Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Dec 24, 2019.

  1. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And just as many are not in agreement, which is why the margin of error is so much greater in proxies compared to direct instrument measurements.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, except for the available data @gfm7175 might have something.
     
    AFM likes this.
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course but we only have a blink of an eye in direct measurements which are relatively useless.
     
    AFM likes this.
  4. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. Anomalies are determined FROM measurements; they are not themselves a unit of measurement.

    ...and that "average" needs to result from a valid dataset, which doesn't exist with regard to measuring the temperature of the Earth. Also, a simple average is not statistical mathematics. This is much more involved than simply picking out "x" number of temperature measurements at whim, averaging them, and claiming the resulting average to be "the temperature of the Earth".

    Where? Show me...

    Anomalies are not "measured". They are determined AFTER the fact FROM measurements. Climate Lemmings seem to think that "satellites" and "anomalies" have magick powers. They do not.

    Appeal to Purity Fallacy.

    Show me this "valid dataset" of which you speak.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
    AFM likes this.
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We don't know what the absolute temperature of Earth is, then nor now. We CAN know that certain periods of time were warmer or colder than other periods, however.
     
  6. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, exactly what an anomaly measures!
    Thank you for admitting that an absolute temp is not necessary to measure TRENDS, only anomalies!!!!!.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
  7. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can’t make this ^^^^ up.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  8. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He says with foot firmly in his mouth!
    :roflol:
     
  9. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    So then you believe he has now taken some sort of pious vow of poverty? Or what?

    Could you elaborate?
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The "anomalies" you are talking about are simply made up numbers like the rest of them are, as there is no valid dataset (of the temperature of the Earth) to derive these "anomalies" from. You continue to deny mathematics.

    Argument By Repetition mixed with a hint of self-declared victory.
     
  11. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,971
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Goldman Sachs are the designers of the carbon credit swaps market. He seems pretty self interested in ensuring that his company's annuity is protected.
     
  12. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As you well know, since you know everything, the anomalies are derived from the individual data set from each individual temperature station or satellite where the measurements are taken. The composite of all those individual anomalies throughout the globe is what produces the average global temperature of the Earth, a very valid data set.
    You continue to deny scientific method.
     
  13. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,971
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why even try to defend this practice? The area not covered by observation collected temp data is vast, and is something like 95% of the total surface area of the planet that doesn't have one. So, instead of a 'scientific" collection, we get inference modeling that "predicts" the temps for those vast regions, and then "guesses" that those collections are accurate. It's smoke and mirrors from there, and then you and others invest in that sophistry....
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2020
    gfm7175 and AFM like this.
  14. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Satellites do NOT miss 95% of the planet, As you can see from the graph below, the satellite is covering from 70 degrees south latitude to 82.5 degrees north latitude. Please explain how that misses 95% of the planet, or admit you just made up that crapola.
    [​IMG]
     
  15. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,971
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you should investigate your graph, learn a little something about what a satellite actually collects for data points then get back to us before you start winging about....
     
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,971
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To put a fine point on it this is the current map of temp collection sites

    [​IMG]

    You will notice that there is a vast area where the dots themselves must identify a temp for and the vastness where there is simply no collection at all. In some cases, even in the densely collected US, those stations must individually account for the temps for areas of hundreds of square miles. The inference then is that there is certainty that air mass temps are uniform, which frankly isn't demonstrably the case.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  17. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no, he has not given away his wealth
    He simply has recognized that he has far more than an adequate wealth and therefore is devoting his life to causes that he feels are in the public interest.... like Bill Gates,mor John d rockefeller
     
  18. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So no you can't explain how satellites miss 90% of the globe and you are not honest enough to admit you simply made it up.
     
  19. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is NO such inference, except in YOUR imagination. In areas where there are few temperature stations the average of ALL the stations around the area is used. Again the deviation from that average is used to provide the anomalies and the anomalies will accurately show the TREND even though the exact temp is not known. Again that is why REAL scientists use anomalies to show TRENDS!!!!!
     
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,971
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, that was a leap, and just reinforces the original observation that I've made. But sure, make it my problem....:roflol:
     
  21. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,971
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So a station on the coast of Alaska produces a low temp of 30F and the next closest station one of -30. Given your explanation, the result for all of the area expressed by your method was 0F. The depth of your superficiality is there for the viewing...
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not know everything. I know some things, however.

    Individual temperature stations are not "Earth". They measure the temperature at a particular location at a particular time. That is NOT measuring the temperature of the Earth in any way/shape/form. A simple "averaging" of these individual stations is not good enough either, since doing so does NOT eliminate the location and time biases that are present in that data. You are hereby attempting to equate various random locations on Earth to Earth itself.

    Instead, stations MUST be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer. Then, a statistical analysis is required. That means that only raw data can be used (no cooked data). That means that data MUST be selected by randN and paired by randR. That means that a variance MUST be declared, and a margin of error calculation MUST be performed. "Climate scientists" are not doing these things. They are denying statistical mathematics, as you currently are.

    See above. You continue to deny statistical mathematics.
     
    AFM likes this.
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plus the locations and numbers of these measurement stations continually changes. So the “data sets” consist of fundamentally non consistent data points. And thanks to Climategate we know that the originally collected data in many cases is lost forever. It’s amazing how many alarmists actually believe that yearly temperature changes of 0.1 degree Centigrade can be resolved from this data mess.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ***DING DING DING***

    WE HAVE A WINNER! :)
     
    drluggit likes this.
  25. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct. They miss 100% of the planet. Magick satellites do not measure temperature; they measure light. Those readings cannot be converted since we do not know the emissivity of Earth. Magick satellites aren't the answer either. We simply cannot measure the temperature of the Earth within any usable accuracy. Any "data" about "Earth's temperature" is pure guesswork, mixed with some smoke, mirrors, and religious fundamentalism.

    Already explained. See above.

    This graph is pure guesswork, as already explained above and in prior comments. Anomalies are not a unit of measurement, as explained in prior comments. Additionally, you have yet to explain to me why 1980-2020 is the "holy" time frame (relating to the undefined buzzword known as "global warming") as opposed to any other time frame in Earth's extensive past.
     

Share This Page