[Abewest]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

Yeah, imagine someone checking their facts before posting, I can see how you would find that weird. In your world that kind of behaviour is tantamount to cheating.

And in your sycophantic world, context obviously means nothing, supposition everything.

Have a good think about it, Mr coat tails hanger. I think I've dealt thoroughly with you and your lick spittle sycophancy before. This should be fun. Looking forward to it.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

We're not. We're talking about the NASA press release, which clearly implies they think they've found a cycle..

You are incorrectly inferring there's a cycle but 'like the goal every two games striker who scores "once every two games on average" it's an average, not a cycle.'

We're not talking about football, or just two games..

And there you have to misinterpret again, "every two games" is not "just two games".

Give me a few million in funding and I'm sure I can come up with something. nlp can't find it, but then he's not a climate scientist. NASA still said..

ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average.

dice throws show that a 7 occurs about once every 6 throws on average.

No cycle claimed. There may be one, but NASA haven't claimed there is one. It's your consistent lack of comprehension that leads to to infer one.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

. It's your consistent lack of comprehension that leads to to infer one.

Ok, so imagine you're a scientist. I know this requires a big stretch of the imagination, but bear with me for a moment.

What circumstances do you think would lead you to saying ' events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average'.

How many events of this type do you think you would need? Me, I'd want more than two..

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by njp

Yes, it is rather shockingly underhanded. I feel dirty when I do it.

Oh lookie -- big surprise. Comfort in numbers, I suppose. They all back each other up, even though they're completely off the mark as to the reasons why I asked.

It was nothing to do with facts. But I think you already know that. But don't let that stop you coddling up to each other. It's never stopped you before.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Ok, so imagine you're a scientist. I know this requires a big stretch of the imagination, but bear with me for a moment.

What circumstances do you think would lead you to saying ' events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average'.

How many events of this type do you think you would need? Me, I'd want more than two..

Indeed, I'd want more than two occurrences of two dice coming up 7 too to say it occurred about once every six throws. Still wouldn't make it a cycle.

And I'd certainly want more than two goals in four games before I paid for a "goal every two games" striker. But I still wouldn't expect it to be a cycle.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Indeed, I'd want more than two occurrences of two dice coming up 7 too to say it occurred about once every six throws.

Ok.. so suppose you roll your dice 100 times. Every 10th throw, you get 1,1. Cycle, or loaded dice?

[allaorta]

[quote=njp;60534800]

If that is the case, where do you think the heat is coming from?

Solar radiation? Sub oceanic valcanoes? You tell me.

What processes do you think might increase the amount of heat available to be transported in ocean currents?

Either seek scientific solutions or just don't worry about it if you can't change it.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by allaorta

Solar radiation? Sub oceanic valcanoes? You tell me.

A lot of solar radiation doesn't penetrate the oceans very deeply. Plus it takes an awful lot of energy to warm the depths, and currents can mean it takes a long time. See also PDO, which went into it's 'warm' mode just as opportunists started realising there was gold in them there carbon credits..

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Ok.. so suppose you roll your dice 100 times. Every 10th throw, you get 1,1. Cycle, or loaded dice?

Then you'd have more information then we have from NASA at the moment.

You seem to be trying a circular argument saying if it is a cycle then it is a cycle. As NASA neither said the event occurs every 150 years (just that it occurs every 150 years on average) nor said it was a cycle then there's no evidence to conclude it's a cycle.

More evidence may suggest it is, but we'd need more evidence, what NASA said does not say it's a cycle.

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Ok.. so suppose you roll your dice 100 times. Every 10th throw, you get 1,1. Cycle, or loaded dice?

It doesn't really matter. Fact is it's going to repeat itself at some point regardless of how man throws the dice or even loads it. It's little different to the hurricane season, we all know it's going to happen but the fact that a hurricane starts in Jamaica on the 4th July, doesn't mean it will be exactly the same the following year. That doesn't mean the hurricane season isn't cyclical but it might mean someone is being pedantic.

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

A lot of solar radiation doesn't penetrate the oceans very deeply. Plus it takes an awful lot of energy to warm the depths, and currents can mean it takes a long time. See also PDO, which went into it's 'warm' mode just as opportunists started realising there was gold in them there carbon credits..

I was only throwing the ball back but it was interesting that njp didn't dismiss the idea of the oceans giving up their heat in certain global spots. I'll be into the cold currents next and where they meet the warm currents. It's much more interesting than CO2 being the reason for climate and temperature change.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

As NASA neither said the event occurs every 150 years (just that it occurs every 150 years on average) nor said it was a cycle then there's no evidence to conclude it's a cycle.

Ok, so it's just something that seems to happen roughly every 150yrs. So-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cycle?s=t

a round of years or a recurring period of time, especially one in which certain events or phenomena repeat themselves in the same order and at the same intervals.

So seems to meet that definition. However, nlp can't find it, so may just be an epicycle given there's lots of those in climate science.

Once people have decided if it really is a cycle, which can be done with a bit of time series analysis, then maybe people can start trying to figure out why it warms like that.. Because anthropomorphic CO2 can't have been the primary cause for prior events, can it?

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by allaorta

IThat doesn't mean the hurricane season isn't cyclical but it might mean someone is being pedantic.

Yup, but hurricanes are also one of those things that climate scientists of the Team persuasion are notoriously bad at predicting. According to dogma, we should be seeing more, not less.. It's almost as though there was energy missing..

[Pendragon579]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

See also-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/au...-london-graves

When archaeologists discovered thousands of medieval skeletons in a mass burial pit in east London in the 1990s, they assumed they were 14th-century victims of the Black Death or the Great Famine of 1315-17. Now they have been astonished by a more explosive explanation – a cataclysmic volcano that had erupted a century earlier, thousands of miles away in the tropics, and wrought havoc on medieval Britons.

Not sure why they're thinking the tropics when eruptions in Iceland have previously lead to mass deaths in the UK from flouride poisoning. But as I've said before, nature can do climate change bigger, louder, faster.

The 'wasted' thing is also interesting in the way it's woven through history, folklore and fiction, possibly originating here-

http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/faqs.html#16

Why were many places listed in the Domesday Book as 'wasted'?

When William and his army invaded in 1066 they continued their conquest campaign towards western and northern England, leaving a fair amount of destruction in their wake. The term 'waste' or 'wasted' appears many times in the Domesday Book, most often describing settlements the army had passed through and left their mark on during their conquest, although the term was also used sometimes for manors simply not paying geld for one reason or another.

Moden census may subsititute 'wasted' with 'Pathfinder' though..

Also the Bailie book manages to tie in the 6th century comet strike events in King Maelgwn of Gwynedd who locked himself in the tower of Rhos to avoid the Yellow Plague. The Annales Cambriae indeed say he died in a 'great mortality' in AD547. So history can back up science and vice versa

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

We kept pointing you at the NASA press release

And yet:

Even after agreeing that press releases are a poor source, you keep returning to it. Like I say, disingenuous at best, especially in light of:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Science usually requires evidence, and empirical observation.

Speaking of which:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Your 2009 paper based on GRACE data.

The acceleration rate
calculated here shows that the Greenland mass loss doubled
during the April 2002–February 2009 time period

So only 7yrs worth of data, and says nothing about causation. Says a lot about how the data had to be adjusted and corrected though. I thought weather stuff had to be over at least 17yrs to be meaningful, according to Trenberth at least.

My link didn't go to causation or statistical significance, so add two more straw men to your vast collection, I was addressing this point:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

this is why Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it.

Where is your "evidence, and empirical observation"? So far the only available evidence shows this claim to be bunkum.

Anyway, moving on:

Originally Posted by njp

Er, no. Look, here you are, back in 2009:

How long have you been posting here? At the time of writing,six and a half years, 16,434 posts (6.70 posts per day)? When you quote a post you can link back to the original by clicking on the blue square with the white arrow.

Finally:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

I dunno, maybe it's because they breed like Italians?

GEDDIT? It's funny because it's a little racist and religiously intolerant...

Your humour is every bit as basic as your science.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by allaorta

It doesn't really matter. Fact is it's going to repeat itself at some point regardless of how man throws the dice or even loads it. It's little different to the hurricane season, we all know it's going to happen but the fact that a hurricane starts in Jamaica on the 4th July, doesn't mean it will be exactly the same the following year. That doesn't mean the hurricane season isn't cyclical but it might mean someone is being pedantic.

But it does happen every year. A pair of dice does come up 7 once every six throws on average, but not every six throws. That's a critical difference, not pedantry.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Abewest

And in your sycophantic world, context obviously means nothing

No,I got the context:

• You made and assertion;
• Another poster did some research that refuted your original assertion and;
• You stated that you thought the carrying out of research to be "a bit out there".

But wait:

Originally Posted by Abewest

Oh lookie -- big surprise. Comfort in numbers, I suppose. They all back each other up, even though they're completely off the mark as to the reasons why I asked.

It was nothing to do with facts. But I think you already know that. But don't let that stop you coddling up to each other. It's never stopped you before.

If you didn't want a straight answer and you're not interested in the facts, then the only remaining inference is that you were trying to make a sly dig. Surely not! I thought that kind of behaviour was below you?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Ok, so it's just something that seems to happen roughly every 150yrs.

on average. Just like a pair of dice comes up 7 "seems to happen roughly every" six throws.

So-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cycle?s=t

a round of years or a recurring period of time, especially one in which certain events or phenomena repeat themselves in the same order and at the same intervals.

So seems to meet that definition.

No, it doesn't. Neither "every 150 years on average" or "every six throws on average" are "at the same intervals".

Once people have decided if it really is a cycle, which can be done with a bit of time series analysis

Which we have no information suggesting has been done yet, which would be why we can't say if it's cycle or not yet.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

And yet:Even after agreeing that press releases are a poor source, you keep returning to it.

I think you're confusing different press releases. Climate science relies heavily on exagerated press releases to get publicity, because let's face it, few people would bother reading the papers they refer to. So the press releases often exagerate for effect, like the claim of 11C warming. Or even 'unprecedented' melting in Greenland.

Speaking of which:My link didn't go to causation or statistical significance, so add two more straw men to your vast collection

Actually that just goes to show you haven't read it or understood it. Statistical significance is mentioned here-

This sort of analysis is only possible
now that enough years of data have been accumulated

You're right about causation, but given this is about global warming, supposedly anthropomorphic, then surely we're responsible.. And not the possible 150yr cycle NASA may have identified.

I was addressing this point:Where is your "evidence, and empirical observation"? So far the only available evidence shows this claim to be bunkum.

Which claim? Are we talking about Greenland or the Artic in general, or the Anatarctic or Antarctic Peninsula, or WAIS even?

Anyway, moving on:How long have you been posting here?

Too long probably.

Finally:GEDDIT? It's funny because it's a little racist and religiously intolerant...

Why do you think that? Italians are famous for their masculinity and virility. I guess it's another of those cognitive bias problems rife in climate 'science'.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Which we have no information suggesting has been done yet, which would be why we can't say if it's cycle or not yet.

Ho hum. It's an event that's 'on average' every 150yrs. So 2012, 1889.. Surely that should be 1862? Of course NASA's release didn't say 150yrs +/- <whatever> just that it occured 'right on time' based on what they'd gleaned from the Summit ice core data. But that's probably one of those things you don't want to examine too closely because of stuff like this-

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.long

The Greenland records show that climate changes have been very large, rapid, and widespread. Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved ≈8°C warming (8, 25) and ≈2× increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in wind-blown materials (17), and ≈50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).

So again more evidence of natural climate change. Without CO2..

[Pendragon579]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Ho hum. It's an event that's 'on average' every 150yrs. So 2012, 1889.. Surely that should be 1862? Of course NASA's release didn't say 150yrs +/- <whatever> just that it occured 'right on time' based on what they'd gleaned from the Summit ice core data. But that's probably one of those things you don't want to examine too closely because of stuff like this-

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.long

The Greenland records show that climate changes have been very large, rapid, and widespread. Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved ≈8°C warming (8, 25) and ≈2× increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in wind-blown materials (17), and ≈50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).

So again more evidence of natural climate change. Without CO2..

Ssh, Al Gore may hear you I think CO2 has replaced the ozone layer as the state inspired bogeyman [and in medieval times they were worried the sky would fall on their heads, but funnily enough it didn't]

[Abewest]

kmx1974;60540388]No,I got the context:[list][*]

No you didn't. As is still painfully obvious. But a coat tail hanger just can't let an opportunity like that slip, can he?.

You made and assertion;[*]Another poster did some research that refuted your original assertion and;

I suppose you're another that prefers "frequent" to "haunt", never mind that the both have the same meaning. Your sycophancy knows no bounds, does it?

The rest of your sycophantic "I'll back you up andy bullshit "... snipped.

Surely not! I thought that kind of behaviour was below you?

I'll tell you what's below me. Suck-ups like you.

It was a simple question to andy. Did he recall this verbatim. Or did he go and find it in my very second post. And why?

And here's the context. I dealt with this once before and with this same poster. I explained it then, just as I explained it now. And if I remember correctly I even apologised for any perceived slight he might have taken to his gentle nature. I was then amused as to why he would bring it up again to try and make a point for one of his buddies. So you didn't know the context. Far from it. You did of course have your own interpretation of the context in an attempt at your role as a pathetic back-up man. But then you guys like to stick together, don't you? Lick spittle's are renowned for that sort of behaviour, right?

So tell me, is the dictionary interpretation not good enough for you either? What if I made a comment that I hadn't seen X in his usual haunts lately? Would you also take umbrage at this, and go out of your way to back someone out who might be inclined to think I was taking a sly dig at X, and that I should have said that I hadn't seen X in the places he usually frequents?

Y'know, I'd honestly forgotten how funny your misguided sycophancy can be. Please keep it up. It should be amusing while I await the return of Bob.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Ho hum. It's an event that's 'on average' every 150yrs. So 2012, 1889.. Surely that should be 1862? Of course NASA's release didn't say 150yrs +/- <whatever>

Er, that would be because it's not a cycle and that something that occurs every time period "on average" doesn't have a +/-. if two dice throw a 7 once every six throws on average what would be the +/- in that?

Of course, if the second occurrence was the sixth throw from the last that would be "right on time". As would a defender who'd scored at the start of the last two seasons be if he scored again at the start of this season.

Still doesn't make it a cycle.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

I think you're confusing different press releases.

No, I wasn't referring to any specific press release, I was talking about press releases in general, but, as far as I'm aware, there is no mass noun I could've uses to make this point clearer. Press releases and the press generally are poor sources on information, I make it a rule to check the primary source, as should anyone who values "evidence, and empirical observation"; where's yours?

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Climate science relies heavily on exagerated press releases to get publicity

Have you any "evidence, and empirical observation" for this assertion?

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Actually that just goes to show you haven't read it or understood it. Statistical significance is mentioned here-

This sort of analysis is only possible
now that enough years of data have been accumulated

You're right about causation, but given this is about global warming, supposedly anthropomorphic, then surely we're responsible.. And not the possible 150yr cycle NASA may have identified.

The problem is, I'm not discussing attribution or causation, I'm discussing a specific claim you made that makes no mention of any of these things:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

why Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it.

Where is your "evidence, and empirical observation" for this assertion?

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Which claim? Are we talking about Greenland or the Artic in general, or the Anatarctic or Antarctic Peninsula, or WAIS even?

How can you not know this, you set the terms of reference:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

why Arctic's losing ice mass whilst Antarctica is gaining it.

Remember, you said it yesterday, I've quoted it each time I've brought it up, including twice in this post.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Abewest

It was a simple question to andy. Did he recall this verbatim. Or did he go and find it in my very second post. And why?

I remembered you started out with a sly dig and it was very easy to find, being in your second post.

The why is to show sceptics that you just can't get away with making stuff up like you can with your stupid and gullible mates in the pub.