Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by excalibur26, Feb 9, 2020.

Tags:
  1. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What isn't accurate about it?

    With our current set-up of stations and etc., it is not possible to measure the temperature of the USA, Europe, or Greenland, let alone the entire Earth. Remember, a thermometer only reads the temperature of the precise location that it is at, and only at the precise time that the reading is taken. Remember that temperature can vary by as much as 20degF per mile and 49degF per two minutes.

    Raw data is required for any statistical analysis. You cannot use cooked data.

    Correct. Also, you don't have near enough thermometers to accomplish this, and they are not uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer, both requirements of Statistical Mathematics.

    Nope. You're violating Statistical Mathematics. At this point, you're just making **** up to match your predetermined conclusion.

    Then why are you so afraid of it?

    CO2 does not heat the planet. The sun does.

    CO2 does not heat Earth. Now you are violating currently standing laws of science, in this case the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot decrease entropy in any given system. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one (ie, heat Earth with CO2).

    It is not possible to measure "global sea levels". You have no valid reference point. Land also has a tide (a less pronounced tide, but a tide nonetheless). People are not moving. If they wish to, then I'll gladly buy up their ocean-side property for next to nothing. There is nothing to fear.

    Define "climate change". How does a climate "change", precisely?

    Weather happens. Whoopity doo.
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly right!
     
  3. UprightBiped

    UprightBiped Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2020
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43


    Watch 1:06:00 to end, and one can see where sounding an alarm has devolved into fascism and racism!

    Watch it all, and any skeptic worth their salt can easily see the subjugation of scientific research by theocratic religionists with their hands in the pockets of govt treasuries, and dictating govt policies!
     
    guavaball and dbldrew like this.
  4. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you understand how temperature data is adjusted to measure global temperature. For example, lets say that 300 readings are in north part of the globe, and 100 are in the south. Instead of just averaging them all together, we will assign weights to the calculation to give equal weight to the north and south. Or lets say, that some reading were done at 1:00 PM and others were done at 3:00 PM. If we know the average difference in temperature at each times, we can adjust those numbers to a daily average. With the help of more and more advanced computers and more data, we can more and more precisely adjust these numbers more accurately.

    If you believe that the adjustments scientist make to their data is inaccurate, name the study, name the researchers, name the data, name the exact miscalculation. Instead you just assume that since modern calculations are different than 1934, that means a vast scientific conspiracy, without actually reading any research. You think that sitting around on the internet looking at charts means that you can find fake data that climate experts who have been doing their jobs for decades have completely missed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  5. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What study are you referring to? Did these "second hand sources" explain the miscalculation that was made?
     
  6. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is no miscalculation. If the temperature reading procedure was not identical to what was going on today and you felt you needed to go back and change the data..

    Then first off you would have to change the data FOR EVERY YEAR rather then just 2 years.
    And Second YOU NEVER CHANGE RAW DATA anyway. thats fraudulent
     
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think you understand just how vast Earth is, nor how high temperature variances are. Assigning weights and "adjusting" for time differences still says absolutely nothing about all of the vast areas of Earth which are not being measured in any way, such as much of Antarctica for example. The stations are not uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer, which introduces location and time bias into the data, which remains present even if you assign weights to (and do "adjustments" to) the data. Statistical Mathematics is not being followed with regard to "the data", as raw data is required, selection by randN is required, normalization by paired randR is required, declaration and justification of a variance is required, and a margin of error calculation from said variance is required.

    For the below example, I will assume that somehow all of the land based thermometers we currently have are magickally uniformally spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer:

    The Earth has about 197 million sq miles of surface area. As far as I am aware, NASA makes use of about 7,500 land based thermometers (I'm willing to adjust this number to whatever you wish, so long as you can justify said number). 197,000,000 / 7,500 = 26,266.67 sq miles of surface area PER thermometer. Again, 26,266.67 sq miles of surface area is being covered PER thermometer. That's an area roughly the size of the entire State of West Virginia. So, the question becomes, what is the temperature of West Virginia? Here is a map with some station data. http://www.usairnet.com/weather/maps/current/west-virginia/temperature/

    Remember, this map is only measuring 14 (non-uniformally spaced) precise points with reading times for each location spanning from 11:53am to 12:15pm EST (non-simultaneously read). Those 14 precise points say absolutely NOTHING about the rest of the State that doesn't have any data showing for it. Also remember that temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF per mile and 49degF per two minutes. In short, even if we had uniformally located stations and simultaneously read data, the answer is still nothing more than a wild guess. Earth is quite expansive and temperature can vary by time and location quite drastically. Because of this, it would take hundreds of millions of land based thermometers to yield any sort of accurate results (+-10degF). And that's without even getting into Earth's sky/atmosphere. Put that into consideration and the number likely rises above a billion thermometers.

    I have already done so.

    I'm not assuming anything about any calculations during any time period. I'm strictly speaking about the axioms of mathematics. They applied in 1934 just as they still apply today.

    I don't look at charts, as they are typically flawed in one way or another. I look at the axioms of mathematics.
     
  8. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Excellent video.

    This is my favorite part of the flat earther argument for man made global warming

    Taken straight from one of their alarmist websites

    Veggies and animals 220 gigatones of CO2 per year

    Ocean 332 gigatones

    Humans 29 Gigatons.


    So, human produced CO2 is 5.25% of all CO2 on earth according to their own numbers and we are supposed to buy their religious belief that only that 5% is the primary cause for climate change.

    How much of a stark raving moron do you have to be to buy that lack of logic?
     
  9. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,211
    Likes Received:
    14,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]
    Anthropogenic climate change (Some call it "Chinese hoax!"), while clearly an eminent crisis with cataclysmic implications for the global economy, with its consequent floods, draughts, food shortages, mass migrations, and coastal inundations, is not all bad.

    If you are a hungry, randy locust in Sudan, or a stray flamingo in Antarctica, you will be giddy over the 'silver lining."

    Concerned humans, for whom the impending crisis is largely self-inflicted, are taking an "It's all about ME!" attitude.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  10. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  11. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually Houston has had three 500 year floods in three years.
    Wonder what the Vegas odds were on that one.
     
  12. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It could be a fluke of nature. We didn't have a 500-year flood last year or the year before, so that means global climate change has reversed right?

    Do you know what a 500-year flood is?
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So the rate at which the sea level rises is approximately an eighth of an inch a year. So that means it will take a century to rise a foot.

    That means Miami which is 6 1/2 feet above sea level, might be underwater in 600 years, since the tide is about 12" it may be 500 years. That's assuming it stays at the same rate and doesn't slow down or increase.

    So they might spend 76 billion dollars in half of a millennium. We should all be that frugal.
     
    dbldrew likes this.
  14. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  15. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes a 1 in 500 chance it will occur in any given year.

    But interesting. I'm not the only one curious about the odds.

    Theoretically, the odds of a 1-in-500 event occurring three straight times are one in 125 million. Because Houston is a big city and the same spots aren’t necessarily reaching 500-year levels each time, those odds don’t quite apply — but we’re still, as the Memorial City example shows, talking about events that FEMA estimates to be vanishingly unlikely.

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/28/16211392/100-500-year-flood-meaning
     
  16. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not just the rise in sea level that causes the problems.

    Nowhere in the United States is more vulnerable to climate-change induced sea level rise than Florida, where $76 billion would have to be spent in the next 20 years just to build seawalls to standards to protect against routine 2040 storm surges, a new report declares.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  17. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So there is no such a thing as a fluke?
     
  18. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They shouldn't need to build seawalls for a 2.5" rise in sea level. Explain how storm surge will be greater despite no information suggesting hurricanes are more powerful.
     
  19. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sheesh. You ask for links I give you links. Then you don't read them.
    125 million to 1 fluke. Yep..

    Actually to be fair Florida is also sinking. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  20. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a lie, I never asked you for a link.
    Maybe in five hundred years it'll be a problem.
     

Share This Page