Climate continues to change.

[trysail]

david suzuki

A perfect example of how to destroy any pretense or semblance of scientific credibility using a single name.


​

 

[trysail]

$100,000 Challenge unmet

http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

by Douglas J. Keenan

It has often been claimed that alarm about global warming is supported by observational evidence. I have argued that there is no observational evidence for global-warming alarm: rather, all claims of such evidence rely on invalid statistical analyses.

Some people, though, assert that the statistical analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures have been increasing more than would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.

In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. Anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation should be able to win the contest.





A time series is any series of measurements taken at regular time intervals. Examples include the following: prices on the New York Stock Exchange at the close of each business day; the total rainfall in England each month; the total wheat harvest in Canada each year. Another example is the average global temperature each year.

Most data sets used in the study of climate are time series. Yet there are almost no climate scientists that have competence in the statistical analysis of time series.

Statistical incompetence has misled climate scientists into believing that they can distinguish between purely random series and series generated with a trend. The purpose of the Contest is to show that such a belief is false, at least for the series of global temperatures.

Terms of the Contest
The file Series1000.txt contains 1000 simulated time series. Each series has length 135: the same length as that of the most commonly studied series of global temperatures (which span 1880–2014). The 1000 series were generated as follows. First, 1000 random series were obtained (for more details, see below). Then, some of those series were randomly selected and had a trend added to them. Each added trend was either 1°C/century or −1°C/century. For comparison, a trend of 1°C/century is greater than the trend that is claimed for global temperatures.

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person who submits an entry that correctly identifies at least 900 series: which series were generated without a trend and which were generated with a trend.

For instructions on how to submit an entry, see the Contest Entry page. Each entry must be accompanied by a payment of $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries. There is a limit of one entry per person.

A person submitting an entry must also specify their real name. Names will be kept confidential, except in very unusual circumstances. If someone wins the Contest, though, then their name will be made public. If the name that they specified at submission was not real, then the prize is forfeited.

Anyone considering submitting an entry should read my critique of the statistical analyses that have been done by the IPCC. The critique illustrates some of the potential pitfalls in analyzing the time series.

(During the generation of the 1000 series, in the first step described above, the initial 1000 random series were obtained via a trendless statistical model, which was fit to a series of global temperatures. The trendless statistical model is preferable to the trending statistical model relied upon by the IPCC, when the models are compared via relative likelihood.)

After someone submits an entry to the Contest, the entry is assessed as to whether it is prize-winning. The person who submitted the entry is then informed about the result of the assessment. No further information is provided to the submitter: in particular, the submitter is not informed about how many of the 1000 series their entry correctly identified.

The Contest closes at the end of 30 November 2016 (UTC), or when someone submits a prize-winning answer, whichever comes first.

When the Contest closes, the computer program (including the random seed) that generated the 1000 series will be posted here. As an additional check, the file Answers1000.txt identifies which series were generated by a trendless process and which by a trending process. The file is encrypted. The encryption key and method will also be posted here when the Contest closes.


UPDATE [2016-12-01]. The Contest has now closed. No winning entry was received. The ANSWER, the PROGRAM (Maple worksheet), and the function to produce the file Answers1000.txt (with the random seed 7654321) are now available. There are also some Remarks on the Contest.



​

​

 

[trysail]

Last year (2015) California imported 99,210 GWh (33%) of their electricity from out of state, mostly from the southwest, up from 25% in 2010. If California seceded they would have to negotiate some fossil fuel electricity import deals real quick, or the lights would go out.
​

​

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Last year (2015) California imported 99,210 GWh (33%) of their electricity from out of state, mostly from the southwest, up from 25% in 2010. If California seceded they would have to negotiate some fossil fuel electricity import deals real quick, or the lights would go out.
​

​

When you say "southwest" what state(s) are you referring to?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

"Major cities across northern China choked Monday under a blanket of smog so thick that industries were ordered shut down and air and ground traffic was disrupted.

At least 23 cities issued red alerts for a swath of pollution that has hovered over much of the nation since Friday, China's Xinhua news agency reported. Alerts are expected to remain in effect through Wednesday.

Hospitals set emergency procedures in motion to deal with an influx of breathing-related illnesses."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...chokes-smog-so-bad-planes-cant-land/95604308/

 

[trysail]

How To Tell Who's Lying To You (Climate Science Edition)
by Francis Menton
"The Manhattan Contrarian"

Scott Adams -- known, among other things, as the cartoonist behind the Dilbert series -- has an excellent blog on which he posts something thoughtful nearly every day. His particular interest is in the arts of persuasion. Recently he has dipped his toe into the subject of "climate science," with a focus on the apparent inability of partisans on either side of the debate ever to convince a single person to come over from the other side. Now, suppose you come to this debate with no scientific expertise and no ax to grind for either side. The debate has very significant public policy implications, and understanding it is important to being an informed voter. How are you to supposed to evaluate the arguments and come to a view? Adams comments:

My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Adams on this one. If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you. This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial. The method is this: look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side. If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem. And rightfully so.

I'll give just a few examples of this phenomenon relevant to the climate change issue...



Read the rest here:

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to-you-climate-science-edition

​

​

 

[thør]

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/13/larsenc_photo_2016315_lrg-28b558a9900c5631029dbba164341c286b5aeec4-s1600-c85.jpg

An Ice Shelf Is Cracking In Antarctica, But Not For The Reason You Think

"Scientists are split on how important this crack is for the stability of the whole ice shelf."

 

[thør]

DO events

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7641/full/nature21399.html

We find that the global oceanic oxygen content of 227.4 ± 1.1 petamoles (1015 mol) has decreased by more than two per cent (4.8 ± 2.1 petamoles) since 1960, with large variations in oxygen loss in different ocean basins and at different depths. We suggest that changes in the upper water column are mostly due to a warming-induced decrease in solubility and biological consumption.

Earth's oceans are not holding as much oxygen as they used to. Bad news for those who like seafood.

 

[Conager]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7641/full/nature21399.html

Earth's oceans are not holding as much oxygen as they used to. Bad news for those who like seafood.

Good news for those that are wringing their hands about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that oxygens got to go somewhere.

Hey, have you considered asking to have this thread move to the lounge? Laurel already gave it her blessing as an example of a non political thread.

Trysail's thread using actual science and actual mathematics showing that climate has not significantly changed is understandably strictly politics.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Hey, have you considered asking to have this thread move to the lounge?

You can always start a new one there.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Terrifying satellite photos reveal Antarctica just shed a Manhattan-sized chunk of ice.

 

[phrodeau]

Good news for those that are wringing their hands about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that oxygens got to go somewhere.

Hey, have you considered asking to have this thread move to the lounge? Laurel already gave it her blessing as an example of a non political thread.

Trysail's thread using actual science and actual mathematics showing that climate has not significantly changed is understandably strictly politics.

Trysail is ignorant of both science and mathematics. He has demonstrated that several times.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

NOAA and NASA have never ever been caught altering/skewing data to tell their well funded narrative...

#Truth #ourScience

 

[Rightguide]

Terrifying satellite photos reveal Antarctica just shed a Manhattan-sized chunk of ice.

Ahahahaha.

 

[Rightguide]

"Major cities across northern China choked Monday under a blanket of smog so thick that industries were ordered shut down and air and ground traffic was disrupted.

At least 23 cities issued red alerts for a swath of pollution that has hovered over much of the nation since Friday, China's Xinhua news agency reported. Alerts are expected to remain in effect through Wednesday.

Hospitals set emergency procedures in motion to deal with an influx of breathing-related illnesses."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...chokes-smog-so-bad-planes-cant-land/95604308/

Maybe we should ship them the silver ponytails that Scott Pruitt will no doubt be sending to California to re-clog the toilets in Yosemite.

 

[Ishmael]

NOAA and NASA have never ever been caught altering/skewing data to tell their well funded narrative...

#Truth #ourScience

FYI. Keep your eye on Los Alamos real estate.

About 8 years ago the lab started recruiting to get in on the climate bandwagon. So much so that today damn near 70% of their grant funding is out of the climate cash cow. If Trump shuts that cash cow down as promised then all of those climate PhD's become just so much excess garbage and will have to pack their shit and leave.

But Trump is also going to up the military spending which means that the lab will change it's business model and start recruiting the weapons guys again. So after the glut on the market slump the demand will go back up again.

And the secondary point here for you climate weenies is that the lab going into the climate biz was just that, a business decision. Altruism didn't have damn thing to do with it.

Ishmael

 

[KingOrfeo]

NOAA and NASA have never ever been caught altering/skewing data to tell their well funded narrative...

#Truth #ourScience

No, they haven't.

 

[Rightguide]

FYI. Keep your eye on Los Alamos real estate.

About 8 years ago the lab started recruiting to get in on the climate bandwagon. So much so that today damn near 70% of their grant funding is out of the climate cash cow. If Trump shuts that cash cow down as promised then all of those climate PhD's become just so much excess garbage and will have to pack their shit and leave.

But Trump is also going to up the military spending which means that the lab will change it's business model and start recruiting the weapons guys again. So after the glut on the market slump the demand will go back up again.

And the secondary point here for you climate weenies is that the lab going into the climate biz was just that, a business decision. Altruism didn't have damn thing to do with it.

Ishmael

It can't happen soon enough. Time to redirect our resources away from the climate mythology.

 

[Rightguide]

With only 3 of our 58 Army combat Brigades combat ready and 53% of our Naval aircraft unflyable, it's high time to knock off the friggin BS about climate change.

 

[KingOrfeo]

With only 3 of our 58 Army combat Brigades combat ready and 53% of our Naval aircraft unflyable, it's high time to knock off the friggin BS about climate change.

What has the one to do with the other?

And the DoD considers climate change a security threat.

 

[Rightguide]

What has the one to do with the other?

And the DoD considers climate change a security threat.

The Obama DOD, you mean.

 

[FakeNews]

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House of Representatives’ science committee, is renewing demands for documents about the controversial paper, which was produced by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the world’s leading source of climate data.

DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records... https://science.house.gov/news/pres...nfirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Obama DOD, you mean.

Well, I don't think they arrived at that conclusion because he told them to. They arrived at it because the DoD knows it is important to listen to scientists.

 

[phrodeau]

DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records... https://science.house.gov/news/pres...nfirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

Uh huh.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

Tell you what. Throw out the best data set in the world, and look instead at all the other data sets from other countries. See if you can find any data set that doesn't show global warming.