(01-20-2016 07:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:15 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  The problem with the 30 year sample is we only have 5-6 data points which isn't a significant enough to draw a conclusion

You don't think borehole data is reliable? Or climate proxies?

Nope.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(01-20-2016 09:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:15 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  The problem with the 30 year sample is we only have 5-6 data points which isn't a significant enough to draw a conclusion

You don't think borehole data is reliable? Or climate proxies?

Nope.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

This is the part where you say why you feel that way.

(01-20-2016 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I'm not confused.

If the headline was "hottest year since 1880," no one would read it. Its such a small sample size, it is insignificant. That is the point. There is NO point.

You seem to be unable to discern what is important versus what isn't.

According to who? What Do you think they're sampling? What's an appropriate sample size for what they're measuring? Do you understand why a 30 year period is commonly used as a baseline?

Again, slowly, I'm saying that a headline saying this is the hottest summer in recorded history is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Recorded history is 135 years, in this sense. To say this was the hottest summer in 135 years would be non interesting to most people.

Since climate trends are measured in tens of years, if not centuries, this is a meh/meaningless article.

The headline attempts to cause one to draw a conclusion -- holy crap this is a mess, while when you read/understand the data withing the article, that isn't the conclusion one must draw.

(01-20-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 09:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:15 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  The problem with the 30 year sample is we only have 5-6 data points which isn't a significant enough to draw a conclusion

You don't think borehole data is reliable? Or climate proxies?

Nope.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

This is the part where you say why you feel that way.

or he fires back in the same throbber vein.....

(01-20-2016 10:09 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I'm not confused.

If the headline was "hottest year since 1880," no one would read it. Its such a small sample size, it is insignificant. That is the point. There is NO point.

You seem to be unable to discern what is important versus what isn't.

According to who? What Do you think they're sampling? What's an appropriate sample size for what they're measuring? Do you understand why a 30 year period is commonly used as a baseline?

Again, slowly, I'm saying that a headline saying this is the hottest summer in recorded history is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Recorded history is 135 years, in this sense. To say this was the hottest summer in 135 years would be non interesting to most people.

Yeah, just no.

Hottest year on record is literally what it is. "_____ highest ____ on record" is an extremely common headline, regardless of the subject. You're looking for problems where are none.

http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/...50581.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/...-on-record
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...97316.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/corpbonds...1Y20160114
http://www.jsonline.com/business/us-stoc...96661.html
http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article53299310.html

See what I mean? Do you actually care how long the record is in any of these cases? I doubt it. But since the subject is climate change, you're looking for things to nitpick.

Quote:Since climate trends are measured in tens of years, if not centuries, this is a meh/meaningless article.

According to whom? Do you have esoteric knowledge of the climate that no other scientist has?

Quote:The headline attempts to cause one to draw a conclusion -- holy crap this is a mess, while when you read/understand the data withing the article, that isn't the conclusion one must draw.

Again, the headline is what we've literally measured. It's the hottest year on (our 135 year old) record.

Nothing to worry about...or do anything about. I hope we have more hot years. I hate the fcking cold.

(01-20-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 09:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:15 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  The problem with the 30 year sample is we only have 5-6 data points which isn't a significant enough to draw a conclusion

You don't think borehole data is reliable? Or climate proxies?

Nope.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

This is the part where you say why you feel that way.

Because I said so.

(01-20-2016 11:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 10:09 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I'm not confused.

If the headline was "hottest year since 1880," no one would read it. Its such a small sample size, it is insignificant. That is the point. There is NO point.

You seem to be unable to discern what is important versus what isn't.

According to who? What Do you think they're sampling? What's an appropriate sample size for what they're measuring? Do you understand why a 30 year period is commonly used as a baseline?

Again, slowly, I'm saying that a headline saying this is the hottest summer in recorded history is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Recorded history is 135 years, in this sense. To say this was the hottest summer in 135 years would be non interesting to most people.

Yeah, just no.

Hottest year on record is literally what it is. "_____ highest ____ on record" is an extremely common headline, regardless of the subject. You're looking for problems where are none.

http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/...50581.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/...-on-record
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...97316.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/corpbonds...1Y20160114
http://www.jsonline.com/business/us-stoc...96661.html
http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article53299310.html

See what I mean? Do you actually care how long the record is in any of these cases? I doubt it. But since the subject is climate change, you're looking for things to nitpick.

Quote:Since climate trends are measured in tens of years, if not centuries, this is a meh/meaningless article.

According to whom? Do you have esoteric knowledge of the climate that no other scientist has?

Quote:The headline attempts to cause one to draw a conclusion -- holy crap this is a mess, while when you read/understand the data withing the article, that isn't the conclusion one must draw.

Again, the headline is what we've literally measured. It's the hottest year on (our 135 year old) record.

Holy moly. It's misleading. It's intentionally misleading. It's designed to mislead. It will mislead a LOT of idiots to continue believing all the previous misleading nonsense.

Climate may be getting nicer. A prosperous period for mankind may continue. What's the problem? All these frightening stories of the end when the truth is quit the opposite. People against life giving warmth are enemies of man. Bunch of cold hearted thugs.

Have the poles melted yet? You numbnuts utilizing settled science and manipulated data swore the poles would be melted by 2012.

Until you explain why that did not happen, I'm not listening to any more garbage. When you put out a prediction in the past based upon this same data you keep harping on, you have to explain why you made such as stupid mistake using that same manipulated data. If you cant explain it, it means you dont understand it. And if you didnt understand it then, you dont understand it now.

If that is the case then why is it that I used less A/C than ever and more heating oil than ever?

(01-21-2016 09:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Have the poles melted yet? You numbnuts utilizing settled science and manipulated data swore the poles would be melted by 2012.

Until you explain why that did not happen, I'm not listening to any more garbage. When you put out a prediction in the past based upon this same data you keep harping on, you have to explain why you made such as stupid mistake using that same manipulated data. If you cant explain it, it means you dont understand it. And if you didnt understand it then, you dont understand it now.

He has a great point!

(01-20-2016 11:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Yeah, just no.

Hottest year on record is literally what it is. "_____ highest ____ on record" is an extremely common headline, regardless of the subject. You're looking for problems where are none.

http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/...50581.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/...-on-record
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...97316.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/corpbonds...1Y20160114
http://www.jsonline.com/business/us-stoc...96661.html
http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article53299310.html

See what I mean? Do you actually care how long the record is in any of these cases? I doubt it. But since the subject is climate change, you're looking for things to nitpick.

Again, you are wrong.

The length of the record matters in all, to varying degrees. The bear harvest? Its reasonably assumed that is the modern era, the past 100 years or so.

Heaviest rain on record is very important. I'm near a major metropolitan area, and we don't have reliable rainfall data for even a hundred years. Yet, us engineers have done statistical gymnastics to come up with the 100 year (1%) storm so we can do bridge designs.

As far as stocks go, the stock market has existed for a very short, finite time. "On record" in that context is understood to be that duration.

Weather and climate has been going on for a longer time that the duration of the stock market. So, yes, the what "on record" means, quantitatively, is important. I'm not nitpicking. I'm pointing out that the article needs a misleading headline to even have a reason to exist. "Water is wet" is an equally enlightening headline.

dmacfour Wrote:

Quote:Since climate trends are measured in tens of years, if not centuries, this is a meh/meaningless article.

According to whom? Do you have esoteric knowledge of the climate that no other scientist has?

I'm confident that my technical knowledge exceeds yours in this area as I can understand the significance of a "record" flood or weather event, and how that can he used in a misleading headline. I guess you can't.

If I'm looking out the window, and I see the garbage picked up, I can say, I have a record of it being picked up. It got picked up in the weeks I wasn't looking out the window, right? I don't have a record of it, but it still happened. A record high temperature of during the time I was "looking out the window" is meaningless in the big picture. There were likely hotter high temperatures in the past, and cooler high temperatures. The use of "on record" implies that this is a meaningful measurement within many, many points of data. The problem is, there are not that many points.

dmacfour Wrote:

Quote:The headline attempts to cause one to draw a conclusion -- holy crap this is a mess, while when you read/understand the data withing the article, that isn't the conclusion one must draw.

Again, the headline is what we've literally measured. It's the hottest year on (our 135 year old) record.

Correct -- the hottest we've literally measured. The significance is important because it should point out to people that the vast majority of data used to argue climatic trends DOES NOT directly measure temperature. We've built an entire field of science (and a political movement) based upon inferred measurements, that aren't on RECORD.

I love it...the deniers can't even figure out what the heck "on record" means! No wonder they can't comprehend this issue at all.

(01-21-2016 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I love it...the deniers can't even figure out what the heck "on record" means! No wonder they can't comprehend this issue at all.

Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you doing a RobertN imitation?

Maybe you don't understand what the record means either, I guess.

(01-21-2016 11:51 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I love it...the deniers can't even figure out what the heck "on record" means! No wonder they can't comprehend this issue at all.

Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you doing a RobertN imitation?

Maybe you don't understand what the record means either, I guess.

Oh give it a rest. Every one knows that we don't have a record of the ******* temperature in the stone age! A record is a recording, as in a measured and documented value, duh!

The lengths you guys go to obstruct and deflect is mind-numbing.

The government should fund people to move inland.

(01-21-2016 12:06 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  The government should fund people to move inland.

That will eventually happen.

(01-21-2016 10:54 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Again, you are wrong.

The length of the record matters in all, to varying degrees. The bear harvest? Its reasonably assumed that is the modern era, the past 100 years or so.

Heaviest rain on record is very important. I'm near a major metropolitan area, and we don't have reliable rainfall data for even a hundred years. Yet, us engineers have done statistical gymnastics to come up with the 100 year (1%) storm so we can do bridge designs.

As far as stocks go, the stock market has existed for a very short, finite time. "On record" in that context is understood to be that duration.

Weather and climate has been going on for a longer time that the duration of the stock market. So, yes, the what "on record" means, quantitatively, is important. I'm not nitpicking. I'm pointing out that the article needs a misleading headline to even have a reason to exist. "Water is wet" is an equally enlightening headline.

Can you explain how reliable a 135 year record is?

Quote:I'm confident that my technical knowledge exceeds yours in this area as I can understand the significance of a "record" flood or weather event, and how that can he used in a misleading headline. I guess you can't.

If I'm looking out the window, and I see the garbage picked up, I can say, I have a record of it being picked up. It got picked up in the weeks I wasn't looking out the window, right? I don't have a record of it, but it still happened. A record high temperature of during the time I was "looking out the window" is meaningless in the big picture. There were likely hotter high temperatures in the past, and cooler high temperatures. The use of "on record" implies that this is a meaningful measurement within many, many points of data. The problem is, there are not that many points.

If you’re going to claim that a 135 year record is meaningless, you’ll need to explain why. With the direct measurements we do have, scientists are 95% confident that the changes we see are not due to random fluctuation. Can we make causal inferences based on that alone? no. It means that we have the data necessary to pass a commonly agreed upon threshold (that many would argue is arbitrary), and that it should be taken seriously.

Let’s get one thing straight, though, scientists know they can’t use 135 years worth of direct measurements to make inferences about “the big picture”. This is why they study the climate at a geological timescale using proxy data. We know that climate proxies are far far less reliable than direct measurement, but that doesn’t mean they are useless.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:The headline attempts to cause one to draw a conclusion -- holy crap this is a mess, while when you read/understand the data withing the article, that isn't the conclusion one must draw.

Again, the headline is what we've literally measured. It's the hottest year on (our 135 year old) record.

Correct -- the hottest we've literally measured. The significance is important because it should point out to people that the vast majority of data used to argue climatic trends DOES NOT directly measure temperature. We've built an entire field of science (and a political movement) based upon inferred measurements, that aren't on RECORD.

The NOAA's report mentioned the length of the record in the very first sentence of their release:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-in...bal/201512

Maybe you want them to add "135 year long" in a giant/bold/red font?

(01-21-2016 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:51 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I love it...the deniers can't even figure out what the heck "on record" means! No wonder they can't comprehend this issue at all.

Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you doing a RobertN imitation?

Maybe you don't understand what the record means either, I guess.

Oh give it a rest. Every one knows that we don't have a record of the ******* temperature in the stone age! A record is a recording, as in a measured and documented value, duh!

The lengths you guys go to obstruct and deflect is mind-numbing.

I can only hope you are being intentionally obtuse. Let's recap. An article was posted saying 2015 was the hottest year on record, as if that is significant. The counter argument is not anti-global warming. The counter point is that if the headline said hottest year in 135 years, hardly anyone would read it.

So, you tell me, what is the point of stating 2015 was the hottest year of the last 135? Random fact preparing for your next Jeopardy appearance?

If you don't have a point, don't chime in.

(01-21-2016 12:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Can you explain how reliable a 135 year record is?

Reliable meaning what? That the measurements are accurate? That the 135 years is enough data to advance aglobal warming argument?

Quote:If you’re going to claim that a 135 year record is meaningless, you’ll need to explain why. With the direct measurements we do have, scientists are 95% confident that the changes we see are not due to random fluctuation. Can we make causal inferences based on that alone? no. It means that we have the data necessary to pass a commonly agreed upon threshold (that many would argue is arbitrary), and that it should be taken seriously.

Let’s get one thing straight, though, scientists know they can’t use 135 years worth of direct measurements to make inferences about “the big picture”. This is why they study the climate at a geological timescale using proxy data. We know that climate proxies are far far less reliable than direct measurement, but that doesn’t mean they are useless.

You've advocated that the 135 years is enough data, via a statistical analysis, to point out that something is going on. Nothing is random in this argument. There is a cause. However, without being able to determine the cause, to not isolate natural processes from man influenced, leaves us with essentially an "I dunno" situation.

We are making arguments about tenths of degrees while using climate proxies, modeling a system that is complex beyond our comprehension. I do not blame science for not having direct temperature measurements from 9000 years ago. I detest the arrogance of science when it refuses to acknowledge its own uncertainty.

Quote:The NOAA's report mentioned the length of the record in the very first sentence of their release:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-in...bal/201512

Maybe you want them to add "135 year long" in a giant/bold/red font?

I'm not arguing NOAA's press release. If you reread any of this thread, maybe you'll figure that out. I'm arguing that the headline, and the headline you cited, YOU, is misleading and essentially, meaningless.