaze. However, I think it's not what a-unique-person and other people here wish; I can see there is a bit of fear to scientific evidence and more fear at statistics.

I have given the databases and "my" ciphers, then the next step is to analyse the data and conclude whether my ciphers are true or not. That's the way of scientific assessments.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
I've sent you the databases. What do I have to prove? You haven't given a single cipher!!! Hahaha...
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
I repeat, I have given you the databases and ciphers; YOU make the calculations and prove that "my" ciphers are wrong. Are you evading?
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Don't bother me with this mumble-jumble. I've given the methodology to you many, many posts before. Just re-read them again. It's so simple as to adding 1 to 1.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
No man... You're abosolutely wrong. I'm not refusing to reveal the methodology. I have shown it to you some posts above. It is so simple as to sum 1+1. Please, don't lie about me. Also, I have given the numbers to you, thus you know them. Now, it is time for you to demonstrate that the ciphers are not real... If you can...
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Again, those are not "my" ciphers, but a simple calculation taking into account the databases from NOAA, Moberg, UAH, etc., which I have given to you. You have the ciphers, the databases, the mathematical procedure... Now, hah!, now examine them... And obtain "your" numbers... Heh!
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
David, David... I have not to backup anything... It is not a scientific investigation, but a mathematical deduction. You have just to make the calculations and prove that "my" ciphers are wrong... Heh! Besides, I didn't make the databases, but NOAA and Moberg. You have the databases, now hands to work...
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Do you want me to explain again the usual mathematical procedure through the example of the stairs? Noooo, not again! You have only to get the numbers from the databases on the fluctuations of temperature from 1860 to 2006, the fluctuations of temperature from 2007 to May 2008, and the total fluctuation of temperature from the higher step of the stairs to the lowest step of the stairs. Is it so hard?
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Hellbound asks:

"1) Are both changes, the .75 and the -.774, measured from the same baseline temp or from variable baselines? The initial statement made it sound as if each change was relevent to the starting temp for that period, which means you can't just add those changes together."

I don't know. The databases pertain to NOAA, so you should ask to NOAA how they made their ciphers.

"2) Why compare a large time frame to a small time frame? The shorter time frame is much more likely to be inaccurate due to shorter-term climate effects, such as volcanic eruptions (for example). Why didn't you, for example, compare 5-year spans from 1860 through 2001 with the five-year span from 2002-2007? Then use standard statistical measures to determine how far out of the standard deviaton the 2002-2007 frame was? That's just a layman's suggestion, but your choices (especially unjustified) don't lend you much support."

You can make the calculi considering the whole database. You'll find that the results are the same.

"3) Are you, as you suggested before, compring largest spikes or largest anomolies? If so, what is the rational for your adding them together as you did?"

Nope... I'm comparing amplitudes. It is as rational as to get fluctuations from absolute temperatures. The same way.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
More questions from Hellbound:

"1) The temparture average in 2001 was .75 degrees higher than the average in 1860?"

No, it was not. The average of fluctuations of temperature in 2001 was 0.494 K. You have to add 0.494 K to the standard temperature for obtaining the temperature average in 2001. Long life to Texas!

"2) The highest temp recorded between 1860 and 2001 was .75 degrees above some baseline or average (and knowing which baseline and how it was arrived at would help)?"

No, it was not the highest temp. recorded between 1860 and 2001. It was the highest amplitude of change of temperature since 1860 up to 2006. NOAA scientists say the baseline is the standard temperature.

"3) Are these avergaes over the entire time frame compared to some baseline?"

NOAA scientists say those are the monthly averages of temperature anomalies over the timescale compared with the standard temperature.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
The standard temperature is the suppossed normal temperature for the Earth's atmosphere. The Standard Temperature is the temperature at which the equilibrium constant for the auto-ionization of water is 1.0x1014. For the Ambient Standard Temperature (AST) the value is 300.15 K (27 C) at an atmospheric pressure of 1013.25 millibars.

It is an interesting thing to find that the real "anomalies" of temperature, based on the real AST, are all into the normal parameters.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Nope... It's only one database which I have used. NOAA's database on fluctuations of temperature. However, NOAA's database is composed by Moberg and instrumental.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
You can consider any database on fluctuations of temperature, the results will be the same.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Take, for example, NOAA's database from 1860 up to date. Obtain the amplitudes, which are important ciphers we must to consider for the calculation.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
If you have a maximum fluctuation of 0.75K and a minimum fluctuation of -0.777 K, how many "marks" you have in total?
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Well, the baseline is 273.15 K. Obtain the amplitude using the absolute temperatures.

I've answered each answer with precision. I don't know what more you wish.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
I have given "my" ciphers to you and the databases. Now you prove they are wrong. You have to use a valid methodology. I don't know what you are asking for. Perhaps you wish that I show basic mathematics? The watched pot never boils.

Again, I'm not using "my own" methodology. It's the correct methodology. I have given the results to you, where you can find the databases, and the steps to calculate the fluctuations. Now it is time for you make your calculations and prove that "my" numbers are wrong.

BTW, the formula to obtain amplitudes of temperature is not A = Ta-std. You have to introduce the wavelength and series expansions because the length of each period is highly variable. Imagine the stairway again; some steps are larger than others, and some steps are higher than others.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Ciphers:

Positive max. fluctuation from 1860 to 2006 = 0.75 K
Nevative max. fluctuation from Jan 2007-May 2008 = -0.48 K

Total fluctuation = -1.23 K

I have given the sources of databases to you.

Now prove that the results are wrong.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Once again... It is not the difference from one peak to the baseline; get the amplitudes introducing the wavelengths and the Series Expansions. Is it so difficult to you????
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
I'm getting exasperated... Don't you know what is a "baseline" and what is Standard Temperature (ASTPk)? You think that amplitudes is peak minus baseline? Hah! You're very, very confused.
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
It is not worth trying to dialogue with people that take one thing for another by lacking of knowledge. You don't know even how to calculate amplitudes!!! Besides, you offer graphs but not databases or graphs made by yourself! Incredible!!!
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Ooh! Sorry... You're right; it is -0.774 K, then the sum is wrong also, it should have been -1.524 K. Hah!
Originally Posted by biocab View Post
Get amplitudes and you'll have the correct numbers.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Now back to your studies, TS. But do do your job of generating a concise summary of Biocab's hints , that was a good idea.
See above. Should I do the same for you?
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:12 AM   #780
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
[parody]
ha you know nothing lackwit, now you have agreed to my methods and now you must yeild!
Yoicks and away![/parody]

I can't wait to read the dodge and weave and arm waving this will produce!

Thanks Hellbound!
Thanks from me too, although we all knew what the outcome would be.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 05:48 AM   #781
Megalodon
Master Poster
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,822
Nice work, TS and Hellbound... more patience than what I have left to deal with these...

...gentlemen...
__________________
Stupid is depressing...


Last edited by Megalodon; 12th July 2008 at 05:50 AM.
Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 06:51 AM   #782
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
I include below all of Mhaze's posts that appear to be related to the Biocab claim.

It's not always clear what he's referring to; when in doubt I've included the post.

Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Specifically what is your objection on which you call cherry picking, lying, blah blah blah? The starting point of 1860? The temperature at that time? The ending time? The temperature at that time? Just the fact the numbers are not palatable?
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Actually though I invited cities to walk the walk instead of talking the talk but having done the math it's hard to keep from laughing so hard you canZt tIPe WRIGHT!
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Last I heard cities was plural of ....
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Do you suggest R?
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Climateaudit readers, just FYI, would have immediately pulled Moberg's database and would be discussing scripts to process the data. Then the results of so doing would be discussed. Conclusions would be reached based on analysis of data.

Some JREFers already have their conclusified conclusions.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Opinion? oh yeah.

My opinion is it is rather amusing.

I've stated the proper method.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Moberg's database -a scary towering cliff?

Six minutes of work with tables of numbers - frightful.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
My my no.

You see, the reason this is so amusing is that the major towering figureheads in "Climate Science" have a history of refusing to reveal their data sets and methods - or more recently, only revealing them under court order by individuals who forced the issue through Freedom of Information actions in both Great Britian and USA (EG call them "climateaudit regulars").

This would include, Mann, Thompson, IPCC, Jones, Hansen, and others. Jones and Wang, formally accused of scientific fraud.

Therefore a situation exists where Climateaudit.org reverse engineers the algorithms used by these "Scientists" and verifies their accuracy or lack of.

That is the gist of the background into which you ask for a "Burden of proof on the claimant", said Claimant already having provided data sources, and said claimant simply waiting for someone to belly up to the bar and add show that they can add a couple numbers - EG, someone to show they are not stupid or lazy or both. Please note that is after a long string of insults and antiSemetic comments.

I try to explain this background in the hopes it may clarify the current situation a bit. So don't get bent out of shape, Biocab is definitely not dancing to the same drumbeat there...
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Oh, believe me, I understand that you stand apart from such.

But it is worth noting that the process I described is not politics, but an attempt to return the scientific method to a politically bastardized "climate science".

As it is similarly tainted on JREF, some might say, it could use the same treatment.

Oh, and by the way, an explanation of phenomena, such as I endeavored to provide above at your request, cannot constitute a bale of straw or a strawman argument.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Oh, behavior.

Yeah, I have no interest in discussions of behavior.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Sure, and as someone rather uninterested in politics, I must respond that you may also misread what you like, that is fine with me.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Now, Meg, don't above all be boring.

That is the first rule of posting.

Yes I've been following this rather amusing little circus, yes I've looked up the references and reached some conclusions, and no, I'm not talking. Too much fun to watch you guys trying to pry conclusions out of other people, instead of making them yourself.

It's really simple. Take the datasets, run the numbers, post your results and method. End of Story. No need at all for the endless jabbering.

In fact, why don't all of you that have been posting asking for well, basically, "help" from Biocab do this? I'm sure he will then respond.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I understand and respect the fact that you have a genuine intellectual curiousity as to the issues and have not participated in the trolling, flamebaiting and insults, but a discussion by analysis 93% content as excerpted below it is my choice not to participate in, rather than be considered one of the obvious group of morons and fools.

Neither would it be worthy of respect to give numerical methods and calculations to people whose best analytical thinking is thus -
  1. If this is your reply to that graph, I can only classify you as an idiot or a troll. or both...
  2. This looks like common spam. Or a Turing experiment?
  3. I'm quite sure biocab is genuine. We've met the type before, after all; when I was biocab's age I met quite a few. Just another pimply youth.
  4. It's hard to believe so many forumlas could amount to so little science.
  5. Not so many years ago, nearly all scientists were amateurs. Many more are professional scientists now - they make their living at it - and there is room in their ranks to hide and pretend to be one of them.
  6. We've seen that behavior here, and it sickens and angers me.
  7. I'd like to add to this. If he has a PhD from a respectable, accredited university, I will eat my boots. I don't have a PhD (So pointless for Engineers, though I might be picking up a Masters soon) but I damn well know science when I see it, and I know nonsense when I see it.
  8. And btw, stop lying about being a scientist... it was funny at first, but now it's plain offensive.
  9. Are you sure you aren't a sock puppet of Amy Wilson? That statement you just made was so naive it's bordering on trolling.
  10. Did you notice how much he behaved like a high-school student? The smilies, the posturing, and the 'ha-ha-ha!'s weren't consistent with any scientist that I know of who is trying to get people to take his work seriously.
  11. These guys are just like the truthers except they won't go away once we ditch chimp-boy in January.
  12. Now, as for your puerile website,
  13. Your reply betrays, once more, that your knowledge of science is lacking.
  14. All of the above make me believe that you are not a scientist.
  15. Bet you 100,000,000 US dollars I'm a scientist. Accept it before witnesses? You don't have that money to bet...
  16. You don't appear to know the first thing about science, regardless of the degrees that you've accumulated (not that you've provided any evidence of nor even claimed, unless I missed it, any relevant degrees).
  17. Unfortunately for you, you don't understand how a responsible adult is capable might act, and you are clueless of how a scientist is likely to act, so your impersonation is laughable at best but common and tedious in general.
  18. Now, be nice. I'm sure his mom loves him.
  19. Stop lying.
  20. Prove it or be damned by your failure to do so.I want it in writing from the university.
  21. This is sophomoric, riddled with sophomoric mistakes.
  22. Could be, more likely it is the mish mosh you made of it.
  23. So you are a true believer out to defend your dogma, I posted a valid critique of that graph and you resort to a soap box rant about science.
  24. Poseur, fake, charlatan, you just are unable to engage in critical debate so you shift the goal psost.
  25. What a self-regarding fart this biocab is.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
The answer is "Cache Memory".
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Just think...all that time you were in that little

200: ASK 300: GOTO 200 loop

...you were keeping out of trouble...
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I have no reason to add or delete from my prior response, however, you all are starting to show weak evidence of thought (judging from the recent posts, of course their correlation to thinking may be circumstantial).

Thus as a tribute to the best Warmer science now ongoing I submit evidence of their scientific work, data collected and methods:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...7b3b2ef08b.png


Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 07:48 AM   #783
varwoche
Philosopher
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 7,592
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
I include below all of Mhaze's posts that appear to be related to the Biocab claim.
The consolidated works of Biocab and Mhaze! I see income potential here. Merge the texts and submit it to a publisher as post modern fiction.

I'm going to be too busy to post very much over the next few weeks so I'll use this opportunity to again implore Biocab, now that the train wreck is all but concluded, to turn his attention somewhere potentially fruitful. We have Imago the idea man, Biocab with his can-do attitude, and that hints to me the possibility of The Imago Box made into reality.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 09:22 AM   #784
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,911
I appreciate the thanks, guys.

Although I agree that we'll like never get any clear answer, I still have a small hope that, perhps, biocab will explain what he means by "amplitudes".

From his "hints", I can see one of a few possibilities:

1. He used the surface temps, and comapred the troposheric temps to that (he does mention satellite data). This is, obviously, comparing apples and oranges to see which makes the best pie.

2. He selectively picked his date ranges to create a discrepency, measuring the temp change from start to finish of each period (i.e.-differing baselines), and incorrectly added them.

3. He's using some sort of "area under the curve" calculation, and neglected to adjust the areas for the varying date ranges each represented.

4. He's looking at some type of frequency, and treating the temperature data as if it were a cyclic representation (as if it were a waveform)

IN any case, I doubt we'll ever get a clear answer to his methods. At this point, unless something substantive gets posted to change my mind, I have to conclude his figures are invalid, based on one of the four possibilities I listed above. Unless he can rule out each of these four confounders to his data, I think it's done.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 10:03 AM   #785
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I appreciate the thanks, guys.

Although I agree that we'll like never get any clear answer, I still have a small hope that, perhps, biocab will explain what he means by "amplitudes".

From his "hints", I can see one of a few possibilities:

1. He used the surface temps, and comapred the troposheric temps to that (he does mention satellite data). This is, obviously, comparing apples and oranges to see which makes the best pie.

2. He selectively picked his date ranges to create a discrepency, measuring the temp change from start to finish of each period (i.e.-differing baselines), and incorrectly added them.

3. He's using some sort of "area under the curve" calculation, and neglected to adjust the areas for the varying date ranges each represented.

4. He's looking at some type of frequency, and treating the temperature data as if it were a cyclic representation (as if it were a waveform)

IN any case, I doubt we'll ever get a clear answer to his methods. At this point, unless something substantive gets posted to change my mind, I have to conclude his figures are invalid, based on one of the four possibilities I listed above. Unless he can rule out each of these four confounders to his data, I think it's done.
I agree with your analysis but I'm puzzled about one thing that follows from (2). Given that his ranges are essentially arbitrary, why did he did not use the many other ranges that give a more impressive, but equally nonsensical, result? Use 1998 as the warming/cooling changeover and you can have some real fun.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:02 PM   #786
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 17,669
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
The consolidated works of Biocab and Mhaze! I see income potential here. Merge the texts and submit it to a publisher as post modern fiction.

I'm going to be too busy to post very much over the next few weeks so I'll use this opportunity to again implore Biocab, now that the train wreck is all but concluded, to turn his attention somewhere potentially fruitful. We have Imago the idea man, Biocab with his can-do attitude, and that hints to me the possibility of The Imago Box made into reality.
Just the schematics would be a wonder in themselves.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:18 PM   #787
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,911
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
I agree with your analysis but I'm puzzled about one thing that follows from (2). Given that his ranges are essentially arbitrary, why did he did not use the many other ranges that give a more impressive, but equally nonsensical, result? Use 1998 as the warming/cooling changeover and you can have some real fun.
True, but it's still a possibility that he's a bad cherry-picker; among the other three
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:18 PM   #788
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 17,669
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I appreciate the thanks, guys.

Although I agree that we'll like never get any clear answer, I still have a small hope that, perhps, biocab will explain what he means by "amplitudes".
biocab is a pimply youth who may have learned something from his dip in this pond. Like so many pimply youths, biocab swaggered in ready to tell us about science and, like, why we're all old and, you know, stupid? Can't see what's obvious to a very big flat fish in a very small shallow pond.

It's hard to predict when he'll go away. He could keep revealing his indignation at our lack of respect, sporadically or intensely. Or he might get a girlfriend and vanish away into normality. When you come down to it, anything might happen.

eta : I forgot to mention my enjoyment of your elegant kicking of biocab.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

Last edited by CapelDodger; 12th July 2008 at 04:27 PM.
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:33 PM   #789
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 17,669
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
True, but it's still a possibility that he's a bad cherry-picker; among the other three
I suspect he's a plagiarist. There's not an original lucid thought to be seen in his arsenal. biocab pretends he has them, because he's realised that he doesn't. He'll be gone soon.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:36 PM   #790
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
True, but it's still a possibility that he's a bad cherry-picker; among the other three
I avoided making that comment (actually, a more extreme version) because I didn't want to be accused of making a personal attack on this ground-breaking genius.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:44 PM   #791
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
biocab is a pimply youth who may have learned something from his dip in this pond. Like so many pimply youths, biocab swaggered in ready to tell us about science and, like, why we're all old and, you know, stupid? Can't see what's obvious to a very big flat fish in a very small shallow pond.

It's hard to predict when he'll go away. He could keep revealing his indignation at our lack of respect, sporadically or intensely. Or he might get a girlfriend and vanish away into normality. When you come down to it, anything might happen.

eta : I forgot to mention my enjoyment of your elegant kicking of biocab.
Did you not see my other post? He appears to be Nasif Nahle, and he's my age. Look at his website and his posts at CA and see what you think. Of course, Nasif Nahle's CV (resum for the leftponders) could be fiction...
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 04:56 PM   #792
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
I suspect he's a plagiarist. There's not an original lucid thought to be seen in his arsenal. biocab pretends he has them, because he's realised that he doesn't. He'll be gone soon.
I think you are wrong about him being a plagiarist.

You need to spend some time at his website. He has a radical way of looking at data, and even of deriving basic physical constants. If you can find the origins of those elsewhere, I'd be interested.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2008, 11:08 AM   #793
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 17,669
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Did you not see my other post? He appears to be Nasif Nahle, and he's my age. Look at his website and his posts at CA and see what you think. Of course, Nasif Nahle's CV (resum for the leftponders) could be fiction...
I'm afraid I missed that (so many threads, so little time ...). To my mind biocab comes across as adolescent.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 10:22 AM   #794
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Climateaudit readers, just FYI, would have immediately pulled Moberg's database and would be discussing scripts to process the data. Then the results of so doing would be discussed. Conclusions would be reached based on analysis of data.

Some JREFers already have their conclusified conclusions.
Now here's a funny thing.

Over at CA, Biocab (Nasif) presented his "amplitude" technique, this time on TSI, and no one showed any understanding of what he did. He continued on this tack for many posts. I saw no attempts by anyone to pull databases and process the data to see if they could replicate his method.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 05:30 PM   #795
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 17,669
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Now here's a funny thing.

Over at CA, Biocab (Nasif) presented his "amplitude" technique, this time on TSI, and no one showed any understanding of what he did. He continued on this tack for many posts. I saw no attempts by anyone to pull databases and process the data to see if they could replicate his method.
No surprises there, then. There's a palpably partisan attitude at ClimateAudit.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 05:31 PM   #796
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open
Posts: 35,164
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Now here's a funny thing.

Over at CA, Biocab (Nasif) presented his "amplitude" technique, this time on TSI, and no one showed any understanding of what he did. He continued on this tack for many posts. I saw no attempts by anyone to pull databases and process the data to see if they could replicate his method.
Should we go over there and help him?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 06:34 PM   #797
Complexity
The Woo Whisperer
 
Complexity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 9,263
What a stubborn display of ignorance.

This thread should have died long ago.

biocab and mhaze should be ashamed of themselves, but they never, ever will, will they?
__________________
"It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work."

- W. Somerset Maugham

"Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man."

- Bertrand Russell
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 09:02 PM   #798
biocab
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Interesting news:

http://www.spaceandscience.net/

After all, I am right... Heh!
biocab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 09:05 PM   #799
biocab
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Now here's a funny thing.

Over at CA, Biocab (Nasif) presented his "amplitude" technique, this time on TSI, and no one showed any understanding of what he did. He continued on this tack for many posts. I saw no attempts by anyone to pull databases and process the data to see if they could replicate his method.
That's a stupid thinking. I have sent my algorithms to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, and if I decided not to talk about it at CA is my personal decision, not what you think. Please, come with scientific arguments, not politics or stupid arguments ad hominem.
biocab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 09:07 PM   #800
biocab
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
I think you are wrong about him being a plagiarist.

You need to spend some time at his website. He has a radical way of looking at data, and even of deriving basic physical constants. If you can find the origins of those elsewhere, I'd be interested.
For your information, the origin of physical constants is specified in the references at the end of the articles. It seems you don't even know the meaning of plagiarism. Read some books on this issue... Heh!

Last edited by biocab; 15th July 2008 at 09:09 PM.
biocab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.