nerdgirl 0 #126 June 30, 2008 Quote IIRC correctly, the thrust of the dispute seem to be that ANY reconstruction with the bristlecone pine data produces a hockey stick. When the bristlecone data is removed...no hockey stick. Yes, that does seem to be the implicit perception that one might conclude from some of the secondary, tertiary, quartenary, etc rhetoric perpetuated. Unfortunately, it's also not correct. (Makes for a powerful rhetoric tho'.) The "hockey stick" shape can be generated from other data sets using ice cores (isotope ratios); corals (from around the world); boreholes; cave stalagmites; and lake, peat, & ocean sediments that don't use the NA bristlecone pine tree ring data. More examples, with Mann’s 04 reconstruction included & citations and here, the latter was requested by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). The 2nd one is a much more authoritative reference, it's longer, however. Quote IIRC, M&M were refuted by people taking MBH's data and running the same calculations, were they not? Did any of those 'peer reviewers' remove the bristlecone pine data and run the analysis with re-centered data per M&M's contention that the bristlecone pine data was over-emphasized by the calculations? I wouldn't use the word "refute." Because that's kind of like asserting pro-packing refuted flat-packing. One can certainly make a case why one is preferred over another in certain circumstances, e.g., I pro-pack my Stiletto but flat-pack my Flik. M&M didn't like/argued against Mann, et al 1998 method. That's fine, and their comments probably helped further refine the methods used in reconstructions. That's how science works. When the NA bristlecone pine tree ring data Mann, et al used in the 1998 reconstruction was subjected to M&M's PCA method by other statisticians, the "hockey stick" shape was still generated, i.e., Wahl and Ammann (2006). (Again, for context M&M eliminated data in executing their generation of principal components [one estimate is up to 80%] and used a different mathematical operation to "center" the data (i.e., determine the center of a data set that contains many individual datum with multi-dimensional factors ... it's much easier to illustrate if one has a white board ), which -- not surprisingly -- generated a different result). Yes, perhaps more importanly reconstructions have been done that produce the "hockey stick" shape without using the NA bristlecone pine tree ring data, see refs above & graphic attachments in this thread. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #127 June 30, 2008 Quote it's a policy question. Science can inform the decisions … & I would argue *should* inform decisions … but in the end, it's a lot more than just a science question. It's an issue of how comfortable it will be for humans. How much it will cost? And for whom? For some it will likely be a boon – like growing crops in parts of Canada. How much "suffering" is what some folks try to estimate in order to inform policymakers. Exactly. There you have it. It is a policy game. It comes down to choices. It comes down to winners and losers. What can be done? When can we do it? How much time will it take? How much will it cost? Will it work? What if it doesn't? Is it worth it? Which is the heart of the issue. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #128 June 30, 2008 >it. It is a policy game. It comes down to choices. Agreed 100%. >It comes down to winners and losers. Definitely don't agree with that. The environment we live in is not a zero-sum game. >What can be done? >When can we do it? >How much time will it take? >How much will it cost? >Will it work? >What if it doesn't? >Is it worth it? (also add - what are the long term ramifications? Will we be able to deal with _them_?) Your questions are all good ones, and must be applied to _any_ policy decision we make, from opening a new coal power plant to building wind turbines to mitigating CO2 emissions to drilling in ANWR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #129 July 1, 2008 QuoteYou can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #130 July 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteYou can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold. Comedy Gold? You bet How many on this site have claimed if someone is not a degreed climate scientist they are not credible. Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Dr. Jame Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #131 July 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold. Comedy Gold? You bet How many on this site have claimed if someone is not a degreed climate scientist they are not credible. Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Dr. Jame Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html Apparently NASA thinks he is: One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #132 July 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold. Comedy Gold? You bet How many on this site have claimed if someone is not a degreed climate scientist they are not credible. Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Dr. Jame Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html Apparently NASA thinks he is: One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites Ok, which degree covers that "interest"?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #133 July 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold. Comedy Gold? You bet How many on this site have claimed if someone is not a degreed climate scientist they are not credible. Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Dr. Jame Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html Apparently NASA thinks he is: One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites Ok, which degree covers that "interest"? What does a degree obtained more than 40 years ago have to do with what he's doing now? If you actually understood anything about atmospheric science you wouldn't make such absurd statements.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #134 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold. Comedy Gold? You bet How many on this site have claimed if someone is not a degreed climate scientist they are not credible. Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Dr. Jame Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html Apparently NASA thinks he is: One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites Ok, which degree covers that "interest"? What does a degree obtained more than 40 years ago have to do with what he's doing now? Nice dodge. You did what was expected of you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #135 July 1, 2008 Quote Besides being a complete whaco... And yet when you thought he agreed with you he was held up as a great example of how unfair it is that GW supporters ridicule anti-GW scientists! (Despite the fact that no GW supporter has ever ridiculed him since he has never been anti-GW) Your mind really does work in mysterious ways.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #136 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold. Comedy Gold? You bet How many on this site have claimed if someone is not a degreed climate scientist they are not credible. Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Dr. Jame Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html Apparently NASA thinks he is: One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites Ok, which degree covers that "interest"? What does a degree obtained more than 40 years ago have to do with what he's doing now? Nice dodge. You did what was expected of you Yes, I corrected yet another one of your errors.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #137 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote Besides being a complete whaco... And yet when you thought he agreed with you he was held up as a great example of how unfair it is that GW supporters ridicule anti-GW scientists! (Despite the fact that no GW supporter has ever ridiculed him since he has never been anti-GW) Your mind really does work in mysterious ways. If you remember my posts I spoke of the person YOU speak of as being part of or the founder of Green Peace. I do not think this Hansen was ever a part of Green Peace. Now, if I used Dr James Hansen as the example you give, I was mistaken"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #138 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you Genius! The same Hansen that you claimed was unfairly 'reviled as an idiot' by GW followers when you mistakenly believed he'd denounced GW you now call an idiot yourself because he actually continues to support GW. Comedy gold. Comedy Gold? You bet How many on this site have claimed if someone is not a degreed climate scientist they are not credible. Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Dr. Jame Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html Apparently NASA thinks he is: One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites Ok, which degree covers that "interest"? What does a degree obtained more than 40 years ago have to do with what he's doing now? Nice dodge. You did what was expected of you Yes, I corrected yet another one of your errors. Someday, when you answer a question directly, your head will explode from the conflictNow the debate can become how big the mess will be"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #139 July 1, 2008 QuoteIf you remember my posts I spoke of the person YOU speak of as being part of or the founder of Green Peace. I do not think this Hansen was ever a part of Green Peace. Sorry, but no. It was much, much better than that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #140 July 1, 2008 Please tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #141 July 1, 2008 Quote Please tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline? Cus he aint nevr had non of that thar buk larnin. Sorry, it's my spell checkers fault. It crashes my computer when I try to use it ...or sumptin. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #142 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote Please tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline? Cus he aint nevr had non of that thar buk larnin. Sorry, it's my spell checkers fault. It crashes my computer when I try to use it ...or sumptin. Ah yesNow you know why is it hard to care about anything you have an opinion about(hint, it is called arogance)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #143 July 1, 2008 Please tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #144 July 1, 2008 Quote Please tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline? A page from your book I did not say it was or wasnt now did I? I simply asked if he had a degree of any kind in climate sciences. YOU have used that line over and over about qualifications so I asked. But I know you would go the route you did. Why? well of course, you agree with him so degrees dont mater now do they"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #145 July 1, 2008 QuoteQuotePlease tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline? A page from your book I did not say it was or wasnt now did I? Tell us now, then, what you think about physics as a background for a NASA researcher in atmospheric physics. Quote I simply asked if he had a degree of any kind in climate sciences. No, you didn't. You told us he had degrees in physics, as if that somehow disqualified him from knowing anything about atmospheric physics and measurements of atmospheric phenomena. By the rushmc logic, Bill Gates is unqualified to discuss computers, since he doesn't have a degree in computer science.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #146 July 1, 2008 Historical precedent, while not predictive, has shown that revolutionary breakthroughs occur at interdisciplinary junctions. See, for example, JR Hollingsworth, “High Cognitive Complexity and the Making of Major Scientific Discoveries,” (London: Sage Publications, 2006) and LG Zucker and MR Darby, “Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, November 1996, vol. 93, pp. 12709-12716. As Vannevar Bush recognized in 1944, if you want drive the economy, drive innovation, and enable national defense, strengthening science and fostering discovery and innovation is critical. Narrow demarcations of research into traditional disciplines—literally 'old school thinking'—have become increasingly less likely to yield scientific breakthroughs and transformational technologies. Look at nanotechnology. It's an intrinsically interdisciplinary domain that bridges/crosses/confounds many disciplines. One of my favorite examples showing just how meaningless some of these narrow disciplinary stove-pipes are can be found in the cutting research on the design of exquisitely sensitive sensors for detection of chemical and biological agents that design and use single strand DNA wrapped around single-walled carbon nanotubes. Two of my favorite groups pursuing of that work are (1) a combined team with members from electrical engineering and computer science department in one case (C. Dwyer, et al, "DNA Functionalized Single-walled Carbon Nanotubes," Nanotechnology, vol. 13, 601-4, 2002) and (2) a physics and astronomy department research group in another (AT “Charlie” Johnson, et al “DNA-decorated Carbon Nanotubes for Chemical Sensing,” Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1774-1778; cartoon attached). No biologists in sight. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #147 July 1, 2008 Quote Despite the fact that no GW supporter has ever ridiculed him since he has never been anti-GW To be fair, there is a huge difference between acknowledging anthropogenic global warming and being "pro-GW." I'm in no way in denial about the reality of global warming, but I'm not "pro-GW". I think we need to do what we can to mitigate it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #148 July 1, 2008 >Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Remember those halcyon days when you supported him because you thought he was "on your side?" How quickly the flop comes when you realize he's an apostate: ====================================== (Dec 2 2007) Turning away from his landmark testimony before Congress in 1988, Hansen claims now that carbon dioxide is not a main culprit in climate change. Methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and diesel and coal soot trap heat more effectively than does C02, explained Hansen. He also noted these are more easily reduced than C02 emissions and would face fewer of the political hurdles that currently slow efforts to curb global warming. This once hero of you position is now reviled as some kind of nut case. ====================================== If someone changing thier mind is NOW relavant, how about the father of GWing theroy Dr. James Hansen changing his mind? ====================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #149 July 1, 2008 you know marg, if i was a lesbian, i'd be having fantasies about you right about now. here i was all ready to talk about scientific "disciplines" and how most science (i.e. the practical, everyday act of scientific research and discovery) rarely conforms to academic stovepipes and wham, you did it for me. and you used the word "stovepipe" too. (you know that word is a sure flag that someone works for or has worked for the government at one point or another ) unfortunately the target of your well-reasoned and researched post seems to be hell-bent on ignoring the evidence, as usual. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #150 July 1, 2008 I kinda wonder what state that village is in Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
