Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #120 on: March 31, 2014, 08:38:25 PM »
Yes, HHunter. You extrapolated a tiny section of earth's climate as though 100 years completely explains everything about climate and any upsurge must mean the sky is falling in.  Below is the last 10,000 years. The little red bit is the bit you quoted. Imagine if we lived 8300 years ago. You'd be screaming "Look what we are doing to the planet! >o<". Climate changes. Sometimes rapidly and certainly way faster that it is at present. All the animals didn't die out in the last 10,000 years. The trend for temperatures is actually down. If it was getting cooler, we really would have stuff to worry about. It's a relief temperatures are not plunging us further towards another ice-age. Slightly warmer, more hurricanes. But it hasn't got anything to do with me driving my car to work in the morning. Environmental taxes are the new religious taxes. They are trying to get you to believe in something you can't disprove and you are derided as an idiot if you disagree. Only an idiot would swallow such crap. If it costs money, the likelihood is someone has an agenda. Welcome to the climate change industry.



I like how you criticize for using a "tiny" section of the earth's climate, while utilizing a graph that represents the climate of a small area, pretty much greenland and that's it, and pretending as if this represents the climate of the whole planet for that period of time. Climates of local areas often will fluctuate much more wildly than the average of the entire Earth.

What stuck out for me was how warm the Medieval warming period appears on the graph, when it's been shown plenty of times that it's in fact cooler than it is now. The current trend is easily the fastest warming we've had in the past 1000 years.

Needless to say, besides that it's laughable to consider that graph a representation of the past 10000 years, the time intervals, as Tausami said, are not uniform, and are misleading, which would compound the issue.

Back on the topic of Hurricanes, I think after another 50 years, or another ENSO cycle or two, we'll have a much clearer picture on the effects of AGW on major hurricanes, as I can't say with complete confidence that this is a rising trend. It's very likely nevertheless, that this is an upwards trend, and that this is due to higher ocean temperatures.

Here's a graph to show why recent warming is considered unprecedented:



On how taxes can help the environment (this is the kind of legislation I'd like to see expansion of), see the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #122 on: April 12, 2014, 06:01:54 AM »
The only way to determine anything with that much certainty would be to have two Earth's that are identical in every way except one has humans and the other one doesn't. Climate science isn't experimentally verifiable, it leans on statistics, much like psychology and sociology.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 06:03:34 AM by Irushwithscvs »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #123 on: April 12, 2014, 08:16:26 AM »
The only way to determine anything with that much certainty would be to have two Earth's that are identical in every way except one has humans and the other one doesn't. Climate science isn't experimentally verifiable, it leans on statistics, much like psychology and sociology.

That's not true.

They conduct experiments in the arctic (to determine climate history). They measure the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere with probes all over the world. They measure the amount of arctic ice that's melting the list goes on.

I think you're getting confused between qualitative information and quantitative data.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #124 on: April 12, 2014, 03:38:34 PM »
That's not true.

They conduct experiments in the arctic (to determine climate history). They measure the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere with probes all over the world. They measure the amount of arctic ice that's melting the list goes on.

That isn't experimentation, it is data gathering for statistical analysis. It gives us a data set of CO2 over the history of the earth. That isn't useful unless you have two Earths. Basic statistics, you have to have more than one sample from a population. We don't have a population of Earths to take samples from. This means Earth has to be the population, which is an awful way to go about statistics. You're comparing your data to itself.

I think you're getting confused between qualitative information and quantitative data.

There is only so much you can trust any data set given to you, especially analytical processes done on that data set. Since I do statistics for a living I'm inclined to not trust any science done based solely on statistics with data that was not gathered via experiments that can be repeated.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 03:45:50 PM by Irushwithscvs »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #125 on: April 12, 2014, 04:04:38 PM »
That isn't experimentation, it is data gathering for statistical analysis. It gives us a data set of CO2 over the history of the earth. That isn't useful unless you have two Earths. Basic statistics, you have to have more than one sample from a population. We don't have a population of Earths to take samples from. This means Earth has to be the population, which is an awful way to go about statistics. You're comparing your data to itself.

I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #126 on: April 12, 2014, 04:06:02 PM »
I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?

Probability is basic math, not necessarily a form of statistics. It is based on a number of possible events, not the number of outcomes.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 04:07:58 PM by Irushwithscvs »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #127 on: April 12, 2014, 05:12:12 PM »
Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?
No, you just need to perform an experiment on a sample size that isn't as laughable as the one you suggested.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #128 on: April 12, 2014, 08:34:17 PM »
I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?

Probability is basic math, not necessarily a form of statistics. It is based on a number of possible events, not the number of outcomes.

Ok.  I agree.  What does that have to do with either of my questions?  Are you aware of any analytic method to deduce the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a separate coin to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair?

Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?
No, you just need to perform an experiment on a sample size that isn't as laughable as the one you suggested.

So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.

Also, the sample size required to measure a significant effect depends entirely on the experiment.  I recommend some light reading on 'statistical power.'  For coin flips, 100 flips is absolutely sufficient to rule out a fair coin, depending on how unfair the coin is (and your required level of certainty).  If a coin is only a 51% favorite to land heads, then it will take many many trials to prove that it isn't fair.  If instead it's a 90% favorite to land heads, then I have something like a 95% chance to detect its unfairness with only 10 trials.

http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/power.html
http://vault.hanover.edu/~altermattw/methods/assets/Readings/Statistical_Inference.pdf
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #129 on: April 12, 2014, 08:44:55 PM »
Ok.  I agree.  What does that have to do with either of my questions?  Are you aware of any analytic method to deduce the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a separate coin to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair?

Are you aware you're questions are irrelevant to my statements?

Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

This is an attempt at a false equivalence. You can name all possible outcomes of a coin, you can not name all possible outcomes of a climate. See chaos theory for more on that regard.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #130 on: April 13, 2014, 01:19:06 AM »
So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.
If you have a point to make, just make it - you will find that people will be much more receptive of your message if you actually send it. So far, you're arguing against your own premise, and doing a supreme job at it.

The downside of that is that it leaves me confused and doesn't give me much to be smug about, since you've already done it all to yourself. :(
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #131 on: April 13, 2014, 01:23:42 AM »
Sorry, but the Earth isn't the population.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #132 on: April 13, 2014, 07:48:24 PM »
Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

This is an attempt at a false equivalence. You can name all possible outcomes of a coin, you can not name all possible outcomes of a climate. See chaos theory for more on that regard.

The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.
If you have a point to make, just make it - you will find that people will be much more receptive of your message if you actually send it. So far, you're arguing against your own premise, and doing a supreme job at it.

The downside of that is that it leaves me confused and doesn't give me much to be smug about, since you've already done it all to yourself. :(

I made my point very clearly. 

You said my sample size was laughable.  I said it was a made up, fictitious sample size for a fictional analogy, so go nuts imagining whatever sample size you like.  The imaginary sample size is not the point.  The point was to imagine a coin that is obviously biased: it comes up heads 95% of the time.

Then I went on to explain in detail how you are wrong anyway.  100 coin flips is more than sufficient to rule out as fair a coin that is biased to land heads 95% of the time.  I even linked sources supporting my claim.

You chose to ignore that and omit it from your quote as if I never said it, as usual.  You didn't say anything of substance about it or the part you actually did quote.  You're just making incredibly ironic quips about me not responding to you.  Look at your post.  Where is the substantive argument?  Highlight for me the sentence that you wrote that makes a point of any kind.

I'll respond to any sentences you write that are arguments of some substance directly related to my point.  The rest of it is boring. 
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #133 on: April 13, 2014, 10:17:16 PM »
The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

How do you know how a pinball machine is supposed to work?

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

Weather is easily predicted, climate is not.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2014, 10:29:20 PM by Irushwithscvs »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #134 on: April 14, 2014, 02:14:37 AM »
The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

How do you know how a pinball machine is supposed to work?

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

Weather is easily predicted, climate is not.

On the contrary, it's easier in most cases to predict climate rather than weather.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #135 on: April 29, 2014, 08:52:45 PM »


Oh boy, global warming.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #136 on: April 30, 2014, 04:38:08 AM »


Oh boy, global warming.



Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #137 on: April 30, 2014, 03:42:11 PM »
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #138 on: April 30, 2014, 07:09:02 PM »
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #139 on: April 30, 2014, 07:15:42 PM »
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.
But yet you weren't interested in my 10,000 year ice core graph, because it shows how ridiculous global warming is as a theory. ::)