Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: where we can bitch how we like and still discuss whatever we are discussing.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BenTheBiased

1
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
The Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza board is for the discussion of alternative POVs on science, such as the idea that climate science is bullshit. It's the appropriate forum for this discussion.
Only you have used the phrase "climate science is bullshit"

Thanks for that bit of pedantry.
A search of the entire internet shows how idiotic your claims are.

You are the only person (that Google can find) that has ever even typed out "the idea that climate science is bullshit"

Now that is priceless.

I wonder if that's because I wasn't quoting anyone. It was my characterization of your arguments. You may dispute the accuracy of that characterization, and I'd happily change it to "a certain aspect of climate science is bullshit," but it doesn't change my point. Ramblings about any aspect of mainstream science being bullshit belong in ARSE, and yours on this particular topic were moved there a year ago, so that's where you should be continuing them. If you don't like that, too bad.
2
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
So my prediction that you wouldn't engage in the appropriate forum was correct after all.
3
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
The Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza board is for the discussion of alternative POVs on science, such as the idea that climate science is bullshit. It's the appropriate forum for this discussion.
Only you have used the phrase "climate science is bullshit"

Thanks for that bit of pedantry. This discussion still belongs in ARSE.
4
Okay, responding to this post here, even though it makes for quite a disjointed discussion, but this post at least appeared to be a genuine attempt to engage, so I'll do the same...
Since the last time we discussed this, Hausfather actually wrote what I think is the clearest explanation of the adjustments that I've read yet...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on this...
Quote
While much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point.
...because that is what it appears you are doing in this discussion.
Nonsense.
Can you explain why you think it's nonsense? Because from my perspective, you focusing specifically on Blue Hill appears to be doing exactly what Hausfather is describing in that quote.
Quote
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
Quote
Raw data shows more global warming
That's simply not true.  Or rather, it's meaningless. The actual raw data from quality stations does not show more warning.  Certainly the data from absolute shit stations that are useless because of real issues shows "more warming", but the adjustments used by GISS/NOAA/HADCRUT don't fix that problem.  They actually make it worse.
How do you evaluate whether a station is "quality" or "absolute shit"? And how could the adjustments possibly make the problem of the "absolute shit" stations showing more warming in the raw data worse if the adjustments decrease the warming? If the problem is that the raw data shows more warming than there should be, an adjustment that decreases the warming would by definition make it less of a problem, wouldn't it?

Quote
Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time.
Meaningless, since the land changes are bullshit.
Even if the land changes were bullshit, that statement would still be meaningful. Do you think the adjustments to the ocean temperatures are also bullshit?
Quote
All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a "raw" global temperature record.
That part is mostly true, and using raw data from quality stations shows clearly why the adjustments are bullshit.

Quote
The figure below shows the global surface temperature record created from only raw temperature readings with no adjustments applied (blue line).
Bullshi figure.
Why? Because it includes both stations you consider "quality" and stations you consider "absolute shit"? What would be your preferred approach? Only using data from stations you consider "quality"? Are there enough of those to build a meaningful global temperature record? Or is your point that we can't build a meaningful global temperature record because we don't have enough "quality" stations?

Quote
The red line is the adjusted land and ocean temperature record produced using adjusted data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the difference between the two in grey.
Nonsense graphic.  Showing the difference (or the adjustments) to the surface stations is not even shown.  It's smoke and mirrors and bullshit.
When you say "surface stations" here, do you mean the land stations? There is another graph that shows those, so it's not like they're hidden. There's one graph that shows the land adjustments, one that shows the ocean adjustments, and one that shows the combination of the two. Is your complaint that the method of combining the two is bullshit? If so, why do you think it's bullshit?

Also, have you seen the graph that shows the land adjustments? You can see that overall it's a pretty negligible change, right? The bulk of the adjustment, by far, is to the pre-1940 ocean temperatures, which were raised by about 0.3C or so. This means that the only significant change the adjustments make to the global trend is to reduce the extent of warming. Furthermore, it's not like any raw data has been hidden. You can obviously still access it, as you do when you rail against the Blue Hill adjustments. So I really don't get your whole crusade here.
5
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
The Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza board is for the discussion of alternative POVs on science, such as the idea that climate science is bullshit. It's the appropriate forum for this discussion.
6
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Wrong board.
7
Since the last time we discussed this, Hausfather actually wrote what I think is the clearest explanation of the adjustments that I've read yet...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on this...
Quote
While much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point.
...because that is what it appears you are doing in this discussion.
8
Wasn't he pretty much like this before that though?
9
I kind of suspect you don't really get the reason for or methodology of the adjustments because you don't seem to be familiar with or understand statistics in general. You have had a lot of problems in the past with ideas like trends and averages. The ideas involved in the temperature adjustments are very much statistical ideas, so it makes sense that they would seem like bullshit if you don't really understand statistics.

Then again, I also kind of suspect your whole schtick is just one big troll.

ETA: A little from Column A, a little from Column B?
10
I'm happy to see my prediction that you wouldn't discuss here was wrong. So why do you think the fact that certain stations never changed instruments or calibrated/compared negates the perceived need for overall adjustments?

And why do you choose to focus on regional/short-term adjustments that increase warming trends when the long-term global adjustments reduce it? Is it for the same reason that you focus on regional/short-term cooling trends when the long-term global trend is towards warming?
You are doing it again.  You make up things, then expect somebody to answer your made up ideas.

What do you think I'm making up?
11
Quote
Lets take a look at the difference in temperature trends between MMTS and LiG/CRS stations. To calculate this, we will be assigning all USHCN stations to a 2.5×3.5 lat/lon gridcell, and identifying all gridcells that have at least one MMTS and one LiG/CRS station reporting each month for the past 40 years.

The bullshit part is "To calculate this, we will be assigning", because it's a bullshit method.  You can actually compare new and old instruments, but you need to actually compare those two things.




Isn't that what they're doing though? They're doing it on a large scale, and you're complaining that it doesn't work at the level of individual stations. But that's not the point. The point is to make the overall record more accurate. Not the record of any individual station.
12
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Well, it's certainly hard for anything to matter when you abandon these threads because you're such a baby
There you go again, making shit up, hen acting like what you made up is real.  It's very much the opposite of scientific.
What, specifically, do you think I made up in that post?
13
Hey people who follow the law on these matters...
This - from a year ago - came as news to me:

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

Is this not a big deal?
That popped up in my news feed the other day too. Weird. Anyway, it's certainly relevant. The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to it in November, so it stands and is precedent. Any other states that want to ban assault weapons should be able to do so, and I certainly hope more of them will soon.

If Congress ever had the political will to do it, I imagine a challenge actually would reach the SC at that point.
14
No Ben. No Martin. Not even going to refute your nonsensical statements.
So, you don't think the optimum would be to squish as many cows as possible onto a pasture? So your definition of "living cells per unit area" as a measure of the health of an ecosystem is not actually useful?

And you don't think humans made Antarctica a desert? So your statement that "all deserts are man-made" is wrong?

It wouldn't kill you to admit when you got certain things wrong, Dave. It's how people learn.
15
But you posted a quote from someone saying that the adjustments were based on looking at differences between trends in different types of stations and called that bullshit. It appears that they are doing exactly what you say they should be doing.
16
You'd be screaming bloody murder if they had done it to help Hillary, I can tell you that much.
17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/the-21st-century-russian-sleeper-agent-is-a-troll-with-an-american-accent/2018/02/17/d024ead2-1404-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.1ef1100cb29a
Quote
Not long after Marat Mindiyarov started working at the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll factory indicted by the U.S. Justice Department on Friday, he began hearing about the coveted "Facebook Department." There, workers could earn more money and work alongside a younger, hipper crowd. But to gain entry, job candidates had to prove they could seamlessly insinuate themselves into the American political conversation.
Quote
Mindiyarov remained stuck with the less-glamorous job of commenting on articles posted to Russian websites and quit three months later from a job he compared to something from "1984," the dystopian novel by George Orwell.

"Your first feeling, when you ended up there, was that you were in some kind of factory that turned lying, telling untruths, into an industrial assembly line," Mindiyarov said.
Quote
The secretive, multimillion-
dollar disinformation campaign, which U.S. officials said was called the "Translator Project," sought to undermine Clinton, bolster Donald Trump and turn Americans against each other -- all from the remove of thousands of miles away, in an office building in St. Petersburg.

Allegedly leading this effort was Russian catering magnate Yevgeny Prigozhin, often called "Putin's chef" because of his close ties to President Vladimir Putin.
Quote
The tentacles of the "Translator Project" reached deeply into American political life as at least 80 employees of the Internet Research Agency worked with unwitting Trump supporters to organize rallies, stoke concerns about Clinton's honesty and health and suppress the turnout of key voting blocs, including African Americans, according to the indictment by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

The campaign unfolded in a way that largely evaded public notice at the time, as Russians used American social media platforms, American payment systems and stolen American identities, birth dates and Social Security numbers to infiltrate American debate at its most unpredictable and intense.

The Russians involved in the campaign executed it with almost perfect pitch -- learning to mimic the way Americans talk online about politics so well that real Americans with whom they interacted found them in no way suspicious.

Such deception did not happen by accident. Russian trolls worked hard to sound like Americans and camouflage their political messages in other content.
Quote
Mindiyarov, the teacher, said he was paid about $700 a month to work a 12-hour shift, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. -- two days on, two days off. His job was to write comments to append to Russian-language news items, toiling in a room with 20 computers and the window blinds closed, and required to hit post quotas.

Sometimes, he said, he and his colleagues would engage in a group troll in which they would pretend to hold different views of the same subject and argue about it in public online comments. Eventually, one of the group would declare he had been convinced by the others. "Those are the kinds of plays we had to act out," he said.
Quote
But by late August, they were concentrating on the crucial swing state of Florida. That month, the Russians allegedly used the impostor Facebook group "Being Patriotic" to get Americans to organize a wave of pro-Trump rallies in the state. The events drew light crowds, but thousands of others learned of the effort online, giving the illusion of a groundswell of volunteer support for Trump all over Florida.
For someone like you, Dave, who is all about 100% TRUTH, this should be pretty disgusting. You should be incredibly outraged by such an organized, purposeful campaign of inserting such lies and deceptions into the American political system on the part of these Russians, right?
18
The latest from my buddy Sundance ...
Your buddy Sundance looks pretty desperate. He wrote a whole piece to try to downplay an actual criminal indictment against Russians. Have you asked yourself why?
19
I'm happy to see my prediction that you wouldn't discuss here was wrong. So why do you think the fact that certain stations never changed instruments or calibrated/compared negates the perceived need for overall adjustments?

And why do you choose to focus on regional/short-term adjustments that increase warming trends when the long-term global adjustments reduce it? Is it for the same reason that you focus on regional/short-term cooling trends when the long-term global trend is towards warming?
20
I know you guys don't accept this but all deserts are man-made. It's true whether you want to believe it or not.
Can you please explain how humans made Antarctica a desert? Thanks!
21
Faid when I say that nature Knows Best I am specifically saying that "Nature knows best How to not destroy ecosystems and also how to enhance them" which to me means greater biodiversity, higher numbers of life forms, Etc

Related to this observation is the secondary observation that mankind is the only species that I know of that is able to destroy ecosystems.

Do you agree with these two general observations?
So when I talk about enhancing an ecosystem or destroying an ecosystem I'm talking about increasing or decreasing the number of species and the species diversity per unit area or we could say we are increasing or decreasing the number of living cells per unit area. I think either one works.
One exception... Humans. Human cells or human individuals. My definitions only work for Non human Species.
So the more living cells of non-human species packed into a given area the better. So if you had a herd of cattle on your ecosystem, for example, the optimum state of that ecosystem would be for there to be as many cattle as possible pressed up against each other with no room to move. No bunch, move, rest. Just bunch. Again, think about what you are saying here, Dave.
22
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
I've done many threads about the adjustments, on many forums, and it certainly doesn't matter at all.
Well, it's certainly hard for anything to matter when you abandon these threads because you're such a baby that you'd rather throw a spam tantrum than continue them when your alt-sci ramblings get moved to the appropriate place, but I'm up for continuing there if you are...
http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,806.500.html
I predict you won't though because...
It's a level of fuckhead behavior that is predictable and entertaining as well.
23
Let's clarify what we mean when we talk about destroying ecosystems or enhancing ecosystems.

The simplest definition would probably involve a simple count of the number of living cells per unit area.

For example the number of living cells per unit area in the Amazon rainforest is vastly greater than the number of living cells per unit area in the Sahara Desert.
So the more densely populated an ecosystem is the healthier it is? Think about what you're saying here, Dave.
24
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
<FX>
See? I told you it wouldn't make a difference!
</FX>
25
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Okay, whatever. :dunno: Have fun.