|
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
 Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 20:32:48
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.
The problem is that it's not my chart. It's a chart put together and managed by the National Climatic Data Center. If you were serious about reconsidering your position on global warming, questions on methodology should go to them.
I can link you to their website if you truly want to know, and not just faking it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 20:35:24
Its what happens after that. Rules and regulations to combat something that has not been proved.
Scientific consensus is enough in this day and age. You can't 'prove' global warming because we only have one Earth.
Once again
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.
By Altimaomega 2014-11-20 20:43:26
Its what happens after that. Rules and regulations to combat something that has not been proved.
Scientific consensus is enough in this day and age. You can't 'prove' global warming because we only have one Earth.
Once again
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.
I was there the first time this came around, it was crap then to.
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.
The problem is that it's not my chart. It's a chart put together and managed by the National Climatic Data Center. If you were serious about reconsidering your position on global warming, questions on methodology should go to them.
I can link you to their website if you truly want to know, and not just faking it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Why exactly would I want more information from a group of people that make a chart that is obviously flawed?
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2014-11-20 20:43:54
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.
Well I know I am not going to convince you otherwise and I doubt anything will. Can you answer this though, would you agree that global warming has become a political issue? Would you agree that a multibillion dollar industry depends on a belief in global warming? Do you agree that some if these companies like GE fir example, own major media outlets? Would you agree that spouting a belief in global warming is s popular thing to do?
It is irresponsible to not view everything with a degree of skepticism.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 20:49:13
Its what happens after that. Rules and regulations to combat something that has not been proved.
Scientific consensus is enough in this day and age. You can't 'prove' global warming because we only have one Earth.
Once again
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.
I was there the first time this came around, it was crap then to.
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.
The problem is that it's not my chart. It's a chart put together and managed by the National Climatic Data Center. If you were serious about reconsidering your position on global warming, questions on methodology should go to them.
I can link you to their website if you truly want to know, and not just faking it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Why exactly would I want more information from a group of people that make a chart that is obviously flawed?
The problem is that you haven't given any reasons as to why you believe this data is flawed. All you've done is ask questions, and, as I've said before, questions don't invalidate data. Falsities and contradictions invalidate data.
Just to be sure, let me cross reference it with another source
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
Other than questions on methodology that I'm clearly not qualified to answer, do you have an assertive reasons why both these groups are putting out false information?
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 20:55:09
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Well I know I am not going to convince you otherwise and I doubt anything will. Can you answer this though, would you agree that global warming has become a political issue? Would you agree that a multibillion dollar industry depends on a belief in global warming? Do you agree that some if these companies like GE fir example, own major media outlets? Would you agree that spouting a belief in global warming is s popular thing to do?
It is irresponsible to not view everything with a degree of skepticism.
We can all agree that the issue of global warming has been a massively political issue.
And yes, I am aware of the huge clean energy industry that profits from the belief of global warming. I am also aware of the much bigger, richer, more powerful oil and coal industry that benefits from people not believing in global warming. They are easily one of the most profitable industries in the entire world and most influential powers in government, and they dwarf the clean energy companies that you're referring to.
You're correct when you say we should view everything with a degree of skepticism, but what AO and yourself are exhibiting in this thread is not just a 'degree' of skepticism. It's all out rejection based on literally nothing but questions.
Like a broken record: questions don't invalidate data. Falsities and contradictions do.
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2014-11-20 20:59:42
It's all just a symptom of those little boxes in our homes, our computers, our TVs, making us terrified to leave our homes. Gluing our butts to our chairs, plugging in and spending our money.
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 21:09:07
It really depends on the company that you keep. I'm not going to name names, but a short time ago, certain politicians were trying to convince people that ISIS were crossing in through Mexico with the ebola virus. If you surround yourself with stuff like that all day, and believe it, I'd have a pretty terrifying outlook on life as well.
I always found modern technology to be empowering
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-11-20 21:09:09
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »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? Historical or proxy records.
More precise and the relatively low precision in old equipment is quantified through error estimates. Still, the degree of precision needed in a temperature measurement is not that high.
Don't understand the basis of this question.
Daily average.
Daily maximums are used as well but not together with average temps.
95 degrees would be a maximum high measurement for that day, that's it, but high maximums affect the average and consistently high maximums affect climate trends.
Climate/weather has always been monitored closely in some way because of it's a critical part of modern society.
Their technology was fine for the precision required.
By Altimaomega 2014-11-20 21:10:34
Its what happens after that. Rules and regulations to combat something that has not been proved.
Scientific consensus is enough in this day and age. You can't 'prove' global warming because we only have one Earth.
Once again
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.
I was there the first time this came around, it was crap then to.
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.
The problem is that it's not my chart. It's a chart put together and managed by the National Climatic Data Center. If you were serious about reconsidering your position on global warming, questions on methodology should go to them.
I can link you to their website if you truly want to know, and not just faking it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Why exactly would I want more information from a group of people that make a chart that is obviously flawed?
The problem is that you haven't given any reasons as to why you believe this data is flawed. All you've done is ask questions, and, as I've said before, questions don't invalidate data. Falsities and contradictions invalidate data.
Just to be sure, let me cross reference it with another source
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
Other than questions on methodology that I'm clearly not qualified to answer, do you have an assertive reasons why both these groups are putting out false information?
In your 2nd chart what do the Gray lines emanating from the blue mean?
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-11-20 21:12:01
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-20 21:14:58
In your 2nd chart what do the Gray lines emanating from the blue mean?
Looks like a margin of error, but I'm not certain.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 21:15:15
In your 2nd chart what do the Gray lines emanating from the blue mean?
I'm not entirely sure since the first chart is the one I wanted you to look at. The first chart contains relevant(global) data in a similar time period compared to the National Climatic Data Center's data.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-11-20 21:16:42
In your 2nd chart what do the Gray lines emanating from the blue mean? 95% confidence interval. Think of it as a measure of the relative uncertainty in the measurement. Information on the graph is in the link Ihina provided.
[+]
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2014-11-20 21:18:38
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »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? Historical or proxy records.
More precise and the relatively low precision in old equipment is quantified through error estimates. Still, the degree of precision needed in a temperature measurement is not that high.
Don't understand the basis of this question.
Daily average.
Daily maximums are used as well but not together with average temps.
95 degrees would be a maximum high measurement for that day, that's it, but high maximums affect the average and consistently high maximums affect climate trends.
Climate/weather has always been monitored closely in some way because of it's a critical part of modern society.
Their technology was fine for the precision required.
Do you really believe that they closely monitored temperatures to anywhere near the "degree" we do now, worldwide, a hundred years ago? Sixty years ago? Look at those heat maps, i guarantee they have no actual, relevant or accurate data for 90% of that map from only decades ago.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-20 21:20:22
In your 2nd chart what do the Gray lines emanating from the blue mean? 95% confidence interval. Think of it as a measure of the relative uncertainty in the measurement. Information on the graph is in the link Ihina provided.
Yeah, that's the term. I really shouldn't post after working a bunch of overtime, the brain brain starts to no work work.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-11-20 21:24:44
We have the ability now to measure temperature to many significant digits, but a measurement with 0.0000001 accuracy isn't neccessary with regard to climate studies. 1, maybe 2, decimal places, which is something that an old fashioned thermometer can do just fine. Weather satellites have been in orbit for a while and can basically cover the world - something that old-fashioned methods and proxy records have trouble with. Hence the relatively large error estimates in the last posted graph.
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 21:25:25
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Do you really believe that they closely monitored temperatures to anywhere near the "degree" we do now, worldwide, a hundred years ago? Sixty years ago? Look at those heat maps, i guarantee they have no actual, relevant or accurate data for 90% of that map from only decades ago.
Yes? They created nuclear weapons 60+ years ago, it's not a huge stretch to accept that they can measure temperature to the tenth degree.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-20 21:37:34
It's also not a huge stretch to think that after billions (trillions?) of dollars of research, we would've been able to come up with something better than a 160+ year-old invention, the gas-powered internal combustion engine, yet here we are. But it's cool, we can keep funneling cash into green energy projects that won't make a dent but have the best lobbyists, and we'll be here in twenty years still fighting over whether or not global warming is a thing.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 21:39:31
Trillions of dollars in research? What?
[+]
By Altimaomega 2014-11-20 21:41:50
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Do you really believe that they closely monitored temperatures to anywhere near the "degree" we do now, worldwide, a hundred years ago? Sixty years ago? Look at those heat maps, i guarantee they have no actual, relevant or accurate data for 90% of that map from only decades ago.
Yes? They created nuclear weapons 60+ years ago, it's not a huge stretch to accept that they can measure temperature to the tenth degree.
But didn't put weather satellites in orbit til much later. Don't you find it interesting that the earth started to warm when we started taking global measurements with satellites? Just look at the margin of error on your chart its obviously not unreasonable enough to note that the temp could have been higher back then if they even mark in on the chart.
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 282
By Odin.Skjalf 2014-11-20 21:42:41
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Do you really believe that they closely monitored temperatures to anywhere near the "degree" we do now, worldwide, a hundred years ago? Sixty years ago? Look at those heat maps, i guarantee they have no actual, relevant or accurate data for 90% of that map from only decades ago.
Yes? They created nuclear weapons 60+ years ago, it's not a huge stretch to accept that they can measure temperature to the tenth degree.
Nuclear (Atomic) warfare is 1000s of years old. Also:
YouTube Video Placeholder
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-20 21:42:53
Trillions of dollars in research? What?
Dang it, I said I was tired! Billions was still valid.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-11-20 21:50:51
But didn't put weather satellites in orbit til much later. Don't you find it interesting that the earth started to warm when we started taking global measurements with satellites? Just look at the margin of error on your chart its obviously not unreasonable enough to note that the temp could have been higher back then if they even mark in on the chart. The first weather satellite was sent into orbit in 1960. I don't see the correlation. Even given the large range of the confidence interval, we're still warmer now than at any point on that graph. (which is just northern hemisphere temps btw)
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 21:52:53
But didn't put weather satellites in orbit til much later. Don't you find it interesting that the earth started to warm when we started taking global measurements with satellites? Just look at the margin of error on your chart its obviously not unreasonable enough to note that the temp could have been higher back then if they even mark in on the chart.
Since you're still in this, do you mind responding to my questions on your position? You should be able to easily answer it because they are your positions, after all.
Quote: Other than questions on methodology that I'm clearly not qualified to answer, do you have an assertive reasons why both these groups are putting out false information?
If you couldn't tell, I am really trying hard to have a reasonable, intelligent conversation with you, and I believe the left and the right can talk to each other as long as Jet isn't involved.
Also, the second chart is not part of the discussion, since it only covers part of the global and goes back well before the 19th century. It uses an entirely different methodology than the first chart.
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 21:56:48
Dang it, I said I was tired! Billions was still valid.
A few billion across decades really isn't that much. We've spent well over a trillion just on the wars in the middle east in the last decade.
And the fruits of all that research have come a longer way than you think. Even Amandarius agrees that clean energy have become a multi-billion dollar industry.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-20 22:23:22
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »This thread is a great idea, I hope to come back to some decent discussions.
Don't get your hopes up too much. It can be a good time, though. Join the fun!
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-11-20 22:28:22
Yes, let's. While admittedly, the clean energy industry still has a ways to go, do you not think we've made significant progress through all that research money? Do you think the multi-billion dollar industry is supported entirely by government tax dollars and they're not producing anything of real value? I just want to be clear on your stance.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-11-20 22:34:00
It's also not a huge stretch to think that after billions (trillions?) of dollars of research, we would've been able to come up with something better than a 160+ year-old invention, the gas-powered internal combustion engine, yet here we are. But it's cool, we can keep funneling cash into green energy projects that won't make a dent but have the best lobbyists, and we'll be here in twenty years still fighting over whether or not global warming is a thing. Well, you have to keep in mind that government funding incorporates a lot of different endeavors. I'm sure funds go to projects looking to build a better battery or making engines more efficient, but they also go to non-profitable research. So, things like climate monitoring, impact assessments, and preparedness plans - stuff that the government typically pays for since private funding sees no money in it. It's not flashy or revolutionary, but it's research that is vital to the bigger picture and befitting of the general role of government.
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|
