The point of no return

[ReinyDays]

I hope you don't actually think that's how it all works, right?

When you look at a graph of data you see some points deviate from the line. SOme quite far. This is called "NOISE".

Let's take an example here:

There are point that go WAAAAAAY off the line, but the line still statistically shows evidence for a correlation (p = 0.005, that's significant) but the correlation coefficient is poor because it's scattered.

The whole point of this is: if you take ONE SINGLE DATA POINT you don't really understand the whole graph. In fact in the case of the example if you took some point that was at (55, 2.5) you see it is waaaay high up, but that's just noise.

Noise comes from a few different sources: unknown factor, poor reading or just random chance.

I'm not using statistics ... I'm using physics ... which would include consideration of a dew point temperature of 40ºF ... which gives us our 8% RH ... that's some dry air so close to the Mighty Pacific ... 1004 mb pressure from the thermal trough I guess ...

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about ... except trying to confuse the matter ... this is normal for Sacramento ... it gets hotter and drier up here in Jefferson ... all this is well within the current climate, even with an extra degree or two ...

The Pacific is quite cold ... most of us would need a wet suit to swim in her off San Francisco this time of year ... I'll wear a wet suit off San Diego in winter if I plan a long time in the water ... but then I'm a total girl when it comes to cold water ...

 

[Paracetamol63]

I'm not using statistics ... I'm using physics ..

But you were comparing two data points on a time-series graph. That's a statistics topic.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about

Temperature trends are what are called "Time Series" in statistics. IT's how we know there is WARMING (warming indicates a TREND which has to be calculated from the data).

This is how the data is processed. It is standard science and statistics.

... except trying to confuse the matter

It is only confusing in that you may not have experience in processing data like the scientists do.

 

[Robert Urbanek]

Ocean waters in the Northern Hemisphere have been unusually warm in recent weeks, with parts of the North Atlantic and northern Pacific undergoing particularly intense marine heat waves.

Sea surface temperatures in these regions hit record levels this summer, said Dillon Amaya, a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Physical Sciences Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. Parts of the Pacific and North Atlantic have been anywhere from 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to 5 degrees C (9 degrees F) warmer than average at times, conditions that have not been observed since record keeping began roughly six decades ago.

An intense marine heat wave is setting ocean temperature records in the North Atlantic

After a while, you realize that the right-wing fanatics posting lies about the climate chaos don't really believe their own lies. The real question becomes, "Who is paying them to post the misinformation?"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a statistical tie to the 1961 reading of 115ºF ... NOAA standards for thermometers is ±1ºF ...

But point taken ... a single degree over 60 years ... the same as a half hour ago ... I almost peed my pants ...

Life on Earth will never survive such rapid temperature changes!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sea surface temperatures in these regions hit record levels this summer,

Sounds serious! When were all the times it was almost this hot over the last 1000 years?

 

[ding]

After a while, you realize that the right-wing fanatics posting lies about the climate chaos don't really believe their own lies. The real question becomes, "Who is paying them to post the misinformation?"

I give up. Who? I need to get me some of that money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I give up. Who? I need to get me some of that money.

I blame the Post Office for losing my fat check.

 

[ReinyDays]

But you were comparing two data points on a time-series graph. That's a statistics topic.



Temperature trends are what are called "Time Series" in statistics. IT's how we know there is WARMING (warming indicates a TREND which has to be calculated from the data).

This is how the data is processed. It is standard science and statistics.



It is only confusing in that you may not have experience in processing data like the scientists do.

It's not about statistics, you silly loon ... it's about the sub-tropical ridge over the eastern Pacific Ocean ... and how Hurricane Kay is pushing up intensifying the afore mentioned pressure ridge that forms over the eastern Pacific Ocean during summer ... every summer, sometimes in winter too ... we just don't get hurricanes in San Diego very often ...

Instantaneous force seems something outside a doctor of geology's ken ...

 

[Paracetamol63]

It's not about statistics, you silly loon

Unfortunately you are grossly incorrect. It is about data in a time series, ergo it is, by definition, a statistics topic.

 

[Robert Urbanek]

In the study, published by the journal Nature Scientific Reports, researchers identified a wide array of dubious climate claims, then programmed a computer to recognize them. The analysis has exposed the changing face of climate change denial, and details the ways in which powerful interest groups are attempting to delay climate action. Among the findings are new data to show how those spreading climate misinformation have switched over time from science denial—that is, claiming that climate science isn’t reliable—to solutions denial—the claim that solutions to slow or otherwise respond to climate change won’t work. . .

The report also offers insights as to where the money behind climate misinformation is coming from. All the major donors revealed by the research were American, and included the influential Donors Capital Fund, the ExxonMobil Foundation and Koch Affiliated Foundations. Also included was the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, operated by investment firm Vanguard, which was revealed this year to be the largest investor in the global coal industry, to the tune of $86 billion.

5 Big Lies About Climate Change, And How Researchers Trained A Machine To Spot Them

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the study, published by the journal Nature Scientific Reports, researchers identified a wide array of dubious climate claims, then programmed a computer to recognize them. The analysis has exposed the changing face of climate change denial, and details the ways in which powerful interest groups are attempting to delay climate action. Among the findings are new data to show how those spreading climate misinformation have switched over time from science denial—that is, claiming that climate science isn’t reliable—to solutions denial—the claim that solutions to slow or otherwise respond to climate change won’t work. . .

The report also offers insights as to where the money behind climate misinformation is coming from. All the major donors revealed by the research were American, and included the influential Donors Capital Fund, the ExxonMobil Foundation and Koch Affiliated Foundations. Also included was the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, operated by investment firm Vanguard, which was revealed this year to be the largest investor in the global coal industry, to the tune of $86 billion.

5 Big Lies About Climate Change, And How Researchers Trained A Machine To Spot Them

What is the solution to climate change? How much should we spend on it?

How will we know when we've done enough?

Spell it out.

 

[ReinyDays]

Unfortunately you are grossly incorrect. It is about data in a time series, ergo it is, by definition, a statistics topic.

Okay doctor ...

 

[ReinyDays]

What is the solution to climate change? How much should we spend on it?

How will we know when we've done enough?

Spell it out.

... and include your math ... please ...

 

[ding]

I blame the Post Office for losing my fat check.

The albedo of the solar panels destroyed it.

 

[ding]

In the study, published by the journal Nature Scientific Reports, researchers identified a wide array of dubious climate claims, then programmed a computer to recognize them. The analysis has exposed the changing face of climate change denial, and details the ways in which powerful interest groups are attempting to delay climate action. Among the findings are new data to show how those spreading climate misinformation have switched over time from science denial—that is, claiming that climate science isn’t reliable—to solutions denial—the claim that solutions to slow or otherwise respond to climate change won’t work. . .

The report also offers insights as to where the money behind climate misinformation is coming from. All the major donors revealed by the research were American, and included the influential Donors Capital Fund, the ExxonMobil Foundation and Koch Affiliated Foundations. Also included was the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, operated by investment firm Vanguard, which was revealed this year to be the largest investor in the global coal industry, to the tune of $86 billion.

5 Big Lies About Climate Change, And How Researchers Trained A Machine To Spot Them

The emperor is naked.

 

[BackAgain]

I am not getting good reception after living under all the rising oceans all these years.

 

[abu afak]

Ya'll go ahead on. I'll stay in Tennessee. Here is our outlook.
View attachment 687967

https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/tn/

SAME LINK.
LOL CHERRY PICKING SLIMEBALL
TENNESSEE Only?

""Temperatures in Tennessee have risen by 0.5°F since the beginning of the 20th century, less than a Third of the warming for the contiguous United States. Temperatures were highest in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by a substantial cooling of about 2°F by the 1960s (Figure 1).

Since that cool period, temperatures have risen by more than 2°F, and since 2010, they have been near the highs of the 1920s and 1930s. Because of the significant cooling that occurred in the middle of the 20th century, the southeastern United States is one of the Few locations Globally that has experienced little to no overall warming since 1900, while the United States as a whole has warmed by about 1.8°F.".."

`

`

 

[Leo123]

What is the solution to climate change? How much should we spend on it?

How will we know when we've done enough?

Spell it out.

The solution to climate change is to adapt instead of trying to control global climate. Spend money on energy infrastructure and more efficient and reliable AC units and heating units. Global Warming has NEVER caused catastrophic results. Seems to me it's better to track global COOLING which would be far more deadly. Mile high ice packs migrating South would be catastrophic.

 

[White 6]

SAME LINK.
LOL CHERRY PICKING SLIMEBALL
TENNESSEE Only?

""Temperatures in Tennessee have risen by 0.5°F since the beginning of the 20th century, less than a Third of the warming for the contiguous United States. Temperatures were highest in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by a substantial cooling of about 2°F by the 1960s (Figure 1).

Since that cool period, temperatures have risen by more than 2°F, and since 2010, they have been near the highs of the 1920s and 1930s. Because of the significant cooling that occurred in the middle of the 20th century, the southeastern United States is one of the Few locations Globally that has experienced little to no overall warming since 1900, while the United States as a whole has warmed by about 1.8°F.".."

`

`

It is where I live, where I chose purposely to live. You can do a similar search for where you live also. If you choose to be upset or highly apprehensive of how climate is affecting or going to affect you, knock yourself out. I did not choose to live in the desert southwest, or the mountains or on the shores of one of the ocean. I am living in the fertile rolling low hills of the mid-latitudes, with lots of water, good average rainfall, and nobody asking me to give up either of my SUVs for an electric car, 99.97% history of smooth continuous power at relatively low rates. Check the dots on that graph of days over a 100 degrees here (going back to 1900), I posted on post #11 and tell me why I should worry, realizing I turn 68 in a few days. Do you think it is going to affect me? I doubt it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is where I live, where I chose purposely to live. You can do a similar search for where you live also. If you choose to be upset or highly apprehensive of how climate is affecting or going to affect you, knock yourself out. I did not choose to live in the desert southwest, or the mountains or on the shores of one of the ocean. I am living in the fertile rolling low hills of the mid-latitudes, with lots of water, good average rainfall, and nobody asking me to give up either of my SUVs for an electric car, 99.97% history of smooth continuous power at relatively low rates. Check the dots on that graph of days over a 100 degrees here (going back to 1900), I posted on post #11 and tell me why I should worry, realizing I turn 68 in a few days. Do you think it is going to affect me? I doubt it.