Jump to content

The forecast is for Minus 50 tonight


Nanook

Recommended Posts

J.T.F.Robertson

 

That was until this last week. The temperatures never risen above -40 for over a week and its forecast to drop to -50c (-58f) tomorrow. Planes have been grounded because it?s too cold to fly and for the first time ever the schools are closed because it?s too cold for the kids to get to class. The air has even frozen and we have been shrouded by a thick blanket of Ice fog since Sunday.

 

With the wind chill, it was in the -40's here, (Calgary) Monday to Wednesday. It had warmed to a balmy -30 odd though, this morning, making it seem a rather pleasant wee stroll into the salt mine, today. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
CompleteIdiot
I see you use a Churchill quote as your signiture, I give you another one by an equally illustrious Conservative polititian ?There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics? Disraeli.

 

It's the climate change community that have been lying with statistics.

 

Any work I do explains shortcomings. I am not standing around with a sandwich board telling everyone the end of the world is nigh or that a whiff of a cigar is going to kill them stone dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Gordons Gloves
I was in your neck of the woods the third week in December. That was my the 4th trip to Minneaplois I've made in December. I have to say the last three times have been chilly but nothing like this last trip. It was -20c up in Albertville. I took photos of the thermometer in the car cause I've never seen one go so low! We were in Bloomington where it was a fair nicer -16c!

 

"nose crunching weather" they said on the news!

 

Still cold or not I'd move there tomorrow. I'd love to live in that neck of the woods..if only it was easier to get into the bloody States!

 

 

Ah, the good old albertville outlet mall! My wife has spent many a dollar up there in recent months! We moved here in June, the weather was in the 90s, hot, sunny and not all that humid, then from December onwards it has been below 0c virtually every day - with 3 days of thaw in between.

 

It's a fantastic place to live, i work in Richfield, across the freeway from Bloomington and we live about 20 miles east of St Paul - despite the cold, it's still a great place - probably on a par with where i used to live in Perthshire.

 

Next time you're over you're very welcome to join me in shouting at the telly at half 6 in the morning when hearts are on live!

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a problem with this research community. They are incestuous in their methods and normally activists in their own right.

 

I'll give you the example of the 'Hockey Stick'. This was a graph produced by Mann et al. In their research they stated that they had found that the Earth was warming at an alarming rate and that 1998 was the warmest year on record.

 

Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc.jpg

 

This graph was the birth of global warming hysteria and was adopted by the IPCC.

 

A statistician, a global warming believer at the time, wanted to have a look at what analysis they had carried out to produce the graph. He contacted Mann asking for the data. Mann initially refused (this is very unusual in most academical settings) and then reluctantly supplied the data. Mann refused to hand over the code though.

 

The statistician, McIntyre, eventually found the code on Mann's university FTP site without him knowing. McIntyre discovered serious methodological problems with the analysis. Most importantly, they found they statistical method they had used was a data mining technique that allowed them to manipulate their graph.

 

Moreover, a set of white noise (random) data would produce the same Hockey Stick shape as Mann's tree ring measurements.

 

Clearly something was not right. Mann refused to admit there was a problem. McIntyre wrote a paper. McIntyre let others verify his work. Mann still refused that to say that there was a problem.

 

The climate community continued to say that the graph was correct.

 

This should have come to a head when Mann's work was to be independently audited by a top American statistician, Professor Edward Wegman. Wegman investigated McIntyre's claims independently and came to the same conclusions as McIntyre.

 

Wegman's findings were:

 

 

 

Guess what? The climate community continued to claim that the graph was correct despite it being repeatedly shown to be false.

 

The graph that started climate change hysteria was, however, quietly dropped from the fourth IPCC report due to being thoroughly discredited.

 

NASA then admitted that 1998 was not the warmest American year on record last year. It was instead 1934:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2274346.ece

 

(Note: the 'blogger' in question in McIntyre)

 

You can read about this continuing debacle here:

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322

 

It's quite worrying that when researchers get something so wrong, they lie and continue to lie.

 

When they talk of 'consensus' and refuse to enter scientific debate, something is seriously wrong. Their attitude is religious and clandestine. It isn't scientific.

 

Indeed.

 

The graph has been completely discredited by many other senior climate researchers. It inexplicably doesn't present either the medieval warm period or the little ice age. Additionally the late 1800's (where the hockey stick starts its uptick) corresponds with both the natural climatic rebound from that cold period and also the vast growth of temperature (thermometer) record data taking that began around that period.

 

The only certainties are that it's been warmer than this in the past ... and it will be colder this this at sometime in the future. In fact ice-ages are part of the natural climatic variation that take place over millenia, so we can say with strong certainty that if you're sitting reading this in Edinburgh ... then at some far future point there will be 1 or 2 kilometers of ice above where you're sitting one day. No immediate need for anyone to panic though about being roasted or frozen ... neither will be happening any time soon !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
Indeed.

 

The graph has been completely discredited by many other senior climate researchers. It inexplicably doesn't present either the medieval warm period or the little ice age. Additionally the late 1800's (where the hockey stick starts its uptick) corresponds with both the natural climatic rebound from that cold period and also the vast growth of temperature (thermometer) record data taking that began around that period.

 

The only certainties are that it's been warmer than this in the past ... and it will be colder this this at sometime in the future. In fact ice-ages are part of the natural climatic variation that take place over millenia, so we can say with strong certainty that if you're sitting reading this in Edinburgh ... then at some far future point there will be 1 or 2 kilometers of ice above where you're sitting one day. No immediate need for anyone to panic though about being roasted or frozen ... neither will be happening any time soon !

 

The Medieval Warm Period and Maunder Minimum seem to be deleted now from the climate debate. Even now, despite expert after expert rejecting it, the Hockey Stick is still being used.

 

It's like history is being deleted from reality.

 

You posted some stuff a while back about record lows in the Southern Hemisphere. That is undoubtedly a very interesting thing that is happening. Almost all the pro-global warming stuff is centered around predictions and data related to the Northern Hemisphere.

 

I actually really believed all of this climate change stuff was true. It was too ridiculous to suggest scientists would say it was true without verifying it before the political machine became active.

 

Then I noticed scepticism from my own community; the number crunchers. I became curious.

 

So I started looking it up and something was definitely not right. I understand the problems with Mann's work because it is my field. I could see this was wrong from the moment I looked at it. Then watching it unfold and these people keeping on saying the Hockey Stick was true blew me away. It wasn't that the study was wrong. Lots of studies are wrong. It was the way that the study had to be right as a matter of religious faith to the Greenpeace types. They are frightening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
It was indeed a good watch.

 

Glad you liked it. I just wish other people would take the time to watch the other side of the argument.

 

It's good to see our Canadian Scottish cousins put some dour Scottish scepticism to good use. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheriff Fatman

You want a graph with the Medievel Warm period and the Little Ice Age.

 

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

There still seems to be an increadibly steep rise in average temperatures over the last 100 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't taken time to read the above posts, however my geography teacher (~13yrs ago) gave his theory which has already been given. Melting of the polar ice caps would cut off the Gulf Stream thus reducing average temps for the UK. This may result in increased precipitation and ice/snow poss new ice age etc.

 

Increased ice cover may mean increased solar reflection (white surface etc) this reflected solar radiation could be captured by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although, methane is far more efficient as a greenhouse gas. (Kill the Cows!!)

 

However, as has, I think, been pointed out, we are emerging from an ice age so fluctuations in the average global temperature are to be expected. I would point out that Island states are very worried about rising sea-levels but there is no conclusive proof as to what is the cause....

 

In short, uncertainty over what may or may not happen will shape many governemnts' policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheriff Fatman
The statistician, McIntyre, eventually found the code on Mann's university FTP site without him knowing.

 

I'd be interested to know why you claim him to be a statistician when his qualifications are in pure maths from the University of Toronto and philosophy politics and economics from Oxford. He also spent most of his working career working as an officer or director of various mining companies, so he's not exactly a neutral witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a graph with the Medievel Warm period and the Little Ice Age.

 

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

There still seems to be an increadibly steep rise in average temperatures over the last 100 years or so.

 

That is an interesting graph with regards to all the previous postings.

 

I like your debating technique SF (I assume you like CUSM - if so, good man!)

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheriff Fatman
That is an interesting graph with regards to all the previous postings.

 

I like your debating technique SF (I assume you like CUSM - if so, good man!)

 

;)

 

Aye, I would have called myself The Only Living Boy In New Cross as I prefer that track, but I couldn't be arsed typing it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, I would have called myself The Only Living Boy In New Cross as I prefer that track, but I couldn't be arsed typing it out.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
You want a graph with the Medievel Warm period and the Little Ice Age.

 

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

There still seems to be an increadibly steep rise in average temperatures over the last 100 years or so.

 

What do you do in real life?

 

Using the wrong method again and ignoring the mean.

 

You don't enter these periods into the model so as they show up. They should be self-evident if you have actually collected data that shows temperature.

 

The statistical basis of the argument is that it is fundamentally biased data mining i.e. you look for evidence to support your conclusion. You cannot keep adding parameters that suit situations when those situations should be self evident.

 

It doesn't work like that.

 

I am glad you brought up Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a good source in the climate change debate. The pages are censored by this person:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Connolley

 

He is a Wikipedia moderator, Climate 'Scientist' and Green party candidate. He has been known to ban dissenters against his religion with ferocity. I have debated with him and it takes no time for him to resort to completely groundless ad hominem attacks against the statistical profession. The idiot doesn't seem to realise that statisticians haven't been paid to enter the debate.

 

If you want the truth, stay off of there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea. On the global warming thing though, I don't know of any other.

 

Look at the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Connolley

 

You don't know of any other .......

 

.... the size of Wikipedia etc I would easily hazard a guess they have more than one on the global warming subject.

 

EDIT: The talk page seems only to speculate he is a moderator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
You don't know of any other .......

 

.... the size of Wikipedia etc I would easily hazard a guess they have more than one on the global warming subject.

 

EDIT: The talk page seems only to speculate he is a moderator?

 

Please get real. He's well known for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you use a Churchill quote as your signiture, I give you another one by an equally illustrious Conservative polititian ?There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics? Disraeli.

 

oooohhhhh yesssss

 

?50 cash if I can't beat your home insurance quote*

 

*terms and conditions apply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please get real. He's well known for this.

 

Well known via speculation aka like the webpage you have posted.

 

Also as said previous ... the size of Wikipedia etc I would easily hazard a guess they have more than one on the global warming subject.

 

How many mods moderate a smaller subject such as ..... JKB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oooohhhhh yesssss

 

?50 cash if I can't beat your home insurance quote*

 

*terms and conditions apply

 

:)

 

You are easily the funniest poster on JKB!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many moderators are there in Wikipedia?

 

at the last AGM it was stated that it worked out about an average of 37 per topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at the last AGM it was stated that it worked out about an average of 37 per topic.

 

.... as above to my previous comment.

 

Are you as drunk as Bev?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... as above to my previous comment.

 

Are you as drunk as Bev?

 

I don't touch the evil brew ;)

 

the actual figure was 37.4365 if you want me to be precise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
Well known via speculation aka like the webpage you have posted.

 

Also as said previous ... the size of Wikipedia etc I would easily hazard a guess they have more than one on the global warming subject.

 

How many mods moderate a smaller subject such as ..... JKB?

 

Your logic is mixed up. The number of ops is not correlated with the importance of the subject. Wikipedia is a clique that is known for extreme bias in a wide array of subjects.

 

It's given this 'by the people, for the people' tag when the reality is that the main editorial power is held by a number of whackos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your logic is mixed up. The number of ops is not correlated with the importance of the subject. Wikipedia is a clique that is known for extreme bias in a wide array of subjects.

 

It's given this 'by the people, for the people' tag when the reality is that the main editorial power is held by a number of whackos.

 

Can you send me an invite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your logic is mixed up.

 

Your logic is mixed up.

 

I merely commented on your initial comment:

 

Wikipedia is not a good source in the climate change debate. The pages are censored by this person:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Connolley

 

He is a Wikipedia moderator

 

You stated "the pages are censored by this person"; I said you will find they are censored by many more people than just him.

 

the main editorial power is held by a number of whackos.

 

.. again in your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
I'd be interested to know why you claim him to be a statistician when his qualifications are in pure maths from the University of Toronto and philosophy politics and economics from Oxford. He also spent most of his working career working as an officer or director of various mining companies, so he's not exactly a neutral witness.

 

Oh goodness. Statistics doesn't work that way. There are mathematical statisticians, applied statisticians and people that become statisticians by means of working with statistical data for long enough.

 

Statistics is a branch of Mathematics. The Mathematical statisticians are, basically, mathematicians. The applied people, like me, are practitioners of the methods placed down by the mathematicians.

 

McIntyre has enough experience to be a statistician under British rules if it helps you feel better.

 

Do you not see what you are doing? Instead of looking at the evidence, you are looking at spurious ad hominem attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh goodness. Statistics doesn't work that way. There are mathematical statisticians, applied statisticians and people that become statisticians by means of working with statistical data for long enough.

 

Statistics is a branch of Mathematics. The Mathematical statisticians are, basically, mathematicians. The applied people, like me, are practitioners of the methods placed down by the mathematicians.

 

McIntyre has enough experience to be a statistician under British rules if it helps you feel better.

 

Do you not see what you are doing? Instead of looking at the evidence, you are looking at spurious ad hominem attacks.

 

No dig intend but how does one person become such a 'professor' in most subjects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh goodness. Statistics doesn't work that way. There are mathematical statisticians, applied statisticians and people that become statisticians by means of working with statistical data for long enough.

 

Statistics is a branch of Mathematics. The Mathematical statisticians are, basically, mathematicians. The applied people, like me, are practitioners of the methods placed down by the mathematicians.

 

McIntyre has enough experience to be a statistician under British rules if it helps you feel better.

 

Do you not see what you are doing? Instead of looking at the evidence, you are looking at spurious ad hominem attacks.

 

unless you copied and pasted that, then that is the post of the year so far considering the time of the morning.....I doft my cap to you sir......:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
Your logic is mixed up.

 

I merely commented on your initial comment:

 

 

 

You stated "the pages are censored by this person"; I said you will find they are censored by many more people than just him.

 

 

 

.. again in your opinion.

 

You'd love this to be true. It isn't. I suggest that you become an undercover climate sceptic on Wikipedia and see what happens. Just put something moderately controversial on the talk page, insure your profile is interesting and see the results. I guarantee you will be speaking to nobend Connolley within hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd love this to be true. It isn't. I suggest that you become an undercover climate sceptic on Wikipedia and see what happens. Just put something moderately controversial on the talk page, insure your profile is interesting and see the results. I guarantee you will be speaking to nobend Connolley within hours.

 

Can you provide proof he is the only moderator on this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
unless you copied and pasted that, then that is the post of the year so far considering the time of the morning.....I doft my cap to you sir......:)

 

It's not copied at all. I have had a few beers, but I'm not bevvied! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd love this to be true. It isn't. I suggest that you become an undercover climate sceptic on Wikipedia and see what happens. Just put something moderately controversial on the talk page, insure your profile is interesting and see the results. I guarantee you will be speaking to nobend Connolley within hours.

 

maybe it's just that he has too much time on his hands compared to the other 36 mods on this subject*

 

*based on the last AGM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheriff Fatman
What do you do in real life?

 

Using the wrong method again and ignoring the mean.

 

You don't enter these periods into the model so as they show up. They should be self-evident if you have actually collected data that shows temperature.

 

The statistical basis of the argument is that it is fundamentally biased data mining i.e. you look for evidence to support your conclusion. You cannot keep adding parameters that suit situations when those situations should be self evident.

 

It doesn't work like that.

 

I am glad you brought up Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a good source in the climate change debate. The pages are censored by this person:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Connolley

 

He is a Wikipedia moderator, Climate 'Scientist' and Green party candidate. He has been known to ban dissenters against his religion with ferocity. I have debated with him and it takes no time for him to resort to completely groundless ad hominem attacks against the statistical profession. The idiot doesn't seem to realise that statisticians haven't been paid to enter the debate.

 

If you want the truth, stay off of there.

 

Wiki has around about as many mistakes as the Encyclopedia Britannica, ie more than it should, but less than you would expect.

 

Like any resource it is only any good if used in conjunction with other sources. But like anything from the Internet it is not really transparent as to who is in control of it. A bit like your so called statistician, who for some reason seems to like to portray himself as an average joe blogger out to give people the real facts. when in reality he isn't a statistician in the first place, he has no qualifications in any of the sciences that are concerned with climate, he is intricately involved with the mining industry and so has a vested interest and is also very involved with government policy.

 

I hope to god you don't use Paypal or Facebook, you want to see the people behind then. They are really strange people, what with their CIA connections.

 

I like this guy from Wiki already, if he takes delight in attacking statisticians, anybody who thinks that playing with figures makes them an expert in anything other than making up numbers deserves all the attacks they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
Can you provide proof he is the only moderator on this subject?

 

Just do what I suggested. You'll soon see.

 

I am not suggesting I am God on this subject. I just know what I experienced and what others have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not copied at all. I have had a few beers, but I'm not bevvied! ;)

 

If he was he would have taken Khan out inside the first 3 rounds.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just do what I suggested. You'll soon see.

 

I am not suggesting I am God on this subject. I just know what I experienced and what others have.

 

The only reason I ask is because you stated he was the only mod in the climate change subject; I beg to differ.

 

Maybe he is in charge/mod of the small area you speak about etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was he would have taken Khan out inside the first 3 rounds.

 

;)

 

Irvine Jambo would have taken out Khan full stop ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
Wiki has around about as many mistakes as the Encyclopedia Britannica, ie more than it should, but less than you would expect.

 

Like any resource it is only any good if used in conjunction with other sources. But like anything from the Internet it is not really transparent as to who is in control of it. A bit like your so called statistician, who for some reason seems to like to portray himself as an average joe blogger out to give people the real facts. when in reality he isn't a statistician in the first place, he has no qualifications in any of the sciences that are concerned with climate, he is intricately involved with the mining industry and so has a vested interest and is also very involved with government policy.

 

I hope to god you don't use Paypal or Facebook, you want to see the people behind then. They are really strange people, what with their CIA connections.

 

I like this guy from Wiki already, if he takes delight in attacking statisticians, anybody who thinks that playing with figures makes them an expert in anything other than making up numbers deserves all the attacks they get.

 

You still don't get it. Statistics is the 'science of doing science'. I am not in this game for fame or celebrity. I often read newspapers with articles based on what I have done and see how politicians and those in power twist the findings. I am not credited in these articles. I don't care if I am and would prefer not to be.

 

You can believe what you want. If what I have said doesn't place any seed of doubt in your mind, you simply want to believe what you want to believe. That's fine.

 

You have your religion. I have my scepticism.

 

The only problem I have with this is that science is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of debating ideas and being open to new, often better, ideas.

 

If you close your mind to that, then science means nothing. We may as well have an inquisition now where I am shot dead and everyone else with a doubt is shot dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CompleteIdiot
If he was he would have taken Khan out inside the first 3 rounds.

 

;)

 

Wee Asian poof. I'd have knocked him out.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aye, he was an outstanding boxer IIRC?

 

He was an true inspiration!

 

He owned many boxing clubs etc; sadly passed away early.

 

Had so many attributes .... and personalties.

 

He is a sad loss ........................ :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was an true inspiration!

 

He owned many boxing clubs etc; sadly passed away early.

 

Had so many attributes .... and personalties.

 

He is a sad loss ........................ :P

 

to society as well as JKB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...