Climate Change - Yet another UN report

[Into the Night]

That can happen. I appreciate you pointing it out if I do.


Actually, it renders the claim invalid. An estimate calculated from other estimates is simply stripping away the original raw data. At that point, all that remains is an unfalsifiable claim that no rational adult should accept on it face.


I really wouldn't use the wording "it gets worse." A predetermined conclusion becomes an invalid conclusion, from the start. It starts out invalid and just doesn't get any better. It is to be summarily dismissed with extreme prejudice.


You are objectively incorrect and I am not missing your point.

First, you just did it again. There is absolutely no mention of margin of error in your statement here. I want to be polite, but your omission makes your statement very stupid and naive, and broadcasts that you have absolutely no understanding of the math involved. If you had made your statement with the addition of "to within 4C margin of error" for examle, you would have had to justify why you believe that by showing your math. Upon trying to support your assertion with the approriate math, you would have realized the impossibility of achieving any temerature within any usable margin of error.

Second, I realize that you believe that today it should be possible to get enough data points, but just as in point 1, you haven't run any numbers. At this moment, you are imagining a concerted effort to collect tens of thousands of temperature measurements, which is doable. However, your margin of error would be at least in the +/-70C range, but likely much higher. And now you're thinking "No way, how can that be?" and all I can do is tell you to brush up on your statistical math. The correct answer is that you would need various layers of hundreds of millions of synchronized and calibrated temerature measurements, all across the globe, to include over the ocean, at different altitudes within the atmosphere and various depths of the ocean, to reach a margin of error in the single digits Celsius. Again, you are thinking "No way, how can that be?" and the answer is "take a statistical math class."

I really wish to impress upon you the necessity of including margin of error in your discussions if you want to set yourself apart from the warmizombies who babble their religious dogma. You could grab one, single thermometer, go somewhere outdoors, read the temperature and claim that is the temperature of the earth. Your estimate would be just as valid as anyone else's who similarly provided no margin of error.

Now, the whole topic of margin of error is itself a long and comlicated one. If you have never followed or created a data collection plan, you might not see right away how it fits into the overall grand scheme of things, but it is very much worth learning. Into the Night would be a good source for information on instrumentation tolerances (I would just tell you that every instrument has one).



There's no ozone hole. I just wanted to warn you before Into the Night beats you up for claiming that there is.

The sun creates ozone from atmosheric O2 via the Chapman cycle. There is always an ozone "hole" over the pole that is currently in winter (extended nighttime). As long as there is a functioning sun, if we were to totally eliminate all the ozone in the atmosphere, it would all be back to normal in 24 hours. Do not fear. Do not panic.

Quite right. As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there will be ozone. Man has no power to destroy the ozone layer even if he wanted to.
You are also quite right on statistical math. All statistical summaries MUST include the margin of error. One value without the other is completely meaningless.

 

[goat]

Actually, I know enough to know that those graphs are meaningless without a source showing the data they used to arrive at those conclusions. My bet is that they're the result of bad statistical analysis and cherry picked data. The IPCC has been so wrong, so much, I could get better predictions from a tarot card reader or run-of-the-mill psychic.

Remember this graph? You only have to go back 150 million years to see what temperatures the earth spends most of its time.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Remember this graph? You only have to go back 150 million years to see what temperatures the earth spends most of its time.

The important hing about that graph is it shows something called "paleoclimate". There's an entire sub-specialty in geology related to paleoclimatology. That's how we know about "NATURAL FORCINGS" which affect climate. In the absence of humans we have to explain climate change in the past. So we learn a lot about how the natural forcings shift temperature.

The real problem arises in when we try to apply that knowledge to the warming we've seen in the recent past. Right now natural forcings alone CANNOT explain the warming. It isn't until we factor in human behaviors like GHG's and land use changes that suddenly the warming we see fits the data.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

My problem with the graphs presented is this:

Yes, you can measure the temperature of the planet at specific points and with enough data points estimate (note that) the temperature of the planet. The IPCC and other Gorebal Warming acolytes then estimate the CO2 (and maybe--MAYBE--) other potential greenhouse gasses. They then estimate the amount of anthropogenic Gorebal Warming from these estimates.

That isn't how it works at all.

That is, they are making estimates, from which they derive other estimates. This is a huge no-no in statistics.

When you make an error in how the data is collected of course any conclusion you draw from that error is bound to sound wrong. Thankfully that isn't how the data is treated. It is much more detailed. Much more complicated.

And when you say "deriving estimates from other estimates", well, sadly that is all data. All data are estimates of the true value. You never have perfect data. The topic you are bouncing around here is something called "propogation of error". Every measurement you take may have errors embedded in it: whether it is just random noise or a problem with a measurement tool. All measurements are estimates. The best you can do is attempt to characterize the relative error or unexplained variance.

 

[goat]

The important hing about that graph is it shows something called "paleoclimate". There's an entire sub-specialty in geology related to paleoclimatology. That's how we know about "NATURAL FORCINGS" which affect climate. In the absence of humans we have to explain climate change in the past. So we learn a lot about how the natural forcings shift temperature.

The real problem arises in when we try to apply that knowledge to the warming we've seen in the recent past. Right now natural forcings alone CANNOT explain the warming. It isn't until we factor in human behaviors like GHG's and land use changes that suddenly the warming we see fits the data.

The Earth spends 2/3 of its time without ice on the poles. There are many causes, but the important part is humans will have a difficult time surviving without ice on the poles.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

"the earth is 30C warmer than it otherwise should be" m.

The stefan boltzmann equation gives a blackbody temperature of the earth.

J = εσT^4

When you calculate the "blackbody temperature" of the earth (T) (if it were a true black body radiator) the temperature you get a temperature that is about 33degC cooler than what the earth's average temperature is. (SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2)

You are free to doubt me, but you shouldn't doubt the math.

 

[IBDaMann]

The Church of the Ozone Hole is no different from the Church of Global Warming or the Church of Green or the Church of Covid.

Yes, but the Church of the Ozone Hole successfully evaded inclusion the previous official listing of churches.

 

[IBDaMann]

The stefan boltzmann equation gives a blackbody temperature of the earth.

Are you requesting me to teach you about this area of black body science, or would you prefer I just unload on you and pick you apart? I'll enjoy either way. You'll be able to declare all you want that I don't know what I know as I'm ripping you a new one.

... or you can take notes on what I teach you.

J = εσT^4

Why did you copy-paste this formula instead of just writing it in an intelligible manner so that everyone can understand it?

Don't worry, I'll answer that question for you. You haven't the vaguest idea what any of it means beyond reciting what Wikiedia tells you.

When you calculate the "blackbody temperature" of the earth (T) (if it were a true black body radiator) the temperature you get a temperature that is about 33degC cooler than what the earth's average temperature is.

...and if I were to ask you to exlain why what you just wrote is entirely bogus, you wouldn't have the slightest clue, right? What you wrote is pure regurgitation of the babblings of scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent morons.

So, did you want to become a student, or do I go to town on you?

 

[IBDaMann]

The Earth spends 2/3 of its time without ice on the poles.

You haven't gotten anything right yet, did you realize this? Earth always has ice at the south pole. You've got to be a Marxist, Global Warming dupe to not know this.

There are many causes,

It never happens, hence there is no cause.

but the important part is humans will have a difficult time surviving without ice on the poles.

Is this because humans somehow need polar ice to survive? Is this why there is no human life at or near the equator?

 

[IBDaMann]

Thankfully that isn't how the data is treated. It is much more detailed. Much more complicated.

Is raw data much more complicated ... or is it entirely without complication, i.e. just the raw data and nothing else?

Which one is it, what you said or the exact opposite?

Every measurement you take may have errors embedded in it:

I think what you meant to say is that, with the exception of counting discrete values, all measurements have an associated non-zero error, right?

All measurements are estimates.

Including counting discrete values?

The best you can do is attempt to characterize the relative error or unexplained variance.

Are you sure? Are you certain that one cannot take steps to reduce error? Are you certain that increasing the number of measurements won't help? Are you sure that switching to different instrumentation can't possibly help any? Are you sure that synchronizing your measurements won't reduce temporal bias/error?

Is the best anyone can do really just to attempt to characterize the existing relative error? What if I'm not very good at characterizing? Am I hosed?

 

[goat]

You haven't gotten anything right yet, did you realize this? Earth always has ice at the south pole. You've got to be a Marxist, Global Warming dupe to not know this.


It never happens, hence there is no cause.


Is this because humans somehow need polar ice to survive? Is this why there is no human life at or near the equator?

Paleontologists have evidence the south pole used to be a tropical paradise. Your arrested development shows in every post.

 

[IBDaMann]

The important hing about that graph is ...

... it very clearly reveals the gullibility of those who fall for it. You have to be a stupid, undereducated, scientifically illiterate and mathematically incometent moron to believe that anyone is omniscient about unobserved events of the distant past. Those who fall for it under the insistence that geologists somehow have a magical superpowers of omniscience are not only stupid and gullible, but are also desperate for a religion to fill a profound void in the very core of their being.

it shows something called "paleoclimate".

You have to be a stupid, scientifically illiterate moron to fall for undefined gibber-babble. There is no such thing as a global climate, and one does not somehow magically come into existence by adding a prefix.

There's an entire sub-specialty in geology related to paleoclimatology.

You have to be a stupid, scientifically illiterate and logically inept moron to believe that there is a scientific study of any religion.

If I were a student at UCLA, for example, what course number could I take that is a paleoclimatology course? If I were learning paleoclimatology, would I be learning geology or would I be listening to a Marxist who is trying to indoctrinate me?

That's how we know about "NATURAL FORCINGS" which affect climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate; it's a contradiction in terms.

There is no such thing in science as a "forcing." A "forcing" is a doctrinal term in the Global Warming and Climate Change religions. "Forcing" means "miracle" which is a religious way of saying "divinely caused violation of physics." There are no violations of physics in science.

You have to be a stupid, undereducated and gullible leftist to fall for this totally transarent crap.

In the absence of humans we have to explain climate change in the past.

What you need to do is to unambiguously define your terms. Isn't it funny how no religion ever unambiguously defines its terms, preferring instead to keep everything totally undefined and unfalsifiable? Isn't it funny that no human has ever unambiguously defined either the global climate or "Climate Change" in any way that doesn't violate physics or logic?

No human, ever. Wow. Unbelievable.

The real problem arises in when we try to apply that knowledge to the warming we've seen in the recent past.

You haven't seen any recent warming beyond our emergence from winter. You have been told to believe that you have somehow OBSERVED warming ... and you OBEY as ordered. You let someone else do your thinking for you because you obviously find it far too difficult to do on your own. Eventually you will correlate the thinking you let others do for you with your position of being bent over furniture.

It isn't until we factor in human behaviors like GHG's ...

There is no such thing in science as greenhouse effect. It's WACKY religious doctrine and nothing more. I'm looking forward to your insistence that you somehow have science to support your WACKY beliefs in your greenhouse effect doctrine, so don't take too long.

 

[AProudLefty]

... it very clearly reveals the gullibility of those who fall for it. You have to be a stupid, undereducated, scientifically illiterate and mathematically incometent moron to believe that anyone is omniscient about unobserved events of the distant past. Those who fall for it under the insistence that geologists somehow have a magical superpowers of omniscience are not only stupid and gullible, but are also desperate for a religion to fill a profound void in the very core of their being.

I see. So we should released murderers because the police cannot observe the past? Brilliant!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The important hing about that graph is it shows something called "paleoclimate". There's an entire sub-specialty in geology related to paleoclimatology. That's how we know about "NATURAL FORCINGS" which affect climate. In the absence of humans we have to explain climate change in the past. So we learn a lot about how the natural forcings shift temperature.

The real problem arises in when we try to apply that knowledge to the warming we've seen in the recent past. Right now natural forcings alone CANNOT explain the warming. It isn't until we factor in human behaviors like GHG's and land use changes that suddenly the warming we see fits the data.

That's not true. We know that anthropogenic CO2 isn't the only potential cause of warming. Yet, the Gorebal Warming crowd is 'all in' on that as the single cause of warming due to anthropogenic means. It's a fool's errand to buy into that.

 

[IBDaMann]

Paleontologists have evidence the south pole used to be a tropical paradise.

No human has ever traveled back in time. How is it that you became so gullible as to believe that paleontologists somehow had time machines? You have to pretty stupid to fall for that.

No speculation about the past has ever been verified. C'mon, wake up.

 

[IBDaMann]

We know that anthropogenic CO2 isn't the only potential cause of warming.

Actually, we know that there is no such thing as "anthroogenic CO2" that is somehow any different from regular, plain old vanilla CO2. In the last version of CO2, they derecated the XML tags that held the history and origin of the CO2 so now we can no longer tell which CO2 is anthroogenic and which ones are entirely pure and natural.

We also know that no gas, or any substance for that matter, has any magical superpower to somehow cause other matter to spontaneously increase in temperature. Nothing can cause any increase in Earth's average global temperature besides an increase in solar radiance or a decrease in earth's distance to the sun. The earth's (mostly) spherical shape precludes any particluar orientation from being a significant factor.

Yet, the Gorebal Warming crowd is 'all in' on that as the single cause of warming due to anthropogenic means. It's a fool's errand to buy into that.

Yep. There's no warming in the first place.

 

[goat]

No human has ever traveled back in time. How is it that you became so gullible as to believe that paleontologists somehow had time machines? You have to pretty stupid to fall for that.

No speculation about the past has ever been verified. C'mon, wake up.

Antarctica Fossil Forests - Antarctic tropical forests fossilized - when, how and why?

Antarctic also harbor’s bones of extinct marsupials and Dinosaurs with massive coal beds full of once flourishing flora and fauna. The find consists of three inch-long jawbones, each with two or three teeth, that belonged to two berry-eating creatures of an extinct marsupial species called Polydolopus. The bones were dated to the Eocene epoch, and were similar to those of marsupials known to have flourished in South America at the time. They were recognized instantly by Dr Michael P Woodburne, a vertebrate palaeontologist at the University of California at Riverside, who is an authority on marsupials.

https://www.climate-policy-watcher....ical-forests-fossilized-when-how-and-why.html
-----------------------------------------------

Quit pretending you know anything about science.

 

[IBDaMann]

Antarctica Fossil Forests - Antarctic tropical forests fossilized - when, how and why?

What is now the Antarctic ice sheet wasn't always at the pole. No human has any rational basis for believing that the pole was ever without ice.

You are not the brightest bulb in the pack.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Jill Win-Banks of MSNBC is commenting on the new (yet another!) UN report that says we only have 10 years until the Earth irrevocably passes a 'tipping point' and becomes like Venus, hot enough to melt lead.

Basically the same thing they said in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and pretty much every year in between.

The Church of Global Warming is STILL trying the same refrain and buzzwords and STILL ignoring the same laws of physics and STILL ignoring statistical mathematics and STILL out there trying to fear monger.

You would think these twits would get tired of the same old song. The only change through the years is what to call it (Global Cooling/Warming/ClimateChange/Warming/ClimateCrisis/ClimateDisaster/WhateverTheFuckTheyCallItNow).

Of course, the 'solution' is always the same: shut down capitalism and liberty and implement tyranny.

The name changes, but the stripes don't.

Oh My God! GET A LIFE DUDE!

YOU ARE PATHETIC!

 

[goat]

What is now the Antarctic ice sheet wasn't always at the pole. No human has any rational basis for believing that the pole was ever without ice.

You are not the brightest bulb in the pack.

"The bones were dated to the Eocene epoch, and were similar to those of marsupials known to have flourished in South America at the time."

You are obviously part of the JPP low IQ who pull stuff out of your ass and call it fact.