Page 34 of 161 FirstFirst ... 243031323334353637384484134 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 850 of 4001
  1. #826
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Please explain to us, just how this AGW scare is justified, when the temperatures between the two graphs are so similar?

    please...

    Do you have an explanation, or are you just going to criticize?
    As I noted, the graphs don't work on this computer.

    The explanation is likely cherrypicking, given the history of Darrin's posts.

    The IPCC's contention is that the world is, in general, warmer than it would be otherwise for the increased CO2, though.

    Sight unseen concerning the graphs, if the temperature stayed constant for the next hundred years, that would not disprove this thesis.

    Can you tell me why not, and thereby attempt to demonstrate some understanding of the idea *you* are attempting to criticize?
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #827
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Why do very prominant climate scientists use bristlecone pines as a proxy for global temperature? Do bristlecone pines grow in the middle of the ocean?
    They do not.

    But if the data you produce using that method is reinforced by other data and other methods, would that not imply that it might be somewhat useful?
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #828
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    They do not.

    But if the data you produce using that method is reinforced by other data and other methods, would that not imply that it might be somewhat useful?


    So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


    Isn't that confirmation bias?
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #829
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


    Isn't that confirmation bias?
    Quid pro quo

    My question remains unanswered:

    So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?

    Answer that and I will answer yours.
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #830
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?

    They CAN.
    DarrinS is offline

  6. #831
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


    Isn't that confirmation bias?
    That is the definition of confirmation bias yes, especially if one completely ignores contradictory data-sets.
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #832
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Do computer models get better with more data?
    More data would, in general, improve a very simplistic model, e.g. a simple regression model, etc.

    But, if the underlying assumptions of a computer model aren't very good, then more data can't remedy that problem.
    Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?
    No. It takes humans to do that.
    So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?
    So now are are at a point where we can tie into climate models.

    I have contended that as time goes by, and we get more data, the models will get better at modeling our earths overal climate.

    The ONLY assumption I have to make is that the people doing the modeling are acting in good faith, and avoiding the confirmation bias, which ties into your question.

    Is this about right? (do you agree with this as stated?)
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #833
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    So now are are at a point where we can tie into climate models.

    I have contended that as time goes by, and we get more data, the models will get better at modeling our earths overal climate.

    The ONLY assumption I have to make is that the people doing the modeling are acting in good faith, and avoiding the confirmation bias, which ties into your question.

    Is this about right? (do you agree with this as stated?)


    If those doing the science and computer modeling are competent and acting in good faith, I would expect the computer models to be in better agreement with observations as more data are added (assuming the data is good).
    DarrinS is offline

  9. #834
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    If those doing the science and computer modeling are competent and acting in good faith, I would expect the computer models to be in better agreement with observations as more data are added (assuming the data is good).
    You have no idea how modeling works regarding the atmosphere and this is a great example of this. Do some research on how many different models are used into weather forecasting then come back and understand the methodology used. I've explained it to you before.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  10. #835
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


    Isn't that confirmation bias?
    Yes.

    And that's exactly what you did with the temperature data you posted.

    ChumpDumper is offline

  11. #836
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Yes.

    And that's exactly what you did with the temperature data you posted.

    oooh snap.


    I didn't notice that obvious zinger.
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #837
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Yes.

    And that's exactly what you did with the temperature data you posted.



    Pick any four year period you want. It doesn't seem to matter.
    DarrinS is offline

  13. #838
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    You have no idea how modeling works regarding the atmosphere and this is a great example of this. Do some research on how many different models are used into weather forecasting then come back and understand the methodology used. I've explained it to you before.

    Climate models <> weather models, as has been pointed out.


    Stay in school, Manny.
    DarrinS is offline

  14. #839
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


    Isn't that confirmation bias?
    Yes, I would say it is, as noted previously.

    Since Chump pointed it out:


    This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.

    Graph for 1930-1934
    Graph for 2006-2010

    Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.

    OOOOOOOOOH. Scary.
    Would four years of climate data on temperature qualify as a 'small set of data'?
    RandomGuy is offline

  15. #840
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    Pick any four year period you want. It doesn't seem to matter.
    Right, because you will be guilty of confirmation bias in every case.
    ChumpDumper is offline

  16. #841
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    You have no idea how modeling works regarding the atmosphere and this is a great example of this. Do some research on how many different models are used into weather forecasting then come back and understand the methodology used. I've explained it to you before.


    Modeling is modeling, btw. Different models may require different subject matter expertise, but the practice of modeling physical dynamic systems is the same.
    DarrinS is offline

  17. #842
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Right, because you will be guilty of confirmation bias in every case.

    You can randomly pick any four year period.


    I would think you would see some differences in older periods vs more recent periods if global warming were significant.
    DarrinS is offline

  18. #843
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    If those doing the science and computer modeling are competent and acting in good faith, I would expect the computer models to be in better agreement with observations as more data are added (assuming the data is good).
    I agree with this as well.

    The good thing about the whole climate change is that we can expect to get that data one way or another in the next 15-20 years.

    By the time my first grandkids are rolling off the delivery table, we should have some pretty good data.
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #844
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Would four years of climate data on temperature qualify as a 'small set of data'?

    I didn't built that website, so I don't know why they limited it to four years.
    DarrinS is offline

  20. #845
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    You can randomly pick any four year period.


    I would think you would see some differences in older periods vs more recent periods if global warming were significant.
    I would think you would see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you, yet here we are.
    ChumpDumper is offline

  21. #846
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Modeling is modeling, btw. Different models may require different subject matter expertise, but the practice of modeling physical dynamic systems is the same.
    I would fairly agree as well, although our climate seems to me to have a lot of complexities and unknowns/less knowns. The IPCC points out as much in their reports.
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #847
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I would fairly agree as well, although our climate seems to me to have a lot of complexities and unknowns/less knowns. The IPCC points out as much in their reports.

    Definitely. That's why I have my doubts that ONE variable is the driving factor.
    DarrinS is offline

  23. #848
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I would think you would see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you, yet here we are.

    No, not really. If the theory of AGW is that there is "apparent unprecedented warming in the last century", then I would expect to see some warming in the last century.
    DarrinS is offline

  24. #849
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    No, obviously you would not see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you.

    In response, I have lowered my expectations once again.
    ChumpDumper is offline

  25. #850
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    No, obviously you would not see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you.

    In response, I have lowered my expectations once again.

    Well, no one is asking for you to respond. You have every right to ignore this thread.
    DarrinS is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •