How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Tonington]

You're so hurtful; where's my drink?

Drink? To go with your whine? Try some water.

 

[JLM]

See, part of the problem with the so-called skeptics is that most aren't that savvy about the science or the statistics. What Phil Jones said was that there had not been any statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. That doesn't mean the planet didn't actually get warmer. It simply means that the amount the planet got warmer by isn't large enough to distinguish from a hypothesis that there was no warming. The finer details on that point are that the variability is large. So you need large warming before the trend rises above the noise in the system. Also, that claim only holds for the surface temperature record. Other indices of heat, such as global ocean heat content, are highly significant over the last 15 years. Anyways.

So on the one hand, the temperature trend over 15 years was non-significant at an Alpha of 0.05-the standard threshold for statistical hypothesis tests-at the time Jones made those comments. That has absolutely zero meaning biologically. The temperature rise can be enough to cause a significant increase or decrease in some biological parameter, without the trend itself being statistically significant. Biological systems are often characterized best by thresholds. Below a certain temperature, a disease won't cause infection in aquatic organisms. Below a certain concentration, a toxin won't cause an organism any ill thrift. And so on.

I wouldn't expect someone with a philosophy degree to be well versed in the difference between statistical significance, and biological significance. Much less the corollaries that important distinction carries with it...

Anything better than that Walt?[/FONT]

So, to put what you are saying in a nutshell is there is a huge difference between 59.99 degrees and 60.01 degrees if elephants die at 60.00 degrees.............................gotcha! :lol:

 

[Tonington]

So, to put what you are saying in a nutshell is there is a huge difference between 59.99 degrees and 60.01 degrees if elephants die at 60.00 degrees.............................gotcha! :lol:

Sort of. That may be too fine a shell to put all the parts in though...I figure you of all people would like the take away, that stats don't trump the biology. That's a standard message in all of the stats classes I ever took.

 

[JLM]

Sort of. That may be too fine a shell to put all the parts in though...I figure you of all people would like the take away, that stats don't trump the biology. That's a standard message in all of the stats classes I ever took.

Yep, I'm pretty leery about statistics (without knowing all the details) eg. you can record thousands of temperatures under dozens of conditions but what good are they if you find out later the thermometers were never tested? :lol:

 

[Tonington]

Yep, I'm pretty leery about statistics (without knowing all the details) eg. you can record thousands of temperatures under dozens of conditions but what good are they if you find out later the thermometers were never tested? :lol:

Depends. Probably not so good, unless you have a way of checking after the fact.

 

[Tonington]

A post by "skeptical" scientist, Roger Pielke Sr. has me chuckling. He has a new paper out soon, and he is looking to generate some buzz about the differences between the surface temperature record, and the lower tropospheric temperature as measured by the microwave sounding satellites.

He compares May's anomalies from the GHCN, used by NOAA to those of the UAH satellite record, and comments on the discrepancies without actually commenting on the biggest factor of all.

Here's the NOAA global anomalies for May:

And here is the UAH data for May:

Yup, definitely some differences there, and to Pielke Sr's credit he does mention that they aren't actually measuring the same thing. The real boner though is when he comments on the difference between the global anomalies for UAH lower tropospheric temperature anomaly and NOAA's surface (technically 2m above ground) temperature record:

In this data, May 2012 has a global composite lower tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May. The NOAA plot above has a global composite of “more than 1°F above the 20th century average” according to the NOAA article.​

He goes on to talk about soil conditions and the warm bias in the surface record. The warm bias part is particularly amusing.

I wonder if anyone can spot the big glaring error that Roger missed? :lol:

I can give a hint. What is a temperature anomaly?

:lol:

 

[Locutus]

The Sound Of Settled Science

h/t sda

Steven Goddard;

CRU shows temperatures in Illinois barely rising, at about 0.007 degrees per year since 1850. But it is worse than it seems. Essentially all of the rise occurred before 1930. Until about 10 years ago, NOAA , GISS and CRU all agreed that the US was not warming. NOAA and GISS decided to correct the problem by tampering with the data.




more here gentle readers:


CRU – Illinois/Wisconsin Temperatures Barely Rising | Real Science
​

 

[Tonington]

The Sound Of Settled Science

h/t sda

Steven Goddard;

CRU shows temperatures in Illinois barely rising, at about 0.007 degrees per year since 1850. But it is worse than it seems. Essentially all of the rise occurred before 1930. Until about 10 years ago, NOAA , GISS and CRU all agreed that the US was not warming. NOAA and GISS decided to correct the problem by tampering with the data.




more here gentle readers:


CRU – Illinois/Wisconsin Temperatures Barely Rising | Real Science
​

Where's the evidence of tampering? Oh that's right, there is none.

And Pielke Sr's problem? He's comparing anomalies with different baselines. The divergence between the NOAA data and the UAH satellite data disappears when you use a common baseline.

 

[L Gilbert]

Depends. Probably not so good, unless you have a way of checking after the fact.

And there are many ways, geological evidence, biological evidence, etc.

A post by "skeptical" scientist, Roger Pielke Sr. has me chuckling. He has a new paper out soon, and he is looking to generate some buzz about the differences between the surface temperature record, and the lower tropospheric temperature as measured by the microwave sounding satellites.

He compares May's anomalies from the GHCN, used by NOAA to those of the UAH satellite record, and comments on the discrepancies without actually commenting on the biggest factor of all.

Here's the NOAA global anomalies for May:

And here is the UAH data for May:

Yup, definitely some differences there, and to Pielke Sr's credit he does mention that they aren't actually measuring the same thing. The real boner though is when he comments on the difference between the global anomalies for UAH lower tropospheric temperature anomaly and NOAA's surface (technically 2m above ground) temperature record:

In this data, May 2012 has a global composite lower tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May. The NOAA plot above has a global composite of “more than 1°F above the 20th century average” according to the NOAA article.
​

He goes on to talk about soil conditions and the warm bias in the surface record. The warm bias part is particularly amusing.

I wonder if anyone can spot the big glaring error that Roger missed? :lol:

I can give a hint. What is a temperature anomaly?

:lol:

lol Maybe something to do with temp. deviation? Just a guess.

 

[Tonington]

lol Maybe something to do with temp. deviation? Just a guess.

Yep. The anomaly for UAH is the current temperature minus the 1981-2010 average. The anomaly for NOAA comes from GHCN which is a century average. With warmer temperatures in the last 30 years, obviously the anomaly for UAH is going to be much smaller than GHCN.

In fact when you use a common baseline, UAH sometimes shows more warming, sometimes GHCN does, but there is no statistical difference between the two.

 

[Locutus]

It's So Hot In Oklahoma That Street Lights Are Melting



Yes, that's the headline of the original story posted by Soros-funded climate alarmists 'Think Progress'.

The post has since been deleted.

UPDATE: In Oklahoma City, It's So Hot And Dry There's Mandatory Water Rationing | ThinkProgress


The lame attempt at scrubbing (updating) the piece was just as bad.

After we published this piece, we saw reports from people on the ground in Stillwater that the melting streetlights were due to a nearby fire.










It was picked up and knee jerked by the usual suspects.


Oklahoma is so hot that street lamps are melting | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News


Oklahoma is so hot that street lamps are melting | Tecca


Oklahoma's Record-Setting Heat is Hot Enough to Melt a Street Light [UPDATE]


It's So Hot In Oklahoma That Street Lights Are Melting



Thanks to Alarmist fact checking – street lights don’t melt at 115°F | Watts Up With That?


h/t Soros-Funded Propaganda Machine Think Progress Falsely Claims Global Warming Melted Street Lights in Oklahoma | NewsBusters.org



Here's the original MELTING post from these dweebs:
:lol:
Think Progress

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Typical, loco. Soros does provide some of the funding but so what? "Think Progress is not a denial site and it is not a "sceptic" blog. It is that rare thing in America, a progressive organisation.

Is this all that Watts and co can now come up with? The denial industry gets more pathetic and desperate by the day as they have nothing left of any substance.

 

[taxslave]

Typical, loco. Soros does provide some of the funding but so what? "Think Progress is not a denial site and it is not a "sceptic" blog. It is that rare thing in America, a progressive organisation.

Is this all that Watts and co can now come up with? The denial industry gets more pathetic and desperate by the day as they have nothing left of any substance.

True, the far left has nothing of any substance.

 

[Locutus]

Typical, loco. Soros does provide some of the funding but so what? "Think Progress is not a denial site and it is not a "sceptic" ( wtf is a sceptic? :lol: )blog. It is that rare thing in America, a progressive organisation.

Is this all that Watts and co can now come up with? The denial industry gets more pathetic and desperate by the day as they have nothing left of any substance.

Relax kid, I didn't say you were personally sleeping with George Soros or anything. Maybe Stephen Lacey, but that's not important right now. ;-)



The hipster doucheblogger claimed the air temperature melted some friggin' streetlights. The temperature. :lol:

Then he tried to delete his stupidity so no one would catch him on it.

Bitch please.


As the articles revealed:

They are High density polyethelene HDPE
Polyethylene White Street Light Globes
DL16SPEW-H - 16" Round Polyethylene White Street Light Globe W/Hole - Decra-Lite
Melting Point: 266°F 130°C







But anyway........

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I can't believe that I am the 1,115th post on this thread. I'd like to thank the Academy, my Mom, Amber Lynn, all the members of Pink Floyd, and and if I forgot anyone.. Please forgive me. "THEY LIKE ME!"

 

[Locutus]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/fun-jokes/108253-blog-gender-analyzer.html

 

[Cabbagesandking]

True, the far left has nothing of any substance.

Far Left! Have you developed astigmatism?

Also, this was merely following a report, initially. As I said, desperation by the deniers.

 

[L Gilbert]

It is fairly cool here, though. Must be climate change. .

Really? You're sticking with momentary, local weather to make a comment on global climate?
No wonder you can't even understand the scientific aspects and keep posting nonsense that high school students could rebut. lol

 

[L Gilbert]

Don't waste your time. Walt + science = wtf

Oh, I know. I just find it funny.

 

[Walter]

Sad really, people like Walt are in power.

And loving it.