• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have a solid argument to the effect that there has been no significant change in global temperatures for the last 100 years. Unfortunately, it's based on advanced statistical data analysis concepts, and nobody can understand it.

It starts with the idea that the temperature record is a time series with a high degree of autocorrelation.

See? Lost you already. :)

I could simplify the argument by using an analogy -- Brownian Motion!

Not any better, eh?

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this, so I guess it's not that easy.

Regardless, if you put a tiny pollen particle in a Petri dish filled with pure water the fact that the particle will wander all the way from one side of the dish to the other is not evidence that there are water currents in the dish. It's just random motion.
 
What you are saying is that the randomness of the signal, the expected deviation from the mean, is larger than the observed warming.

Well, that's not so hard.
 
LowDown said:
I have a solid argument to the effect that there has been no significant change in global temperatures for the last 100 years. Unfortunately, it's based on advanced statistical data analysis concepts, and nobody can understand it.

It starts with the idea that the temperature record is a time series with a high degree of autocorrelation.

See? Lost you already. :)

I could simplify the argument by using an analogy -- Brownian Motion!

Not any better, eh?

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this, so I guess it's not that easy.

Regardless, if you put a tiny pollen particle in a Petri dish filled with pure water the fact that the particle will wander all the way from one side of the dish to the other is not evidence that there are water currents in the dish. It's just random motion.
Click to expand...

Oh! So it's what Tim P. said

Here's a screen print uh 4 actually from an Excel random chart generator.

image.png


It's set up to always start at about the same place but then it's a "Drunk Walk"
of +(RAND()-0.5)*0.15 for each year and a plot of a running 5 year median.

Well anyway the four results were from around 100 trials. Some trials go
right off the chart and then a few look amazingly like the world temperature
time lines we've all seen. In this case HADCRUT 3 or 4 was used, doesn't
much make a difference.

So? Could temperature over the last 170 year be more random than anything
else?
 
LowDown said:
I have a solid argument to the effect that there has been no significant change in global temperatures for the last 100 years. Unfortunately, it's based on advanced statistical data analysis concepts, and nobody can understand it.

It starts with the idea that the temperature record is a time series with a high degree of autocorrelation.

See? Lost you already. :)

I could simplify the argument by using an analogy -- Brownian Motion!

Not any better, eh?

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this, so I guess it's not that easy.

Regardless, if you put a tiny pollen particle in a Petri dish filled with pure water the fact that the particle will wander all the way from one side of the dish to the other is not evidence that there are water currents in the dish. It's just random motion.
Click to expand...

The problem is the random motion in global chage peoples brains. They dont understand that the USA is a country, not a planet. So if we choose to cut our own throats with this nonsense, no one else will change. On the contrary, they will seek to fill the void created by our downfall.
 
chuckiechan said:
The problem is the random motion in global chage peoples brains. They dont understand that the USA is a country, not a planet. So if we choose to cut our own throats with this nonsense, no one else will change. On the contrary, they will seek to fill the void created by our downfall.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there's no need to change our burning of fossil fuels until they run out?
 
LowDown said:
I have a solid argument to the effect that there has been no significant change in global temperatures for the last 100 years. Unfortunately, it's based on advanced statistical data analysis concepts, and nobody can understand it.

It starts with the idea that the temperature record is a time series with a high degree of autocorrelation.

See? Lost you already. :)

I could simplify the argument by using an analogy -- Brownian Motion!

Not any better, eh?

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this, so I guess it's not that easy.

Regardless, if you put a tiny pollen particle in a Petri dish filled with pure water the fact that the particle will wander all the way from one side of the dish to the other is not evidence that there are water currents in the dish. It's just random motion.
Click to expand...

Well, you left out that the complexity gets greater due to the number of variables with their own randomness and lag.
 
On the is scale...

When a butterfly flaps it's wings...

Chaos theory is in play. That's your randomness.
 
bongsaway said:
Are you saying there's no need to change our burning of fossil fuels until they run out?
Click to expand...
Well no need to change because of CO2, we will get off of fossil fuels when we have something better.
 
longview said:
Well no need to change because of CO2, we will get off of fossil fuels when we have something better.
Click to expand...

We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change. Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels, pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.
 
Steve Case said:
Oh! So it's what Tim P. said

Here's a screen print uh 4 actually from an Excel random chart generator.

image.png


It's set up to always start at about the same place but then it's a "Drunk Walk"
of +(RAND()-0.5)*0.15 for each year and a plot of a running 5 year median.

Well anyway the four results were from around 100 trials. Some trials go
right off the chart and then a few look amazingly like the world temperature
time lines we've all seen. In this case HADCRUT 3 or 4 was used, doesn't
much make a difference.

So? Could temperature over the last 170 year be more random than anything
else?
Click to expand...

Very good!

Now, why can't the climate alarmists understand this argument?
 
LowDown said:
Very good!

Now, why can't the climate alarmists understand this argument?
Click to expand...

The same reason they don't understand any of the other arguments. The same reason the religious nuts don't get why an atheists does not need to proove there is no god.
 
bongsaway said:
We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change. Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels, pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.
Click to expand...

What fuel is better than Fossil fuel right now in any specific application?
 
bongsaway said:
Are you saying there's no need to change our burning of fossil fuels until they run out?
Click to expand...

Energy, at the end of the day is heat. Heat runs our country. The only reliable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear energy. The wind, solar, waves, etc, do not have what it takes to run an industrialized country.
 
bongsaway said:
We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change. Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels, pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.
Click to expand...

It's not that money is to be made. It's that the others are not economically competitive yet. Power companies will make their money either way.

Does that make sense to you or not?

Do you have to maintain a household budget?

What if when your desired changes take place, you have to start paying 40 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity, and pay a huge carbon tax for the natural gas you use. What does that do to your household budget? Then on top of that, you have frequent power outages or brownouts from the unreliable renewable power?

Is that your Utopia?
 
code1211 said:
What fuel is better than Fossil fuel right now in any specific application?
Click to expand...

Well, I have bough several battery operated plasma cigarette lighter, mostly as gifts. They work in strong winds just fine.

 
bongsaway said:
We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change. Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels, pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.
Click to expand...
I do not know what you think is better, but itemize them and I can point out the reasons why they are not.
It really comes down to functionality and cost. The replacement for the replacement for fuels from oil will need to perform
all the same rolls, but be below the cost of finding, extracting, transporting and refining oil.
 
Tim the plumber said:
What you are saying is that the randomness of the signal, the expected deviation from the mean, is larger than the observed warming.

Well, that's not so hard.
Click to expand...

How many observation points over how many years are needed to get an accurate record of changing weather patterns that might be interpreted to predict certain trends and projected outcomes? Far more than we have had so far, and especially since global warming enthusiasts have been caught cropping data from their already limited collection points in order to inflate support for their biased assumptions.
 
bongsaway said:
We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change. Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels, pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. You need money to afford the alternatives since, imo, they are expensive. When they are the same price for people, you'll see a change.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, I have bough several battery operated plasma cigarette lighter, mostly as gifts. They work in strong winds just fine.

Click to expand...

It looks like the kind of thing that might be used by a character in the tavern scene in Star Wars.
 
Oof, resorting to meme threads.

I guess that's what the right has to do when the other side has all the facts and evidence. Blogs got too embarrassing?
 
code1211 said:
It looks like the kind of thing that might be used by a character in the tavern scene in Star Wars.
Click to expand...

There are several you can buy. The thing is almost all battery and lasts a very long time between charges, and charges with a USB port.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I find that very often those who have no faith in God use religious thinking about something. Mostly this is global warming.

You are a suitable example. It is impossible to get you to look at any numbers about the subject.
Click to expand...

Immediately to the ad hominiem attacks! No effort to even go for the facts. No effort for you to show us all the climate science research you have published. Which I'd love to read--if you have published any!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom