Massive study concludes: 'Global warming is real [Archive]

Nbadan

10-21-2011, 07:11 PM

Really not news to anyone except, well, all the GOP candidates for President...

http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/10/21/best.jpg

A massively thorough study – funded in part by a pair of US oil billionaire who are opponents of climate-disruption remediation – has come to the conclusion that the earth is, indeed, warming.

In fact, it's warming just as much as more-limited studies conducted by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change said it was: about 1°C since 1950.

The study – the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project – was set up by a University of California astrophysicist who was concerned about the "climategate" dustup over email messages hacked from the University of East Anglia (UAE) that led many observers to believe that climate data had been fudged to exaggerate global warming.

The core of Berkeley scientist Richard Muller's concern was not, however, that the UAE scientists were getting a raw deal; in his opinion they had brought the worldwide criticism upon themselves.

"I was deeply concerned that the group [at UEA] had concealed discordant data," Berkeley scientist Richard Muller told BBC News. "Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared."

The register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/)

"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

Academician Prokhor Zakharov - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Wild Cobra

10-21-2011, 07:32 PM

boutons_deux

10-21-2011, 07:35 PM

yadda yadda yadda, WC fires up his fog machine, blowing it out of his ears

Wild Cobra

10-21-2011, 07:44 PM

yadda yadda yadda, WC fires up his fog machine, blowing it out of his ears
Well, at least I'm not blowing it out my ass.

Wild Cobra's Surgeon

10-21-2011, 07:46 PM

How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic?

You're using big words now...I'm impressed.

Halberto

10-21-2011, 10:07 PM

Massive study concludes: bacon is delicious

TDMVPDPOY

10-21-2011, 11:00 PM

global warming is good, the sooner we run out fossil fuels and global temp increasing and the suns rays killing off the middle east oil barons, the world will be a better place...

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 02:57 AM

We know that Global Warning g is real, but since the data from temperature stations is unreliable because of land use changes next to them, we really don't know top what degree. I don't think it's as much as claimed, but it is real.

Still... the $64,000,000,000,000 question.

How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic?

Do you grasp how this stance of your contradicts your entire energy budget stance? Might as well take all positions while your at it as long as they confirm what you want to believe.

DarrinS

10-22-2011, 10:13 AM

This study confirms what no one disputes -- the Earth has warmed. Yay!

When did the Little Ice Age end again?

Agloco

10-22-2011, 01:01 PM

How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic?

I doubt very seriously that this is an answerable question, at least not to your satisfaction.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 01:41 PM

I doubt very seriously that this is an answerable question, at least not to your satisfaction.
Well, don't try to satisfy me. Can you say with certain that the anthropogenic component is as high as portrayed?

Agloco

10-22-2011, 02:13 PM

Well, don't try to satisfy me. Can you say with certain that the anthropogenic component is as high as portrayed?

At p < .05? Probably not. I believe that the liklihood of type one error is substantial. Probably around .2 or so. This is just based on the few papers I've read however. You should take this with a rather large chunk of salt.

Your turn:

Can you say with certainty that the anthropogenic component is not as high as protrayed?

Hint: If you're honest, your response will look a lot like mine does.

Hence my original assertion.

greyforest

10-22-2011, 02:59 PM

We know that Global Warning g is real, but since the data from temperature stations is unreliable because of land use changes next to them, we really don't know top what degree. I don't think it's as much as claimed, but it is real.

Still... the $64,000,000,000,000 question.

How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

I'd wager a large amount is anthropogenic, but until the earth suffers serious consequences our short-sightedness will continue.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 03:20 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

I'd wager a large amount is anthropogenic, but until the earth suffers serious consequences our short-sightedness will continue.
One thing about the ice proxy data is the length of time between data points. I don't recall what the time separation is, but I do remember that statistically, if a 50 year period of CO2 greater than today existed, there is only a 5% chance of a data point collecting it.

I have the proxy data someplace, but from a graph i used, i have this snippet of it in an excel file:

Years Ago CO2 (ppmv)
2342 284.7
3634 272.8
3833 268.1
6220 262.2
7327 254.6
8113 259.6
10123 261.6
11013 263.7
11326 244.8
11719 238.3
13405 236.2

These proxy data points for CO2 are pretty far apart, and they get farther apart the older they are.

ahhh...

Located the link to the source data from NOAA:

Vostok CO2 ice core data (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt)

those of you who know statistics, get your electronic slide rules out.

Borat Sagyidev

10-22-2011, 03:21 PM

yadda yadda yadda, WC fires up his fog machine, blowing it out of his ears

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/8/29/dc962443-529c-4543-9eda-6340198d01e2.jpg

Borat Sagyidev

10-22-2011, 03:46 PM

CONSERVATIVE NEWS FLASH:
Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas and long known to have a substantially higher ability to retain energy (heat) than general air from the sun. It's been vetted thousands and if not millions of times.

http://www.bigskyco2.org/sites/default/files/images/figures/Greenhouse_effect.jpg

SeYfl45X1wo

That's the same stuff that we're pumping into the atmosphere on a grand scale

If any shit for brains conservative with a hard on for oil wants to try and disprove that effect on this matter and win the Nobel Prize, be my guest. If not, STFU.

Alternative Need-for-Bullshit Suggestions:
1) Re-runs of the Casey Anthony trial.
2) Charlie Sheen's twitter feed
3) Drudge
4) Actual bull turds

Any of these options could successfully end your pollution in scientific matters. Science isn't a democracy.
Sincerely,
Smart Assholes.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 03:48 PM

At p < .05? Probably not. I believe that the liklihood of type one error is substantial. Probably around .2 or so. This is just based on the few papers I've read however. You should take this with a rather large chunk of salt.

Your turn:

Can you say with certainty that the anthropogenic component is not as high as protrayed?

Hint: If you're honest, your response will look a lot like mine does.

Hence my original assertion.
I cannot assign a percentage to it, but I'll go back to the source of the earths heat. The sun. We know it has increased by about 0.18% since the 1700's. Since this is the source of the energy trapped by the greenhouse effect, I will maintain that it makes a substantial difference. For direct surface temperature warning, it is only a 0.123 degree warming for a true black-body. However, atmospheric warming is more linear and the same effects that amplify the greenhouse effect amplify this increase. I will maintain that the watts used in these sensitivity calculations will also rise by 0.18% and the atmospheric warming will be around 1 watt/square meter of an increase since 1750, whereas according to the 2007 IPCCC AR4, total warming was only 1.6 watts/square meter.

Again, I will also go back and refer to the IPCCC stating the 0.12 watts for solar increase in direct forcing and ask this. What about it's indirect forcing? They never cover that now, do they?

Also, though I know it's not linear, but just for perspective...

If we assume the global average is 15C, then when moved to the Kelvin scale, that is 288.15K. If we multiply this by 1.0018, we get 288.69K, or a 0.54 degree increase.

What is the claim of rise? Isn't it 0.6 to 0.9 degrees?

greyforest

10-22-2011, 03:59 PM

those of you who know statistics, get your electronic slide rules out.

Oh good, I know statistics very well.

Here's the data (your link is broken btw):

2342 284.7
3634 272.8
3833 268.1
6220 262.2
7327 254.6
8113 259.6
10123 261.6
11013 263.7
11326 244.8
11719 238.3
13405 236.2
13989 225.3
17695 182.2
19988 189.2
22977 191.6
26303 188.5
27062 191.7
31447 205.4
33884 209.1
39880 209.1
44766 189.3
47024 188.4
48229 210.1
49414 215.7
51174 190.4
57068 221.8
57799 210.4
63687 195.4
65701 191.4
66883 195
72849 227.4
75360 229.2
78995 217.1
80059 221.8
82858 231
84929 241.1
85727 236.4
86323 228.1
87180 214.2
88051 217
89363 208
91691 224.3
92460 228.4
95349 232.1
99842 225.9
100833 230.9
101829 236.9
103372 228.2
105213 236.9
106203 230.7
108308 238.2
108994 245.7
110253 251.3
111456 256.8
112577 266.3
113472 261.4
114082 274.6
114738 273.3
116175 262.5
117519 267.6
118396 273.8
119273 272
120002 265.2
120652 277.7
121961 272.2
122606 276.5
123815 268.7
123858 266.6
124306 266.3
124571 279.8
124876 277.2
125746 273.8
126023 267.1
126475 262.5
126809 262.6
127445 275.4
128300 274.1
128399 287.1
128652 286.8
129007 282.7
129411 264.1
129755 263.4
130167 259
131789 240.4
133334 224
134205 208.9
135003 204.6
135683 198.1
135976 201.8
136359 202.5
136659 195.9
137383 194.4
137694 193.4
138226 190.2
139445 192.3
141312 196.5
142357 190.4
145435 197
150303 191.9
154471 189
155299 185.5
160494 204.4
162996 191.6
165278 183.8
169870 197.9
172596 197.8
175440 190.3
176271 190.1
178550 207.7
180779 213.2
181617 217.7
183355 199.8
185063 203.5
187199 210.7
189335 231.4
191057 231.5
192632 218
195625 220.1
199025 242.6
202212 251
203191 239.1
204283 247.7
205148 244.4
205715 232.2
206119 228.7
207991 238.2
209414 242.2
210022 244.6
210830 247.3
211005 252
212281 257.4
214153 251.2
215041 241.4
215593 240.3
215879 242.7
216459 247.5
217009 251.7
217271 251.2
217676 245.4
218342 240.5
219680 212.2
220182 216.2
220760 207.2
221054 208.9
221612 205.7
222958 203.4
223446 215.7
224630 236.9
225299 234.5
225509 233.1
225888 224.5
226710 232.4
227384 233.9
227840 241.7
230703 245.2
231382 252.2
231990 241.4
232570 247.4
233102 243.1
233646 239.2
234126 245.7
234470 245.9
234781 247.4
235213 252.9
236236 259.8
237831 279
238935 263.8
239250 252.4
239545 249.9
240201 230.4
240577 219.4
242068 214.7
243653 200.2
244215 213.9
244863 195.4
245483 196.7
247447 199
248087 201.9
248980 204
250461 203.9
251521 209.7
252959 208.9
253880 214.7
255233 228.2
256053 199.9
256501 211.7
257247 188.7
258477 194.2
259228 198.9
259958 184.7
260754 190.4
261595 193.9
262411 194.2
263207 198.4
264046 193.2
264834 202.2
266492 211
267434 215.4
268679 223.7
270680 231.4
273012 226.4
274445 230.4
275218 231
277925 220.4
278602 217.2
279543 207.7
282301 212.7
283492 213.2
286217 224.4
287846 236.2
290571 240.2
291769 240.7
292474 250.2
293676 244.9
294615 225.9
295849 227.9
297131 233.2
298051 237.9
299020 239
299877 241.9
300646 251.7
301496 256.8
302456 257.2
303334 246.9
303953 272.7
304590 251.7
305306 244.7
307131 255.9
308101 249.2
310039 256.3
310930 260.4
311774 260.3
313493 266.3
315143 266.2
315940 270.2
316681 271.9
317445 275.2
318980 265
319754 271.8
320378 272.7
321386 273.2
322111 282.4
322582 289.2
322827 288.4
323485 298.7
324189 278.2
324991 285.8
325527 278.7
326239 270.5
327114 255.7
328097 241.9
329267 239.7
330208 234.2
332293 250.2
333627 200.7
335290 205.2
336972 204.9
340165 220.4
342998 221.2
344735 216.2
347610 209.2
350765 193
352412 186.2
356838 201.2
359688 206.4
362766 201.9
366221 214.7
369563 229.7
373014 227
374561 240
378194 246.9
379633 245.9
384909 264.7
386579 259.3
390589 255.2
392451 250.2
394628 266.3
396713 274.7
400390 278
405844 279.7
409022 283.7
410831 276.3
414085 285.5

This can be plotted as a distribution curve, which would be shaped like a bell.

There's not a single data point over 300ppmv on the furthest fringe of the bell.

Given that the current day CO2 concentration is nearly 380ppmv, the random percentage chance of such an unbelievable outlier occuring is infinitestimally small, nearly 0%.

Did you study statistics? If you did, you should have failed it.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 04:05 PM

Oh good, I know statistics very well.

Here's the data (your link is broken btw):

This can be plotted as a distribution curve, which would be shaped like a bell.

There's not a single data point over 300ppmv on the furthest fringe of the bell.

Given that the current day CO2 concentration is nearly 380ppmv, the random percentage chance of such an unbelievable outlier occuring is infinitestimally small, nearly 0%.

Did you study statistics? If you did, you should have failed it.
Facts make statistics, statistics don't make facts.

Am I correct that if there was a single 50 year period that showed greater CO2 than any of the others, that there is only a 5% chance of seeing it?

Why are you trying to change my argument?

greyforest

10-22-2011, 04:12 PM

Am I correct that if there was a single 50 year period that showed greater CO2 than any of the others, that there is only a 5% chance of seeing it?

Why are you trying to change my argument?

I'm merely pointing out that your argument is irrelevant. You are assuming that at some point atmospheric CO2 went to 380ppmv for a 50-year period and that the scientists just didn't collect that blip due to your cognitive bias.

Any statistician will tell you that the weight of all of those readings can be considered equally weighted, as they are all randomly sealed in an ice bubble hundreds of thousands of years ago. You have seen the data from HUNDREDS of data points. This is enough to plot a distribution curve and know what is normal and what is an outlier. You could still be right, but its very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. But you just choose to hang on to that conclusion, despite very very very very very very very very very very very very very nearly conclusive evidence that humans are fucking up the atmosphere and planet.

If your statistics professors could read this thread they would be ashamed of you.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 04:18 PM

I'm merely pointing out that your argument is irrelevant. You are assuming that at some point atmospheric CO2 went to 380ppmv for a 50-year period and that the scientists just didn't collect that blip due to your cognitive bias.

Any statistician will tell you that the weight of all of those readings can be considered equally weighted, as they are all randomly sealed in an ice bubble hundreds of thousands of years ago. You have seen the data from HUNDREDS of data points. This is enough to plot a distribution curve and know what is normal and what is an outlier. You could still be right, but its very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. But you just choose to hang on to that conclusion, despite very very very very very very very very very very very very very nearly conclusive evidence that humans are fucking up the atmosphere and planet.

If your statistics professors could read this thread they would be ashamed of you.
I see.

You are refusing to answer my question, or you are unable to.

Only rooting for your team I see and will not acknowledge a truth that makes your side look bad.

Who's indoctrinated? Maybe you should look in a mirror.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 04:22 PM

Who can tell my why, that is CO2 causes the temperature to rise, then why:

1) Temperature increases before CO2 increases almost 12,000 years ago.

2) When CO2 starting making a nice, almost constant rise more than 7,000 years ago, why does the average temperature remain within the same area?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000ye.jpg

The above is data plotted from the file I linked earlier, and it's sister file for temperature.

greyforest

10-22-2011, 04:25 PM

Borat Sagyidev

10-22-2011, 04:25 PM

Facts make statistics, statistics don't make facts.

Am I correct that if there was a single 50 year period that showed greater CO2 than any of the others, that there is only a 5% chance of seeing it?

Why are you trying to change my argument?

Statistics don't make facts? Yet they take them in. What do you think your 5% chance of seeing argument is then? an opinion?

God what straw manning. The data indicates your single 50 year period is unlikely. Statistics are not the final word on everything, but you pick and chose the interpretation at your pleasure.

I could do the same with physical data showing the lack of physical proof that Moses parted the Dead Sea and with your logic, you could say there is only a x% change of it being observed. Fine, make that jump

It's practically the same religious themed leap of faith. It has no business in science.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/Instruction/LennonLaw/DevilsAdvocate.jpg

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 04:33 PM

If your statistics professors could read this thread they would be ashamed of you.

He does not have one and no amount of professor action can cure stupid. He does not know how to make a substantive argument against the sampling rate. He does not even know the beginning of the context.

It does not matter how much you tell him. He will not get it because he has decided that he does not want to get it. Its easier to just point out hes dumb and move on.

greyforest

10-22-2011, 04:33 PM

By the way,

Only rooting for your team I see and will not acknowledge a truth that makes your side look bad.

Who's indoctrinated? Maybe you should look in a mirror.

You're the one that's indoctrinated, not I. Observe:

You could still be right, but its very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. But you just choose to hang on to that conclusion, despite very very very very very very very very very very very very very nearly conclusive evidence that humans are fucking up the atmosphere and planet.

As a scientist, I have to account for the 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that you are right. As the indoctrinated person, you don't account for the 99.99999999999999999999999999% chance you are wrong.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 04:37 PM

Let's assume that you are correct. Let us assume that for a 50 year period the atmospheric CO2 spiked to 380ppmv.

That reading is such an unbelievable statistical anomaly, having never been seen at any other point other than the last 50 years, that it would nearly have to be correlated with a catastrophe - a volcano erupting, etc. It's like a rogue wave. Statistically unlikely to the point of warranting SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
I agree it is very unlikely. Still, in science, you don't use statistics to ignore possibilities.

This argument originated as a response to those who claim that CO2 has never been higher. Does a possible 4 sigma outlier classify as "never?"

Now what about those four temperature spikes in the past on the graph I linked? Aren't they higher than today's temperature, and with less CO2?

What about the CO2 rising and temperature maintaining an almost predictable (Bond event?) pattern?

Borat Sagyidev

10-22-2011, 04:41 PM

Let's assume that you are correct. Let us assume that for a 50 year period the atmospheric CO2 spiked to 380ppmv.

That reading is such an unbelievable statistical anomaly, having never been seen at any other point other than the last 50 years, that it would nearly have to be correlated with a catastrophe - a volcano erupting, etc. It's like a rogue wave. Statistically unlikely to the point of warranting SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

Even if there was an anomaly with a high Co2 period, what then? If it's correlated to a natural disaster, should we correlate our Co2 levels to a natural disaster? Pretty significant even if that's the case.

This guy asks straw-mans all over the place. It's a fucking joke.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 04:42 PM

I agree it is very unlikely. Still, in science, you don't use statistics to ignore possibilities.

Actually with statistical analysis that is exactly what you do. God you are an ignorant fuck.

greyforest

10-22-2011, 04:43 PM

I am only concerned about climate change, specifically CO2. You should be as well. Global temperature trends aren't in any 4-sigma outlier territory.

greyforest

10-22-2011, 04:45 PM

Gonna peace out of this thread. My work here is done.

As a scientist, I have to account for the 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that you are right. As the indoctrinated person, you don't account for the 99.99999999999999999999999999% chance you are wrong.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 04:51 PM

I am only concerned about climate change, specifically CO2. You should be as well. Global temperature trends aren't in any 4-sigma outlier territory.
I see...

Only concerned about making CO2 the culprit. What about the solar and soot effects? I recall Manny saying something similar.

All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.
(http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5416994&postcount=1500)
I see you are both agenda driven.

greyforest

10-22-2011, 04:59 PM

Only concerned about making CO2 the culprit.

I didn't make my position clear enough.

I am not terribly concerned about global warming/global temperature trends. Global temperature is determined by an unfathomable amount of variables.

My concern is with the experimentally high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, numbers which have never been recorded at any time in the history of earth. Scientists have recorded a hell of a lot of CO2 readings, so that should concern you and everybody.

The fact that it doesn't further proves my point:

As a scientist, I have to account for the 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that you are right. As the indoctrinated person, you don't account for the 99.99999999999999999999999999% chance you are wrong.

greyforest

10-22-2011, 05:00 PM

sorry double post, leaving now, i promise!

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 05:35 PM

I see...

Only concerned about making CO2 the culprit. What about the solar and soot effects? I recall Manny saying something similar.

I see you are both agenda driven.

Agenda driven? Fuck you.

You are making up a mythical number that is not substantiated by any past event that also just so happens to fit the world view as you want it and then try and pass it off as a probability that you just cannot dismiss.

You are a blight upon the intellectual landscape.

MannyIsGod

10-22-2011, 05:54 PM

Lol @ using that post to say I'm "agenda driven". The only thing you fail at more than reading comprehension is basic science.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 06:56 PM

Lol @ using that post to say I'm "agenda driven". The only thing you fail at more than reading comprehension is basic science.Then what do you mean by this?

All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 07:12 PM

Here's the data (your link is broken btw):

Works just fine for my browsers.

MannyIsGod

10-22-2011, 07:28 PM

Why don't you show off your awesome reading comprehension and tell us all what I meant?

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 08:11 PM

Why don't you show off your awesome reading comprehension and tell us all what I meant?
If I have to consider the words you used, like "all that matters" and "is to prove that CO2 is responsible," it really does appear to me that your attitude is "truth be dammed, no matter what, CO2 is the villain."

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 08:28 PM

If I have to consider the words you used, like "all that matters" and "is to prove that CO2 is responsible," it really does appear to my that your attitude is "truth be dammed, no matter what, CO2 is the villain."

context
[kon-tekst] Origin
con·text
[kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 09:14 PM

context
[kon-tekst] Origin
con·text
[kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
LOL...

This, coming from an internet jerk who will twist context whenever he can...

LOL...

You are really hilarious!

MannyIsGod

10-22-2011, 09:54 PM

Lololololol like I said, your reading comprehension.....

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 10:00 PM

LOL...

This, coming from an internet jerk who will twist context whenever he can...

LOL...

You are really hilarious!

I will help you. The context is the mechanism by which radiation was not escaping in the CO2 spectrum versus other bands. He was talking about what was important regarding that specific data

The Pee Wee routine is pretty lame. I actually know how to pay attention to points of contention and where trains of logic end etc. You are just trying to pull the bait and switch with fragments of what was only a few sentence post.

His point is actually a good one. With satellites you can measure the incoming and outgoing bandwidth with a very high order of data points. Its much better science than guessing about heat exchange with the ocean and deep-water ocean currents or making up a data outlier and trying assign it a significant probability.

I'm just trying to help out. You are being dumb arguing these points and for your own self respect you should stop. Its sad.

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 10:19 PM

I will help you. The context is the mechanism by which radiation was not escaping in the CO2 spectrum versus other bands. He was talking about what was important regarding that specific data

The Pee Wee routine is pretty lame. I actually know how to pay attention to points of contention and where trains of logic end etc. You are just trying to pull the bait and switch with fragments of what was only a few sentence post.

His point is actually a good one. With satellites you can measure the incoming and outgoing bandwidth with a very high order of data points. Its much better science than guessing about heat exchange with the ocean and deep-water ocean currents or making up a data outlier and trying assign it a significant probability.

I'm just trying to help out. You are being dumb arguing these points and for your own self respect you should stop. Its sad.
No, you don't understand the varying changes through the depths of the atmosphere. It's not that simple. Did you read this (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5446612&postcount=1684)?

MannyIsGod

10-22-2011, 10:22 PM

I will help you. The context is the mechanism by which radiation was not escaping in the CO2 spectrum versus other bands. He was talking about what was important regarding that specific data

Winner!

ElNono

10-22-2011, 10:30 PM

You guys don't get it... if the tiristor burns out, you just change the part and you're done

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 10:38 PM

You guys don't get it... if the tiristor burns out, you just change the part and you're done

We spell it thyristor in English, unless there is a component I didn't learn, or is newer than the 70's.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 10:47 PM

We spell it thyristor in English, unless there is a component I didn't learn, or is newer than the 70's.

Well you certainly knew the part he was talking about. Thats fucking hilarious. You're like a robot.

DarrinS

10-22-2011, 10:51 PM

Interglacial

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 10:53 PM

Well you certainly knew the part he was talking about. Thats fucking hilarious. You're like a robot.
By your immature nature, I will assume I was studying electronics, physics, chemistry, etc. long before you were born. When I make mistakes in terminology, or don't explain it well, it's because I'm rusty at it.

DarrinS

10-22-2011, 10:53 PM

Wake me up when Greenland is teen again.

ElNono

10-22-2011, 10:54 PM

We spell it thyristor in English, unless there is a component I didn't learn, or is newer than the 70's.

Just showing off my ample domination of the Spanish language, tbh :lol

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiristor

Wild Cobra

10-22-2011, 10:55 PM

Just showing off my ample domination of the Spanish language, tbh :lol

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiristor
LOL...

I'll bet you know Spanish better than I know English.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2011, 11:04 PM

By your immature nature, I will assume I was studying electronics, physics, chemistry, etc. long before you were born. When I make mistakes in terminology, or don't explain it well, it's because I'm rusty at it.

Did you just pull the 'you're immature' and plead your age?

Remember when you had those writeups on the wonderful new gas boilers that the oil and gas industry had and gave us that pitch? Can you remember that far back?

DarrinS

10-23-2011, 09:14 AM

Wake me up when Greenland is green again.

scott

10-23-2011, 11:59 AM

A good time to re-post this.

I wonder if <victim> were <improbable circumstance> to <cause my incredibly stupid position to be valid>.

Wild Cobra

10-23-2011, 12:14 PM

Wake me up when Greenland is green again.
I doubt that will happen for some time, but who knows. I think the Milankovitch Cycle and solar intensity are more a factor than greenhouse gasses. The radiative forcing from CO2 at those temperatures would be so weak. Right now, the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun in the winter due to eccentricity, but gets very little sun because of the earths tilt. Thousands of years ago, when the precession of the earth was different, it received more solar energy in the summer. Our current elliptical orbit causes the earth to receive about 10% more energy in Dec/Jan than it does in Jun/Jul. This favors a melting of Antarctica over Greenland and the Northern ice cap, yet it's the north that is melting? One of the reasons why I blame soot from Asia, for the northern ice retreat. I don't think this is enough to make Greenland green again, but who knows. Mostly speculation on my part.

DMC

10-23-2011, 02:27 PM

Everyone needs to stop driving cars, stop using electricity and stop doing anything that supports or utilizes anything made by devices that add to the problem.

Otherwise, it's really not a problem.

Agloco

10-23-2011, 03:59 PM

As a scientist, I have to account for the 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that you are right. As the indoctrinated person, you don't account for the 99.99999999999999999999999999% chance you are wrong.

Aye, the point I was attempting to make. Apparently this requires a more direct approach with WC.

Wild Cobra

10-23-2011, 04:14 PM

Aye, the point I was attempting to make. Apparently this requires a more direct approach with WC.
How can someone even consider something so laughable?

99.99999999999999999999999999% chance. Really now.

Old Man McCain

10-23-2011, 04:32 PM

What are the odds WC and Darrin make this thread 65 pages long too?

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2011, 05:11 PM

How can someone even consider something so laughable?

99.99999999999999999999999999% chance. Really now.

You are either really stupid, a disgusting shill or both. You do not even know how to begin to assign a probability to an outlier. Your comments the other clearly indicate that you have no idea about statistical analysis. Just die.

Agloco

10-23-2011, 05:53 PM

How can someone even consider something so laughable?

99.99999999999999999999999999% chance. Really now.

There really isn't any hope for you, is there?

I'll repeat:

I doubt very seriously that this is an answerable question, at least not to your satisfaction.

Wild Cobra

10-24-2011, 02:10 AM

How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic?I doubt very seriously that this is an answerable question, at least not to your satisfaction.
Well, it depends on the evidence. As it stands, I do not accept the claims of the IPCCC that CO2 warming from 1750 to 2004 increase by 1.49 to 1.83 watts/square meter. With more recent acknowledgements of solar forcing and soot forcing, their numbers need some serious revisions. Show me some good evidence of a particular waring increase, and I will not be able to disagree.

RandomGuy

10-24-2011, 11:14 AM

This study confirms what no one disputes -- the Earth has warmed. Yay!

When did the Little Ice Age end again?

Back the truck up.

"no one disputes" that the earth is warming, seems to directly contradict shit you have been saying for years.

You and the other asshats have been arguing for years that there has been *no* warming.

What is funny is that particular schtick has now gotten so fucktarded even the skeptics have had to abandon that, just like the 9-11 truthers had to abandon the stupidist parts of their theories, when the stupidity became patently obvious to all but the most braindead/damaged.

If, in 20 years, a continued rise in temperatures and climate disruption goes hand in hand with increases in CO2/GHG concentrations, that will then become so patently obvious that the entire skeptic movement will be similarly fatally discredited.

The causes and effects will be far more clear with another 20 years' data.

I am optimistic that it won't be quite so late to do something to mitigate the worst effects.

Hopefully those who faked objective skepticism will offer themselves up for a swift kick in the ass by all the people their political hackery fucked over.

RandomGuy

10-24-2011, 11:18 AM

How can someone even consider something so laughable?

99.99999999999999999999999999% chance. Really now.

Do I need to find the post where you claim that you are right and there is only a "one in a trillion" chance you are wrong, or something similar?

DarrinS

10-24-2011, 11:36 AM

Back the truck up.

"no one disputes" that the earth is warming, seems to directly contradict shit you have been saying for years.

You and the other asshats have been arguing for years that there has been *no* warming.

What is funny is that particular schtick has now gotten so fucktarded even the skeptics have had to abandon that, just like the 9-11 truthers had to abandon the stupidist parts of their theories, when the stupidity became patently obvious to all but the most braindead/damaged.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5414665&postcount=1476

If, in 20 years, a continued rise in temperatures and climate disruption goes hand in hand with increases in CO2/GHG concentrations, that will then become so patently obvious that the entire skeptic movement will be similarly fatally discredited.

The causes and effects will be far more clear with another 20 years' data.

I am optimistic that it won't be quite so late to do something to mitigate the worst effects.

Hopefully those who faked objective skepticism will offer themselves up for a swift kick in the ass by all the people their political hackery fucked over.

Hopefully those 20 years will be more convincing than the last 10-15 years.

http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/126_8.gif

RandomGuy

10-24-2011, 12:01 PM

You and the other asshats have been arguing for years that there has been *no* warming.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5414665&postcount=1476

Your lazy ass will have to find a post older than 2 months to really be able to show my memory about what you have been saying false.

RandomGuy

10-24-2011, 12:07 PM

Is the earth warming?

Here are my opinions which are based on far more than the average citizen knows:

Possibly. It definitely has been over the long term, since the 1700's. I would say yes, except it there is strong evidence we have entered a cooling phase again starting about two to four years ago.

"We have entered a cooling phase." Globally, warming is just "possible".

Not Darrin specifically, but I'm still browsing.

DarrinS

10-24-2011, 12:23 PM

Your lazy ass will have to find a post older than 2 months to really be able to show my memory about what you have been saying false.

Wrong

RandomGuy

10-24-2011, 12:25 PM

You and the other asshats have been arguing for years that there has been *no* warming.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5414665&postcount=1476

Darrin's 2010 thread entitled "Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154298)

I think I will stop there. It seems Darrin has pushed the "there is no warming trend" idea.

You want more links Darrin?

DarrinS

10-24-2011, 12:29 PM

Darrin's 2010 thread entitled "Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154298)

I think I will stop there. It seems Darrin has pushed the "there is no warming trend" idea.

You want more links Darrin?

Post away. I think I know my own opinion.

RandomGuy

10-24-2011, 12:33 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
Here's another article with a part where a "cooling trend" was played up/bolded.

I feel better about my memory now.

RandomGuy

10-24-2011, 12:36 PM

Post away. I think I know my own opinion.

So, if your opinion has not changed, then why have you relished in posting things about cooling trends?

The posts I found weren't really your statements, they were things you decided were pertinent. I guess your memory could be correct, and I am just remembering things you have hinted at, as opposed to actually said.

So, either

1) your memory of your own opinion is faulty, and you are an idiot.

or

2) your memory of your own opinion is correct, but you posted things you knew to be false, in an attempt to discredit the theory you disagree with.

Which is it, idiot or liar?

DarrinS

10-24-2011, 12:42 PM

I think the Earth has warmed an insignificant amount in the past 100 years and that this study confirms that.

DarrinS

10-24-2011, 12:47 PM

I also recall pointing out the BEST project in your "pseudoscience" thread and that I thought it was a good idea.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-24-2011, 12:49 PM

Its cute that they act coy but the energy industry think tanks that they parrot most certainly used that argumentation up until the last year or so. Thats when they switched to the sun is just hotter routine.

Darrin is a bit smarter than WC. At least WC has an excuse. Hes just dumb as shit.

Wild Cobra

10-24-2011, 01:20 PM

Do I need to find the post where you claim that you are right and there is only a "one in a trillion" chance you are wrong, or something similar?
Please do. I don't recall saying that.

scott

10-24-2011, 07:15 PM

You guys are overlooking the downside of this study... now where will we get our "What about Global Warming Now?" threads when it snows in winter?

boutons_deux

10-25-2011, 10:44 AM

WashPost: “The Scientific Finding that Settles the Climate-Change Debate” and “Confirms” the Hockey Stick Graph

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Toles.gif

The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.

“Global warming is real,” Muller wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the neo-Luddites who are turning the GOP into the anti-science party should pay attention.

The BEST, as it were, was from the L. A. Times, “Climate skeptic admits he was wrong to doubt global-warming data,” which opens:
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Remember when scientists who had cast doubt on global temperature studies boldly embarked on an effort to “reconsider” the evidence?

They have. And they conclude that their doubt was misplaced.

And don’t miss Nobelist Paul Krugman’s piece, “More People Who Can’t Handle The Truth.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/25/352631/washpost-climate-change-debate-confirms-hockey-stick-graph/

MannyIsGod

10-25-2011, 11:32 AM

No, you don't understand the varying changes through the depths of the atmosphere. It's not that simple. Did you read this (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5446612&postcount=1684)?

You've got no clue. This is a comparison between the same measurement at different time periods. Its the same measurement of the same thing. Furthermore, all outgoing radiation must exit the earth's atmosphere the same way. Energy in the lower levels of the atmosphere does not just magically dissipate and find itself past the orbit of the satellites.

You cannot seem to understand that no one is trying to tell exactly how the energy moves within the atmosphere with this data just how it exits and how LESS is leaving the atmosphere due directly to green house gasses.

It doesn't surprise me because you somehow can't seem to understand that same principle When it comes to the oceans.

RandomGuy

10-25-2011, 11:38 AM

Please do. I don't recall saying that [there was only one a trillion chance I am wrong about AGW].

You said it alright. It might take me a while, but I am pretty sure I can find it again.

I remember it fairly clearly.

RandomGuy

10-25-2011, 11:41 AM

You guys are overlooking the downside of this study... now where will we get our "What about Global Warming Now?" threads when it snows in winter?

I am sure even this will not deter dogmatic liars like Yonivore from posting more of them.

DarrinS

10-25-2011, 12:57 PM

Lol @ "confirms the Hockey Stick"

Did their research go back to 1000 AD using tree ring proxy data? What a blatant lie.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2011, 02:24 PM

You've got no clue. This is a comparison between the same measurement at different time periods. Its the same measurement of the same thing. Furthermore, all outgoing radiation must exit the earth's atmosphere the same way. Energy in the lower levels of the atmosphere does not just magically dissipate and find itself past the orbit of the satellites.

You cannot seem to understand that no one is trying to tell exactly how the energy moves within the atmosphere with this data just how it exits and how LESS is leaving the atmosphere due directly to green house gasses.

It doesn't surprise me because you somehow can't seem to understand that same principle When it comes to the oceans.

He doesnt understand how optics work. Thats obvious from his comments about the satellites. Hes dumb and just parrots what other people say. He gives us sales material form gas boiler companies. He probably works for something akin to that and is just shilling. Hes just dumb to boot.

Wild Cobra

10-25-2011, 03:27 PM

Lol @ "confirms the Hockey Stick"

Did their research go back to 1000 AD using tree ring proxy data? What a blatant lie.

Did you see their graphs? It still looks like a hockey stick, but at an angle and shows past temperatures were as warm in the past, unlike Mann's lie.

The shape at the end I say is still the relocation and land changes around the temperature stations, but I'll bet we never get that settled. To be accurate, we would have to have a sufficient number that have stayed in the same location for maybe as long as 100 years, and not had any urban growth nearby.

xrayzebra

10-25-2011, 04:10 PM

Really not news to anyone except, well, all the GOP candidates for President...

http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/10/21/best.jpg

The register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/)

"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

Academician Prokhor Zakharov - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Gee Dan, how much time left before we burn up?

Am I the only one who gets tired of this argument.

RandomGuy

10-26-2011, 10:21 AM

The shape at the end I say is still the relocation and land changes around the temperature stations, but I'll bet we never get that settled.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1467

That was one of the things that the study in the OP definitively debunked, had you bothered to read (grasp?) anything related to it.

Another objection that has been raised is that temperature observations over the decades have been influenced by sensors being encroached upon by human development – the "urban heat island" (UHI) effect. The BEST analysis, however, found this effect to be negligible at best.

Two of the Berkeley Earth papers address narrower concerns. One is the poor location of many weather stations. A crowd-sourcing campaign by a meteorologist and blogger, Anthony Watts, established that most of America’s stations are close enough to asphalt, buildings or other heat sources to give artificially high readings. The other is the additional warming seen in built-up areas, known as the “urban heat-island effect”. Many sceptics fear that, because roughly half of all weather stations are in built-up areas, this may have inflated estimates of a temperature rise.

The Berkeley Earth papers suggest their analysis is able to accommodate these biases. That is a notable, though not original, achievement. Previous peer-reviewed studies—including one on the location of weather stations co-authored by Mr Watts—have suggested the mean surface temperatures provided by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are also not significantly affected by them.

Yet the Berkeley Earth study promises to be valuable. It is due to be published online with a vast trove of supporting data, merged from 15 separate sources, with duplications and other errors clearly signalled. At a time of exaggerated doubts about the instrumental temperature record, this should help promulgate its main conclusion: that the existing mean estimates are in the right ballpark. That means the world is warming fast.

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360

It was interesting the way the articles talked about the study's aim to talk to the concerns of "legitimate skeptics".

This implies that there is no shortage of politically motivated hacks driving the "skeptic" movement. What a novel/interesting idea.

Wild Cobra

10-27-2011, 02:47 AM

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 07:44 AM

Sorry random, but there is no way to accurately compensate for changes around these monitoring stations. Maybe their confirmation bias collected the data and math to show their bias.

Look.

There is no way to know for sure. When you go from a surrounding that is all transpiration, to asphalt, gravel, cement, buildings, etc, not only does the surrounding emissivity change, but the varying moisture content from dusk to dawn.

Maybe you are confident that science can accurately project a temperature from the readings, and simulate that of without man's impact, but I'm not. I say there is more inaccuracy of conversions than there is change.

With that, you move from the realm of "legitimate skeptic" into the realm of political hack.

You didn't read the articles, you haven't read the study to even know what their methodology is, nor have you attempted to recreate their calculations and methodology, even though they are going to great pains to make both the data and the method of calculation public, yet you just *know* there is "no way to accurately compensate".

Whatever pretense you might have had to claim you know better than the actual scientists who study this stuff for a living, ended right there with that blanket dismissal.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit dogmatic dismissals of actual science used by truthers and creationsists.

You are a fucking idiot, period.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 08:00 AM

Lol

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 08:09 AM

With that, you move from the realm of "legitimate skeptic" into the realm of political hack.

You didn't read the articles, you haven't read the study to even know what their methodology is, nor have you attempted to recreate their calculations and methodology, even though they are going to great pains to make both the data and the method of calculation public, yet you just *know* there is "no way to accurately compensate".

Whatever pretense you might have had to claim you know better than the actual scientists who study this stuff for a living, ended right there with that blanket dismissal.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit dogmatic dismissals of actual science used by truthers and creationsists.

You are a fucking idiot, period.

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

Th'Pusher

10-27-2011, 08:20 AM

Maybe their confirmation bias collected the data and math to show their bias.

Muller was a AGW skeptic. The Koch bothers funded the study. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 08:25 AM

Muller was a AGW skeptic. The Koch bothers funded the study. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

There's nothing to suggest he's still not a skeptic. The study indicates there is some GW, which no one really disputes. Study did not look at CO2 at all.

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 09:40 AM

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

Sorry Darrin, the boat sailed on your credibility years ago. You might not be a fucking idiot, but you are definitely a fucking liar.

Any factual assertion you might make on this subject should be greeted by any objective observer with a few tons of skepticism and accepted only after verification by four or five neutral sources, and rechecked for good measure.

Another objection that has been raised is that temperature observations over the decades have been influenced by sensors being encroached upon by human development – the "urban heat island" (UHI) effect. The BEST analysis, however, found this effect to be negligible at best.

Two of the Berkeley Earth papers address narrower concerns. One is the poor location of many weather stations. A crowd-sourcing campaign by a meteorologist and blogger, Anthony Watts, established that most of America’s stations are close enough to asphalt, buildings or other heat sources to give artificially high readings. The other is the additional warming seen in built-up areas, known as the “urban heat-island effect”. Many sceptics fear that, because roughly half of all weather stations are in built-up areas, this may have inflated estimates of a temperature rise.

The Berkeley Earth papers suggest their analysis is able to accommodate these biases. That is a notable, though not original, achievement. Previous peer-reviewed studies—including one on the location of weather stations co-authored by Mr Watts—have suggested the mean surface temperatures provided by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are also not significantly affected by them.

Yet the Berkeley Earth study promises to be valuable. It is due to be published online with a vast trove of supporting data, merged from 15 separate sources, with duplications and other errors clearly signalled. At a time of exaggerated doubts about the instrumental temperature record, this should help promulgate its main conclusion: that the existing mean estimates are in the right ballpark. That means the world is warming fast.

Agloco

10-27-2011, 09:42 AM

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 09:42 AM

The study indicates there is some GW, which no one really disputes.

Still going with that lie?

Do you want me to start linking all your threads about snow storms with titles that go, roughly, "what global warming, look at this snow"?

or would you rather I just link all the posts within the threads where you imply that with studies about short regional cooling trends or similar? I have already given two.

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 09:47 AM

Sorry Darrin, the boat sailed on your credibility years ago. You might not be a fucking idiot, but you are definitely a fucking liar.

Any factual assertion you might make on this subject should be greeted by any objective observer with a few tons of skepticism and accepted only after verification by four or five neutral sources, and rechecked for good measure.

How is this a lie? And why are you so angry?

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 09:49 AM

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

I guess you don't need to be any good with statistics to post youtubes on a forum all day. Good thing for you!

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 09:49 AM

Still going with that lie?

Do you want me to start linking all your threads about snow storms with titles that go, roughly, "what global warming, look at this snow"?

or would you rather I just link all the posts within the threads where you imply that with studies about short regional cooling trends or similar? I have already given two.

Hey, if I want to throw out anecdotes to counter all the AGW anecdotes, that's my business.

I'm no more think a snow storm "disproves" AGW than a heat wave "proves" AGW.

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 09:51 AM

I doubt very seriously that this is an answerable question, at least not to your satisfaction.

Moving the goalposts (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what. Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly.

This tactic is extremely common in debates with creationists, who will often say "show me an example of something evolving today," or "show me an example of information increasing through random processes." When either of these are shown to the creationist, they will suddenly change the standards of what they meant by "evolving" or "information" to try and avoid losing an argument they clearly lost. The definition between "micro" and "macro" evolution is often left exceptionally vague by creationists and intelligent design proponents just for this purpose.

A: "I won't believe there is any global warming until there is a peer-reviewed paper done by scientists I trust to be skeptics, with data and methods that they release publicly"

B: "Ok, here is a peer-reviewed paper done by scientists trusted to be skeptics, with data and methods that are being released publicly."

A: "Well then, they need to get the level of preciseness & certainty levels of 1 in a trillion because there is no way they can do that"

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 09:51 AM

I guess you don't need to be any good with statistics to post youtubes on a forum all day. Good thing for you!

I'm good enough at stats to know when a climate scientist has fudged a principal component analysis.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 09:51 AM

What are the odds of a single data point out of a data set of millions falling on an expected mean?

Now, what are the odds for that entire data set's mean to NOT fall on the expected mean?

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 09:52 AM

I'm good enough at stats to know when a climate scientist has fudged a principal component analysis.

No, you're not, actually. And the study pretty much proves that. :lmao !!!!!

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 09:53 AM

What are the odds of a single data point out of a data set of millions falling on an expected mean?

Now, what are the odds for that entire data set's mean to NOT fall on the expected mean?

Just so you know, I don't have any issues with the study, I was just trying to clarify a point WC made. Evidently, I did a poor job.

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 09:54 AM

Hey, if I want to throw out anecdotes to counter all the AGW anecdotes, that's my business.

I'm no more think a snow storm "disproves" AGW than a heat wave "proves" AGW.

Darrin's 2010 thread entitled "Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154298)

(edit)
Being a liar might be your business, I guess.

Just as it is my business to point out how dishonest you are, you lying sack of shit.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 09:55 AM

From the OP :

Watts argues that poorly performing temperature sensors in the US have skewed climate analysis, but the BEST analysis concludes (http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Station_Quality) that although readings from the stations Watts identifies as "poor" may be both higher and less accurate, the overall global warming trend is the same.

Is it hard to be so stupid, Darrin?

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 09:55 AM

Darrin's 2010 thread entitled "Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154298)

Your sarcasm meter doesn't work very well.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 09:56 AM

I'm good enough at stats to know when a climate scientist has fudged a principal component analysis.

Just so you know, I don't have any issues with the study, I was just trying to clarify a point WC made. Evidently, I did a poor job.

In other words you don't even know what to believe? I'm not surprised, really. You just need to go find a blog to tell you what you're supposed to think and then come back.

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 10:00 AM

In other words you don't even know what to believe? I'm not surprised, really. You just need to go find a blog to tell you what you're supposed to think and then come back.

Why are you and RG so angry?

I have no issues with the study. Yes, it has warmed an entire degree this century. They might as well have concluded that the sun is hot and water is wet.

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 10:02 AM

Your sarcasm meter doesn't work very well.

You weak attempt t walking the stupid shit you want to take back doesn't work very well.

I have just lost my patience with you ass-clowns. :bang

This shit makes me have much greater empathy for Fat Freddy's frustration trying to argue about the moon landings with Cosmored.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/sitinthecorner.jpg

Cosmored needs the company.

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 10:03 AM

From a very popular non-skeptic website.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/

Anybody expecting earthshaking news from Berkeley, now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group being led by Richard Muller has released its results, had to be content with a barely perceptible quiver. As far as the basic science goes, the results could not have been less surprising if the press release had said “Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn.” This must have been something of a disappointment for anyone hoping for something else.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 10:04 AM

DarrinS

10-27-2011, 10:05 AM

The fact that you think a degree is insignificant means nothing to me. You're not an expert.

Neither are you.

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 10:06 AM

Why are you and RG so angry?

I have no issues with the study. Yes, it has warmed an entire degree this century. They might as well have concluded that the sun is hot and water is wet.

In fact, it's warming just as much as more-limited studies conducted by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change said it was: about 1°C since 1950.

That would be one degree celcius in 60 years, dolt.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 10:06 AM

From a very popular non-skeptic website.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/

You JUST claimed exactly the opposite of what the paper claims and just a few posts later you're trying to say it was what was expected? NO SHIT it was what was expected but you're the idiot who always brings up climate gate and the weather stations. People in the field KNOW the temperature data is fine and has been confirmed for a long ass time.

The study wasn't done for people doing AGW science, Darrin. It was done for stupid asses like you who can't even get their own throughts on the subject straight.

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 10:07 AM

From a very popular non-skeptic website.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/stageretard.jpg

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 10:11 AM

What makes you think I'm angry? The fact that I'm calling you an idiot? :lol telling the truth doesn't make me angry no matter how much it bothers you.

You've got no expertise to say whether a degree is significant but you try to downplay it as though you understand the implications of how much of an energy change it takes to make that happen. Furthermore, you have no expertise in understanding what the implications are for increased warming over the next century due to the same mechanism that caused the original increase yet you try to downplay it.

The fact that you think a degree is insignificant means nothing to me. You're not an expert.

I measured the air temp in two different offices in our building. They differed by 1.6 degrees F.

But we are supposed to believe that temperature from surface stations (densely distributed in the northern hemisphere, sparsely distributed elsewhere) and from a handful of satellites are collected, massaged by some FORTRAN code, resulting in a single global temperature that represents the temperature of the entire Earth to within one degree?

He isn't an expert but he can take temperature measurements in an office building with the best of them. :lmao

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 10:12 AM

Neither are you.

No, you're right. But there's only one of us disputing what experts say with nonsense. I'm also going to ahead and wager that the fact that I'm currently working with scientists in the field makes me more of an expert than you.

MannyIsGod

10-27-2011, 10:14 AM

He isn't an expert but he can take temperature measurements in an office building with the best of them. :lmao

:lmao

RandomGuy

10-27-2011, 10:20 AM

Why are you and RG so angry?

I am angry because the liars and idiots in the "skeptic" movement have started to convince a lot of casually interested people that there is less credibility to the real science than there actually is.

Trying to debate the topic rationally with you, I have backspaced over plenty of insults and snarky remarks, and gone back and taken some of the frustration with your dishonest, stupid shit, back, because I believe in civil conversations, and that rationality is the way to go.

At some point though, one has to get tired of getting shit on by people like you, and trying to turn the other cheek to be the better man.

I am getting older and cranky, I guess. Take your dishonest, politically motivated skepticism and shove it up your ass.

At some point I will get a bit less angry, but I have promised myself not to take any of this back.

You deserve every bit of derision and scorn you get, just like Cosmored slightly insane ass does, although he gets a small pass because he can't help being a little sick in the head.