PDA

View Full Version : Kitty?


TCO
06-03-2006, 02:46:55
You out there? What do you think about the arguments of M&M (fellow Canadians) at Climate Audit and such. I know that they are not singing the liberal cant, but they seem (well Steve does) a lot more mathematical and honest and willing to discuss specifics vice tendentious tricks than the Mannites.

KrazyHorse@home
06-03-2006, 05:08:42
AHHHHHHHHH
TCO!

KrazyHorse@home
06-03-2006, 05:09:28
I'm not aware of the group you're talking about. Link?

KrazyHorse@home
06-03-2006, 05:48:14
Found them. I don't know. Seem to have some good dissections of statistical malfeasances by one particular research group. I might read some more on it tomorrow.

As far as global warming in general goes, personally I tend to believe in paleological CO2 concentration measurements far more than in paleological temp measurements. Since CO2 concentration should also lead temps by a significant amount (decades?) they should also show better any relatively recent changes (and, since rate of CO2 output is increasing over time, this is pretty important). Secondly, I think that the physical mechanism behind the "global warming" theory is so fucking obvious that I don't need to see data to prove to me that a CO2 concentration of 500 ppm (which we'll reach at some point in my lifetime) is going to throw a serious wrench into the global climate.

I and anybody else with a brain can calculate the basal effect of such a concentration on the global mean temp. It is an open question, in my mind, how the climate will react to such a perturbation...

self biased
06-03-2006, 06:03:04
buggerit.

Gary
06-03-2006, 09:09:26
Putting something into the kitty SB ?

TCO
06-03-2006, 14:46:50
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Chris
06-03-2006, 15:00:35
Haven't seen you in quite a bit Navy.

Lurker the Second
06-03-2006, 15:04:35
Hehe, he said "perturbation."

King_Ghidra
06-03-2006, 15:19:05
mass peturbation

furious mass peturbation

MoSe
06-03-2006, 16:08:50
and he had Venus in mind as an example

King_Ghidra
06-03-2006, 16:38:49
Not Uranus?

HelloKitty
06-03-2006, 17:05:34
This thread sucks.

TCO
06-03-2006, 19:26:22
Do you like biostatistics?

KrazyHorse
06-03-2006, 21:30:35
Overall, he seems to have solid criticisms. Like I said, I'm not particularly surprised. The fact that the global mean temp signal is so goddamn noisy, requires hundreds of geographically scattered datasets for any real measurement and has to be traced via indirect measurements all make it difficult to come up with anything meaningful.

The most important part was where he Monte Carloed in some red noise (1/f^2 spectral power density) datasets and by using the other team's multi-dataset algorithm managed to reproduce the supposed warming signal. I didn't understand why he used red noise instead of white noise or purple noise (since there should be more positive correlation between global temps on short timescales, no?). In any field where you're using a novel statistical quantity as a determinant of behaviour it behooves you to always provide a Monte Carlo measure of significance. If you didn't do that in a physics paper your work probably wouldn't pass peer review. If it did, then you would expect an outside group to provide a followup almost immediately by taking that step for you.

Anyway, when we hit ~600 ppm CO2 the zeroth order (i.e. naive physics calculation) excess greenhouse effect will be of the same size as any previous variation in global mean temp over the past few hundred million years (like ~7C). I have a hard time believing that the climatological homeostasis will react well to such a kick.

Lurker the Second
06-03-2006, 21:38:30
That climatological homeostasis really pisses me off. Worse than The Management.

TCO
07-03-2006, 00:43:01
I'm not sure I followed all your comments, but let me try to respond.

1. I also think that it is possible (even likely) that excess CO2 will drive significant warning. I know that Steve does not argue that finding fault with the hockey stick settles the question of AGW (nor does a good hockey stick settle it either.) I think the strongest (but not killer strong) argument for AGW has to do with the coincidence of CO2 increase and temperature increase in this century.

1.A. Not sure that you are doing this, but would be careful about linking the historic CO2 excursions with historic temp excursions. As orbital mechanics likely play a role in the ice ages in the past. Certainly sun (and perhaps others like the chaotic nature of the system itself) are capable of creating large excursions.

2. I sense from the Mannites and Gavinites over at Real Climate (check it out...very fluffy, "think NPR is intelligent" style of conversation from on high) that they are not as math skilled or as willing to argue brass tacks as Steve. This looks very bad to me. Plus Mann is a failed Ph.D. math physicist who is having his ass handed to him by a bachelor's economist (granted top mathematician in ug in Canada. I trust the guy who can show me his excel spreadsheet and explaint the algebra more than the Jeff Skilling/Lowell Bryant type who acts cool and implies I'm not smart when I interrogate him on sources of value creation within the asset-lite strategy and evades being pinned down. :))

3. Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The issue is the extent to which it's effects are amplified (or negated) by feedback. I can certainly see how the climate system could have positive feedback from water vapor...but could also see that the system might have negative feedbacks in it as well (clouds). I'm not arguing one position (and I think it is more likely the effect is positive), just describing the issue. I'm not sure where your 7 deg statement comes from or what it is saying exactly. Is that the simple greenhouse effect or with posited feedback. BTW, the latest fad is to move on from H2O to methane positive feedback. not sure how far the moving on is in progress and not sure what that says about the earlier work practices if it posited H2O feedback was incorrect.

4. I'm not sure why he used red (I've asked that). I think the proxies themselves have the classic look of ARIMA produced functions (random walk). And stat-tests like Durbin Watson (I pulled that out of my ass...it might be wrong one :cute: ) show that the series have autocorrelation. (Interesting to speculate what physical effects could cause that by the way.)

4A. What is purple? Is that "pink"?

5. BTW, I thought physicists like to invade other people's fields, so if you want you could take the dendrochronologists to task. Pick up some cheap Nature citations. Or phys rev (B?D?)

TCO
07-03-2006, 00:47:22
Hey, groundpounder. Good to see you.

KrazyHorse@home
07-03-2006, 02:29:32
Originally posted by TCO
1.A. Not sure that you are doing this, but would be careful about linking the historic CO2 excursions with historic temp excursions

I'm not. I have no faith in the measurements of one of the quantities (the temperatures) so I'm not likely to try to correlate it with something else...

2. I sense from the Mannites and Gavinites over at Real Climate (check it out...very fluffy, "think NPR is intelligent" style of conversation from on high) that they are not as math skilled or as willing to argue brass tacks as Steve. This looks very bad to me. Plus Mann is a failed Ph.D. math physicist who is having his ass handed to him by a bachelor's economist (granted top mathematician in ug in Canada. I trust the guy who can show me his excel spreadsheet and explaint the algebra more than the Jeff Skilling/Lowell Bryant type who acts cool and implies I'm not smart when I interrogate him on sources of value creation within the asset-lite strategy and evades being pinned down. :))

I have no fucking clue what that last sentence means.

3. Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The issue is the extent to which it's effects are amplified (or negated) by feedback.

The point is that pretty soon we're getting to the point where the perturbation is going be large enough that the feedback cycle might well break. Push a system far enough in one direction and it won't come back. When the push we're giving is larger than any previous temperature variability is when I start to get a little worried. In other words, we're giving a push of 7C but we've never seen the climate go that far before (this, at least, the temperature records can tell us pretty well)

I'm not sure where your 7 deg statement comes from or what it is saying exactly. Is that the simple greenhouse effect

Yes, if I recalll the numbers I got when I plugged this shit in.

4A. What is purple? Is that "pink"?

Purple is opposite of red. f^2 response (obviously with a frequency cutoff to avoid ultraviolet catastrophe)

5. BTW, I thought physicists like to invade other people's fields, so if you want you could take the dendrochronologists to task. Pick up some cheap Nature citations. Or phys rev (B?D?) [/B]

Anything in Phys Rev is going to be solid since physicists are reading it. Stuff like that would get raped...

TCO
07-03-2006, 02:38:02
That was re my slight association with Enron.

I'm not sure where your 7C comes from. It seems like you are assuming that the current response is being minimized by negative feedback and that will go away. All the calcs and numbers I've heard from both sides say that the "simple" effect is much less than that. Even the current posited warning is assumed to be partially the result of POSITIVE amplification (H20). On a different issue, there is the problem of lag in the system. There is a lot of thermal mass in the oceans and even in the earth.

TCO
07-03-2006, 02:40:18
What is the nature of purple noise. I understand that red noise has some random walk (storage character, autocorrelation), no?

KrazyHorse@home
07-03-2006, 02:57:32
Originally posted by TCO

I'm not sure where your 7C comes from.

I'm talking stupid, theoretical physics "the Earth is a perfect sphere at uniform temperature with X solar radiation coming in etc" and doing the calc.

When I do that it tells me that this zero-order approximation is ~7C at 600 ppm (assuming we're starting from a base of 225 ppm)

All I'm doing is giving you a sense of the size of the perturbation being thrown in. That's what we're asking the feedback response to deal with. It's more than it's ever dealt with before...

KrazyHorse@home
07-03-2006, 03:37:39
Originally posted by TCO
What is the nature of purple noise. I understand that red noise has some random walk (storage character, autocorrelation), no?

The definition of purple noise is that its power spectrum (basically the fourier transform) looks like a f^2 (over some range). White noise is flat. Red noise looks like 1/f^2. Obviously these power curves are expectation values. The actual power curves are themselves noisy.s

All these different "colours" of noise can be created by generating white noise (gaussian white noise, random white noise, doesn't matter; any uncorrelated series), fourier transforming it, multiplying by the desired power spectrum and then inverse fourier transforming it. In other words, you convolve a white noise with the inverse fourier transform of the desired power spectrum.

All these different colours of noise also have their own statistical properties. The autocorrelation function for white noise will be a delta spike (it looks the same as itself, duh). The autocorrelation function for red noise should, unless I'm thinking about this wrong, look like a delta spike on top of a rising curve. The autocorrelation function for purple noise should be the opposite, a delta spike plus a curve that might look something like a gaussian.

MoSe
07-03-2006, 09:03:23
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
Not Uranus?
no, it's Venus that gets you warm in the greenhouse, while Uranus is out lone in the cold

mr_G
07-03-2006, 09:04:58
KrazyHorse the new Darkstar

KrazyHorse@home
07-03-2006, 16:56:23
Except I actually know what I'm talking about...

paiktis22
07-03-2006, 16:59:33
TCO is alive and asking stupid questions!

TCO
07-03-2006, 23:38:25
I still think you are off on the 7C thing. The norm that I am used to hearing is (simple) skeptics discussing a much lower figure for the expected simple GHG temp increase. And the GWers don't contest it (both sides in agreement on a much lower simple forcing), but they remind the simple skpetics that H20 (lately methane) will amplify the response.

Let me go dig for some of this stuff.

KrazyHorse@home
07-03-2006, 23:52:58
I might be wrong, but that's what I recall getting for simple, unforced rise at 600 ppm CO2.

NOT today's value of ~350

KrazyHorse@home
07-03-2006, 23:59:17
Also, remember that temperature stabilisation will take decades if not centuries to achieve. The Earth is a hell of a big heat sink.

TCO
08-03-2006, 01:18:24
I already referenced thermal lag. Ya damn shmarty.

Chris
08-03-2006, 04:59:41
Originally posted by TCO
Hey, groundpounder. Good to see you. How's trix?

Haven't seen you around in quite some time, banned from poly again?

Sir Penguin
08-03-2006, 06:33:24
I love how TCO always ignores everybody except KrazyHorse and Chris. :D

SP

JM^3
08-03-2006, 06:45:57
Well, he came to talk to KH, and he probably wouldn't ignore some of the other really old timers (from Ultimate?).

BTW, I am an experimentalst now.

Jon Miller

Sir Penguin
08-03-2006, 07:24:09
No, it's always like that. It's like nobody else exists. I think it's great. :lol:

SP

Funko
08-03-2006, 09:02:48
This thread isn't about M&Ms is it?

Chris
08-03-2006, 10:09:40
Yes it is, pay attention.

TCO
09-03-2006, 00:04:42
You think it's great because you don't want me to bother you? Because you don't like me? :mad:

I was going to ask you how Candle Bre was and give some I told you so's, but wasn't totally sure if you were one of the dudes there or not...

KrazyHorse@home
09-03-2006, 00:09:56
Don't talk to him. I'm getting jealous.

TCO
09-03-2006, 00:55:05
you're a check valve...

KrazyHorse@home
09-03-2006, 00:57:17
I know what a check valve is, but I don't get it...

TCO
09-03-2006, 01:27:51
one way street. receive and not give. It's a navy nuke expression.

(you're fine, though...I'm just playing.)

Sir Penguin
09-03-2006, 03:54:41
Originally posted by TCO
You think it's great because you don't want me to bother you? Because you don't like me? :mad:
No, because you have such a purpose. It seems like you're here to do something specific, and you're not going to waste time with everyone else's bullshit. It's very disciplined, and not something I've seen anywhere else.

SP

Darkstar
09-03-2006, 04:03:00
It's a common thing everywhere SP. Check out any business forum, you'll find that exact behavior is very common. People go on there for a specific reason, do their thing (ask about their situation or post their info), and blow out of town until they need something (ie, seek info or advertise).

KrazyHorse@home
09-03-2006, 04:39:57
Originally posted by TCO
one way street. receive and not give. It's a navy nuke expression.

(you're fine, though...I'm just playing.)

Pffft. You waltz in here and get my expert opinion on some statistical stuff for free. You get what you want, then I catch you talking to other posters. You never touch me any more.

:cry:

TCO
09-03-2006, 06:11:04
I never said I wasn't one. I'm a filter, not a pump. :)

TCO
09-03-2006, 14:06:05
Kitty, Evening meal plans on Friday? I will be passing thru on expense.

(redacted). May not see internet.

KrazyHorse@home
09-03-2006, 17:47:52
Sounds good to me. You might want to erase that number. Got it saved.

TCO
10-03-2006, 04:30:54
It's a date.

KrazyHorse@home
10-03-2006, 06:32:50
Tried calling you but your lame ass didn't pick up. I'll PM you my number in case I got wrong voice mail.

TCO
10-03-2006, 11:59:57
phone is in the car. Will call in afternoon.