patrick.net

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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?0#comment-1509438

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.

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.

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.

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?

marcus says

that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend)

What? And I am not talking about the typo.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Patrick--

My post isn't appearing. what's up?

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?