Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
38,678
203
63
Yes it does show contrails. Contrails that make a heat trap over an already very warm part of the US and over the ocean between the mainland and Bermuda. What does that do to the normal weather and climate stats for that region or any region for that matter? heat traps like that over water create some nasty storms do they not? Has there been an increase in nasty storms? CO2 isn't pushing anything up. Aircraft now fly 10,000ft higher than they used to 20-30 years ago and they have better engine designs and wing designs which create far more compression and decompression of gasses which make them far more efficient and create far more vapor which makes heat traps all over the globe everyday, 365 days a year.

Contrails on their own are relatively harmless. It's only when the cool, crystalized water begins to fall and turn into water vapour that it begins to contribute to the green house effect. But natural vapour from the earth's atmosphere vastly eclipses any vapour created by contrails. Just check out that quote morgan provided from the IPCC. Humans contribute - oh I'm sorry, I meant to say influence - very little directly toward condensation.

After September 11th, there was that Travis study in 2002 where they claimed contrails were the reason for climate change. That was later debunked in 2004 because the weather conditions were abnormal for that period, so the temperature change was greatly overstated.

Travis et al. (2002) produced a calculation suggesting
that the lack of contrails during the airline shutdown
following the attacks of 11 September 2001
resulted in a substantial rise in the diurnal temperature
range across the US. The obvious interpretation is that
contrails have a strong impact on surface temperature
patterns at the regional scale. However, Travis et al.
(2002) did not control for the air-mass conditions
across the US that may have been responsible for the
observed increase in diurnal temperature range
immediately following the attacks.

By controlling for the air masses present across the
US, we found that the unusual temperatures on 11 and
12 September were a result of a particularly clear
weather pattern, not a lack of jet contrails. Furthermore,
the average diurnal temperature range for 11 to 14
September 2001 was only slightly above average,
but well below what should have occurred based upon
air masses present across the country. There is no
doubt that contrails have some effect on the regional,
hemispheric, and global climate system (Penner et al.
1999), but we conclude that the magnitude of this
effect was overestimated by the Travis et al. (2002)
study.


http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/26/c026p001.pdf
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,930
5,033
113
Moccasin Flats
Contrails on their own are relatively harmless. It's only when the cool, crystalized water begins to fall and turn into water vapour that it begins to contribute to the green house effect. But natural vapour from the earth's atmosphere vastly eclipses any vapour created by contrails. Just check out that quote morgan provided from the IPCC. Humans contribute - oh I'm sorry, I meant to say influence - very little directly toward condensation.
Does natural vapour form large heat traps when they fly over Greenland all day all night? No wonder the glaciers are melting. They are under a mirrored on one side lense that focuses and traps SW and LW radiation.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
So... No answer then, eh?

You didn't ask a question...and I don't dismiss a lack of knowledge. I've explained this to you before, but you remain completely ignorant about how the statistics capture all of the variability and what the difference is between signal and noise.

Let me guess, you're a self appointed expert statistician, climatologist, meteorologist, geophysicist, geologist and model developer...

Bringing an expert to bare on your arguments would be like using a rocket launcher to kill a flea...I don't need to be an expert to debunk your nonsense.

More ignorant ranting and raving about the infallibility of you masters at the IPCC.

No, it was a direct quote which contradicts the message you're peddling here...:lol:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You didn't ask a question...and I don't dismiss a lack of knowledge. I've explained this to you before, but you remain completely ignorant about how the statistics capture all of the variability and what the difference is between signal and noise.


... And you didn't answer the initial question.

We've discussed this, your statistical equation would require enough "corrective techniques" such that it would have a significant double digit margin of error, unless of course you are stating that you know, with absolute certainty, most if not all of the contributing components.... Further, differentiation between signal and noise is founded on a myriad of assumptions.... See what I mean, you don't know anywhere enough the system to generate any kind of equation that would have any form of confidence.


So, spare me the nonsense that you are capable of omitting the input of the unknowns because you have a corrective technique, fact is, you'd be omitting 90+% of the total variables.



I don't need to be an expert to debunk your nonsense.


So, you're saying you aren't an expert in the aforementioned fields?.. I can assume from this that you are NOT speaking from a position of knowledge and authority?

In the end, you're just pulling at straws, eh?



No, it was a direct quote which contradicts the message you're peddling here...:lol:

Strawman

Rhetoric

Red Herring
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
We've discussed this, your statistical equation would require enough "corrective techniques" such that it would have a significant double digit margin of error

See, you're so ignorant that you don't even know how ignorant you are. A margin of error is the estimate of the random sampling error. It consider the population size you are surveying and the sample population size. You sound like someone trying to bull $hit their way through a midterm.

This has nothing to do with interpreting significant results, or with the number of factors of interest, blocking factors, and unknowns...

Further, differentiation between signal and noise is founded on a myriad of assumptions.
A myriad? It's related to the coefficient of variation. When you run an experiment you have controlled variables, and that allows you to determine what amount of variation is due to changing the variables. The mean you measure from your response variable is responsible for some portion of the total variability, the noise is everything else. There could be a million other factors involved that change the outcome in a minuscule amount, and you could be testing just two factors, and still have a signal to noise ratio that allows you to conclude that A caused C.

How do you think scientists ever make findings otherwise? How is it that we can engineer rockets, airplanes, drugs, determine causes of disease...

You have such a bizarre outlook on what scientists need. I have no idea where you get this stuff from, but it sure is entertaining! :lol:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
See, you're so ignorant that you don't even know how ignorant you are. A margin of error is the estimate of the random sampling error. It consider the population size you are surveying and the sample population size. You sound like someone trying to bull $hit their way through a midterm.


Margins of error are directed related to confidence levels, degrees of freedom, etc. Mr. Science..... I should have known that you'd fall-back on your crutch that requires semantics as the deflection issue.

But lets run with your blunder... Where, exactly, do your data points originate Mr.Science?.. Are you fabricating it, or is it the result of surveying historical temps, ghg concentrations, etc...

Dumbass

Fact is, you rely on massive corrective techniques that erase any kind of confidence that you could possible generate through these woefully incomplete models. Factor in the reality that most, if not all of your data points (read: Survey points of raw data) are convenience samples and that eliminates any form of support for your AGW wet dream.


This has nothing to do with interpreting significant results, or with the number of factors of interest, blocking factors, and unknowns...


Spare me... Your results have no significance... There is no valid interpretation.



A myriad? It's related to the coefficient of variation. When you run an experiment you have controlled variables, and that allows you to determine what amount of variation is due to changing the variables.


Assuming that you have knowledge of the variables.... Hell, you can't even identify the majority of the variables at work in a system that you don't have a clue about.


How do you think scientists ever make findings otherwise? How is it that we can engineer rockets, airplanes, drugs, determine causes of disease...


If they went via your generous statistical assumptions, any findings would be only through accident.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
38,678
203
63
Nice. Calling people 'dumbass' really does a lot for your credibility. Right up there with the rest of your slanderous diatribe and youtube videos meant to characterize other forum members. You know, I understand you think you're incredibly intelligent for being able to pick up on any public scheme. And I'm one of the first people who would jump on that ship with you, you know.

But you bring absolutely nothing to the table to make such a case. So much hot air with nothing to show for it. It's not skepticism or even denialism. It's just a bad case of PMS. Maybe you should calm down for a bit. Maybe change things up. Try and be more open and less antagonistic.

You know, try and see the other side before jumping down someone's throat. I just don't understand why you have to be such a douchebag. It doesn't even get you anywhere. Seriously man, where's all this deep seeded angst coming from?
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Margins of error are directed related to confidence levels, degrees of freedom, etc.

Yes, as I said it's a measure of the random sampling error, it's used when drawing samples from a large population. It's not used in my experience for experiments, because the population is not large. You raised this red herring when I mentioned signal to noise. Nothing in the portioning of variance will change the requirements on the margin of error, because first, the samples are already sampled ahead of time if you know what the variance is in the data and have estimated the signal to noise ratio. Second, the margin of error only considers the sample size, and the population the sample is drawn from. That won't change because of the variance in your data....you select samples first, besed on margin of error or statistical power required. Then you get data. The data gives you all kinds of descriptive statistics, including the sum of squares. From the degrees of freedom and the sum of squares you get variance. The total sum of squares includes your experimental variables, and the error(which includes all sources of variability that exist) which themselves have their own degrees of freedom, so you can get their variance as well....you don't need to control every single possible variable...

No matter how many times you repeat your nonsense, it won't be true. There is a huge body of literature on this. This is how science works...whether you acknowledge it or not.
 
Last edited:

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
48
This is getting annoying. I am tired of seeing Reports about this friggin' thread, and if the name-calling and other juvenile antics that are occurring in here(abusing the Post Rating option for example) don't cease, I am going to lock the thread.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,153
486
83
Vernon, B.C.
This is getting annoying. I am tired of seeing Reports about this friggin' thread, and if the name-calling and other juvenile antics that are occurring in here(abusing the Post Rating option for example) don't cease, I am going to lock the thread.

Amen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.