Jump to content

Del

Members
  • Content count

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Del last won the day on November 19 2017

Del had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

142 Excellent

About Del

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,953 profile views
  1. There was no need to collude since they all wanted Colin to go away.
  2. I hadn't seen your post although the result is similar. I have no idea what the women thought of the men.
  3. Here's the footnote. In case you missed it. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.” Which doesn't mean there aren't dissenting papers. It means they aren't counting them. They also will count any paper that doesn't express an opinion.
  4. End of Poverty?

    Cynique I didn't see any feathers on Pioneer
  5. Actually Troy.....

    Yes it is hard to correlate tempeature with Co2, isn't that the point of Global Warming? Yes I admittht I am wrong about sampling and you may be right. I have no issue admitting that I am wrong. And sometimes I can figure it out on my own. I don't knowwhy you keep saying that I am not an expert in climate change. If yu see the doctor they tell you your options and you decide. That is my approach look at issues then ask a question. You teach science to kids, that's good an commendable.
  6. Detection of climate and environmental change in the big data era Claudie Beaulieu, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton Natural variability in all aspects of the Earth system – including the climate system and ecosystems – presents a formidable challenge to the detection and quantification of change forced by industrial activities. Error in detection can disrupt concerted efforts to respond to the challenges of Earth system change, whereas statistically robust quantification informs our understanding of underlying mechanisms of change and helps to improve predictions into the future. The rate of observed climate change results from the superposition of natural and anthropogenic forcing and its robust estimation needs to objectively detect the timing of changes in the trend as well as their magnitude. Quantifying the rate of climate change is further challenged by “memory”, i.e. red noise, within the climate system, which can lead to overconfidence in the detected change. In this talk, I describe a new approach to separate unsteady long-term change from red noise, which clarifies a key point in the scientific debate related to the recent “hiatus” in warming. Marine ecosystems may also respond to climate change, but detecting these impacts is hindered by the long timescale of memory within the ocean such that time-series analysis of satellite data is still inconclusive as to the sign of change in ocean chlorophyll. Here I show how utilizing both temporal and spatial dependency in the available data reveals the full uncertainty in chlorophyll trends and highlights regions undergoing significant change. More generally, the targeted development of specific statistical techniques is required to process and make full use of the rapidly growing store of Earth system data from models and advancing observational platforms. Space-time modeling in particular is one of my main research directions for the promise it holds to improve detection of climate and environmental change in the era of big data.
  7. Actually Troy.....

    Cynique you may see me as wanting to be a leader here. Perhaps your are mistaking my comments to Troy as wanting to be a leader. I am an idea person. Having followers gernerally ends . badly. My compliment to Pioneer is a stand alone statement. If a person can be objective about a topic they love that is impressive. since objectivity is very rare. Having facts or factoid is not as impressive to me as reasoning. No my frustration about the psychic comments is more about my perceiving Pioneer as being dismissive about a field that he isn't conversant. Was it annoying yes. Was I emotionally wounded no. I don't geth urt feelings if I am wrong. I just say okay I missed it. Like with a few ofther readings I did here or my predictions about the academy awards
  8. Actually Troy.....

    I moved to Australia because I fell in love with an Australian women and could see our kids in my mind's eye . You are projecting the disillusionment with America. You have said explicitly that you have gotten to the point where you don't care. Yet you have displayed an annoyance with both Troy and Pioneer. I am not switching sides for some emotional reason, Since I don't have a side. I see the dynamic as you and Mel on one side, and Troy and Pioneer sometimes on the same side but for differing reasons. Can you think of one argument where I was on the same side with Troy and Pioneer. I don't take sides like in the Viola Davis discussion. I am less interested in agreement than thought. Have you noticed I have agreed with everyone here on some position or another because I could see logic in the argument. The argument didn't need to echo my opinion. I can see both sides in the argument about race and oddly it isn't terribly interesting. Have you noticed most of my comments have been either very short, not emotional and mostly in the last few days Troy's posts annoy me at times. Which means he is doing his job. Too much agreement would be boring. I was acknowledging Pioneer's recent posts. Was I trying to curry favor when I said that you and Mel write clearly and the logic is reasonable. What I have noticed, is that everyone here has had an emotional argument. You Mel Troy Pioneer and myself. I have no idea about what Pioneer is doing internally. I take him at his word. I think your criticism is mostly a projection. However like other criticism directed at me, like my typos and my being cryptic I will ponder. For me there is no title to be won. I just enjoying a bit of mental jousting. So you may be seeing another version of Del Strachen here or maybe you won't .. see it.
  9. Actually Troy.....

    @Pioneer1 when I was 16 a made a comment about people in the south being slow because they talked slow. My friend's father said don't judge someone's intelligence by how slowly they speak. So now I listen to the thoughts and the logic behind the words. I have had academics try to baffle me with jargon. And I have spoken to cats that were more street, that were philosophical and could reason from their position to seeing the validity of the opposite position. Yeah I have been schooled and I think abstractly I think that comes across when I am having a conversation. However I like to be open or at least I think I am open to viewpoint from the entire spectrum. So I won't discount a cat that hasn't been able to afford time in the academy. I also don't put a premium on kittens who have lots of letters behind their names. What I do value is people who can express themselves and are open or can at least tolerate a difference of opinoin I am not swayed by credentials or degrees. I listen to the argument. Even though you see yourself as more linear. You arguments with abstract concepts is more appealing to my line of thought. However that doesn't mean that the points of difference are wrong. What is fascinating is that your discussion of race seems less personal although it appears to be of great interest and importance to you. That is talent, sir. To discuss subjects that you are passionate about with clarity and reason. I am thoroughly impressed when Anyone can manage that feat.
  10. Here's something to ponder. Plants breather in C02 so wouldn't more CO2 increase plant yields. Also I understand increased CO2 will increase temperature but why should it decrease temperature. Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-...Proxy Highlight 16 May 2007 ... According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most ... Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, ... Water vapor is also involved in climate change. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, and more water vapor increases the potential for greater ozone formation. But more cloud cover, especially in the morning hours, could diminish reaction rates and thus lower rates of ozone formation. Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models.
  11. Actually Troy.....

    It is a bit niggardly to not provide evidence of your argument. Definition of terms is importance or being clear about which meaning you are utilizing. So you feel that way Pioneer and everyone else is free to feel another way. Then you say you understand why people would disagree. Scientist can take a position on the existence of God that doesn't make them correct. Also being a scientist doesn't make one correct in things that are outside of the scientist's speciality. So Neil Tyson DeGrasse arguing with the CEO using unscientific arguments also doesn't make him an expert. Nor does parroting figures that you don't understand.
  12. Actually Troy.....

    Do the following search, diseases by race . Pioneer is making a more convincing argument , it is debate worthy. The last sentence is the crux of the argument . You seem to confuse clarity with agreement . Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like " white" and "black" being used as biological variables. Pioneer has a valid point .
  13. End of Poverty?

    Domination is about submission. I'll give you an example. Let's say you have the following types of people on a deserted island : an intelligent ,a spiritual an ethical , warriors . Often might makes right . There are a few ways to win an argument ; using emotions , logic , authorities or expert opinions , belittling and intimidation .
  14. End of Poverty?

    Look up the definition of the word semantics.Also look up facts then you will see that you are incorrect and my statement about facts stands. You seem to confuse your definitions of words with the standard meaning or you use only one definition. Unaware that a word can have more than one meaning. Scientists use the scientific method to make observations, form hypotheses and gather evidence in an experiment aimed at supporting or contradicting a theory. ... Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. ... A theory is almost never proven, though a few theories do become scientific laws. @Pioneer1 that's a good analogy and if you follow it's implication my statement still stands.
  15. Can you state what you believe to be my position?
×