« prev   random   next »

6
2

Global Cooling 1/2 degree in last 2 years.

By Onvacation following x   2018 May 18, 1:27pm 2,845 views   240 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/860837?section=newsfront&keywords=earth-cool-half-degree-nasa&year=2018&month=05&date=16&id=860837&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main

The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.

Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18

« First    « Previous     Comments 161 - 200 of 240     Next »     Last »

161   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 2:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
If one has no counter argument one can always question the source or attack the person.

Especially when that person wants to ignore the 97% of scientists who rely on legitimate sources of funding to support their work.
162   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 7:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Malcolm says
It is only fair to start giving Donald Trump credit for global cooling.

He will definitely get credit when it is discovered that Facebook, amazon, netflix, and google are NOT worth more than the gdp of Australia and New Zealand.
163   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 7:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

jazz_music says
97% of scientists

Why do only 97% of global warming climate change scientists believe in co2 caused CAGW?
How do the other 3% feed their children?
164   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 2, 9:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
jazz_music says

The discussion of significant figures

Is very significant when your measuring hundredths of one degree.


Checking in with this thread to see some people don't get it still.

Here's another simple example. It's often cited that moms have 2.4 children on average. Obviously everyone involved in the survey or census gave an answer accurate to one significant figure. Do you think that the only reason the 2.4 number is valid is that every parent gave the answer in the form 3.0 children, 1.0 children (rather than 3 chidren, 1 child)? Yes, this is different, becasue it's not also about the fact that over the long hall (in a large sample) when temperature is rounded to the nearest tenth, it's just as likely rounded up as down. If not, then for year to year differences purposes the bias (say e.g. bias toward rounding up) is removed, i.e from year to year the values are just as likely to be rounded up as down. Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.
165   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 2, 9:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.


This gets to what this is really about.

There's one type of person that cares about the future (after they're gone), and understands risk, and thinks that an 80% chance or even a 20% chance that ACC is real and that political pressure to change energy sources sooner rather than later can make a difference in the future (even financially) of mankind, then it's worth it.

Then there's another kind of person, who thinks that even if the chance that ACC is wrong is say 10%, it's worth it to claim it's false now, so that if that turns out they're right, they'll have bragging rights that they called it. IF they're wrong, then that sucks either way.

We're all gamblers to some degree, but that type of person is interested in a different kind of "win" than I am. And they're playing the long shot with a huge downside. OR maybe not, since the worst of it won't affect them personally.
166   curious2   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 2, 11:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.


Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:

"One year ago, on June 1, President Trump announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the 2015 Paris Climate Treaty, or the Paris Accord. The significance of this wise and correct decision still rings true today.

President Trump’s action removed the U.S. from an unrealistic goal of reducing carbon emissions that would have cost our nation billions of dollars, harmed our economy, a loss of millions of jobs, and have done very little to reduce the earth's temperature, its supposed main purpose. His decision saved our country from contributing $100 billion per year until 2020 for the U.N. Green Climate Fund, a gigantic wealth transfer program to developing countries.
"

marcus, please let me try to help you as well, although your insistence on wilful ignorance does make that difficult.

marcus says
over the long hall....


there is a long ceiling.

marcus says
some people don't get it still.

Here's another simple example. It's often cited that moms have 2.4 children on average.


Your example of counting children is, again, inapposite, for the reason that you ignored above. It comes down to the difference between counting and measuring. Counts can be exact, as integers can, but measurements cannot. "Exact numbers...are either defined numbers or result of a count. Exact numbers cannot be simplified and have an infinite number of significant figures. Measured numbers have a limited number of significant figures." When you say that "some people don't get it," you appear to be either projecting or demonstrating partial self-awareness.

marcus says
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.


Whoever poses as a math teacher disproves that pose by failing to understand the difference between counting and measuring when considering significant figures.

marcus says
that type of person is interested in a different kind of "win" than I am.


First, there are more "types" of people than you listed. Second, your position (transfer hundreds of billion$ from the scientifically advanced world to backwards kleptocracies and the Clinton Foundation) does not enable you to "win" in any way other than emotionally feeling (and signaling) virtue. Regardless of the probabilities involved in measuring and predicting climate change, your preferred policy has no chance of actually managing the climate. You have not proposed a solution, but rather have merely endorsed a corrupt scam to transfer a lot of money so that you can feel better.

I did try to explain that to LeonDurham (AKA joeyjoejoejr, AKA tatupu70, AKA probably more aliases that I've lost track of), but received only strawmen, lies, and ad hominem taunts in reply. There are no winners in that context, and the one who loses least is the one who walks away first, thus wasting the least amount of time.
167   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 11:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
values are just as likely to be rounded up as down.

No. Old values were adjusted down and newer temperatures adjusted up to match the narrative.
168   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 11:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.

That was leondurham.
Manipulated fictitious numbers can be as accurate as you want them to be. 97% for example.
169   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 11:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says

There's one type of person that cares about the future

And they're really concerned that their carbon credits will be worthless if the scam is exposed.
170   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 11:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
the worst of it won't affect them personally.

I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.

When will the consequences of CAGW start?
171   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 2, 11:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:


Thank you. Maybe I should refer to it as "The Fraud".
172   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 1:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.


No, that was never the mainstream belief. Iwog got a little extreme , but only talking about if the trend continued, it was a speculative possibility he mentioned, based on the bizzarre trends in the arctic in 2015/2016.(NOTE: It's the coming down from that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend).

THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.

http://patrick.net/post/1316363?offset=0#comment-1509438
173   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 1:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

YOu're arguments are such trolls that I can't help but wonder whether the Koch brothers pay you for such nonsense. Or perhaps we have the honor of having an actual Koch brother on this forum (unlikely) >

Onvacation says
No. Old values were adjusted down and newer temperatures adjusted up to match the narrative.


We're not even in the same argument. All along I've been responding to your claim that citing average annual global temperatures down to hundredths of a degree doesn't make sense. As for adjustments and process, it is true that I expect and trust most of the super majority of scientists weighing in to be far more skeptical about data than you or I ever will be THAT IS WITHOUT BIAS, or at least with minimal bias.
174   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 6:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says

That was leondurham.
Manipulated fictitious numbers can be as accurate as you want them to be. 97% for example.


No, it was curious. I was pointing out how he completely misunderstands how to interpret the data.
175   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 7:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change


And, fyi, the scientific community is more appropriately referring to it as climate change because the effects are more than just higher temps.

But there's no doubt that temps are rising. It can be seen in so many different measurements: temperature readings, ice caps, bird migration patterns, sea levels, snow pack melting data, etc.
176   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 3, 7:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
 

Onvacation says
I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.


No, that was never the mainstream belief.

If catastrophe is not the alarmist belief what is?
177   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 3, 7:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend)

What? And I am not talking about the typo.
178   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 3, 7:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.

So, is the hockey stick gonna happen or not? When?
Skeptics want to know.
179   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 3, 7:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
. As for adjustments and process, it is true that I expect and trust most of the super majority of scientists weighing in to be far more skeptical about data than you or I ever will be THAT IS WITHOUT BIAS, or at least with minimal bias.

Many people are ignorant of the fact that the alarmist manipulate temperature data.
180   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 3, 7:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
temperature readings, ice caps, bird migration patterns, sea levels, snow pack melting data, etc

I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.
181   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 3, 7:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says

Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:

On second thought, CAGW is an appropriate name.
182   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.


It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.
183   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

@Patrick--

My post isn't appearing. what's up?
184   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 5, 7:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Onvacation says
I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.


It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.

Obfuscation it is.LeonDurham says
My post isn't appearing. what's up?

Maybe the numbers are too small?
185   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 5, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
Obfuscation it is


OK--how many times does it need to get posted?

Look, here are the facts:

1. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising and have been rising for decades.
2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.
3. Global temperature has risen over the last 50 years. This is shown by temperature readings, bird migration patterns, seal level measurements, ice pack measurements, snow pack melting data, et. al.
4. The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?
186   curious2   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 5, 8:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?


Just preserving this...
187   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 5, 8:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says
Just preserving this...


It's a keeper.
188   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 6, 12:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.


Sonce it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.

LeonDurham says
But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?


This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.
189   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 6, 12:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says

OK--how many times does it need to get posted?


At least once. Probably more.
190   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 6, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
once it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.


I said the mechanism is well understood. Please pay attention. Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem which is what I addressed in my last point.

CBOEtrader says
This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.


I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering. I simply stated the obvious--that the consequences of global warming are potentially dire, even if one thinks the probability of said consequences occurring are small.
191   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 6, 9:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
At least once. Probably more.


Then we should be good. It's been posted at least a half dozen times.
192   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 7, 6:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says

I said the mechanism is well understood.
LeonDurham says
Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem

You can't have it both ways.LeonDurham says

I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering.

LeonDurham says
the consequences of global warming are potentially dire,

If the models are correct, ...
193   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 6:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
You can't have it both ways


Of course you can. The mechanism by which CO2 causes the Earth to warm up is well understood. How this extra warming input affects the multitude of other variables in the Earth's ecosystem is not as well understood. Are there other systems in play that dampen the warming input, eg the heat sinks of the oceans? But, when the oceans reach a certain temp will it affect jet streams and cause rapid heating? Much of that is difficult to model. But it doesn't change the fact that the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is well understood.

Onvacation says
If the models are correct, ...


No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct.
194   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 7, 8:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct


I thought the science was settled.
195   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 10:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.


I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.
196   curious2   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 7, 12:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
The models are obviously just that--models.


Just preserving this, too...
197   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 1:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says
Just preserving this, too...


Just curious--why would you feel the need to preserve that?
198   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 1:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere.


Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.

LeonDurham says
The models are obviously just that--models.


Whoops...
199   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.


Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

CO2 is needed for plant growth. Not sure if it's really true that the more the better, but regardless, you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.


Quigley says
LeonDurham says
The models are obviously just that--models.


Whoops.


No whoops at all. Models are a tool that should be utilized and understood.
200   curious2   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 7, 3:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.


Just preserving this, too...

« First    « Previous     Comments 161 - 200 of 240     Next »     Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions