Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Proper science is falsifiable. (Score 1) 649

Your asking me to do a statistically invalid analysis, no dice. Do the one I asked for. Also you clearly don't know what a gish gallop is. I've consistently asked for the same analysis for a load of posts now, you have refused to acknowledge any refutation of your position changing the topic when you are shown to be wrong. You are now gish galloping by accusing me of gish galloping. Do the analysis I asked for.

Comment: Re:Proper science is falsifiable. (Score 1) 649

No it isn't, you don't understand non-linear systems. I've explained this to you, c.f. the pendulum example I gave you previously.

"Will you at least admit that through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels?"

Not the way you are doing it. But I told you the analysis you need to do. Show me a multi-decadal analysis with apropriate statistics and I might be convinced, but not that tripe you have been posting here with significance incorrectly calculated. Do the SMP analysis I asked for and you might convince me. You do know how to do it right?

Comment: Re:Proper science is falsifiable. (Score 1) 649

You haven't done the analysis I asked for, do the analysis I asked for.

No, no I haven't. Your deficient understanding of non-linear systems has lead you to an erronous conclusion (or rather since you know and I suspect you don't believe your position you are presenting a misunderstanding you know will play well because it is a subtle misunderstanding). Your position is the same as saying you cant displace a pendulum by displacing the attachment point with a DC signal because it only wobbles a little bit when you hook it up to a cam on high frequency AC motor.

Open a cannister of CO2 at the North Pole, how long will it take to diffuse to the South? How long before the planet responds to that dispersal by releasing more CO2 from the oceans? Those aren't rhetorical questions, we have answers to those calculations. If the time scale is more than a week, and it is, then the earth will act as a low pass filter and you wont see a delta function like spike, but a smoothed peak.

Now don't gish gallop with a new point. Do the analysis I asked for.

Comment: Re:Proper science is falsifiable. (Score 1) 649

You didn't do the analysis I asked for, go do it.

"Okay, so then why don't the buffers you speak of erase *all* anthropogenic impact?"

Seriously, you need to get an understanding of how a non-linear system propogates oscillatory signals. Go grab yourself a pendulum and swing the top back and forth really fast and watch the pendulum not move much. Now drag it from one side of the room to the other and watch as it follows, wobbles a little bit then settles in a completely new location. The low frequency terms propagate differently than the high frequency trems.

We are perfectly capable of seeing human CO2 emissions, just long term (are you seriously trying to claim chemistry doesn't work now and that CO2 changes into something else magically in the atmosphere?).

Comment: Re:Proper science is falsifiable. (Score 1) 649

"If there is a uniform delay, then we should still see a weekday/weekend pattern."

So you have no idea how oscillatory signals propagate through a non-linear system. That mistake there is enough to dismiss your argument. The buffer is the scale of the Earth, the ocean and a whole bunch of other things. The relevant citation is the body of work by, oh look, Dr. Inez Fung, who is border line obsessive compulsive about tracking down where the CO2 on planet goes. While some of it remains unaccounted for her work can provide you with the mechanisms you are after.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra