Wikipedia on global warming theory
The word theory does no appear in the article.
Priceless
Maybe it’s under the enhanced greenhouse theory
Nope. It’s little wonder there is so much ignorance about the theory.
Well now we know. I keep forgetting that Peru and Brazil are neighbors.
Man, that’s a toughie. Perhaps it’s because Atlanta and Dallas combined make up 0.00026% of the surface area of the earth and mean diddly liquid shit in this conversation. I am glad you’re fighting the good fight. Your posts have the same amount of stupidity as your cohorts, but in much fewer words.
Looking at the US data, as well as the global trends, winters for most of the US are trending colder. Depending on the region, the trends can be quite long.
Atlanta shows a cooling trend for Jan from 1986, but none for December. This is the asymmetric change mentioned early on.
Atlanta shows a cooling trend for Feb from 1982
What’s really odd is that Atlanta shows cooling for August, which is a mystery to everyone, but the theory is clouds.
It’s complicated.
What is simpler, is first grasping that there actually is an asymmetric change that has already happened, so much that many scientific papers and much study is going on to explain it. (those still insisting it didn’t happen would be deniers)
If it keeps happening, this asymmetric cooling of the boreal winters, while the rest of the year continues warming (mostly), it will be THE subject of most climate discussions about climate change. Because it IS the change at this point. Drastic boreal winter warming is actually already done, dead, over, it didn’t happen.
Of course it could reverse in the future, at which point it gets real interesting. The theory can’t predict both things from the same forcing.
That butthurt go to your brain, I see.
While I use the term for irony (because a certain group used denier like it actually means something to them), there is little mystery about what both terms mean to those who use them.
Warmers believe that we are headed for catastrophic and rapid global warming, and nothing can make a dent in their belief.
Deniers believe warmers are either delusional, or motivated by political goals, and don’t believe much of anything the warmers claim at this point, and nothing can make a dent in their belief.
Both sound like fuckheads to me, or idiots if you will. Lacking healthy skepticism, and the ability to try and falsify their theories, it’s like politics, not science.
Being skeptical of all of it, I am seemingly not liked by anybody. So what? I don’t fucking care.
I want to know what the fuck is actually happening, no matter what that information leads to later.
The irony, it burns. [Making our planet hotter in the process]
I know I’m being ignored in this one, but I thought I’d share one more for the smart people. link
ETA: I propose ‘warmillion’.
Statistics are tricky and people use them to play tricks. And this particular statistic is bullshit, it is folks with an agenda playing games.
Link.
He gives a good explanation.
Additionally, this is the historical temp (NH) according to climate scientists. Do you see any time in which the environment was warmer than it is now? If so, how many periods and what is the duration of those periods?
Slee
No, not really. I expected to read a good statistically oriented critique, but that was dumb.
I’d really like to see the source of that graph and which climate scientists are reporting that data. Without context, I have no idea what is taken into account, which is kind of important when dealing with 11,000 year old temperature estimations.
While the bolded portion is actually true, in this particular case, the math is pretty straightforward if you agree with the input variables. If you disagree with them, that has nothing to do with statistics and you should argue that instead.
Since you didn’t argue against the data itself, we’ll work with it for now.
If we discount global warming and we therefore regard the recent warming as a cyclical fluke, then we can basically replace being above or below average with a coin flip. We’ve just recently landed on heads quite a few times in a row.
To calculate probabilities for a series of independent events, you simply multiple the odds of each event. So, heads for a single coin flip is 0.5. Two heads in a row is 0.5 * 0.5 which is 0.25. Three in a row is 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 or 0.125. The odds of heads 358 times in row? 1.703183936003260000000000000000E-108. To put it in perspective, if you bought a single powerball ticket every drawing, you would be more likely to win the jackpot 13 times in a row than flip 358 heads in a row.
Feel free to check the math, as this is not really tricky, and note that I’m using the current Powerball Jackpot odds of 1 to 175,223,510.
On the off chance that you don’t like decimal notation, there is approximately a 1 in 587,135,645,693,458,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of you flipping 358 heads in a row. Let me know when you’ve succeeded.
The claim about statistics is indeed complete nonsense, and easily debunked. Equating the calculated surface temperature annual mean with a chance event is beyond stupid. The exact same claim can be made about the entire 20th century, in which every year was warmer than the 19th century mean. Imagine the odds of that happening, because the climate of the planet is based on chance, not physics.
(Note to the literal minded and the pedantic, when I type out --> “because the climate of the planet is based on chance, not physics”, that’s sarcasm. The climate system is not a chance event, nor is each year like a coin flip)
Excellent, why don’t you tell me the odds of any given month being higher than the baseline that we’ve established for this? While I was responding to someone who thinks global warming is hogwash, which makes the odds basically a coin flip, if you think the odds are not 50/50 for an individual month, I’ll happily redo the math using your odds.
Since I’m betting you don’t want to play, I’ll supply a really high probability. Let’s say that we expect, for whatever reason, for a given month to be higher than the baseline average 90% of the time. In that case, the odds for it being higher 358 times in a row are pretty close to my above ticket buyer winning the Powerball jackpot twice in a row.
I’m thinking that maybe we’re not dealing with chance here, much as I’m betting a buyer of a single ticket per drawing winning twice in a row would warrant some pretty serious investigation.
Now you are thinking. It’s not a game of chance, nor is it a matter of odds.
Right on the first part, wrong on the second.
Specifically, one cannot evaluate the probability of observing elements in a series like temperature using statistics for evaluating the probability of independent events.
However, there are techniques for accounting for non-independence when analyzing a series, and you sure can determine the likelihood or the odds of seeing one particular value.