Register to Comment
Page 3879 of 6518 FirstFirst ... 287933793779382938693877387838793880388138893929397943794879 ... LastLast
Results 38,781 to 38,790 of 65174
Like Tree13857Likes
  1. #38781
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,296

    If it takes that long, then there isn't going to be much acceleration


    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    This is the hasty generalization fallacy.
    You guys need well over 10 mm/yr of sea level rise to get to your
    claims of a meter by 2100. You will need considerable acceleration
    of the rate to get there, and you won't need 60 years to detect it.
    It should be happening now, and it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    You focus on a tiny part of the sea level puzzle and amplify it
    to be the only piece.
    Mostly I focus on the büllshït you guys dole out.

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    There is far more to sea level than historical values.
    Such as what? Dr. Josh Willis and Dr. Kevin Trenberth on ocean
    heat that really isn't there? Or claims about Antarctica melting
    when it's not?

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    And you've misunderstood. It doesn't take thal long to achieve
    acceleration, it takes that much data to detect it
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    The kind of acceleration you need to get to your 10 mm/yr won't be
    difficult to detect in the short run. You need sea level to suddenly
    lurch upwards to get to your ridiculous claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    and this applies specifically to the signal to noise ratio of the past.
    If that ratio changes, so will the time needed to detect it.
    When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results.
                                                                                     — Calvin Coolidge

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    Without accounting for the factors that contribute to sea level, without
    factoring the rest of the real world and physics, your criticism of
    projections is pretty empty.
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. You guys can go on
    and on about your claims and projections of melting ice and heat
    disappearing undetected into the oceans all you want. Just let me
    know when the seas begin to surge upwards as a result. Because
    so far, it's not happening.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #38782
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by ireallyshouldknowbetter View Post
    Am I the only one who thinks Steve Case's avatar makes him look like one of the exaggerated nerd characters from South Park?

    I am impressed with your perseverance, Steve, but I wouldn't trust you to put up a shelf in the house, let alone measure the parameters of global warming. Maybe it's statements like:

    maybe someone can tell me what (i5,13f7.3) means, but besides that

    or

    Now I'm sure there's a reason for this, but it's just one more in a long
    line of adjustments that always favor Global Warming theory.

    ... that make it seem like you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You seem to just sort of make it up as you go along, since you figure you obviously do science better than any real scientist might. Bravo! I'm astonished anybody still engages with the nonsense, it only seems to encourage you...
    OK, clever clogs, what does (i5,13f7.3) mean, and can you put up a shelf, safely?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #38783
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    Well first, we are thinking about the left tail in such examples. The right tail would be winning the lottery.

    But more importantly the mitigation we take or insurance we buy will be determined by an assessment of the costs versus benefits of taking the risk.

    So, we do use cars. A lot, despite the ever present risk of death or injury (insurance does not mitigate or compensate against such outcomes).

    And we only insure when the cost of insurance isn't so great is swamps the assessed potential loss. People in flood plains rarely have flood insurance because they wouldn't pay the premium required to cover the risk underwritten.

    But where Emanuel needs to stick to what he knows, is that to price insurance we need to know with some measure of certainty the size and shape of the left tail and the costs associated with outcomes in that left tail.

    Unfortunately for Alarmist making spurious ill informed insurance analogies, the "science" is so full of holes we don't have any genuine knowledge of the size and shape of the left tail. And some of the left tail he wants us to insure has positive or negligible costs. For example at high predicted temperature increases (predictions which now seem ill founded) the costs by 2100 would leave our grandchildren's children SLIGHTLY LESS RICH THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. Note: still much much richer than us.

    Emanuel knows not what he is talking about. Better stick to.something else.
    Excellent post, I hope it helps the uninformed.

    I note, with interest, that our resident insurance salesman had little to say on the subject.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #38784
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,296

    Last edited by Steve Case; 4th April 2014 at 08:55 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #38785
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    If it takes that long, then there isn't going to be much acceleration



    You guys need well over 10 mm/yr of sea level rise to get to your
    claims of a meter by 2100. You will need considerable acceleration
    of the rate to get there, and you won't need 60 years to detect it.
    It should be happening now, and it's not.


    Mostly I focus on the büllshït you guys dole out.


    Such as what? Dr. Josh Willis and Dr. Kevin Trenberth on ocean
    heat that really isn't there? Or claims about Antarctica melting
    when it's not?


    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    The kind of acceleration you need to get to your 10 mm/yr won't be
    difficult to detect in the short run. You need sea level to suddenly
    lurch upwards to get to your ridiculous claims.


    When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results.
    — Calvin Coolidge


    The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. You guys can go on
    and on about your claims and projections of melting ice and heat
    disappearing undetected into the oceans all you want. Just let me
    know when the seas begin to surge upwards as a result. Because
    so far, it's not happening.
    At least give them credit for unquestioningly sticking to their belief in magic.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #38786
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    Hilarious, and I imagine that's what happened when the SPICE guys sat down to discuss that physically impossible project.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #38787
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Good post here from Professor Kerry Emanuel on "tail risk".

    When we take out insurance, we are not think about the most probable outcome - that we will never be in a serious car accident, never suffer a house fire, never fall victim to serious illness while we are still young or in early middle age - we think of the risk in the upper tail of the probability distribution.

    That tail risk may be 5% or 1% or even less, but because it has a non-negligible probability, we do spend some hard-earned money on insurance against seriously disastrous events.

    Tail Risk vs. Alarmism, by Kerry Emanuel
    Sounds crazy when world's climatologists are talking above 95% probability...

    4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second

    4 Takeaways from IPCC Report Reveal Worsening Impacts of Climate Change

    That's "tail risk" enough to me...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #38788
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic subdivided along 4 separate lines: Stages of Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, Levels of Sophistication.



    "Sceptics"... Hmm.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #38789
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,882

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    Sounds crazy when world's climatologists are talking above 95% probability...

    4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second

    4 Takeaways from IPCC Report Reveal Worsening Impacts of Climate Change

    That's "tail risk" enough to me...
    I always wondered what is the amount of energy, measured in Hiroshima bombs, hitting the earth per second from the sun?

    I just calculated it. It works out to be 833 roughly.

    833 Hiroshima bombs per second!!



    Let's try another fun fact. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second for the entire earth is equal to 0.6 Watts/metre squared.

    Or, a 60 watt bulb for every 100 m2 across the planet. And the planet has a land surface area of 1,489,400,000,000 m2. So the 4 Hiroshimas every second is the same as turning on 14,894,000,000 lightbulbs (15 billion).

    Well, Google seems to favour a number of 12 billion. Which if you think there are about 3 billion households in the world seems reasonable.

    So 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is almost exactly like having lighting 12 billion lightbulbs in the world.


    Which we have.


    Oh.
    Last edited by Trainwreck; 4th April 2014 at 01:53 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #38790
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    Here's the link to HADCRUT4 Global Land and Sea Surface Temperatures

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adCRUT4-gl.dat

    Here's the format for the temperature data:

    for year = 1850 to endyear
    format(i5,13f7.3) year, 12 * monthly values, annual value

    Maybe someone can tell me what (i5,13f7.3) means, but besides that:

    The first line is:
    1850 -0.690 -0.279 -0.728 -0.565 -0.322 -0.215 -0.130 -0.234 -0.439 -0.455 -0.191 -0.265 -0.374
    And the last full line is
    2013 0.450 0.479 0.405 0.427 0.498 0.457 0.520 0.528 0.532 0.478 0.593 0.487 0.486

    So just for giggles, I averaged up those two lines and for the annual
    values I got -0.376083333 not -374 for 1850 and for 2013 they said 0.486
    and I got 0.487833333 Hmmm I thought, looks like the old lower the past
    and increase the current values to get a bump in overall temperature
    increase, so I averaged them all out and took the difference and plotted
    it out, looks like this:



    Now I'm sure there's a reason for this, but it's just one more in a long
    line of adjustments that always favor Global Warming theory.
    I corroborate the 1850 discrepancy between average and pubished average.

    for 2013 they said 0.486 and I got 0.487833333 Hmmm I thought, looks like the old lower the past
    and increase the current values
    According to your figures there, they lowered 2013 as well as 1850.

    The difference is all over the place. I don't know what they do to get their annual figures.

    If the trend you derived is accurate, then the discrepancies increase the trend by about 0.001C/century. That's 0.0001C/decade. Insignificant, but anomalous nevertheless.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment