• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

sidmon

Members
  • Content count

    766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sidmon

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago

Recent Profile Visitors

2,647 profile views
  1. SCIENCE!

    "Absolute" and "Period"... The "SCIENCE!" ain't that settled...Not by a longshot. http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/06/01/do-wet-winters-mean-bad-summer-fire-seasons-in-california-not-usually-according-to-history/ Over the past 40 years, the number of acres burned in California has varied widely, from a high of 1.3 million acres in 2008 to a low of 33,870 acres in 1991, according to totals from the U.S. Forest Service and Cal Fire. Although there are anomalies — years when large amounts of the state burned even after a wetter than normal winter, the overall pattern is clear. Most of the years with the fewest acres burned occurred after winters with higher-than-normal precipitation, like 1983 and 1998, both El Niño years with lots of flooding. Years following multiple below-normal rainfall winters, like 2008, or very dry winters, like 2007 and 1977, end up having more acres burn in the summer. Ok..."Climate Change" is a constant. Have you looked at long period evolution of the chaparral? Will a warmer/wetter climate reduce the beetle population? Is bankrupting your state chasing after the CO2 boogeyman they right path? Or would money be better spent on better fire science and mitigation? https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/wildfires-were-much-worse-in-the-past/ Here is a graph showing a decreasing trend in wildfires from 1930 to 1970 and an increasing trend in global carbon emissions. If we “cherry pick” data from 1926 to 1970 we get a negative relationship between area burned and carbon dioxide. However, if we “cherry pick” data from 1985 to 2013 we get a positive relationship. Neither relationship proves anything about the effects of carbon dioxide on wildfires since, during dry seasons, human activity is the overwhelming factor that determines both the number and size of wildfires. In the lower 48 states there have been about ten “extreme megafires,” which I define as burning more than 1 million acres. Eight of these occurred during cooler than average decades. These data suggest that extremely large megafires were 4-times more common before 1940 (back when carbon dioxide concentrations were lower than 310 ppmv). What these graphs suggest is that we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.
  2. SCIENCE!

    I do realize that. (Once lived at 1546 High St in Alameda. Where I learned to sail...But I digress) Read the fucking study. You still cannot say that the fires are directly attributable to CO2 induced warming of the climate... You cannot then make the leap that CO2 "Global Warming" is primarily human caused... You're "Absolute" isn't.
  3. SCIENCE!

  4. SCIENCE!

    Show me observations which definitively prove the fires in California can be attributed to "small changes in climate"... All you're gonna find is conjecture based on flawed model data. As for the "hottest day ever"... Show where that breaks out of the realm of natural variability.
  5. SCIENCE!

    Right out of the last IPCC... https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/894912388075405313 That is ordained Gospel. So, when you say the fires in California are "Absolutely" being made worse by AGW, you are -in fact (such as they are in Monsoon's Holy Scroll)- spewing Bullshit. Also, when it was flooding in California, this study came out...Imagine that. Essentially the warmer it gets the more rain will fall in California. So, which is it gonna be? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16055 El Niño-like teleconnection increases California precipitation in response to warming
  6. SCIENCE!

    Bullshit. Cite one study that quantifies "Absolutely" Have fun searching, as all you will find are "qualitative" projections based on model data, which then get presented fruadulently as "fact". http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html Gov. Brown's link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say Brown had political reasons for his declaration. He had just challenged Republican presidential candidates to state their agendas on global warming. He was embroiled in a fight with the oil industry over legislation to slash gasoline use in California. And he is seeking to make a mark on international negotiations on climate change that culminate in Paris in December. But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year's wildfires and global warming, or support Brown's assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say. University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in "noble-cause corruption." Pielke said it is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings. "That is the nature of politics," Pielke said, "but sometimes the science really has to matter." Other experts say there is, in fact, a more immediate threat: a landscape altered by a century of fire suppression, timber cutting and development. Public attention should be focused on understanding fire risk, controlling development and making existing homes safer with fire-rated roofs and ember-resistant vents, said Richard Halsey, who founded the Chaparral Institute in San Diego. Otherwise, he said, "the houses will keep burning down and people will keep dying." "I don't believe the climate change discussion is helpful," Halsey said.
  7. SCIENCE!

    IPCC is a self licking ice cream cone... Wegman Report: https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf Findings In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue. It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. Recommendations Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers. Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies should develop a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us writing this report have been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been that they do not in general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what must be disclosed. Federally funded work including code should be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value. Some consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive use of their data for one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under federal support should be made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do routinely.) Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly. Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.
  8. SCIENCE!

  9. SCIENCE!

    Thats just it. As it stands today, nobody can say "How much"
  10. SCIENCE!

    Dogma...Pure, unadulterated Dogma. You didn't read the links Monsoon.
  11. SCIENCE!

    Still nothing of substance from you. Wasn't expecting any. Bottom line: There is still no definitive link to human contributions to the rise in CO2. While there is no doubt we certainly have an effect, no one can claim with any real certainty how much. There is no proof that rising CO2 is an imminent threat to mankind or the planet. None. Therefore, there is no justification at this juncture to impose the draconian economic policies that are incessantly espoused by The Faithful. The Global Warming Religion was -in fact- born in cheap political theater: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html And The Gospel can only be supported by outright fraudulent claims like this whopper...
  12. SCIENCE!

    The reaction is as expected... The tested hypothesis verified. "SCIENCE!"
  13. SCIENCE!

    That "97%" is a mighty nebulous -and dubious- figure. Conclusion from a published paper below... https://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/ Conclusions The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Perspectives from multiple disciplines support the inference that the scientific consensus seeking process used by the IPCC has had the unintended consequence of introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes. The IPCC scientific consensus has become convoluted with consensus decision making through a ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach. The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change. Further, research from the field of science and technology studies are finding that manufacturing a consensus in the context of the IPCC has acted to hyper-politicize the scientific and policy debates, to the detriment of both. Arguments are increasingly being made to abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues of climate change, land use, resource management, cost effective clean energy solutions, and developing technologies to expand energy access efficiently.
  14. SCIENCE!

    Says the purported scientist who knowingly allows his funding source (National Geographic) to publish outright fabrications concerning AGW with no protest or clarification.... Significant flaws with Hansen's "Hockey Stick" were highlighted years ago ...But I do understand that it is a Canon of your Global Warming Religion. Now, does speaking such apostasy make me a (gasp) denier? No. Far from it actually, but that's how you tar anyone who does not cleave to your orthodoxy... Just to test this hypothesis, lets just see how you react to this Monsoon: https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/ Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. – John Christy The whole thing is worth a read.
  15. SCIENCE!

    Mann straight up lied before Congress.