patrick.net

curious2 says

our comment quoted above seems also to show ignorance of the relevant difference between counting and measuring. The integer example is inapposite because a hypothetical list of integers contains, by definition, exact numbers: each infinitely accurate and precise. In contrast, a list of measurements is necessarily a list of approximations. If you can grasp these discrete concepts, then your comment seems to ignore the fact that math applies different rules to averaging each.

And your comment seems to ignore the effect of sample size on statistics.

curious2 says

Democrats tend to value stated intent over results. Micro-managing CO2 would make little or no practical difference, but Democrats present it as a way of signaling good intent, and then pretend it can somehow stop the climate from changing, even though nobody who looks at the long history of climate change could really agree with that pretense.

So, you are the expert and can state categorically that a reduction in CO2 would have no effect on climate?

LeonDurham says

So, you are the expert and can state categorically that a reduction in CO2 would have no effect on climate?

I would categorically state that the supposed increases in CO2 have had no noticeable impact on climate, so I would infer that reducing CO2 would have no noticeable effect.

Please stop trying to put the skeptics on the defensive because the models aren’t panning out in the alarmist favor.

Malcolm says

I would categorically state that the supposed increases in CO2 have had no noticeable impact on climate, so I would infer that reducing CO2 would have no noticeable effect.

Maybe you aren't paying enough attention then. There has definitely been a noticeable impact.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/l-3/4-observed-impacts.htm

LeonDurham says

And your comment seems to ignore the effect of sample size on statistics.

No, that assertion is also incorrect, because sample size affects a different aspect of statistics: margin of error. The margin of error depends on standard deviations from the mean (mean = average in this context). That's college level statistical math, while Marcus was failing to grasp the mean itself, which is school (or GED) level arithmetic math.

jazz_music says

doing something to save themselves

Adding emotional intensity does not make a false claim true. I am still waiting for someone to answer my question above. Otherwise this whole thread is yet another example of everybody talking about the weather and nobody doing anything about it.

LeonDurham says

There has definitely been a noticeable impact.

So how much has the temperature risen as the co2 has doubled?

Onvacation says

So how much has the temperature risen as the co2 has doubled?

I'm not going through this with you again. Your questions have been asked and answered a million times on here. You don't believe the measurements anyway, so what's the point in showing you the rise?

jazz_music says

Oh bullshit!

A target can be established with arbitrary accuracy.

Translation please?

jazz_music says

The discussion of significant figures

Is very significant when your measuring hundredths of one degree.

Onvacation says

Is very significant when your yalking of hundredths of one degree.

No--it's rightly analyzed statistically. Not with sig figures. We're trying to understand if there's a significant difference in the mean temperature in two populations of data.

jazz_music says

In fact, the scientists who prostitute themselves for oil companies

You don't have to work for an oil company to see that the earth is not warming and the sea level is not rising catastrophically.

LeonDurham says

No--it's rightly analyzed statistically. Not with sig figures. We're trying to understand if there's a significant difference in the mean temperature in two populations of data.

That comment makes no sense. A person unable to state either of two means would consequently be unable to state the difference (if any) between them. Analyzing statistically significant differences (if any) depends on the prerequisite predicate: measuring the values and calculating the means.

Otherwise you would be trying to istall the roof of a house before building the foundation and framing. You can shape the roof any way you like, but it won't stand up until you have the necessary support in place.

That sounds like a lot of the "debate" on this topic. Too many people start with the result that they want, and then fudge (or "model") whatever they need to support it. Many get so emotionally overwrought that they fail to suggest anything that might effectively enable managing the climate. Politicians and others cash in with proposals to transfer huge sums to their corrupt cronies, and ultimately themselves.

LeonDurham says

. You don't believe the measurements anyway, so what's the point in showing you the rise?

No. I don't believe that you can measure the worldwide average temperature at all, much less down to hundredths of one degree.
The "rise" is very little.

LeonDurham says

Your questions have been asked and answered a million times on here.

That's CAGW level hyperbole!

curious2 says

That comment makes no sense. A person unable to state either of two means would consequently be unable to state the difference (if any) between them. Analyzing statistically significant differences (if any) depends on the prerequisite predicate: measuring the values and calculating the means.

Come on now. This isn't that hard. Look up t-test or paired t-test.

Of course you need to calculate the means of the populations. Why would you think that I am saying otherwise?

Onvacation says

No. I don't believe that you can measure the worldwide average temperature at all, much less down to hundredths of one degree.
The "rise" is very little.

So why would you ask for someone to show you the measurements then? That is just being purposely difficult.

LeonDurham says

So why would you ask for someone to show you the measurements then?

Alarmists claim to have them?

Onvacation says

Alarmists claim to have them?

Is that a question?

LeonDurham says

Of course you need to calculate the means of the populations. Why would you think that I am saying otherwise?

Because you did. T-testing only compounds your error: you're skipping the calculation of the mean in order to apply GIGO analyses. You can stare at tea leaves as long as you like, but they remain tea leaves, and analysis does not confer more significance than they started with. I would actually agree the data can probably be measured to some degree of accuracy and precision, but marcus ignores those limits and stretches the data further, and that's before even starting on all the "adjustments" that go into the models.

LeonDurham says

That is just being purposely difficult.

Yes, you are, by asking me endless questions that you should see answered in your own comments while refusing to answer the only question that matters.

curious2 says

Because you did. T-testing only compounds your error: you're skipping the calculation of the mean in order to analyze in various GIGO processes. You can stare at tea leaves as long as you like, but they remain tea leaves, and analysis does not change them. I would actually agree the data can probably be measured to some degree of accuracy and precision, but you insist on skipping over those limits and tretching the data further, and that's before even starting on all the "adjustments."

No I didn't. I think you misread my reply. Which is fine. Let's agree that obviously one needs to calculate the mean of the population. The point is that sig figs are less important than sample size in that calculation.

curious2 says

Yes, you are, by asking me endless questions that you should see answered in your own comments while refusing to answer the only question that matters.

Wow--did you just pull a "I know you are, but what am I" there? Well done. Your question presumes facts not in evidence which is what I pointed out in my question to you.

jazz_music says

Agreed, you could just happen to be a stupid person!

If one has no counter argument one can always question the source or attack the person.
The fact that the temperature is NOT going up and the sea level is NOT rising catastrophically should be a clue to the alarmists that their models are wrong.

And anyone that thinks the worldwide average temperature could be accurately measured over a century ago is either willfully ignorant or brainwashed.

Onvacation says

jazz_music says

The discussion of significant figures

Is very significant when your measuring hundredths of one degree.

jazz_music says

That is exactly false

Can you say why sig figs are not significant?

LeonDurham says

Let's agree that obviously one needs to calculate the mean...

OK.

LeonDurham says

The point is that sig figs are less important than sample size in that calculation.

No, you are conflating two discrete calculations. You don't get to the roof of the house until after you have built the foundation. You don't get to standard deviations, margins of error, and statistical signficance, all of which depend on sample size, until you have the underlying data.

In addition to skipping the basic math involved in measuring and averaging, you ignore also the problem of lacking any realistic plan to manage the climate. It reminds me of a comment by Scott Adams:

Anyway, to me it seems brutally wrong to call skeptics on climate science “anti-science” when all they want is for science to make its case in a way that doesn’t look exactly like a financial scam.

AGW resembles a scam because it says basically that "the sky is falling and so you must pay hundreds of billion$" without actually proving the premise and without providing any realistic plan to solve the alleged problem. It's a series of scare tactics and emotional appeals to partisan identity ("Resist Trump" by opposing whatever he says, even if he says the sun is shining on a sunny day). That isn't math, and it isn't science, and it isn't engineering. It's a huge amount of money already, all these conferences and global travel (note endless CO2 output from global travel by AGW alarmists claiming everyone must reduce CO2 output). In that sense it's already doing something, i.e. transferring $ (which seems to be the point) and allowing some people to feel virtuous about paying $ or recycling their garbage, but it has neither a realistic prospect of significantly affecting the climate nor a realistic plan to do so. Democrats' hysteria about AGW resembles also the Republican claims about WMD in Iraq: fix what data exist around the policy you prefer, induce panic, and hope nobody notices the elisions and inadequate planning until after the check has cleared.

LeonDurham says

curious2 says

Yes, you are, by asking me endless questions that you should see answered in your own comments while refusing to answer the only question that matters.

Wow--did you just pull a "I know you are, but what am I" there? Well done. Your question presumes facts not in evidence which is what I pointed out in my question to you.

You persist in asking me silly questions while ignoring the question that matters. Your comments are thus trolling, so I am going to stop feeding you. Have a nice day.

curious2 says

No, you are conflating two discrete calculations. You don't get to the roof of the house until after you have built the foundation. You don't get to standard deviations, margins of error, and statistical signficance, all of which depend on sample size, until you have the underlying data.

Obviously. Why do you persist in pretending I don't understand this?

curious2 says

AGW resembles a scam because it says basically that "the sky is falling and so you must pay hundreds of billion$" without actually proving the premise and without providing any realistic plan to solve the alleged problem. It's a series of scare tactics and emotional appeals to partisan identity ("Resist Trump" by opposing whatever he says, even if he says the sun is shining on a sunny day). That isn't math, and it isn't science, and it isn't engineering. It's a huge amount of money already, all these conferences and global travel (note endless CO2 output from global travel by AGW alarmists claiming everyone must reduce CO2 output). In that sense it's already doing something, i.e. transferring $ (which seems to be the point) and allowing some people to feel virtuous about paying $ or recycling their garbage, but it has neither a realistic prospect of signif...

And thus, my question to you. You presume that it's a fact that limiting CO2 emissions would not impact the problem. I find that argument less than compelling, especially when you consider the results of a similar exercise in limiting Freon.

Your condescending attitude and insults are obviously hiding the truth that your argument is weak. If you had a stronger argument, you'd be willing to discuss it like an adult.


curious2 says

You persist in asking me silly questions while ignoring the question that matters. Your comments are thus trolling, so I am going to stop feeding you. Have a nice day.

lol--as expected. Run away little man.

LeonDurham says

The point is that sig figs are less important than sample size in that calculation.

No. The point is that worldwide average temperature was not measurable before satellites. And even with satellites the idea of measuring worldwide average temperature down to the 4/100ths of one degree that 2016 was measured to be hotter than 2015 is ridiculous, in my opinion.
Now that the temperature is going down the alarmists are scrambling to make excuses and save the narrative, "co2 bad".

Onvacation says

Now that the temperature is going down the alarmists are scrambling to make excuses and save the narrative, "co2 bad".

Nobody is making excuses because global warming scientists are smart enough to understand how trends work and what noise is.

Onvacation says

No. The point is that worldwide average temperature was not measurable before satellites. And even with satellites the idea of measuring worldwide average temperature down to the 4/100ths of one degree that 2016 was measured to be hotter than 2015 is ridiculous, in my opinion.

Fine--the trends still exist and can be measured in multiple ways. Ice, sea level, global temps, bird migration patterns, etc. They all say the same thing. Earth is getting hotter.

LeonDurham says

Your condescending attitude and insults are obviously hiding the truth that your argument is weak.

LeonDurham says

. Run away little man.

I've noticed again and again, whenever facts get in the way of their narrative, the alarmists go for the personal attack.

Onvacation says

I've noticed again and again, whenever facts get in the way of their narrative, the alarmists go for the personal attack.

Is curious an alarmist? I was just giving him back what he started.

LeonDurham says

Earth is getting hotter.

Not really.
2 degrees over a century does not a heatwave make. Propaganda can only trump truth for so long before the lies become blatantly obvious.

RafiMaas says

Really? I'm guessing you are not a scientist?

Not iwog.

Onvacation says

Not really.
2 degrees over a century does not a heatwave make. Propaganda can only trump truth for so long before the lies become blatantly obvious.

So, you do admit it's getting hotter then?

RafiMaas says

Tell me, in what other century did the earth's temperature change by 2 degrees?

The roman warming, the medieval warm period, the little ice age, the dust bowl the hockey stick (never happened). The climate has been much more variable than the alarmists data manipulations would lead you to BELIEVE!

jazz_music says

This is the amazing knowledge of one who had a beverage.

And the co2 fizzed out blanketing the earth with an impenetrable layer that blocked ALL of the heat from returning to the sun.

LeonDurham says

So, you do admit it's getting hotter then?

Every summer! At least most summers. If the solar scientists are right we may lose a couple of degrees the next few years.

Onvacation says

The roman warming, the medieval warm period, the little ice age, the dust bowl the hockey stick (never happened). The climate has been much more variable than the alarmists data manipulations would lead you to BELIEVE!

This is your problem. You try to argue everything so you end up arguing nothing.

According to you:
1. Temperature records are unreliable.
2. Temperatures aren't rising.
3. Man is not the cause of temperature rising.
4. Earth's temperature fluctuations are normal. It is self correcting.
5. CO2 isn't causing temperatures to rise.

LeonDurham says

1. Temperature records are unreliable.
2. Temperatures aren't rising.
3. Man is not the cause of temperature rising.
4. Earth's temperature fluctuations are normal. It is self correcting.
5. CO2 isn't causing temperatures to rise.

You got 4 and 5 correct.
What idiot ever said man does not effect his environment? It's the co2 thing that is fraudulent.

Onvacation says

What idiot ever said man does not effect his environment? It's the co2 thing that is fraudulent.

A guy named Onvocation I believe.

LeonDurham says

Onvocation

Onvacation

"Too much of science — especially climate science — is done with nods and winks when funding is handed out, because that funding is often tied to politically expedient conclusions. Science used to be defined as a systematic study of the physical and natural world. It was a search for truth, accomplished with observation and testing. Facts were king; and consensus meant nothing. We have to get back to that.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/28349-does-noaa-alter-temperature-data-to-fit-global-warming-agenda"

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

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