No, I'm not doing them at all. If I was to 'put them all in the "believe in global warming column"', the number would be much higher.
If I were to do that, the number would be (3896 + 7930) / (3896 + 7930 + 78 + 40) = 99.01%.
The number here is 97%, which is 3896 / (3896 + 78 + 40) = 97.06%
Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
It's like writing a physics paper and taking the bold stance that you believe gravity exists. Accepted facts are accepted.
Gravity is almost universally accepted and much more easily tested. It's not really a fair thing to compare to man-made climate change.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
It's like writing a physics paper and taking the bold stance that you believe gravity exists. Accepted facts are accepted.
Gravity is almost universally accepted and much more easily tested. It's not really a fair thing to compare to man-made climate change.
I don't believe in gravity though...
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Altimaomega said: »
In particular, Denmark is on track with what will likely be the second warmest fall on record, and is on track for busting the record high yearly average temperature record.
Yup post more information that only goes back to 1997, because fail.
As for Denmark.. I cannot find a Record temp list any place. But i did find this. http://www.copenhagen.climatemps.com/
Come autumn/ fall temperatures decrease achieving average highs of 12.3°C (54.2°F) during the day and lows of 7°C (44.6°F) generally shortly after sunrise.
From the article I was given.
Quote:
Meteorology institute DMI predicted last week that October 2014 would end with an average temperature right around 12C, putting it among the top three Octobers since weather recordings began in 1874.
Please feel free to post a little better Proof than avg. temperatures almost being broken.. kthxbye.
If you assume a duty cycle of 50% (half time at upper average, half time at lower average), an average high of 12C and low of 7C would give you an average temperature of 9.5C. That's 2.5C lower than an average temperature of 12C.
Now, assuming a duty cycle of 50% is quite often wrong when dealing with temperatures, since in most places very little relative time is generally spent at the maximum and minimum values. But that should clarify what the difference between average temperature, average maximum temperature, average minimum temperature.
Also, from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/:
Quote:
Global temperature highlights: January–October
Land and Ocean Combined: January-October was the warmest such period on record, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 57.4°F (14.1°C), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 and 2010 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). 2014 is currently on track to be the warmest year on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.20°F (0.11°C).
Land Only: The January-October worldwide land surface temperature was 1.75°F (0.97°C) above the 20th century average, tying with 1998 and 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.40°F (0.22°C).
Ocean Only: The global ocean surface temperature for the year to date was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above average, the highest on record for this period, beating the previous of 1998 by 0.05°F (0.03°C). The margin of error is +/-0.07°F (0.04°C).
Land and Ocean Combined: January-October was the warmest such period on record, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 57.4°F (14.1°C), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 and 2010 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). 2014 is currently on track to be the warmest year on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.20°F (0.11°C).
Land Only: The January-October worldwide land surface temperature was 1.75°F (0.97°C) above the 20th century average, tying with 1998 and 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.40°F (0.22°C).
Ocean Only: The global ocean surface temperature for the year to date was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above average, the highest on record for this period, beating the previous of 1998 by 0.05°F (0.03°C). The margin of error is +/-0.07°F (0.04°C).
So the straightforward answer to this:
Altimaomega said: »
Post one of those locations please.
Earth.
Please explain to me why the place I have resided for the past 31 yrs and my parents and grandparents so on and so forth. Has been remarkable mild for the past 2yrs and its looking to be a very long and cold winter. Your temporarily displaced theory is crap. If we are pumping so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and that is what causes "global warming" Its remarkable that you can just push 2+ years of weather aside and say its warming EVERYWHERE.
Good morning AO. I have this post for you to take a look at.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Unfortunately, I've already read what was written.
Please note that I'm not intentionally looking for pro-ACA websites. I hope you don't consider the National Climatic Data Center a propagandist website.
If you want to look at climate, you look at it over the timespan of multiple decades and over a large amount of area. One particular year or one particular area really doesn't matter in the long run.
Take a look at this graph
This data branches back to 1880. The line at the bottom is what's important. In the last 134 years, the 11 warmest years happened within the last 16 years. That should be eye raising to most people. And if that doesn't, throw out 1998. In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
Doesn't this show that the average temperature is rising?
Please note that I'm not intentionally looking for pro-ACA websites. I hope you don't consider the National Climatic Data Center a propagandist website.
If you want to look at climate, you look at it over the timespan of multiple decades and over a large amount of area. One particular year or one particular area really doesn't matter in the long run.
Take a look at this graph
This data branches back to 1880. The line at the bottom is what's important. In the last 134 years, the 11 warmest years happened within the last 16 years. That should be eye raising to most people. And if that doesn't, throw out 1998. In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
Doesn't this show that the average temperature is rising?
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
No, I'm not doing them at all. If I was to 'put them all in the "believe in global warming column"', the number would be much higher.
If I were to do that, the number would be (3896 + 7930) / (3896 + 7930 + 78 + 40) = 99.01%.
The number here is 97%, which is 3896 / (3896 + 78 + 40) = 97.06%
If I were to do that, the number would be (3896 + 7930) / (3896 + 7930 + 78 + 40) = 99.01%.
The number here is 97%, which is 3896 / (3896 + 78 + 40) = 97.06%
Yes I am sure they saw evidence of global and just decided to leave that out. Just stop. For someone that likes to speak of scientists so highly, you just basically called a huge majority of them ignorant or dumb.
[+]
That isn't a pie chart argument invalid.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
It's like writing a physics paper and taking the bold stance that you believe gravity exists. Accepted facts are accepted.
Gravity is almost universally accepted and much more easily tested. It's not really a fair thing to compare to man-made climate change.
I'm sick of the 97% statistic myself since it's just 2 stats from 1 paper, but whether or not a consensus exists within the climate science community isn't even debatable.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Good morning AO. I have this post for you to take a look at.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Unfortunately, I've already read what was written.
Please note that I'm not intentionally looking for pro-ACA websites. I hope you don't consider the National Climatic Data Center a propagandist website.
If you want to look at climate, you look at it over the timespan of multiple decades and over a large amount of area. One particular year or one particular area really doesn't matter in the long run.
Take a look at this graph
This data branches back to 1880. The line at the bottom is what's important. In the last 134 years, the 11 warmest years happened within the last 16 years. That should be eye raising to most people. And if that doesn't, throw out 1998. In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
Doesn't this show that the average temperature is rising?
Please note that I'm not intentionally looking for pro-ACA websites. I hope you don't consider the National Climatic Data Center a propagandist website.
If you want to look at climate, you look at it over the timespan of multiple decades and over a large amount of area. One particular year or one particular area really doesn't matter in the long run.
Take a look at this graph
This data branches back to 1880. The line at the bottom is what's important. In the last 134 years, the 11 warmest years happened within the last 16 years. That should be eye raising to most people. And if that doesn't, throw out 1998. In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
Doesn't this show that the average temperature is rising?
How were they collecting data in 1880? Would you say our equipment is more or less precise now? Would you say we are taking literally thousands of times more measurements to gain a favorable result? How do they decide the temperature for a particular day or a particular month? Are they just counting the highest temperature of a particular day? Like if it peaks at 95 degrees for 20 minutes on a summer afternoon, is that day then called at 95 degrees? Did they monitor it that closely in 1900, did their technology?
I don't know. Don't you have any questions about this?
[+]
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
Yes I am sure they saw evidence of global and just decided to leave that out. Just stop. For someone that likes to speak of scientists so highly, you just basically called a huge majority of them ignorant or dumb.
So what exactly is your position? You and other conservatives seem attached to the 7930 papers. I'm guessing it's because you view it as an unknown, or, "if all those unknowns were on my side, I could still be right". The problem with that line of thought is that they're not unknowns. They're clearly and unambiguously identified.
You do understand that those are papers, not scientist, right? Not all papers discuss the cause of global warming. Many of them discuss the effects of global warming, which is undoubtedly more important within the scientific community itself.
[+]
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Good morning AO. I have this post for you to take a look at.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Unfortunately, I've already read what was written.
Please note that I'm not intentionally looking for pro-ACA websites. I hope you don't consider the National Climatic Data Center a propagandist website.
If you want to look at climate, you look at it over the timespan of multiple decades and over a large amount of area. One particular year or one particular area really doesn't matter in the long run.
Take a look at this graph
This data branches back to 1880. The line at the bottom is what's important. In the last 134 years, the 11 warmest years happened within the last 16 years. That should be eye raising to most people. And if that doesn't, throw out 1998. In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
Doesn't this show that the average temperature is rising?
Please note that I'm not intentionally looking for pro-ACA websites. I hope you don't consider the National Climatic Data Center a propagandist website.
If you want to look at climate, you look at it over the timespan of multiple decades and over a large amount of area. One particular year or one particular area really doesn't matter in the long run.
Take a look at this graph
This data branches back to 1880. The line at the bottom is what's important. In the last 134 years, the 11 warmest years happened within the last 16 years. That should be eye raising to most people. And if that doesn't, throw out 1998. In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
Doesn't this show that the average temperature is rising?
How were they collecting data in 1880? Would you say our equipment is more or less precise now? Would you say we are taking literally thousands of times more measurements to gain a favorable result? How do they decide the temperature for a particular day or a particular month? Are they just counting the highest temperature of a particular day? Like if it peaks at 95 degrees for 20 minutes on a summer afternoon, is that day then called at 95 degrees? Did they monitor it that closely in 1900, did their technology?
I don't know. Don't you have any questions about this?
But Charts never lie dude!
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
Yes I am sure they saw evidence of global and just decided to leave that out. Just stop. For someone that likes to speak of scientists so highly, you just basically called a huge majority of them ignorant or dumb.
So what exactly is your position? You and other conservatives seem attached to the 7930 papers. I'm guessing it's because you view it as an unknown, or, "if all those unknowns were on my side, I could still be right". The problem with that line of thought is that they're not unknowns. They're clearly and unambiguously identified.
You do understand that those are papers, not scientist, right? Not all papers discuss the cause of global warming. Many of them discuss the effects of global warming, which is undoubtedly more important within the scientific community itself.
Huh? You seem to have put forth the idea that they was all about Global warming, and now somehow "some" are not?
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
I don't know. Don't you have any questions about this?
The problem is that your questions are coming from a partisan perspective.
Other than going against your political beliefs, do you have any other reasons to cast doubt on this data? Is there a reason why the National Climatic Data Center would put out false information?
Questions are healthy of course, but just simply having questions doesn't invalidate data. Data is invalidated when you find falsities or contradictions. If you are legitimately curious, you could always email them and ask.
Altimaomega said: »
Huh? You seem to have put forth the idea that they was all about Global warming, and now somehow "some" are not?
I clearly was not multiple times. I listed the number of papers that were for, against, uncertain and neutral on the position.
Quote:
The study reviews about 12,000 papers. 3896 endorses ACP(32%), 7930 didn't have a position, 78 rejected ACP and 40 were uncertain.
Also, let me quote this part again since you may have missed it the first time.
Quote:
In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
That doesn't really signal to you that something is going on?
Global warming is the leading cause of death for white males.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
I don't know. Don't you have any questions about this?
The problem is that your questions are coming from a partisan perspective.
Other than going against your political beliefs, do you have any other reasons to cast doubt on this data? Is there a reason why the National Climatic Data Center would put out false information?
Questions are healthy of course, but just simply having questions doesn't invalidate data. Data is invalidated when you find falsities or contradictions. If you are legitimately curious, you could always email them and ask.
He did and you just blew them off because it is against your partisan perspective.
Global warming killed my great grandfather I will avenge his death !
Altimaomega said: »
He did and you just blew them off because it is against your partisan perspective.
Could you point out where? Literally every sentence in that post was a question.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Huh? You seem to have put forth the idea that they was all about Global warming, and now somehow "some" are not?
I clearly was not multiple times. I listed the number of papers that were for, against, uncertain and neutral on the position.
Quote:
The study reviews about 12,000 papers. 3896 endorses ACP(32%), 7930 didn't have a position, 78 rejected ACP and 40 were uncertain.
Also, let me quote this part again since you may have missed it the first time.
Quote:
In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
That doesn't really signal to you that something is going on?
How did these numbers come about? Where is the information gathering from?
Altimaomega said: »
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Huh? You seem to have put forth the idea that they was all about Global warming, and now somehow "some" are not?
I clearly was not multiple times. I listed the number of papers that were for, against, uncertain and neutral on the position.
Quote:
The study reviews about 12,000 papers. 3896 endorses ACP(32%), 7930 didn't have a position, 78 rejected ACP and 40 were uncertain.
Also, let me quote this part again since you may have missed it the first time.
Quote:
In the last 134 years, the 10 warmest years happened in the last 12 years.
That doesn't really signal to you that something is going on?
How did these numbers come about? Where is the information gathering from?
Random number generator.
Altimaomega said: »
How did these numbers come about? Where is the information gathering from?
Again, having questions is healthy, but it doesn't invalidate data.
Think about your approach. You've allowed yourself to literally ignore everything said to you because there will always be more and more questions to ask. Is there really any reason to discuss anything with you if your only response is to ignore it through the guise of 'questioning' it?
Once again, for the zillionth time, questions are good and healthy. They are not, however, used to invalidate data. Data is invalidated when you find falsities or contradicting data.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
Yes I am sure they saw evidence of global and just decided to leave that out. Just stop. For someone that likes to speak of scientists so highly, you just basically called a huge majority of them ignorant or dumb.
So what exactly is your position? You and other conservatives seem attached to the 7930 papers. I'm guessing it's because you view it as an unknown, or, "if all those unknowns were on my side, I could still be right". The problem with that line of thought is that they're not unknowns. They're clearly and unambiguously identified.
You do understand that those are papers, not scientist, right? Not all papers discuss the cause of global warming. Many of them discuss the effects of global warming, which is undoubtedly more important within the scientific community itself.
Some of us conservatives don't care what the cause is, we just find the propaganda to be highly annoying and consider the field of study a vast money pit with little to show for all the effort.
[+]
If I could care about one thing this year it wouldn't be global warming.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Altimaomega said: »
How did these numbers come about? Where is the information gathering from?
Again, having questions is healthy, but it doesn't invalidate data.
Think about your approach. You've allowed yourself to literally ignore everything said to you because there will always be more and more questions to ask. Is there really any reason to discuss anything with you if your only response is to ignore it through the guise of 'questioning' it?
Once again, for the zillionth time, questions are good and healthy. They are not, however, used to invalidate data. Data is invalidated when you find falsities or contradicting data.
Think about your approach for a minute. All you've done is try and push your agenda with nothing to back it up except charts that are more than likely flawed and inaccurate.
Perhaps if you answer some of those healthy questions I'd be more apt to try and see your side.
Quote:
How were they collecting data in 1880? Would you say our equipment is more or less precise now? Would you say we are taking literally thousands of times more measurements to gain a favorable result? How do they decide the temperature for a particular day or a particular month? Are they just counting the highest temperature of a particular day? Like if it peaks at 95 degrees for 20 minutes on a summer afternoon, is that day then called at 95 degrees? Did they monitor it that closely in 1900, did their technology?
All valid questions. More than likely they would make your chart worthless when answered.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Some of us conservatives don't care what the cause is, we just find the propaganda to be highly annoying and consider the field of study a vast money pit with little to show for all the effort.
It's fine if you don't care what the cause it. There are plenty of things I don't care about and I imagine it's the same for most people around the world.
The conflict comes from caring what the cause isn't, since that drives legislation.
At the very least, we can agree that we should begin to restrict putting money into studying the cause of global warming. The vast majority of politicians who insist on continuing to study the cause of global warming are republicans who believe there isn't a scientific consensus. Obama and the most of the democrats are quite confident that a scientific consensus has been reached, so there is no reason to further studying the cause.
Altimaomega said: »
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Altimaomega said: »
How did these numbers come about? Where is the information gathering from?
Again, having questions is healthy, but it doesn't invalidate data.
Think about your approach. You've allowed yourself to literally ignore everything said to you because there will always be more and more questions to ask. Is there really any reason to discuss anything with you if your only response is to ignore it through the guise of 'questioning' it?
Once again, for the zillionth time, questions are good and healthy. They are not, however, used to invalidate data. Data is invalidated when you find falsities or contradicting data.
Think about your approach for a minute. All you've done is try and push your agenda with nothing to back it up except charts that are more than likely flawed and inaccurate.
Perhaps if you answer some of those healthy questions I'd be more apt to try and see your side.
Quote:
How were they collecting data in 1880? Would you say our equipment is more or less precise now? Would you say we are taking literally thousands of times more measurements to gain a favorable result? How do they decide the temperature for a particular day or a particular month? Are they just counting the highest temperature of a particular day? Like if it peaks at 95 degrees for 20 minutes on a summer afternoon, is that day then called at 95 degrees? Did they monitor it that closely in 1900, did their technology?
All valid questions. More than likely they would make your chart worthless when answered.
So in your mind, simply having questions is enough to invalidate data? Even if I was able to answer all those questions, can you see yourself asking further questions endlessly?
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Some of us conservatives don't care what the cause is, we just find the propaganda to be highly annoying and consider the field of study a vast money pit with little to show for all the effort.
It's fine if you don't care what the cause it. There are plenty of things I don't care about and I imagine it's the same for most people around the world.
The conflict comes from caring what the cause isn't, since that drives legislation.
At the very least, we can agree that we should begin to restrict putting money into studying the cause of global warming. The vast majority of politicians who insist on continuing to study the cause of global warming are republicans who believe there isn't a scientific consensus. Obama and the most of the democrats are quite confident that a scientific consensus has been reached, so there is no reason to further studying the cause.
Oh well, as long as Obama and most the democrats believe there is a scientific consensus by all means do w/e needs to be done.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Altimaomega said: »
How did these numbers come about? Where is the information gathering from?
Again, having questions is healthy, but it doesn't invalidate data.
Think about your approach. You've allowed yourself to literally ignore everything said to you because there will always be more and more questions to ask. Is there really any reason to discuss anything with you if your only response is to ignore it through the guise of 'questioning' it?
Once again, for the zillionth time, questions are good and healthy. They are not, however, used to invalidate data. Data is invalidated when you find falsities or contradicting data.
Think about your approach for a minute. All you've done is try and push your agenda with nothing to back it up except charts that are more than likely flawed and inaccurate.
Perhaps if you answer some of those healthy questions I'd be more apt to try and see your side.
Quote:
How were they collecting data in 1880? Would you say our equipment is more or less precise now? Would you say we are taking literally thousands of times more measurements to gain a favorable result? How do they decide the temperature for a particular day or a particular month? Are they just counting the highest temperature of a particular day? Like if it peaks at 95 degrees for 20 minutes on a summer afternoon, is that day then called at 95 degrees? Did they monitor it that closely in 1900, did their technology?
All valid questions. More than likely they would make your chart worthless when answered.
So in your mind, simply having questions is enough to invalidate data? Even if I was able to answer all those questions, can you see yourself asking further questions endlessly?
Nope answer those questions and if they don't make your chart completely worthless, I will Believe in global warming.
Having questions blatantly ignored is enough to make me believe global warming is a scam.
Altimaomega said: »
Oh well, as long as Obama and most the democrats believe there is a scientific consensus by all means do w/e needs to be done.
That would be nice, but that's not the immediate issue. The issue is the amount of money poured into studying the cause of global warming. On that front, Rav and I can agree that we should cut back money on studying it.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Oh well, as long as Obama and most the democrats believe there is a scientific consensus by all means do w/e needs to be done.
That would be nice, but that's not the immediate issue. The issue is the amount of money poured into studying the cause of global warming. On that front, Rav and I can agree that we should cut back money on studying it.
Its what happens after that. Rules and regulations to combat something that has not been proved.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.