« First « Previous Comments 262 - 301 of 401 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
Earth's volume of unbound carbon isn't too difficult to look up. Neither is the approximate volume of free oxygen in the atmosphere
Except for the fact there is already an exponential increase in CO2 and Temperature and Ice loss.
CBOEtrader saysIt 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.
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)
No there is not. Last years temp was lower than the year before which was "the hottest year ever", by 0.04 degrees. By noaa's own data the temperature is NOT rising at all. It's falling.
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).
First, I don't believe the Earth has a "Steady State",
I could also assume that CO2 has a logarithmic effect
Meanwhile, snowing in Florida for the first time in 28 years.
You are complete missing the point but I expect that of a troll like yourself.
It's ridiculous to say that the average family has 2.4 children, because every family has an integer number of children
With abortions factored in, there is infinite fractional combinations of children possible.
A hotter earth will create a stronger jet stream which will move polar weather further south.
This has been explained to the denialists about a billion times yet for the next billion years they will continue to point to cold weather as some sort of disproof of global warming.
Way to add confusion to the conversation.
The earth is currently getting colder due to a cyclic solar minimum.
The earth is currently getting colder due to a cyclic solar minimum.
Silly denialists! There is no evidence, event, observation or experiment that would disprove Global Warming.
anon_1bd09 saysSilly denialists! There is no evidence, event, observation or experiment that would disprove Global Warming.
I understand your sarcastic point however cold weather extremes were predicted as a byproduct of global warming decades ago. A movie was even made about it. The fictional movie might have been silly but when scientists predict colder winters even in the middle of warming trends, you don't get to say record cold is a disproof of the theory. If anything it's a confirmation that scientists were right.
Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:
"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the description in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
What data shows earth is getting colder?
TwoScoopsPlissken saysFirst, I don't believe the Earth has a "Steady State",
The real question is 'How long would it take to achieve a new steady state if their was a sudden change to the CO2 level'?
Note that there were no self congratulatory smug posts from people who believe in AGW based on these heat events. It's ridiculous, just like your post about FL.
Wind on earth is driven by a heat engine. A hotter earth will create a stronger jet stream which will move polar weather further south.
This has been explained to the denialists about a billion times yet for the next billion years they will continue to point to cold weather as some sort of disproof of global warming.
Exactly what does the .8 degree variation in measurement mean. What does the range of accuracy mean ? Can you explain it to me broken down all the way so I can please understand what I'm missing.
Btw, is it not safe to assume that for measurements of temperature, say if you measured temperatures thousands of times, that the amount you are off from the true measure each time would form a normal distribution, with a mean of zero ?
you don't get to say record cold is a disproof of the theory. If anything it's a confirmation that scientists were right.
WTF kind of pathology makes people lie their asses off to prove their POV in a discussion with no tangible reward for being correct?
How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
In a discussion (not a journal article) Hansen said that the west side highway would be under water in 40 yrs if the CO2 level had doubled. Now, we are 30 yrs out, and the CO2 level has not come close to doubling. How do the lying deniers translate that prediction into 30 yrs with no clause about CO2 level?
He said there is no steady state.
don't BELIEVE in the MWP, the little ice age, natural variation in climate, and history?
To demonstrate that some simulations using their persistent red noise "bore a quite remarkable similarity to the actual MBH98 temperature reconstruction", McIntyre and McKitrick produced illustrations for comparison.[120] Figure 4.4 of the Wegman Report showed 12 of these pre-selected simulations. It called this "One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced", and said that the "MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications".[132] McIntyre and McKitrick's code selected 100 simulations with the highest "hockey stick index" from the 10,000 simulations they had carried out, and their illustrations were taken from this pre-selected 1%.[133]
I still don't understand how they can measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree.
WTF kind of pathology makes people lie their asses off to prove their POV in a discussion with no tangible reward for being correct?
Onvacation saysI still don't understand how they can measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree.
Nobody claims that the worldwide average temperature is known to the 1/100 of a degree.
« First « Previous Comments 262 - 301 of 401 Next » Last » Search these comments
How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?
What is the ideal temp for human habitation?
Still waiting for answers to these important questions.