The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[otoc]

Al Gore aka "The Goracle" is a con man - nothing more than a ripoff artist.

So I guess we agree in principal that Gore shouldn't be listened to in the debate of science. Now where is a mention of Booker, Monkton, Morano, or Inhofe?

Carbon "Cap and Trade" is another grande scam that has somehow become intrinsically linked to the Global Warming scheme. How? Why? Because the proponents of said, are power mongering scam artists that have latched on to a "Cause" that's just Ripe for the Picking.

The industrialized world is already hurting from "Globalization" of the "Third" world countries - dragging our economies and standard of living down. Now the "Cap and Trade" proponents are trying to funnel billions upon billions from our economies to the Third World? (to save the planet no less)

Give me a break.

I agree with your last sentence....

[tucker]

The thing that I don’t understand is the same people can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather until tomorrow when they stick their head out of the window and look just like everybody else does. How can they accurately predict what’s going to happen a year or 10 years from now.

[SteveW]

The thing that I don’t understand is the same people can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather until tomorrow when they stick their head out of the window and look just like everybody else does. How can they accurately predict what’s going to happen a year or 10 years from now.

And do it with certainty at that.

[Phopojijo]

The thing that I don’t understand is the same people can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather until tomorrow when they stick their head out of the window and look just like everybody else does. How can they accurately predict what’s going to happen a year or 10 years from now.

Flip a coin twice. Tell me with certainty what percent will be heads.

Flip the coin about 500,000 times... tell me with certainty what percent will be heads.

It's easier when you unfocus enough to average out the transient randomness and look at trends.

Note how no-one says that in January 15th 2020 we'll have a hurricane that could be avoidable... they just say we'll likely have extra hurricanes in the next 10 years that could have been avoided.

Predicting immediate weather for specific days, however, is a pretty transient thing. That said, we're able to predict to pretty good accuracy how much rainfall we'll have in a year.

[Dutchcedar]

...we'll likely have extra hurricanes in the next 10 years that could have been avoided.

Where do ya get an Algore Hurricane Avoider when ya need one? Arkansas coulda used one today.

[tucker]

transient randomness and look at trends.

That’s another way of saying short-lived unpredictability that gives you an unpredictable trend.

Mother Nature is probably the most unpredictable thing there is.

[Phopojijo]

... no it doesn't.

[tucker]

Transient = brief = short-lived

Randomness = unsystematic = unpredictable

[Phopojijo]

Yes... but they can be averaged out to see a predictable trend.

I'll use an analogy:

There's noise in your headphones... sometimes a lot depending on how crummy your headphones are... but you can still hear the audio behind it. Sure, maybe not the position of the driver at any given point in time... but the sound it produces yes.

Even though determining a single data point is difficult, determining a trend may not be.

I mean in some cases it is difficult... obviously. This situation might be... but isn't logically impossible not to be.

But:

The thing that I don’t understand is the same people can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather until tomorrow when they stick their head out of the window and look just like everybody else does. How can they accurately predict what’s going to happen a year or 10 years from now.

Isn't a valid statement.

You're comparing determining the exact/very reliable value of a point to a very reliable value of a trend. Two wholly different albeit similar in apperance mathematical problems.

[otoc]

The thing that I don’t understand is the same people can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather until tomorrow when they stick their head out of the window and look just like everybody else does. How can they accurately predict what’s going to happen a year or 10 years from now.

Climate scientists don't forecast local weather, it's done by a different set of people. The science of weather forecasting has gotten better.
http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/f...racy-time.html

On average, a five-day weather forecast of today is as reliable as a two-day weather forecast 20 years ago

Climate studies look at global changes over time and considering how poor measurement techniques were before man invented the thermometer, utilize ways to estimate temps through natural history. Local ground stations are checked with satellite readings since the 70s.

Apples and Oranges of the ultimate kind.

[AeroSim]

... to a very reliable value of a trend. Two wholly different albeit similar in apperance mathematical problems.

Prove it.

And how's your math?

[tucker]

Why are we still calling this the “The Great Global Warming Thread” shouldn’t we be politically correct and call it :

“The Great Global Climate Disruption Thread”

Why is it the far left changes terminology whenever one of their master projects starts taking on water. It doesn’t fool anybody except the extremely stupid.

[otoc]

Why is it the far left changes terminology whenever one of their master projects starts taking on water. It doesn’t fool anybody except the extremely stupid.

Science is now a far left conspiracy? hmmm.

[Enmore]

Science was thrown overboard long ago. Pay attention at the back there.

[otoc]

Science was thrown overboard long ago. Pay attention at the back there.

LOL, oh I have. Science has been pretty much thrown out here. Meanwhile in the real world it continues in a way that isn't a match for what read here or on the blogs saying what you state. One side of a picture does not make for the absolute you depict.