patrick.net

Onvacation says

So the averages come out lower than the precision of the devices? How can this be?

Again intentional trolling. You can't possibly be serious.

If you are, try this: 200 readings are up by 5 degrees and 220 readings are down by 6 degrees.

What's the average change ?

Heraclitusstudent says

whether or not these digits are significant or not is itself totally irrelevant for this debate.

Not really. With the margin of error 2016 may NOT have been the hottest year EVER.

Statistically, with measurement error, there has been very little, if any, warming.

Onvacation is trolling. Just intentionally seeing how much time he can make you waste. And laughing at you for being stupid enough to answer him.

Either that, or there is another possibility.

CBOEtrader says

It is completely rational to think critically about any model or prediction in this field. Any scientist who tells you they know exactly what will happen or claim to have precise temperature data is lying to you.

It is also perfectly rational to suggest we need to cut back carbon emissions.

Those two sentiments are far from mutually exclusive.

Another voice of reason.

Just because I don't believe in co2 caused CAGW does not mean I think we should continue to pollute.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah well but birth rates are collapsing over the planet (most increase of population that are planned are from people living older), and electric vehicles are on their way to become soon cheaper than gas ones.

Electric Vehicles use Rare Earth Metals which are incredibly polluting to refine. To switch to electric, we'd have to drastically increase electric generation - while moving to renewables that are today fractional to fossil fuels.

The birth rate is slowly declining globally. Now we need to go into reverse with child maximum with a mixture of carrots (free education, cash grants) and sticks (higher taxes, points off on civil service exams, etc.)

Heraclitusstudent says

If we were to continue burning fuel as we are now, the real fun would start after 2100: we wouldn't be talking of 1 or 2C. The CO2 accumulated would be such that temperatures would rise maybe 1C per decade. Oceans would rise by several meters. Parts of the land would inhabitable and ravaged by deadly heat waves on a regular basis, other parts lost to sea. Hundreds of millions of "poor people" might move north to humm the US, Europe, etc... If Europe can't take a million Syrians, what is the political impact of 200 or 300 millions Africans or Indians? What is the stability of our civilization under such circumstances?

Predictive models have a crappy track record. And the more complex, the further from reality they end up being.

There's no reason to think we'll have exponential increases in CO2 or Temperature.

As for moving north, build the Wall and have the Italians sink a few boats with a 76mm gun.

Onvacation says

Not really. With the margin of error 2016 may NOT have been the hottest year EVER.

Statistically, with measurement error, there has been very little, if any, warming.

Again--that's not how MOE works.

Sniper says

Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

As someone else mentioned, what does Co2 for plant growth or human breathing have to do with the greenhouse effect ?

marcus says

As someone else mentioned, what does Co2 for plant growth or human breathing have to do with the greenhouse effect ?

It does a lot for plant growth, for the greenhouse affect, it's a nothingburger, as it's a TRACE gas.

You know when you troll, and you laugh at people for answering your intentionally stupid questions do you ever wonder why they answer those questions, that is why they think you are sincere ?

Sniper says

for the greenhouse affect, it's a nothingburger

This is incorrect. But at least it's relevant to the conversation, unlike all the irrelevant jibberish about plant and human resperation of Co2.

Onvacation says

Statistically, with measurement error, there has been very little, if any, warming.

The trend is very clear and is way larger than any error margin.
You are just ignoring all information and graphs we took the care to post. Not an honest answer nor a sincere pursuit of truth.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Predictive models have a crappy track record. And the more complex, the further from reality they end up being.

Yeah. Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong in the way you hope for.
To ignore such a threat you would at least need a reasonable explanation of why the model COULD be wrong. What physical effect has been ignored until now that could massively change that trajectory?
You have to answer this, otherwise you are just BSing about models and things you don't understand or for political reasons, refuse to admit.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

As for moving north, build the Wall and have the Italians sink a few boats with a 76mm gun.

In other words: let's murder enough people so the problem goes away and we can burn our fuel.
Not a moral choice.

Heraclitusstudent says

The trend is very clear and is way larger than any error margin.

source?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Heraclitusstudent says

Look at the real measurements: CO2 concentrations, temp increase, sea ice extents, oceans heat contents, radiations incoming and out going from sky, etc, etc... The picture is clear.

Temperature increase doesn't tell me much, for instance, unless i have the same fine grain data with non-proxy real measurements.

For example, did the temperature rise 1C between 1,100,100 ya and 1,100,200ya?

I'm obviously talking of recent measurements of things that happened recently.

Heraclitusstudent says

Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong

It's not a bet. The model's that have been represented have been provably wrong. Al Gore has been provably wrong, over and over and over again.

Which model/scientist/estimates would you suggest I look at? I have never found an intellectually honest representation of the problem. As I mentioned earlier, this includes 3 advanced college courses on the subject (albeit from 18 years ago).

Right wing doublespeak.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah. Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong in the way you hope for.

Or according to environmentalist eschatonics.

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

If the climate isn't the weather, and we are bad at predicting the weather 3 days out...
www.youtube.com/embed/8oJzfmWO3CU

We're always 3 minutes to midnight according to some learned people somewhere.

CBOEtrader says

The model's that have been represented have been provably wrong.

BS they have been mostly correct. The predictions of warming have been realized as proved by the many graphs in this thread. Just saying "provably wrong" doesn't make it so.
Plus the models have been refined constantly over decades, so that it is hard to find of BIG effects that they are missing. Which is why it is preposterous to dismiss the threat from the back of the hand.

CBOEtrader says

source?

Start by all the graphs posted on this thread.
If you don't see a trend, you either need new glasses or a new moral compass.

Do any of true believers donate to any foundations dedicated to AGW-abating activities? If not, why not?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

Models are not made to make predictions. Models are made to project a set of concurrent effects over time and analyses the dependencies between vars.
Models certainly don't NEED to be exactly accurate.
A range from 2-5 degrees in 100 years already claims eloquently the need for action.
A range of 4-10 degrees in 200 years describes catastrophic events.

Keep in mind 200 years is an instant in the history of mankind.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

They cant. However, even if they could do this in hindsight, this wouldn't be good enough. From hundreds of models, at least one would have accidentally guessed correctly. The reasoning and forward predictions of the model would also have to be accurate.

The only scientific approach is first to separate what we know from what we don't know.

We DONT KNOW the effects of CO2 increases on past temperature, MUSH LESS its precise effects on future temperatures. We do know CO2 is increasing.

We DONT KNOW how many fossil fuels we will burn in the future, nor can we accurately model the specific correlation between burning fossil fuels and the increase in CO2. We do know there is a correlation, but we cant precisely measure it.

We DO KNOW that humans, en masse, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have unnatural consequences on the earth. We DO KNOW there is finite reserves of fossil fuels. We can therefore conclude that we need to allow the free market to develop a sustainable solution to this problem.

We also know that the politicians who suggest they know more than they actually know, are doing so for power and control purposes.

Pulling out of the Paris accords was absolutely the right move.

Another Ice Age? - Time Magazine, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have...

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
It was the same shit, in reverse. "Decades of Cooling" resulted in "more extreme weather", blamed for both floods and drought! And shucks, "Decades of Warming" are predicted to result in both floods and drought. Not mentioned is the huge areas of the Canadian Shield and Siberia open for agriculture, and the tree line retreating.

Climate Alarmists, regardless of Hot or Cold, seem to think sometime 1850-1900 was the magical perfect stasis moment, and any difference in "Global Temperature Averages" will be like Emperor Ming the Merciless playing with his disaster gun.



Believe the Modellers! Believe extrapolations!

TwoScoopsPlissken says

If the climate isn't the weather, and we are bad at predicting the weather 3 days out...

Quite frankly a trollish statement I would expect from Piggy more than you.
Aggregates are obviously far easier to predict as you smooth out local irregularities. You can predict the climate next year over the planet to be the same as this year within a few percents.

Global Warming will also cause Hot Hail and Unpredicted Solar Eclipses.
www.youtube.com/embed/Xfc_CrwiE4Y

marcus says

Onvacation says

So the averages come out lower than the precision of the devices? How can this be?

Again intentional trolling. You can't possibly be serious.

Its a legit question. If the average of temp change is less than the average precision of the device, the obvious conclusion is the temperature change isn't statistically significant.

Heraclitusstudent says

BS they have been mostly correct.

Total nonsense. You, sir, are just plain wrong.

anon_4480e says

Its a legit question. If the average of temp change is less than the average precision of the device, the obvious conclusion is the temperature change isn't statistically significant.

You've got to be kidding.

Say a measure is imprecise. The measurements are going to be a normal distribution of imprecise values over a large number of measurements. And guess what ? The average of all those imprecise measurements is going to work out to be the actual true average.

(if you don't get this - it's because the imprecise high measurements offset the imprecise low measurements)

anon_4480e says

If the average of temp change is less than the average precision of the device, the obvious conclusion is the temperature change isn't statistically significant.

It's pretty clear that you don't know the difference between precision and accuracy. In addition to that, the accuracy of a mean is better than the average accuracy of each measurement device. Finally, whether or not 2016 was warmer than 2015 has no bearing on whether the earth is on a long term warming trend. There are so many holes with this argument, it is absurd.

anon_08dee says

(if you don't get this - it's because the imprecise high measurements offset the imprecise low measurements)

You are missing the point of what a RANGE of accuracy within statistics means. I'd suggest not commenting when you are obviously weak at statistics.

anon_61c8a says

There are so many holes with this argument, it is absurd.

Then why are you making it? The point is that suggesting a .4 degrees warming over a period that has a .8 degree variation of accuracy IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

It is fully within the range of possible errors, and therefore you CAN NOT SUGGEST THAT THE CONCLUSION IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

But yes, this doesn't even count the absurdity of measuring worldwide temperatures, or even annual temperatures changes at a specific location over a timeframe that matters to our earth. Our technology and scientific prowess hasnt been there long enough to make this statement.

I'd love for you to SHOW ME how scientists actually measure worldwide temperatures in a way that makes me wrong.

I am not pretending to be a scientist. I am however, quite experienced with statistical modeling and the errors of human hubris.

anon_61c8a says

In addition to that, the accuracy of a mean is better than the average accuracy of each measurement device.

In fact, if N is large enough, that is as N (the number of measurements) increases, the mean approaches the true average regardless of the precision, unless the precision is skewed. But even that probably wouldn't matter because we are talking about change in temperature. That is, last years measurements would have been skewed too.

CBOEtrader says

I am not pretending to be a scientist. I am however, quite experienced with statistical modeling and the errors of human hubris.

Are you saying something to the effect, "I'm sometimes an idiot, so therefore all of the scientists must be idiots ?"


CBOEtrader says

this doesn't even count the absurdity of measuring worldwide temperatures

IT just means they have a tremendous amount of data. You must understand that the larger the sample size, the more accurate the average measurement will be. Especially when you're talking about change. Quantifying a change. It's really very simple.

CBOEtrader says

It is fully within the range of possible errors, and therefore you CAN NOT SUGGEST THAT THE CONCLUSION IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

You're not taking in to account N, the number of measurements. The larger N is, the smaller the possible range of possible error (for the overall average). This is regardless of the precision of the measurements.

It's okay, statistics is a difficult subject for a lot of people. anon_08dee did a superb job of explaining it above.

CO2 increased by 50%, from ~270ppm to 400ppm in a century, and the temp increased a lousy ~1C (not even going into the sensitivity of measurement debate).

Why then are these modelers feeling justified that a 25% increase from 400ppm to 500pm is going to make temperatures jump several degrees Celsius?

Heraclitusstudent says

Models are not made to make predictions.

Do you really believe this?

Heraclitusstudent says

Aggregates are obviously far easier to predict as you smooth out local irregularities. You can predict the climate next year over the planet to be the same as this year within a few percents.

What would you use to predict with?

anon_7c0c9 says

Earth's volume of unbound carbon isn't too difficult to look up. Neither is the approximate volume of free oxygen in the atmosphere

So you believe that all the oxygen in the air CAN combine with carbon to eliminate all of the atmosphere's oxygen? Please share how the chemical reaction would work?