CDZ The American Republican Denial of Climate change.

[Wyatt earp]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

That ship has sailed over 40 years ago, their is no way you can have an honest discussion about climate change with out economics and politics..

There was always an ulterior motive at least since Greenpeace was taken over.

Hell Naomi Klein and a few others admit it out load nowadays

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Did you notice the gray "error bars": in your graph? The uncertainty of the measurements in the 18th/19th century are about as large as the "data".. How good do you think GLOBAL temperature coverage WAS in 1785?

Of course I did. But the statistical likelihood remains. And the berkley study used a weighted average of something like 1.4 billion data points. Also most of these analysis are done on a P-1 standard deviation, which in this case as I recall was set at 95%+ Could have been 98% I don't remember.

Which means that the likelihood of error diminishes substantially as we move away from the mean. Fully 2/3 of that grey area is outside of a liklihood of deviation greater than 5% and likely less, I'd have to go look it up.

In the other 1/3 resides a 95% confidence that also increases proportionally as we approach the mean.

Your argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny once we understand just what that grey area actually represents.

Given the resolution of the graph presented, the statistical significance of the grey area is negligible at best.

You don't understand what those gray areas are.. Do ya? The confidence level is CRAP for anything before 1940s,

Spoiler: What historical record says that the Earth has NEVER seen a 1degC event like this before?

There is none that has the time resolution OR the accuracy to do that on a GLOBAL scale

Why don't you go back and read my INITIAL post about WHY I'm a technologist/scientist/engineer who is skeptical about Global Warming and we discuss the science?

Unless of course you want the point of this thread to be political and about calling out deniers. In which case -- I would have ZERO interest in the discussion. And neither of us would learn anything new about "climate change":. I won't hang around if you don't respond.

 

[Boston1]

Not sure whats up but the site seems to be having difficulties.

I'll try again later

I'm trying to clean up MY mess from last night. Seems like nobody could get on. And I was using this reply to this thread to try different ways of accessing USMB. Everything seems to be better this morning..

Sorry about the duplicate posts..

No worries, gave me a chance to get some work done instead of goofing around on the compute

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system

Define your terms here.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Since "climate science" has devolved into spending trillions on "green energy", we have to discuss economics.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

Calling people deniers and ignorance of economics makes you a liberal.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp

Do you think the planet is too warm?

and why you think the climate system should be static ?

A static system is the liberal stance. It's why they've changed the name of their fear to "Climate Change"

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics

The idea that your windmill investment should break-even and then pay off is voodoo?
It's things like that that show me you are a liberal.

in place of hard science

AGW is a hard science? That's hilarious.

Your funny,

Politics devolves into spending trillions, every time, every issue. Whats your point ?

This simple reality is voodoo economics has no bearing on a study in hard science.

Calling people deniers and swimming in cash makes me both well aware of the current state of republican thinking and economics. Try zero debt and opening another business and get back to me on that economic thing ;--)

Is the climate too warm ? Do you mean at night ? during the day ? in winter ? in summer ? at the poles ? equator ?

Can you define climate ? And can you be a little more specific about what too warm represents to you, as your terminology is highly subjective.

How can a static climate be a liberal stance when it's the deniers who are asking the question about what the temperature is supposed to be ? Are you sure this is a liberal stance ? And if so then what temp did they tell you it was supposed to be ?

Thus far its been like pulling teeth to determine that at least one of you understands that virtually all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

So anyone want to take a stab at who a guy named Arrhenius was ? What his predictions might have been ? When he made those predictions ?

Politics devolves into spending trillions, every time, every issue. Whats your point ?

If you were just whining about science, nobody would care who believed and who denied.
When your whining turns into, "We have to spend trillions on green energy, or we're doomed", then it's about more than the warmers and their science shortcuts.

This simple reality is voodoo economics has no bearing on a study in hard science.

Your comment about "a three tiered, fiat currency financial system" sounded more like voodoo than anything I posted.

Is the climate too warm ? Do you mean at night ? during the day ? in winter ? in summer ? at the poles ? equator ?

Any or all that make the warmers wet their beds.
How can a static climate be a liberal stance

Liberals are against "climate change", they must be for a static climate.

The static argument is entirely a straw man from the deniers camp. You won't hear a scientist ever tell you the climate is supposed to be static

 

[Boston1]

What is being discussed is the rate of change and what is causing that change. Not optimal temperatures. Or costs.

In order for us to proceed in this discussion, agreeing on its fundamental focus as you have mentioned, first we have to also agree on what were the techniques used as supplement to the standard scientific method (including initial references, equipment, facilities and complete active staff) beginning from biographical summaries, research interest, hypothesis construction, research procedure, determination of research completion by hypothesis verification, peer reviews, institutional reports on safety regulations subscribed to, model of measurement, procedure of measurement, institutional or private investments for the entirety of the determined measuring scope necessary for project application, goal for project application, and current totality of agencies in associative maintainence of those measurements so that they are validly standardized.

This is all assuming the science of it has really already been established as the OP seemed to be proposing with their introdution to the thread.

Only after all of us agree that the steps for those rates of changes to be measured are indeed legitimate can we actually go to the next step and finally also agree through an entirely new set of procedures about what actually causes such a change, always by engaging in discussion and verifying with other interested committed parties that our personal individual perspectives are both equally contribuent and beneficially genuine to other parties not immediately involved.

Nonsense. How many people agreed with variable light speed theory, yet its a virtual certainty. The public agreement is not a requirement in the establishment of scientific truth. How many people believe in the theory of causality, or even know what it is for that matter ? Agreement is irrelevant.

If virtually the entirety of science points in a certain direction, its reasonable to say that we have a pretty good idea of what direction we need to be going.

Your financial considerations are purely ideological. Actually more like a cop out as they have nothing to do with the science at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure whats up but the site seems to be having difficulties.

I'll try again later

I'm trying to clean up MY mess from last night. Seems like nobody could get on. And I was using this reply to this thread to try different ways of accessing USMB. Everything seems to be better this morning..

Sorry about the duplicate posts..

No worries, gave me a chance to get some work done instead of goofing around on the compute

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system

Define your terms here.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Since "climate science" has devolved into spending trillions on "green energy", we have to discuss economics.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

Calling people deniers and ignorance of economics makes you a liberal.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp

Do you think the planet is too warm?

and why you think the climate system should be static ?

A static system is the liberal stance. It's why they've changed the name of their fear to "Climate Change"

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics

The idea that your windmill investment should break-even and then pay off is voodoo?
It's things like that that show me you are a liberal.

in place of hard science

AGW is a hard science? That's hilarious.

Your funny,

Politics devolves into spending trillions, every time, every issue. Whats your point ?

This simple reality is voodoo economics has no bearing on a study in hard science.

Calling people deniers and swimming in cash makes me both well aware of the current state of republican thinking and economics. Try zero debt and opening another business and get back to me on that economic thing ;--)

Is the climate too warm ? Do you mean at night ? during the day ? in winter ? in summer ? at the poles ? equator ?

Can you define climate ? And can you be a little more specific about what too warm represents to you, as your terminology is highly subjective.

How can a static climate be a liberal stance when it's the deniers who are asking the question about what the temperature is supposed to be ? Are you sure this is a liberal stance ? And if so then what temp did they tell you it was supposed to be ?

Thus far its been like pulling teeth to determine that at least one of you understands that virtually all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

So anyone want to take a stab at who a guy named Arrhenius was ? What his predictions might have been ? When he made those predictions ?

Politics devolves into spending trillions, every time, every issue. Whats your point ?

If you were just whining about science, nobody would care who believed and who denied.
When your whining turns into, "We have to spend trillions on green energy, or we're doomed", then it's about more than the warmers and their science shortcuts.

This simple reality is voodoo economics has no bearing on a study in hard science.

Your comment about "a three tiered, fiat currency financial system" sounded more like voodoo than anything I posted.

Is the climate too warm ? Do you mean at night ? during the day ? in winter ? in summer ? at the poles ? equator ?

Any or all that make the warmers wet their beds.
How can a static climate be a liberal stance

Liberals are against "climate change", they must be for a static climate.

The static argument is entirely a straw man from the deniers camp. You won't hear a scientist ever tell you the climate is supposed to be static

Help stop climate change while empowering the world's poor.

http://info.marioninstitute.org/cfc...TMxQzdi4PRDchUIOX761XEEOJsrPSGSrsMaAvlY8P8HAQ

Why it's urgent we act now on climate change

We must act now to stop the devastating effects of climate change | @guardianletters

 

[Boston1]

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Did you notice the gray "error bars": in your graph? The uncertainty of the measurements in the 18th/19th century are about as large as the "data".. How good do you think GLOBAL temperature coverage WAS in 1785?

Of course I did. But the statistical likelihood remains. And the berkley study used a weighted average of something like 1.4 billion data points. Also most of these analysis are done on a P-1 standard deviation, which in this case as I recall was set at 95%+ Could have been 98% I don't remember.

Which means that the likelihood of error diminishes substantially as we move away from the mean. Fully 2/3 of that grey area is outside of a liklihood of deviation greater than 5% and likely less, I'd have to go look it up.

In the other 1/3 resides a 95% confidence that also increases proportionally as we approach the mean.

Your argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny once we understand just what that grey area actually represents.

Given the resolution of the graph presented, the statistical significance of the grey area is negligible at best.

You don't understand what those gray areas are.. Do ya? The confidence level is CRAP for anything before 1940s,

Spoiler: What historical record says that the Earth has NEVER seen a 1degC event like this before?

There is none that has the time resolution OR the accuracy to do that on a GLOBAL scale

Why don't you go back and read my INITIAL post about WHY I'm a technologist/scientist/engineer who is skeptical about Global Warming and we discuss the science?

Unless of course you want the point of this thread to be political and about calling out deniers. In which case -- I would have ZERO interest in the discussion. And neither of us would learn anything new about "climate change":. I won't hang around if you don't respond.

Um, I just explained what those grey areas are. You must have missed it.

Quote

Of course I did. But the statistical likelihood remains. And the berkley study used a weighted average of something like 1.4 billion data points. Also most of these analysis are done on a P-1 standard deviation, which in this case as I recall was set at 95%+ Could have been 98% I don't remember.

Which means that the likelihood of error diminishes substantially as we move away from the mean. Fully 2/3 of that grey area is outside of a liklihood of deviation greater than 5% and likely less, I'd have to go look it up.

In the other 1/3 resides a 95% confidence that also increases proportionally as we approach the mean.

Your argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny once we understand just what that grey area actually represents.

Given the resolution of the graph presented, the statistical significance of the grey area is negligible at best.

End Quote

 

[320 Years of History]

Help stop climate change while empowering the world's poor.

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

 

[Boston1]

Help stop climate change while empowering the world's poor.

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Help stop climate change while empowering the world's poor.

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

 

[Boston1]

Help stop climate change while empowering the world's poor.

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

You asked a scientific question ?

Sorry I hadn't noticed.

And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Help stop climate change while empowering the world's poor.

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

You asked a scientific question ?

Sorry I hadn't noticed.

And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study

You asked a scientific question ?

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Is that bad? Why?

 

[Boston1]

Help stop climate change while empowering the world's poor.

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

You asked a scientific question ?

Sorry I hadn't noticed.

And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study

You asked a scientific question ?

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Is that bad? Why?

None of those are scientific questions.

firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.

on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.

on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

You asked a scientific question ?

Sorry I hadn't noticed.

And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study

You asked a scientific question ?

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Is that bad? Why?

None of those are scientific questions.

firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.

on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.

on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.

None of those are scientific questions.

Warmers say the planet is too warm.
Asking to see the data is not a scientific question?
What kind of question do you feel it is?

firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question.

I'm not asking a scientist, I'm asking you.

Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous.

We're supposed to spend trillions, but you can't give us a target to shoot for?

Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.

Since Republicans aren't pushing for trillions in spending on unreliable wind power, it's clear who's smarter.

on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad.

Should be a simple question for you to answer.

Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses.

Okay, what abnormal climactic [sic] response should we expect? Why?

 

[Boston1]

You didn't ask to see data.

You made a ludicrous statement and demanded I defend it

Its becoming very obvious your incapable of a science based discussion.

If you are actually interested in learning about paleoclimate then you might actually read some of the published work such that you might be capable of comprehending the answer to your last.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Ts7c_jKNcNqLfnPOlZmsdw&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...cRIWtROCcfY9zZcBvRTadQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ERKBEej2LvFASPzSHIovCQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

Not a published article but something that might help you understand the problem in simpler terms ;--)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...BL7RlnOZBgP0VshY9wRCmg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't ask to see data.

You made a ludicrous statement and demanded I defend it

Its becoming very obvious your incapable of a science based discussion.

If you are actually interested in learning about paleoclimate then you might actually read some of the published work such that you might be capable of comprehending the answer to your last.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi1sbristTLAhVBXGMKHd_OB9IQFgg3MAI&url=http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full%3Fsid%3D3a7612e4-6d10-4367-8146-238da42d2055&usg=AFQjCNHNmiVV_m-T6GnRJtzCVknpVJM2jw&sig2=Ts7c_jKNcNqLfnPOlZmsdw&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwixsr_VtNTLAhUIy2MKHZW3CTcQFghCMAQ&url=http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18045.full&usg=AFQjCNH2q5Sxsk2ZXNQBobWRzU5Rc4kVuA&sig2=cRIWtROCcfY9zZcBvRTadQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiRzeCyttTLAhUG92MKHWOEBBIQFgghMAA&url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/fig_tab/nature09678_T1.html&usg=AFQjCNHvvr5fVCiT7LedutKeqOKgiakftQ&sig2=ERKBEej2LvFASPzSHIovCQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

Not a published article but something that might help you understand the problem in simpler terms ;--)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiRzeCyttTLAhUG92MKHWOEBBIQFgg3MAQ&url=http://climatesight.org/2011/02/17/extinction-and-climate/&usg=AFQjCNFjj-2-PIXqXLBkBsmVQVA-N3Kv5A&sig2=BL7RlnOZBgP0VshY9wRCmg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

You didn't ask to see data.

Sure I did, right here.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?

Its becoming very obvious your incapable of a science based discussion.

If you can't answer my question above, or below, we can't have a science based discussion.

What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?

You can't tell us where we are, or where we need to go, but we should spend trillions? No thanks.

 

[Holos]

What is being discussed is the rate of change and what is causing that change. Not optimal temperatures. Or costs.

In order for us to proceed in this discussion, agreeing on its fundamental focus as you have mentioned, first we have to also agree on what were the techniques used as supplement to the standard scientific method (including initial references, equipment, facilities and complete active staff) beginning from biographical summaries, research interest, hypothesis construction, research procedure, determination of research completion by hypothesis verification, peer reviews, institutional reports on safety regulations subscribed to, model of measurement, procedure of measurement, institutional or private investments for the entirety of the determined measuring scope necessary for project application, goal for project application, and current totality of agencies in associative maintainence of those measurements so that they are validly standardized.

This is all assuming the science of it has really already been established as the OP seemed to be proposing with their introdution to the thread.

Only after all of us agree that the steps for those rates of changes to be measured are indeed legitimate can we actually go to the next step and finally also agree through an entirely new set of procedures about what actually causes such a change, always by engaging in discussion and verifying with other interested committed parties that our personal individual perspectives are both equally contribuent and beneficially genuine to other parties not immediately involved.

Nonsense. How many people agreed with variable light speed theory, yet its a virtual certainty. The public agreement is not a requirement in the establishment of scientific truth. How many people believe in the theory of causality, or even know what it is for that matter ? Agreement is irrelevant.

If virtually the entirety of science points in a certain direction, its reasonable to say that we have a pretty good idea of what direction we need to be going.

Your financial considerations are purely ideological. Actually more like a cop out as they have nothing to do with the science at all.

It seems you haven't really read my post and instead is directing your reply to another's comment.

I mentioned nothing about finances. I mentioned nothing about public agreement.

 

[Boston1]

Based on the speed of your response its obvious you didn't even bother to read any of the offered links concerning the consequences of altering the atmospheric chemistry.

And I see you've refused to reframe your questions in order to facilitate an accurate answer.

So let me help you out a little

Define current

Specify average ( year, month day/night )

You've also repeated that same ole tired question with the false premise. I'm starting to wonder if you know what a false premise is. Care to enlighten us ?

What makes you think there is a perfect average global temperature ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Based on the speed of your response its obvious you didn't even bother to read any of the offered links concerning the consequences of altering the atmospheric chemistry.

And I see you've refused to reframe your questions in order to facilitate an accurate answer.

So let me help you out a little

Define current

Specify average ( year, month day/night )

You've also repeated that same ole tired question with the false premise. I'm starting to wonder if you know what a false premise is. Care to enlighten us ?

What makes you think there is a perfect average global temperature ?

What makes you think there is a perfect average global temperature ?

There is no perfect temperature?
Is there a temperature that is too high?

Is the 1950-1979 mean a temperature we should shoot for?
Should we work to get that anomaly to zero?

 

[Boston1]

Based on the speed of your response its obvious you didn't even bother to read any of the offered links concerning the consequences of altering the atmospheric chemistry.

And I see you've refused to reframe your questions in order to facilitate an accurate answer.

So let me help you out a little

Define current

Specify average ( year, month day/night )

You've also repeated that same ole tired question with the false premise. I'm starting to wonder if you know what a false premise is. Care to enlighten us ?

What makes you think there is a perfect average global temperature ?

What makes you think there is a perfect average global temperature ?

There is no perfect temperature?
Is there a temperature that is too high?

Is the 1950-1979 mean a temperature we should shoot for?
Should we work to get that anomaly to zero?

Blazing progress lol

There is no perfect temperature ?

No there isn't.

Is there a temperature thats to high ?

To high for what ? certain temps are sufficient to liquify Iron and certain temps are sufficient to liquify hydrogen. Again your questions are just ludicrous.

The 1950 to 1979 baseline ? who used that one ? I didn't think I recognized that time frame.

Why don't you brush up on who used what for a baseline and why, and then get back to us on that one

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiq_Y2yv9TLAhVV5WMKHSg3AKMQFggcMAA&url=https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/483.htm&usg=AFQjCNGAfrsk3IPFtzUZP_t_x5padw2Jzg&sig2=F1QqlrZjrn0NDXS75t2s7Q&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

Once you actually read the link provided then take a good look at the four major temp studies and you figure out what the most logical pick for baseline might be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Based on the speed of your response its obvious you didn't even bother to read any of the offered links concerning the consequences of altering the atmospheric chemistry.

And I see you've refused to reframe your questions in order to facilitate an accurate answer.

So let me help you out a little

Define current

Specify average ( year, month day/night )

You've also repeated that same ole tired question with the false premise. I'm starting to wonder if you know what a false premise is. Care to enlighten us ?

What makes you think there is a perfect average global temperature ?

What makes you think there is a perfect average global temperature ?

There is no perfect temperature?
Is there a temperature that is too high?

Is the 1950-1979 mean a temperature we should shoot for?
Should we work to get that anomaly to zero?

Blazing progress lol

There is no perfect temperature ?

No there isn't.

Is there a temperature thats to high ?

To high for what ? certain temps are sufficient to liquify Iron and certain temps are sufficient to liquify hydrogen. Again your questions are just ludicrous.

The 1950 to 1979 baseline ? who used that one ? I didn't think I recognized that time frame.

Why don't you brush up on who used what for a baseline and why, and then get back to us on that one

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiq_Y2yv9TLAhVV5WMKHSg3AKMQFggcMAA&url=https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/483.htm&usg=AFQjCNGAfrsk3IPFtzUZP_t_x5padw2Jzg&sig2=F1QqlrZjrn0NDXS75t2s7Q&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc

Once you actually read the link provided then take a good look at the four major temp studies and you figure out what the most logical pick for baseline might be.

To high for what ?

Too high to make liberals happy.

The 1950 to 1979 baseline ? who used that one ?

You did. In your graph. Durr.