It's not a discrepancy. Differences in sample size can be accounted for within hypothesis testing. I'm sure Ravael can explain it better than I can.
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is missing when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Is it Accelerated by Mankind to a significant degree? Data Insufficient.
Easier said than done. In the meantime we'll have people making graphs based on insufficient data that are tailored to their hypotheses, attempting convincing the masses who are too uneducated or too biased to question what they see.
Essentially the whole argument about whether or not mankind is accelerating global warming is a moot point anyway unless we can actually find a way to get the whole world on board or find a way to reduce atmospheric carbon levels by a significant degree.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
In the meantime we'll have people making graphs based on insufficient data that are tailored to their hypotheses, attempting convincing the masses who are too uneducated or too biased to question what they see.
[+]
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
I'll point out that every scientist who has ever spoken out against Global Warming, a group representing 8% of the community, has been traced directly back to Koch Industries.
This Waltz sounds a lot like the tune danced to during the Leaded Gasoline fight back in 50's-60's.
But then again, history only repeats itself if you ignore it right?
This Waltz sounds a lot like the tune danced to during the Leaded Gasoline fight back in 50's-60's.
But then again, history only repeats itself if you ignore it right?
So your totally okay with the massive data discrepancy just because some article blames the koch brothers?
Mark Twain — History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Of course I'm not okay with the data discrepancy, I believe that the data is insufficient. Unfortunately, by the time we have an effective sample size it may be too late.
I'm also not blind to the fact that some "Green Energy" Companies are making a killing off of the "Global Warming" panic machine.
But here's some food for thought; What's more likely, that 92% of the scientific community is in on the world's largest conspiracy ever devised, or that a small group of massively wealthy billionaires are attempting to protect their industry?
Another way to look at it is: Where does this 92% number come from and realize that both sides have billionaires. Also, who is gonna rake in the mass amounts of money when they start regulating.
You and I really do lose either way, only once regulations start its gonna hurt A LOT more. If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
I'll point out that every scientist who has ever spoken out against Global Warming, a group representing 8% of the community, has been traced directly back to Koch Industries.
This Waltz sounds a lot like the tune danced to during the Leaded Gasoline fight back in 50's-60's.
But then again, history only repeats itself if you ignore it right?
This Waltz sounds a lot like the tune danced to during the Leaded Gasoline fight back in 50's-60's.
But then again, history only repeats itself if you ignore it right?
So your totally okay with the massive data discrepancy just because some article blames the koch brothers?
Mark Twain — History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
How do you not?
Because he is sane.
"Insert citation pic jet has here"
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
It's not a discrepancy. Differences in sample size can be accounted for within hypothesis testing. I'm sure Ravael can explain it better than I can.
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is missing when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is missing when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
We have no control for per-industrial times for temperature that I know of. We do however, have ancient controls for atmospheric composition in the form of ice-trapped air in the Arctic.
Also, polar vortex 100% disproved Global Warming already, because if it was cold one day, it means it's not global warming.
Altimaomega said: »
"Insert citation pic jet has here"
Google it on your own time. I'm not going to sort through the 1.27Million hits about it just for you to offer absolutely nothing except "LOL <Name of Website> THATS REEL NEWS!!!"
Altimaomega said: »
Another way to look at it is: Where does this 92% number come from and realize that both sides have billionaires. Also, who is gonna rake in the mass amounts of money when they start regulating.
You and I really do lose either way, only once regulations start its gonna hurt A LOT more. If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
You and I really do lose either way, only once regulations start its gonna hurt A LOT more. If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Differences in sample size can be accounted for within hypothesis testing. I'm sure Ravael can explain it better than I can.
They can be accounted for, but in many instances they lead to less reliable results depending on how the experiments are designed. Sometimes they're negligible, sometimes they ruin the experiment.
You know Pleebo, when you think about it we should thank people like Altimaomega. It's that kind of belligerance that drives moderates like myself even more liberal, just to put more distance between myself and that level of stupidity.
Also, I could have cherry-picked the % and said 98%. Maybe I should have.
Also, I could have cherry-picked the % and said 98%. Maybe I should have.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
It's not a discrepancy. Differences in sample size can be accounted for within hypothesis testing. I'm sure Ravael can explain it better than I can.
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is missing when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is missing when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/academic-solutions/resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/hypothesis-testing/
Hypothesis testing is a statistical method that is used in making statistical decisions using experimental data. Hypothesis Testing is basically an assumption that we make about the population parameter.
Really..
Whats with the discrepancy in the first place? they have data from 1901, They just forgot to keep collecting in the 60-70-80s? Not to mention the 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 BS.
Altimaomega said: »
If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
All data has holes in it. I have no problem with that, only with the way that the data is presented. It's the only reason I'm on the fence about man-made climate change. If I could get an all-access pass that allowed me to actually see the methods of data collection and all the results, I'd form an opinion.
[+]
If I had to fathom a guess, I'd say the missing decades of data are related to the massive amounts of lead pollution caused the leaded gas. Thirty years to convince the world that any level of lead in the human body is dangerous.
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
It's not a discrepancy. Differences in sample size can be accounted for within hypothesis testing. I'm sure Ravael can explain it better than I can.
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is missing when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is missing when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
We have no control for per-industrial times for temperature that I know of. We do however, have ancient controls for atmospheric composition in the form of ice-trapped air in the Arctic.
Also, polar vortex 100% disproved Global Warming already, because if it was cold one day, it means it's not global warming.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Another way to look at it is: Where does this 92% number come from and realize that both sides have billionaires. Also, who is gonna rake in the mass amounts of money when they start regulating.
You and I really do lose either way, only once regulations start its gonna hurt A LOT more. If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
You and I really do lose either way, only once regulations start its gonna hurt A LOT more. If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
All I have seen you post is
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Altimaomega said: »
If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
All data has holes in it. I have no problem with that, only with the way that the data is presented. It's the only reason I'm on the fence about man-made climate change. If I could get an all-access pass that allowed me to actually see the methods of data collection and all the results, I'd form an opinion.
Exactly, so why don't they do that I wonder hmmmm..
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Pre-record temperature are very readily extracted from tree ring records. It's a relatively old science (about 100 years or so) known as dendroclimatology. (Sorry, for the wiki link, but it's a nice general overview of the concept.) Tree ring data sets are very robust, go back thousands of years, and provide data resolution almost as good as modern instruments once properly calibrated.
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Altimaomega said: »
If they could prove 100% its man-made they would have, instead they toss out data with holes in it and call it Science.
All data has holes in it. I have no problem with that, only with the way that the data is presented. It's the only reason I'm on the fence about man-made climate change. If I could get an all-access pass that allowed me to actually see the methods of data collection and all the results, I'd form an opinion.
Exactly, so why don't they do that I wonder hmmmm..
One of two reasons.
1. They're hiding something.
2. Nobody cares aside from nerds like me.
Frankly I think it should be a basic practice to include core data when findings are presented in website format, if for no other reason than to say, "We stand behind our findings and challenge anyone to prove us wrong." In standard reports I can see why they do it, because it can take up a bajillion pages sometimes.
-equips cordial facade-
There are no decades of missing data. The purpose of using two different intervals is to compare the averages and demonstrate a measurable anomaly with a measurable level on uncertainty (i.e. hypothesis testing). If I just report an average temperature of, say, 23 degrees C, it means nothing in this context unless I have something to actually compare it to.
@Ravael - Open access to the data and methods has been available since 1990 with the publishing of the IPCC assessments. The newest one came out just recently, and it, along with all other preceding reports, is available to anyone.
There are no decades of missing data. The purpose of using two different intervals is to compare the averages and demonstrate a measurable anomaly with a measurable level on uncertainty (i.e. hypothesis testing). If I just report an average temperature of, say, 23 degrees C, it means nothing in this context unless I have something to actually compare it to.
@Ravael - Open access to the data and methods has been available since 1990 with the publishing of the IPCC assessments. The newest one came out just recently, and it, along with all other preceding reports, is available to anyone.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
-equips cordial facade-
There are no decades of missing data. The purpose of using two different intervals is to compare the averages and demonstrate a measurable anomaly with a measurable level on uncertainty (i.e. hypothesis testing). If I just report an average temperature of, say, 23 degrees C, it means nothing in this context unless I have something to actually compare it to.
@Ravael - Open access to the data and methods has been available since 1990 with the publishing of the IPCC assessments. The newest one came out just recently, and it, along with all other preceding reports, is available to anyone.
There are no decades of missing data. The purpose of using two different intervals is to compare the averages and demonstrate a measurable anomaly with a measurable level on uncertainty (i.e. hypothesis testing). If I just report an average temperature of, say, 23 degrees C, it means nothing in this context unless I have something to actually compare it to.
@Ravael - Open access to the data and methods has been available since 1990 with the publishing of the IPCC assessments. The newest one came out just recently, and it, along with all other preceding reports, is available to anyone.
Mmkay, I didn't know that. I'll have to take a look. Thanks.
[+]
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
You know Pleebo, when you think about it we should thank people like Altimaomega. It's that kind of belligerance that drives moderates like myself even more liberal, just to put more distance between myself and that level of stupidity.
Also, I could have cherry-picked the % and said 98%. Maybe I should have.
Also, I could have cherry-picked the % and said 98%. Maybe I should have.
I see your vague graph and raise you information that's less vague but still from the internet.
This chart looks like a baseball stadium so bonus points.
http://m4gw.com/99-of-scientists-dont-believe-in-global-warming/
This is just a boring long read... sorry ><
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
Notice how this info has actual numbers while yours is percentage..
Can we not post information from surveys? Surveys are notorious for being misleading and horribly inaccurate.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
-equips cordial facade-
There are no decades of missing data. The purpose of using two different intervals is to compare the averages and demonstrate a measurable anomaly with a measurable level on uncertainty (i.e. hypothesis testing). If I just report an average temperature of, say, 23 degrees C, it means nothing in this context unless I have something to actually compare it to.
@Ravael - Open access to the data and methods has been available since 1990 with the publishing of the IPCC assessments. The newest one came out just recently, and it, along with all other preceding reports, is available to anyone.
There are no decades of missing data. The purpose of using two different intervals is to compare the averages and demonstrate a measurable anomaly with a measurable level on uncertainty (i.e. hypothesis testing). If I just report an average temperature of, say, 23 degrees C, it means nothing in this context unless I have something to actually compare it to.
@Ravael - Open access to the data and methods has been available since 1990 with the publishing of the IPCC assessments. The newest one came out just recently, and it, along with all other preceding reports, is available to anyone.
ffs dude why are you totally ignoring the fact that 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 will have a different avg. no matter what! When you avg. out 59yrs your gonna have a more reliable avg. from what you get when you avg. out 21yrs. IF they was BOTH the same MAYBE we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that and they still only have a 2 degree difference its surprising its not more if the earth is really warming so much.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Can we not post information from surveys? Surveys are notorious for being misleading and horribly inaccurate.
Its more info than what his random chart from manbearpigs website tells you.
[+]
lol, I have no idea where that first link got that 31,487 number since it's completely uncited. For all I know, they made it up.
This is what hypothesis testing is designed for - to test if two (or more) values, in this case average temperature, are actually (that is, statistically) different from each other and provide an estimate of how reliable those results are.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Altimaomega said: »
ffs dude why are you totally ignoring the fact that 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 will have a different avg. no matter what! When you avg. out 59yrs your gonna have a more reliable avg. from what you get when you avg. out 11yrs. IF they was BOTH the same MAYBE we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that and they still only have a 2 degree difference its surprising its not more if the earth is really warming so much.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Can we not post information from surveys? Surveys are notorious for being misleading and horribly inaccurate.
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Google it on your own time. I'm not going to sort through the 1.27Million hits about it just for you to offer absolutely nothing except "LOL <Name of Website> THATS REEL NEWS!!!"
Its more info than what his random chart from manbearpigs website tells you.
Predictable and stupid. Now you just need to tell me a thing or two about the negro and the Triforce of conservative retardation is complete.
@Altima
Nothing will ever say it's 100% because of this, this, and this. That includes all things in science which includes business/economics.
I mention business/economics because they use the same types of models, but less complicated and still get ***wrong.
Also, hypothesis testing and assumptions are used in everything.
Nothing will ever say it's 100% because of this, this, and this. That includes all things in science which includes business/economics.
I mention business/economics because they use the same types of models, but less complicated and still get ***wrong.
Also, hypothesis testing and assumptions are used in everything.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: »
@Altima
Also, hypothesis testing and assumptions are used in everything.
Also, hypothesis testing and assumptions are used in everything.
Pretty much true. It doesn't mean that they're used correctly, though.
[+]
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
lol, I have no idea where that first link got that 31,487 number since it's completely uncited. For all I know, they made it up.
This is what hypothesis testing is designed for - to test if two (or more) values, in this case average temperature, are actually (that is, statistically) different from each other and provide an estimate of how reliable those results are.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Altimaomega said: »
ffs dude why are you totally ignoring the fact that 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 will have a different avg. no matter what! When you avg. out 59yrs your gonna have a more reliable avg. from what you get when you avg. out 11yrs. IF they was BOTH the same MAYBE we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that and they still only have a 2 degree difference its surprising its not more if the earth is really warming so much.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Why not just take 1902-1942 and 1972-2012 and leave out the Assumption.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.