Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[rabas]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You're confused about data. I can only surmise that you're confusing raw data with other kinds of data. Let me share with you the definition of data:

"factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation."

what's more the temperature information you cite isn't raw data at all but the product of a massive amount of statistical calculations. There ain't no modern science without statistics. So Lowess smoothing is data just as much as the temperatures you cite.

And do you think that the Lowess smoothing is just there for decoration? Something scientists do to make their work pretty?

 

Lowess smoothing, or any averaging process, adds 0 real information to the data, rather it removes part of the original information.  You should know this. If you think it does, please show how to reconstruction the original data after smoothing, then you may see the error of your statement. 

[canuckamuck]

17 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Stagger on..

 

At least i think that I can say (evidence on other threads) that you are a real person which gains you some sort of credibility even tho' I cannot say that I agree with your views.

 

Tough,eh?

 

I am waiting for the proudly proclaimed academic qualifications of "doctors without brains" and "aforethought" to dazzle me with their new insights on this or any other question which vexes humankind..

 

Well thanks for considering me a person. You probably are one too.

 

@Forethat is on a roll here, I don't know which thread you are watching?

[bristolboy]

Just now, Forethat said:

Here is the raw data collected in case you're interested in running your own analysis:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX1880.Ts.GHCNv4.1200.gz

 

Let me know if you plan to run something using the grid provided (both raster and vector included in the data set).

 

Please feel free to initiate a discussion regarding confusion once you've looked at the set and provided your input.

 

Happy to discuss.

No, that is not raw data. Those temperature figures don't directly come from some thermometer or thermometers somewhere. Those figures the the product of a huge amount of statistical calculations.

And your intellectual dishonesty is evident in your choice of 1998. We know it's dishonest because out of all the years you could have chosen, you chose the one that most drastically minimises  the rise in temperature. And to prove it, here is the list from that link you cited starting in 1980., The 2nd column is the temperature rise figures as they were computed for the year in question, and the third column is the lowess adjusted temperature rise figures. You'll not how the Lowess adjusted figures generally pick up their pace of rising the closer they get to 2018.

1980      0.26      0.20
1981      0.32      0.21
1982      0.14      0.22
1983      0.31      0.21
1984      0.16      0.21
1985      0.12      0.22
1986      0.18      0.24
1987      0.32      0.27
1988      0.38      0.30
1989      0.27      0.33
1990      0.45      0.33
1991      0.40      0.32
1992      0.22      0.33
1993      0.23      0.33
1994      0.31      0.34
1995      0.45      0.37
1996      0.33      0.40
1997      0.46      0.42
1998      0.61      0.45
1999      0.39      0.47
2000      0.40      0.50
2001      0.54      0.52
2002      0.62      0.55
2003      0.62      0.58
2004      0.54      0.61
2005      0.68      0.62
2006      0.64      0.63
2007      0.66      0.63
2008      0.54      0.64
2009      0.66      0.64
2010      0.72      0.65
2011      0.61      0.66
2012      0.64      0.69
2013      0.68      0.74
2014      0.74      0.78
2015      0.90      0.83
2016      1.01      0.87
2017      0.92      0.91
2018      0.85      0.96

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Lowess smoothing, or any averaging process, adds 0 real information to the data, rather it removes part of the original information.  You should know this. If you think it does, please show how to reconstruction the original data after smoothing, then you may see the error of your statement. 

So in your world there's no such thing as trends? I guess in your world, there's no such thing as statistics, either. 

[Forethat]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, that is not raw data. Those temperature figures don't directly come from some thermometer or thermometers somewhere. Those figures the the product of a huge amount of statistical calculations.

And your intellectual dishonesty is evident in your choice of 1998. We know it's dishonest because out of all the years you could have chosen, you chose the one that most drastically minimises  the rise in temperature. And to prove it, here is the list from that link you cited starting in 1980., The 2nd column is the temperature rise figures as they were computed for the year in question, and the third column is the lowess adjusted temperature rise figures. You'll not how the Lowess adjusted figures generally pick up their pace of rising the closer they get to 2018.

1980      0.26      0.20
1981      0.32      0.21
1982      0.14      0.22
1983      0.31      0.21
1984      0.16      0.21
1985      0.12      0.22
1986      0.18      0.24
1987      0.32      0.27
1988      0.38      0.30
1989      0.27      0.33
1990      0.45      0.33
1991      0.40      0.32
1992      0.22      0.33
1993      0.23      0.33
1994      0.31      0.34
1995      0.45      0.37
1996      0.33      0.40
1997      0.46      0.42
1998      0.61      0.45
1999      0.39      0.47
2000      0.40      0.50
2001      0.54      0.52
2002      0.62      0.55
2003      0.62      0.58
2004      0.54      0.61
2005      0.68      0.62
2006      0.64      0.63
2007      0.66      0.63
2008      0.54      0.64
2009      0.66      0.64
2010      0.72      0.65
2011      0.61      0.66
2012      0.64      0.69
2013      0.68      0.74
2014      0.74      0.78
2015      0.90      0.83
2016      1.01      0.87
2017      0.92      0.91
2018      0.85      0.96

May I just point out that I didn't select the 1998-2018 series. I simply commented on something YOU posted. YOU posted a graph and commented on the warming during 1998-2018. Here's your post:

 

 

Wouldn¨t it be a lot easier if you simply said: "Ok, wow, I didn't know"....?

[Odysseus123]

12 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Well thanks for considering me a person. You probably are one too.

 

@Forethat is on a roll here, I don't know which thread you are watching?

For you and for very few others...

 

Notice that the thread consists of about four posters?

 

None of whom can actually verify their excistence,eh?

 

"Forethat" is essentially meaningless (no academic qualifications) and here comes "doctor's without internets" too!

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

May I just point out that I didn't select the 1998-2018 series. I simply commented on something YOU posted. YOU posted a graph and commented on the warming during 1998-2018. Here's your post:

 

 

Wouldn¨t it be a lot easier if you simply said: "Ok, wow, I didn't know"....?

Nonsense.

I posted a graph with temperatures starting in 1880  and one word "really" in response to this comment from canuckamuck"

"But it did warm this fast from 1900 to 1940, exactly the same rate of warming, when most people still used horses to get around,

There is no correlation between CO2 and warming, There have been some parallels. But always led by warming. There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though."

I made absolutely no reference to 1998 to 2018 in that post. So what are you on about?

Trying to blame me for your deceptive use of data?

 

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Here is the raw data collected in case you're interested in running your own analysis:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX1880.Ts.GHCNv4.1200.gz

 

Let me know if you plan to run something using the grid provided (both raster and vector included in the data set).

 

Please feel free to initiate a discussion regarding confusion once you've looked at the set and provided your input.

 

Happy to discuss.

And once again, let me remind you that's not raw data. It's statistically derived. As is Lowess smoothing, which, contrary to your faulty opinion,  is a technique that also produces data.

[Forethat]

Just now, bristolboy said:

And once again, let me remind you that's not raw data. It's statistically derived. As is Lowess smoothing, which, contrary to your faulty opinion,  is a technique that also produces data.

That is the raw data collected. That data includes the location of where the data was collected (that's the grid).

You can't even open the data, can you...? And you have no clue what to do with it or even how to begin to interpret it?

 

If you can't even open and read the data, why are you engaging in a debate regarding its authenticity?

Mind you, this is NASA data that you are disputing.

 

Why don't you call them and let them know they're wrong...? 

[nausea]

Yeah, we start out idealistic then gradually decline. I'm not quite horizontal yet. I'd be very worried if young people didn't take an antagonistic stance. An ageing population is not good.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Forethat said:

That is the raw data collected. That data includes the location of where the data was collected (that's the grid).

You can't even open the data, can you...? And you have no clue what to do with it or even how to begin to interpret it?

 

If you can't even open and read the data, why are you engaging in a debate regarding its authenticity?

Mind you, this is NASA data that you are disputing.

 

Why don't you call them and let them know they're wrong...? 

It's significant that you think that saying data isn't raw is the same as disputing it's authenticity. Actually that's what denialists do when they claim that climatologists use statistics to hide the truth. I have no problem with statistical analysis. You apparently do since you claimed that the results of Lowess smoothing are not data. Now that is genuinely laughable. Especially when coming from someone who claims this:

 

"In my profession we take pride in understanding what we're dealing with rather than just look at pictures. Visualising data can be important, especially when you want to communicate and illustrate relationships between data. However, this method can sometimes be deceiving and do more damage than good when you deal with an individual who doesn't WANT to understand (as illustrated by yourself)."

 

You've been busted.

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, nausea said:

Yeah, we start out idealistic then gradually decline. I'm not quite horizontal yet. I'd be very worried if young people didn't take an antagonistic stance. An ageing population is not good.

A very sane post.

[rabas]

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So in your world there's no such thing as trends? I guess in your world, there's no such thing as statistics, either. 

Did I say that? I'm well versed in statistical mechanics and statistical thermodynamics so know about trends.  What I said is you are ignoring information theory and assuming processing adds new data/information. It does not.  I think you mean you can see it better or you know the average but that adds no new information. 

 

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And once again, let me remind you that's not raw data. It's statistically derived. As is Lowess smoothing, which, contrary to your faulty opinion,  is a technique that also produces data.

Smoothing produces an average of the original data, it does not produce new data.

 

OK, another way. You give me your statistically processed data, Forethat gives me his raw data. I now throw yours away. I have lost nothing and I can recreate yours on my own.

 

The only thing your statistical version did was say "Rabus, look at the data this way.", which can be a problem or an asset. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It can be a problematic issue in climate science. But so is raw data processing as you pointed out.

 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

Did I say that? I'm well versed in statistical mechanics and statistical thermodynamics so know about trends.  What I said is you are ignoring information theory and assuming processing adds new data/information. It does not.  I think you mean you can see it better or you know the average but that adds no new information. 

 

Smoothing produces an average of the original data, it does not produce new data.

 

OK, another way. You give me your statistically processed data, Forethat gives me his raw data. I now throw yours away. I have lost nothing and I can recreate yours on my own.

 

The only thing your statistical version did was say "Rabus, look at the data this way.", which can be a problem or an asset. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It can be a problematic issue in climate science. But so is raw data processing as you pointed out.

 

What I pointed out is that the temperature data is question isn't really raw. It's the product of a massive amount of statistical analysis. And Lowess smoothing is not merely finding the median or the mean.

https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/lowess-smoothing/

It's funny because Forethat accuses me of thinking that somehow if the data is not raw that means it's invalid or useless. Actually, I don't think it's unfair to say it's you. At least as far as Lowess smoothing goes.

 

[Forethat]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's significant that you think that saying data isn't raw is the same as disputing it's authenticity. Actually that's what denialists do when they claim that climatologists use statistics to hide the truth. I have no problem with statistical analysis. You apparently do since you claimed that the results of Lowess smoothing are not data. Now that is genuinely laughable. Especially when coming from someone who claims this:

 

"In my profession we take pride in understanding what we're dealing with rather than just look at pictures. Visualising data can be important, especially when you want to communicate and illustrate relationships between data. However, this method can sometimes be deceiving and do more damage than good when you deal with an individual who doesn't WANT to understand (as illustrated by yourself)."

 

You've been busted.

Lowess smoothing is not data.

 

If you are interested, feel free to review the program NASA produced to run the smoothing of the data in the graph:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX_to_nc.f

 

Hope that helps.

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Lowess smoothing is not data.

 

If you are interested, feel free to review the program NASA produced to run the smoothing of the data in the graph:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX_to_nc.f

 

Hope that helps.

The program disagrees with you:

Creates a file with data from Jan 1880 through Jul 2013 using TS1200_DATA
! and ERSSTv4_DATA as input.
!

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX_to_nc.f

And, of course, common sense is against you as well. Nasa posts this information (or by your lights, noninformation) because it's decorative? Because these numbers can't be further crunched?

[Odysseus123]

Just now, Forethat said:

Let me know when you've read up enough to engage in a meaningful discussion regarding global warming (regardless of whether it's 1998-2018 or any other period). 

I would recommend you start by looking at the most current surface air temperature data published on the NASA website:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX1880.Ts.GHCNv4.1200.gz

 

Until then, let's agree on the simple fact that the global temperature hasn't changed significantly during 1998-2018 or 1900-2018 for that matter. The current anomaly sits at around the 0.8-0.9 degrees Celsius mark for the 1900-2018 period depending on whether you use actual measured data or any type af analysis.

 

In case you fail to read or interpret any of the published (I fully expect you to do so), please feel free to ask and I'll be happy to assist.

 

Hope that helps.

Don't think so..

 

There's about 4 people on this thread.

 

The amount of effort you are putting in is quite commendable-indeed staggeringly so when one thinks about it.

 

And all without any form of academic qualifications whatsover.

 

Quite bizarre.

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, Odysseus123 said:

Don't think so..

 

There's about 4 people on this thread.

 

The amount of effort you are putting in is quite commendable-indeed staggeringly so when one thinks about it.

 

And all without any form of academic qualifications whatsover.

 

Quite bizarre.

I'm pretty confident any investigation into my persona and academic qualifications is completely out of the scope for this topic. Moreover, I'm rather confident it violates the rules of this forum in more than one aspect.

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

I'm pretty confident any investigation into my persona and academic qualifications is completely out of the scope for this topic. Moreover, I'm rather confident it violates the rules of this forum in more than one aspect.

Sure...

 

Who,on earth,would bother to launch any form of investigation into you or any other poster on this forum-and how would one do so?

 

What would be the point?

 

Nice photo of female King Parrot..

 

 

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Let me know when you've read up enough to engage in a meaningful discussion regarding global warming (regardless of whether it's 1998-2018 or any other period). 

I would recommend you start by looking at the most current surface air temperature data published on the NASA website:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX1880.Ts.GHCNv4.1200.gz

 

Until then, let's agree on the simple fact that the global temperature hasn't changed significantly during 1998-2018 or 1900-2018 for that matter. The current anomaly sits at around the 0.8-0.9 degrees Celsius mark for the 1900-2018 period depending on whether you use actual measured data or any type af analysis.

 

In case you fail to read or interpret any of the published (I fully expect you to do so), please feel free to ask and I'll be happy to assist.

 

Hope that helps.

Let me know when you can reply with something more pertinent than attitude. Because that's your default mode:  make it personal.

I've pointed out how dishonest the dataset from 1998 to 2018 is. I did wonder from what source you got this graph. 

 

I was puzzled when I first saw it because I thought why would Nasa publish a graph with such a misleading series of dates? And why didn't Forethat link directly to that graph? Of course, I soon realized that even though the graph is designed to look like a Nasa creation, actually it just data misleadingly selected from a Nasa database and turned into a graph. Clearly the hope was to make the unwary reader think that Nasa is the creator of the graph. After all, it does say "Source: NASA (climate.nasa.gov). Who knows? Maybe there's a tool hidden somewhere in the bowels of Nasa that allows you to cherry-pick whatever dates you want to produce whatever graph you want. But as befitting a presumed tool that comes from the bowels of Nasa, what it produced here is pure sh*t*. Of course, it's just as likely to be the product of some denialist website bent on misleading the unwary reader.

You've yet to explain why you chose an outlier year as the point of origin. My first take was that you meant to mislead. But then another thought occurred to me. Maybe Forethat, by his own lights, was being honest. Maybe he got that information from a denialist website, which would explain the graph. And he believed it.  Maybe he just doesn't understand that choosing an outlier year as an origin point isn't valid. Maybe he genuinely doesn't understand the purpose of Lowess smoothing. Who knows?

[Forethat]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Let me know when you can reply with something more pertinent than attitude. Because that's your default mode:  make it personal.

I've pointed out how dishonest the dataset from 1998 to 2018 is. I did wonder from what source you got this graph. 

 

I was puzzled when I first saw it because I thought why would Nasa publish a graph with such a misleading series of dates? And why didn't Forethat link directly to that graph? Of course, I soon realized that even though the graph is designed to look like a Nasa creation, actually it just data misleadingly selected from a Nasa database and turned into a graph. Clearly the hope was to make the unwary reader think that Nasa is the creator of the graph. After all, it does say "Source: NASA (climate.nasa.gov). Who knows? Maybe there's a tool hidden somewhere in the bowels of Nasa that allows you to cherry-pick whatever dates you want to produce whatever graph you want. But as befitting a presumed tool that comes from the bowels of Nasa, what it produced here is pure sh*t*. Of course, it's just as likely to be the product of some denialist website bent on misleading the unwary reader.

You've yet to explain why you chose an outlier year as the point of origin. My first take was that you meant to mislead. But then another thought occurred to me. Maybe Forethat, by his own lights, was being honest. Maybe he got that information from a denialist website, which would explain the graph. And he believed it.  Maybe he just doesn't understand that choosing an outlier year as an origin point isn't valid. Maybe he genuinely doesn't understand the purpose of Lowess smoothing. Who knows?

You have edited a post where I have included links to the source data. After doing so, you claim that I am dishonest?

 

Here is my post with the diagram AND links to NASA which is the source of the data.

 

Again, if you have any concerns with the data published by NASA, I suggest you get in contact with Helen Matsos, who is listed as their contact person. In fact, I'll help you with the GISS data contact mail:

[email protected]

 

Again, happy to help!

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

51 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I'm pretty confident any investigation into my persona and academic qualifications is completely out of the scope for this topic. Moreover, I'm rather confident it violates the rules of this forum in more than one aspect.

But it was you who raised your alleged qualifications as pertinent to the issue:

"In my profession we take pride in understanding what we're dealing with rather than just look at pictures. Visualising data can be important, especially when you want to communicate and illustrate relationships between data. However, this method can sometimes be deceiving and do more damage than good when you deal with an individual who doesn't WANT to understand (as illustrated by yourself)."

I am still having trouble understanding why choosing an outlier year as a point of origin is a meaningful, and not misleading way, to display a dataset.

[Forethat]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I am still having trouble understanding why choosing an outlier year as a point of origin is a meaningful, and not misleading way, to display a dataset.

I didn't choose that period of warming as the basis for discussion. You did. Here's the link to the post where you did exactly that.

 

Don't shoot the messenger; I simply commented on your question as to whether the warming during the period 1998-2018 was insignificant. In order to shed light on to exactly how much warming there has been during that period YOU referred to a graph based on NASA data (the same data you now refer to as "pure sh*t").

 

Which clearly shows there isn't a significant warming during the period you questioned.

 

Happy to help!

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Here is a page from "The Key Role of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in Minimum Temperature Over North America During Global Warming Slowdown" authored by American Geophysical Union.

It's a a big PDF, so I just did a screenshot of one page. They show quite a different story than you.

 

 

Did you run a check on where this "research was published". It was in the Earth and Space Science journal. You know how you can get articles published there? You pay for it. 

https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-access/index.html

And you want to see how respected the lead author of this paper is? His work has been cited a total of 4 times. Not once in an influential journal. 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Zewen-Gan/19280290

I'm sure a big deal was made of it in whatever denialist source you got it from. Did they mention the part about paying to get published?

 

 

[rabas]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Did you run a check on where this "research was published". It was in the Earth and Space Science journal. You know how you can get articles published there? You pay for it. 

https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-access/index.html

And you want to see how respected the lead author of this paper is? His work has been cited a total of 4 times. Not once in an influential journal. 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Zewen-Gan/19280290

I'm sure a big deal was made of it in whatever denialist source you got it from. Did they mention the part about paying to get published?

If your unfamiliar with publishing, many high impact journals have fees, particularity big names like SCIENCE, etc.

 

"For an entirely open access article in the most prestigious of scientific journals, author publishing charges or article processing fees can be as high as $5000US"

https://www.proof-reading-service.com/en/blog/much-cost-publish-science/

 

 

Besides this is a prestigious AGU-100 American Geophysical Union publication, look at the logo, you can check their review process here (you can't just pay):

https://publications.agu.org/reviewer-resources/review-criteria/earth-and-space-science-review-criteria/

 

 

AGU main  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union

 

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, rabas said:

If your unfamiliar with publishing, many high impact journals have fees, particularity big names like SCIENCE, etc.

 

"For an entirely open access article in the most prestigious of scientific journals, author publishing charges or article processing fees can be as high as $5000US"

https://www.proof-reading-service.com/en/blog/much-cost-publish-science/

 

 

Besides this is a prestigious AGU-100 American Geophysical Union publication, look at the logo, you can check their review process here (you can't just pay):

https://publications.agu.org/reviewer-resources/review-criteria/earth-and-space-science-review-criteria/

 

 

AGU main  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union

 

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

You have edited a post where I have included links to the source data. After doing so, you claim that I am dishonest?

 

Here is my post with the diagram AND links to NASA which is the source of the data.

 

Again, if you have any concerns with the data published by NASA, I suggest you get in contact with Helen Matsos, who is listed as their contact person. In fact, I'll help you with the GISS data contact mail:

[email protected]

 

Again, happy to help!

 

 

 

 

I have no problems with the accuracy of the data points. I do have a problem with how you misleadingly construe those data points to make it seem as though there has been a very small rise in temperature.  Once again, you chose a very powerful El Nino year as the point of origin for a period that encompasses 21 years.. The temperature that El Nino year was atypically high. I could do something similarly corrupt to establish an opposite point. I could choose the 21 year period from 1996 to 2016. 2016 being the year of another powerful el nino.  And what would that show?  An increase of .68. But of course I wouldn't be dishonest about the arbitrary nature of my selection. Unlike you, I wouldn't claim because my data points were sound, therefore so was the way I manipulated them.  Instead I would point to what the Lowess smoothing shows.  An increase of .47 for my dataset, just as referring to Lowess smoothing for your dataset would show an increase of .46. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/29/2019 at 11:44 PM, Sujo said:

And yet its already settled science with a consensus that man made pollutants are contributing.

Ah- "contributing". That's the key. Contributing what % of climate change is the significant thing. 

Do tell us what % of climate change is man made.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

A bit of a problem "gilding the lilly" eh?

 

Well, never mind as you are in good company,na?

 

Would you like a photo of dying cattle,no forage..no water..?

 

All taken by a real person?

Are you claiming that droughts have only happened since the industrial revolution?

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

For you and for very few others...

 

Notice that the thread consists of about four posters?

 

None of whom can actually verify their excistence,eh?

 

"Forethat" is essentially meaningless (no academic qualifications) and here comes "doctor's without internets" too!

Considering few on here would actually identify themselves, any poster can make up any qualifications they like, so why do you insist on anonymous posters saying what qualifications they have or do not have? It's completely irrelevant to the data they quote.

Either the data is true and relevant, or it isn't.

 

BTW, personal insults are not helping your credibility.