The entire AGW movement is founded on a false premise.

[cnm]

^ MOE 2-3 degrees but you pretend you're accurate to a tenth of a degree.

The dullard can not be told, even by meteorologists or weathermen.

 

[Old Rocks]

Probably because accurate thermometers were carefully calibrated. Please tell us why you are such a dullard.

Thermometers weren't accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1880. In fact, it's only a few short decades ago we were accurate to that degree. Why pretend we have data that can't possibly exist?

The temperature measurements you generally see plotted on a graph are an average over a year with many thermometers. When you average just 100 readings you can get 1/10 degree accuracy since the standard deviation is proportional to the inverse of the square root of the number of readings.

That is why you can see a higher degree of precision of a variable when the number of readings for just one thermometer is 365 readings per year.

However that doesn't mean that the earth's average temperature was measured accurately. It only means that results can be plotted on a graph with 1/10 degree of accuracy.

Accuracy of yearly temperature rise is even greater with linear regression.

Can you please link to the data set showing "100 readings" from 1880?

Thank you

You didn't understand the post! No link is needed. As I said a single thermometer will show around 365 readings in one year.

This is why AGW needs to put under oath so you can describe your methodology.

NOAA added in the ocean data too from 1854 forward.

Dumb fuck Comrade Frankie boi, their methodology is described in the articles they write for the peer reviewed journals.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thermometers weren't accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1880. In fact, it's only a few short decades ago we were accurate to that degree. Why pretend we have data that can't possibly exist?

The temperature measurements you generally see plotted on a graph are an average over a year with many thermometers. When you average just 100 readings you can get 1/10 degree accuracy since the standard deviation is proportional to the inverse of the square root of the number of readings.

That is why you can see a higher degree of precision of a variable when the number of readings for just one thermometer is 365 readings per year.

However that doesn't mean that the earth's average temperature was measured accurately. It only means that results can be plotted on a graph with 1/10 degree of accuracy.

Accuracy of yearly temperature rise is even greater with linear regression.

Can you please link to the data set showing "100 readings" from 1880?

Thank you

You didn't understand the post! No link is needed. As I said a single thermometer will show around 365 readings in one year.

This is why AGW needs to put under oath so you can describe your methodology.

NOAA added in the ocean data too from 1854 forward.

Dumb fuck Comrade Frankie boi, their methodology is described in the articles they write for the peer reviewed journals.

NOAA shows a 95% confidence in the ocean temperatures staring in 1880. I guess thats how they were able to bend down the average back then to make their numbers work

 

[Wuwei]

MOE 2-3 degrees but you pretend you're accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Don't forget Gaussian statistics and the central limit theorem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

MOE 2-3 degrees but you pretend you're accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Don't forget Gaussian statistics and the central limit theorem.

Right and apply that to a temperature reading from water hauled up in wooden buckets in an effort to pretend it was .4F "cooler" back in 1880.

Right

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the premise that

(a) global warming exists

(b) human-made CO2 emissions have caused it.

Item (b) is the problem because this premise is based on climate data that was skewed to produce the desired result, that being human caused C02 emissions have driven global temperatures higher. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol makes a claim and basically states "prove that human made C02 didn't cause global warming".

That is of course impossible to prove or disprove which is exactly the argument the "deniers" put forth. No one can determine what the human contribution to global warming is. You would need a time machine and the ability to turn off most of the CO2 sources. Only Then would you KNOW the temperature difference was due to human-made C02 emissions.

Now is it a good idea to limit air pollution? Of course it is. Is it reasonable to make a direct cause and effect link between air pollution and higher global temperatures? Of course not. How does anyone know the temperature rise isn't part of a macro cycle spanning hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years? Without a time machine, you can tinker with computer models you want and you will still NOT KNOW.

Eco-Eunuch Hoarders

These transnational elitists seek to impoverish the world by shutting down production and killing jobs. The desperately poor are easy to control.

 

[bripat9643]

The entire scientific community refused to accept it

So when did it become the scientific consensus? See how it works, science illiterate?

Too, general gravitation theory clashes with quantum theory, so it is known something is not right, somewhere, but it is still the best knowledge available.

The so-called "consensus" occurred after the experimental evidence proved beyond all doubt that his theory was valid. First came the proof, then all the mediocre physicist fell in with the inevitable. The consensus did not occur before the proof, shit for brains.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ffs. Proof does not exist in science. Consensus based on evidence is what counts. It's easy to tell when scientific illiterates are trying to put down 'science', because they don't have the first clue as to what is going on.

Consensus isn't science, moron. Truth isn't determined by a majority vote.

it is if you are a leftard

 

[skookerasbil]

false premise or not........immaterial. The movement stands on its own. As Ive said before........those all enamored with the consensus do tend to be suckers. Less of the population tend to be suckers = the reason climate change as a threat has just not been embraced by the public to any degree even close to being significant. And there are three main points to prove it too................all three irrefutable.

1) Very low levels of concern as a voter issue
2) Anemic growth of renewable energy
3) No climate legislation in the last 10 years ( except on light bulbs )

Really......any discussion beyond that is nothing more than group navel contemplation.

 

[cnm]

The so-called "consensus" occurred after the experimental evidence proved beyond all doubt that his theory was valid. First came the proof, then all the mediocre physicist fell in with the inevitable. The consensus did not occur before the proof, shit for brains.

Before the evidence, rightard dumb fuck. How many times need you be told science doesn't do proof? And the theory is not perfect, it clashes with quantum theory yet is still the best knowledge we currently have.

Too, Newtonian physics are still very useful, demonstrating that theories/models do not have to be perfect to be useful.

And now there's a scientific consensus about the evidence in regard to the GHG theory and AWG. That a few rightard dumb fucks dispute it is neither here nor there.

The funny thing is you take the scientists' word for the consensus on Einstein's work yet deny the same scientific community's word on the consensus for AGW. Oh well, the ways of the rightard dumb fucks are not meant to be straightforward.

 

[SSDD]

So Curry resigned because she was unable to handle doing actual science.

This makes others look bad ... why?

Actually hairball..she is moving into a field where your science better be "on" all the time or you get fired...unlike academic and government pseudoscience where failure after failure is rewarded...and people get promoted to their level of incompetence on a daily basis.

 

[SSDD]

Ffs. Proof does not exist in science. Consensus based on evidence is what counts. It's easy to tell when scientific illiterates are trying to put down 'science', because they don't have the first clue as to what is going on.

I repeat...evidence...that's a funny word for a warmer to use...can you provide a single piece of observed measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variation?

 

[Old Rocks]

And SSDD of the smart photons continues to be a lying fuck. Virtually all of the scientists in the world disagree with him, but that phases him not. After all, an obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord agree with him. LOL

 

[SSDD]

And SSDD of the smart photons continues to be a lying fuck. Virtually all of the scientists in the world disagree with him, but that phases him not. After all, an obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord agree with him. LOL

And yet...with all those scientists supposedly agreeing...neither you..nor all of them can provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...what does that say about the state of climate science?

 

[Wuwei]

And SSDD of the smart photons continues to be a lying fuck. Virtually all of the scientists in the world disagree with him, but that phases him not. After all, an obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord agree with him. LOL

And yet...with all those scientists supposedly agreeing...neither you..nor all of them can provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...what does that say about the state of climate science?

Observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of all of the hard sciences: quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, elementary particles, etc have been codified in mathematics with accuracies of parts per billion. If you don't believe in the mathematics, you don't believe in science. Period.

 

[cnm]

I repeat...evidence...that's a funny word for a warmer to use...can you provide a single piece of observed measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variation?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[cnm]

1000 odd years of 'natural variation' enough for you?.

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia

 

[ScienceRocks]

The global warming movement is based on physics and hard science...it is the deniers that are founded on that false premise.

 

[cnm]

If mere denial rises to the status of 'premise'.

 

[Billy_Bob]

1000 odd years of 'natural variation' enough for you?.

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia

LOL.. The Michael Mann parlor trick lie of placing a 5 year plot onto the end of a 500 year plot.. If we averaged the present back 500 years and placed it in proper context your lie would vanish...