The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[PMZ]

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

That's not the way science works junior. As Aristotle said.....


"He who asserts must also prove"

If there is one thing that you've made clear, it's that you have no idea of how science works.

 

[PMZ]

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives.

Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

*

I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

No...That's not how it works...You prove that you're right, with verifiable facts and figures.

Now answer the questions with citations to verifiable sources.

That's a ridiculous application of "Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc."

You asked for how many people, you got "hundreds".

You asked for cost, you got "$100B".

Last I checked, all insurance claims are "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

By definition, extreme is beyond the average, by multiple standard deviations. *AWG is "than might have otherwise been expected".

And that's how statistics works.*

It's not Newtonian mechanics.

He asked a stupid question and was surprised by a stupid answer. No wonder he's baffled by life.

 

[itfitzme]

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

That's not the way science works junior. As Aristotle said.....


"He who asserts must also prove"

"In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong."

"He who wants proof, must comprehend science" - Aristotle's older brother, Promethius.

"You can't just run around saying, 'He who assets must also prove', just because dad said it once. It actually has to fit the context" - Aristotle's older sister, Debbistotle.

"He who assets must also prove...He who assets must also prove...He who assets must also prove" - Aristotle's younger brother, Samualstotle, running around in circles, waving his hands in the air.

That's the way science works, brother.

 

[Oddball]

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

That's not the way science works junior. As Aristotle said.....


"He who asserts must also prove"

"In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong."

"He who wants proof, must comprehend science" - Aristotle's older brother, Promethius.

"You can't just run around saying, 'He who assets must also prove', just because dad said it once. It actually has to fit the context" - Aristotle's older sister, Debbistotle.

"He who assets must also prove...He who assets must also prove...He who assets must also prove" - Aristotle's younger brother, Samualstotle, running around in circles, waving his hands in the air.

That's the way science works, brother.

IOW, you got nothing.

Dismissed.

 

[Oddball]

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives.

Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

*

I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

No...That's not how it works...You prove that you're right, with verifiable facts and figures.

Now answer the questions with citations to verifiable sources.

That's a ridiculous application of "Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc."

You asked for how many people, you got "hundreds".

You asked for cost, you got "$100B".

Last I checked, all insurance claims are "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

By definition, extreme is beyond the average, by multiple standard deviations. *AWG is "than might have otherwise been expected".

And that's how statistics works.*

It's not Newtonian mechanics.

Insurance claims are non sequitur, irrelevant and prove nothing.

I asked for proof and you yo-yos don't have jack schitt.

 

[itfitzme]

Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

*
No...That's not how it works...You prove that you're right, with verifiable facts and figures.

Now answer the questions with citations to verifiable sources.

That's a ridiculous application of "Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc."

You asked for how many people, you got "hundreds".

You asked for cost, you got "$100B".

Last I checked, all insurance claims are "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

By definition, extreme is beyond the average, by multiple standard deviations. *AWG is "than might have otherwise been expected".

And that's how statistics works.*

It's not Newtonian mechanics.

Insurance claims are non sequitur, irrelevant and prove nothing.

I asked for proof and you yo-yos don't have jack schitt.

Nah, you just don't accept actual events as proof. *What you want is every incoming photon and emitted CO2 molecule tagged so someone with a photo-multipler tube and a hot air ballon can identify exactly which photons and which CO2 molecules have caused warming. *Perhaps someone can devise a method for tracing the individual photon energy from molecule to molecule, as the kinetic energy and momemtum are transfered to each individual H2O molecule in the Gulf. *Then that can be traced to the H2O that evaporates to create the Hurricane. *And each H2O, N2, O2, and CO2 molecule that has carried the specific photon energy can then be identified as it impinges on the specific individual that is described by "hundreds". Oh, and while we are at it, each individual serial number from the $200B can be identified.

Otherwise, how can we be sure that particular huricane wasn't caused by all the energy from the natural variability and the AWG energy didn't go into the other hurricane? *How do we know for sure?

Maybe we are all just dreaming. Maybe we are just butterflies dreaming that we are humans. *And later, we will wake up and discover it's all a dream.

Or, if I stick my fingers in my ears, stomp my feet, and say "non-sequiter, post hoc ergo propter hoc", over and over, I can't hear and it's like no one is there at all.

 

[SSDD]

You can say whatever you want, but no one is gonna believe you.

Cuz according to Nature;

Global temperatures are close to 11,000-year peak : Nature News & Comment

So some prefer

Nature's claim was based on the press release before marcott admitted that his paper didn't even address the claim.


Answer to the prime question by marcott:

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

Based on that statement the MET office withdrew its headline.

Not robust...do you understand what those words mean?

 

[SSDD]

LOL, and what does that mean in this context here? Come on socko quit rambling nonsense already. Your Jeff Spiccoli teaches esoteric science routine passed old a while ago. You too drunk or stoned to make a viable point? Too burned out maybe?

A bit of advice.. Being the smartest guy in your smoking circle doesn't make you smart. It just means you're an imaginative stoner compared to the stoners you hang with. And imaginative doesn't mean smarter,just means you're more full of shit...

He sucks at analogy worse than just about anyone else I have ever seen. Warmers shoud avoid analogy because there simply are none that work when trying to compare climate science to actual science.

 

[Oddball]

That's a ridiculous application of "Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc."

You asked for how many people, you got "hundreds".

You asked for cost, you got "$100B".

Last I checked, all insurance claims are "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

By definition, extreme is beyond the average, by multiple standard deviations. *AWG is "than might have otherwise been expected".

And that's how statistics works.*

It's not Newtonian mechanics.

Insurance claims are non sequitur, irrelevant and prove nothing.

I asked for proof and you yo-yos don't have jack schitt.

Nah, you just don't accept actual events as proof. *What you want is every incoming photon and emitted CO2 molecule tagged so someone with a photo-multipler tube and a hot air ballon can identify exactly which photons and which CO2 molecules have caused warming. *Perhaps someone can devise a method for tracing the individual photon energy from molecule to molecule, as the kinetic energy and momemtum are transfered to each individual H2O molecule in the Gulf. *Then that can be traced to the H2O that evaporates to create the Hurricane. *And each H2O, N2, O2, and CO2 molecule that has carried the specific photon energy can then be identified as it impinges on the specific individual that is described by "hundreds". Oh, and while we are at it, each individual serial number from the $200B can be identified.

Otherwise, how can we be sure that particular huricane wasn't caused by all the energy from the natural variability and the AWG energy didn't go into the other hurricane? *How do we know for sure?

Maybe we are all just dreaming. Maybe we are just butterflies dreaming that we are humans. *And later, we will wake up and discover it's all a dream.

Or, if I stick my fingers in my ears, stomp my feet, and say "non-sequiter, post hoc ergo propter hoc", over and over, I can't hear and it's like no one is there at all.

An actual event was the Bruins losing the Stanley Cup...Was Goebbels warming to blame for that too?

 

[SSDD]

If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

Well then lets see some empirical evidence that is more than the most simplistic correlation. How about some observed evidence that adding X amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will cause X warming. Surely that has been proven experimentally....no?

The very definition of a greenhouse gas. Have you heard that term?

A definition hardly amounts to empirical evidence. Just because a thing has a defninition does not mean that it does what is claimed of it, or that it even exists. For example:

fairy - n - class of supernatural beings, generally conceived as having a diminutive human form and possessing magical powers with which they intervene in human affairs

Do you believe that fairies exist and do what is claimed of them simpy because the word has a definition? Apparently, you do.

 

[SSDD]

I did. You chose not to read it. That's the nature of denialism. Un-natural selection of input.

No you didn't. Here is a chance to prove that you aren't a bald faced liar by reposting it.

The odds are running heavily against you being able to produce.

 

[SSDD]

Only if you ignore positive feedbacks.

Name the positive feedbacks and show us your math.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

I guess you didn't notice that the graph said "simulated" climate sensitivity. Guess you don't know that simulated means not real.

 

[itfitzme]

Name the positive feedbacks and show us your math.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

I guess you didn't notice that the graph said "simulated" climate sensitivity. *Guess you don't know that simulated means not real.

Yeah, they were going to run physical test, by changing the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere, over repeated concentrations and other factors, but they decided that would take to long.

Darned UN won't let them have any fun. *And they thought it might be important to get the range intead of just a single observed value.

You think we should stop training airline pilots in flight simulators? *The US military seems to be pretty happy with them for fighter pilots. *I thing NASA trained the shuttle pilots in them too. *Maybe the IPCC guys might have picked up a trick or two from NASA. *Maybe someone at the IPCC might even know someone at NASA, you never know.

Continuous scales are a bit tricky for some folk, eh?

scale model -> drawing -> CAD -> computer modelling -> simulator

Geez, they are different words. *They can't possibly be simular. *Hmmm...similar... simulator....hmmm

identical.... identicalator... Yeah, that's what they need, an identicalator.

How about an exactilator?

Obviously, if their computer system was good enough, they'd call it an exactilation, not a simulation. *Sounds like an admission that it's not good enough. *

I read, in the Climategate emails, one of them calling it a trickilator. *PROOF!!!

 

[mamooth]

An actual event was the Bruins losing the Stanley Cup...Was Goebbels warming to blame for that too?

Any particular reason you think about Nazis all the time? Is it just a hobby of yours, or has it evolved into a full-blown fetish?

 

[Oddball]

Ah, blow it out your ass, chunkhead.

 

[itfitzme]

An actual event was the Bruins losing the Stanley Cup...Was Goebbels warming to blame for that too?

Any particular reason you think about Nazis all the time? Is it just a hobby of yours, or has it evolved into a full-blown fetish?

Carefull, or he'll be talking about your ass, next.

Too late

 

[mamooth]

That's the nature of denialism. Un-natural selection of input.

Not just denialism, but everything in the right-wing extremist fringe cult.

 

[Oddball]

Oooo....A stupid leftbat cartoon from those weekly urban arts & entertainment rags!

That'll fix their wagons!

 

[itfitzme]

Yes. It's 1/50 degF/CO2ppm.

 

[itfitzme]

Oooo....A stupid leftbat cartoon from those weekly urban arts & entertainment rags!

That'll fix their wagons!

Yeah, you're talking about his ass was way better.

He's an ass Nazi, right?

A chunkhead ass Nazi!

You're so smart.