August
Metanoia
I agree we are. 55 C ( 131 F) in Sydney yesterday.
I agree we are. 55 C ( 131 F) in Sydney yesterday.
starsfall
Believer
It's been very cold here, especially at nights... -24 the other night I believe, around 12 degrees around noon. I don't think I've experienced such cold weather where I live ever before, so it's new for me.
I have a friend who moved to Maine after high school to study Environmental Science, and whenever I talk to or see him he always chews my ear off about climate change and sends me some informative material from either his coursework or just things he's stumbled upon...
Anyone who denies climate change, though, I do think has to be a certain level of ignorant...
I have a friend who moved to Maine after high school to study Environmental Science, and whenever I talk to or see him he always chews my ear off about climate change and sends me some informative material from either his coursework or just things he's stumbled upon...
Anyone who denies climate change, though, I do think has to be a certain level of ignorant...
August
Metanoia
nivek
As Above So Below
Climate change there is not doubt of, the climate will always be changing, global warming is different which I have my doubts of...
nivek
As Above So Below
Snow covers parts of the SAHARA DESERT for the third time in 40 years as freak storm sees 16 INCHES fall in one day
- Snow fell in small Saharan desert town of Ain Sefra, Algeria, in the early hours of Sunday morning
- It is the third time in 40 years snow has fallen on the city, it was also spotted in 2016 and 2017
- Locals noted up to 16 inches of snow in some areas of the desert
CasualBystander
Celestial
Drinking beer sounds better to me......
There are to many variables to say for sure it would be reproducible.
To say that I am disappointed that my original questions didn't get a reasonable response is an understatement.
1. What does p < .05 mean?
Probability of a false positive from a random sample for 1 trial.
2. What does this predict in terms of the guaranteed reproducibility percentage?
A false positive will occur in 1 of 20 trials or less (the study has a 95% chance of being reproduced).
3. What is the actual reproducibility percentage?
From Nature and Amgen we know it is between 10-30% for good studies by recognized scientists. For psychology studies it is around 1%. For bad studies by poor scientists it could be close to zero.
4. What is p-hacking?
Studies are designed (usually because of cost constraints) so that the probability of a false positive is just less than 5%.
This is 5% for a random sample single trial.
P-Hacking is violating those two assumptions to make the probability of a false positive close to unity (100%).
Back to the cartoon. This was XKCD's point. 0.05 x 20 = 1. They structured their experiment to guarantee a false positive. Jelly beans are jelly beans. If they reran the experiment it is 19 times as likely that grape jelly beans or one of the other 18 flavors would cause acne, as a repeat of green.
Now someone who has a rudimentary knowledge of statistics would know XKCD pulled some slight of hand. The probability of a false positive in their experiment is roughly 64%.
Last edited:
CasualBystander
Celestial
Well...
For the time being the "it is getting warmer" people appear more correct.
The insolation from the sun is at record low levels (100 years+). The solar insolation in the entire instrument period until 2007 was above average and warming would have been expected. It takes about 1 solar cycle for these things to unwind.
So the temperature in 2020 is going to be a real betting opportunity. The 1.1 W/m2 of CO2 forcing increase since 1900 is pretty much insignificant so the question is will land use changes and other human activities create more warming than nature is taking away.
Right now I am betting on nature.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
I agree that the current warming trend......but I doubt humanity is as much to blame as many think. Especially given that the warming trend began with the end of the last ice age. The climate also is just slightly warmer than the mid-evil warming period which preceded the "Little Ice Age".
CasualBystander
Celestial
As long as the solar activity was above the 19th century average it contributed to the warming. So increased insolation contributed to rising temperatures for the entire 20th century.
This limits severely the amount of CO2 influence that can be inferred.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Well gee, I guess we agree.
Man is making it warmer. But he isn't doing it fast enough.
CO2 released since 1900 has increased plant growth 60%. 40% of our food comes from CO2 we released since 1900. Further, this increase in plant growth has saved 100s of thousands if not millions of species who would have been wiped out by habitat destruction, by giving them more food. If we crank the CO2 up to 460-470 we will double the 1900 plant growth and grow 100% more food on the same land as we could in 1900.
Greenhouses use 1200 to 1500 PPM of CO2 to maximize plant growth. That's right, they pay cash money to raise the CO2 level of their greenhouses. We have vastly outperformed the greenhouse gains in our unintended nature experiment. Basically the sky is the limit on food production per hectare as long as we keep cranking out the CO2.
There really isn't any downside to cranking up the CO2 level.
And yeah it will get a little warmer. But so far the CO2 forcing is only about 1.1 W/m2.
Last edited:
3FEL9
Islander
447' 435' 000' 000 x 1.1 = 492 178 500 000 W
Thats a whopping 492 GW of xtra heat here.. No wonder winters are soo lousy
CasualBystander
Celestial
Well... I am impressed that somebody is good at math.
If you apply Boltzmann's law to 255K you find their 3.7 W/m2 = 1°C isn't an act of rocket science to compute.
The problem is the effect attenuates above the surface layer (100m) at least 50%. The big delta T due to CO2 basically ends at redwood height. So it is just a surface layer issue.
The surface layer has an average temperature of 288K so 5.5 W/m2 = 1°C. Use this to compute how much your 1.1 W/m2 changes things.
And insolation over the whole planet is 174,442,049,424,000,000 Watts (174 petawatts) so your number doesn't impress me.
Last edited:
3FEL9
Islander
Heh, didnt believe it would. But I'm glad you think I can crunch some basic numbers..
I still have to deal with my 492 GWs of heat.. Its feels.. hot
CasualBystander
Celestial
You do realize that is still 1.1 W/m2. I don't believe you could even feel 1.1 W/m2. Full sun is 1000+ W/m2.
Even the 1.1 Watts is a bit of a hoax.
It is based on two temperate zone measurements and I believe is gross IR change.
So it is higher than just the CO2 effect, neglects the fact that CO2 has almost no effect at the equator because at high humidity the CO2 IR bands are already saturated, and ignores the fact that Antarctica has a temperature inversion and is cooling (in a temperature inversion CO2 accelerates land heat loss).
Last edited:
CasualBystander
Celestial
Sydney swelters with record temperature - CNN
The mercury rose to 47.3 degrees Celsius, or 117.14 Fahrenheit, in the Sydney metropolitan area.
You reported a funny number - probably heat index.
I've been in Scottsdale Arizona when it was 115 and ate outside because it was comfy.
You guys who complain about 117.14°F are WHINERS.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
I remember wearing protective clothing at a hazardous waste site when the heat index was 119 degrees.
CasualBystander
Celestial
nivek
As Above So Below
There is no denying the climate is changing, earth's climate is always changing, research has proven that and it should be obvious...But global warming, this theory the earth is getting g hotter with no end in sight and it's all man's fault is the biggest hoax and biggest lie of the century...
Fuck me, I am in the stone age, I can see no amount of conversation here will do anything to influence your opinions.
Take the floor lads, i am not even going to bother. Every day I am more amazed by the folks here. How wrong can first impressions be. To have a debate, one must be flexible to the opinions of others.
Take the floor lads, i am not even going to bother. Every day I am more amazed by the folks here. How wrong can first impressions be. To have a debate, one must be flexible to the opinions of others.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Dundee, a recent study indicated the the oceans were 6°C warmer during the Eemian interglacial (the previous one).
That just guts the warmest ever narrative.
Further they are now claiming that agriculture is cooling the midwest. This means that land use has a much greater effect than CO2.
This makes the fact that they ignore the effect of converting vegetation to buildings or dirt or asphalt, which should have a much greater effect than agricultural cooling, only in the other direction, all the more hypocritical.
It is just mindless the claims of the warmunists.
However if you have proof that warming isn't beneficial, any real proof of harm, etc. just being it.
Last edited: