Green New Deal - like all progressive ideas, it will win history

Into the Night said:
This is not science. It is a graph of random numbers. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point. Tidal stations, such as you are trying to reference here, did not exist thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware that we are using "scientifically unrepeatable, best estimates", an "educated guess". I have high confidence that the sea level was 400 ft. lower in 18,000 BC relative to its level today.
 
Into the Night said:
Science does not use indirect data. Boreholes do not measure global sea level.
There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. Clouds do not impact climate. Climate is a subjective term describing prevailing weather or conditions, such as 'desert climate', 'marine climate', or 'mountain climate'. It has no quantitative value. There is nothing to 'change'.
Click to expand...

Yes, today we use Tidal gauges and Satellites. We use two different scientific measuring methods. We stitch the data together from boreholes with satellites. It is unsound scientific practice.
 
Bigdog said:
For simplicity in the context of Global Warming discussions, the term refers to the estimated current temperature of the Earth, now at 288 Kelvin.
Click to expand...
Then why not use the term 'global temperature'? A single temperature is not 'warming'. The temperature of Earth is unknown. You are quoting a random number. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.
Bigdog said:
It is assumed changes in that "climate" will impact the individual types of climate you listed.
Click to expand...
Nope. A desert climate is still a desert climate A marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing changes.
Bigdog said:
Record cold? ... :thup: Few know that it has been suggested, we have been in a 6,000 year cooling trend on our way to another glacial period. Kudos.
Click to expand...

The temperature of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. It was not possible to measure it 6000 years ago either. There just not enough thermometers...nowhere near it, to reduce the margin of error to anything less than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded. This is a math problem. Statistical math requires the use of raw data. That data MUST be selected by randN. Location grouping is significant. That bias must be eliminated in collecting the data. Time is significant. That bias must be eliminated in collecting the data. You cannot cook the data.

A statistical analysis must publish two numbers: the average, and the margin of error. One without the other is a meaningless summary.

Temperature can vary as must as 20 deg F per mile. How can 100 thermometers in Seattle describe anything happening in Yakima, or even Issaquah (just ten miles away)? There are vast tracks of land and ocean where there are no thermometers at all. They aren't even read at the same time by the same authority. Storms move. The Earth spins.

There isn't anywhere near enough information to conduct a statistical analysis of this type that makes any sense.
 
Bigdog said:
I'm well aware that we are using "scientifically unrepeatable, best estimates", an "educated guess". I have high confidence that the sea level was 400 ft. lower in 18,000 BC relative to its level today.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to measure global sea level, either today nor 20000 years ago. There is no valid reference point.
 
Bigdog said:
Yes, today we use Tidal gauges and Satellites.
Click to expand...
Tidal gauges reference to the land they are sitting on. The land moves. It even has a tide of it's own. Not a valid reference of global sea level. Satellites barely know where they are in their own orbit...even GPS satellites. Their reference is a ground station in Boulder, CO. Land moves. It even has a tide. Not a valid reference of global sea level.
Bigdog said:
We use two different scientific measuring methods.
Click to expand...
Science is not a measuring method. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Bigdog said:
We stitch the data together
Click to expand...
Which is the same as making it up. Random numbers.
Bigdog said:
from boreholes with satellites.
Click to expand...
Boreholes don't have satellites! :D
No, science does not use indirect data. That data is subject to interpretation. Science only uses direct data. Data is not a proof. It is the result of an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is evidence only.
Bigdog said:
It is unsound scientific practice.
Click to expand...
Science is not a 'practice', a 'method', or a 'procedure'. It is not data or the method used to collect it. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

No observation is a proof of anything. No data that is the result of any observation likewise is not proof of anything. They are both subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only. No theory of science incorporates data as part of that theory.

Several math errors are being made here, including a base rate fallacy.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello BartenderElite,



Green jobs are the fastest growing sector.

The GND is just a little ahead of it's time, sadly, as far as acceptance goes. As far as the need goes, we should have done this when Jimmy Carter was President. Carter was right. He put solar panels on the WH.
Click to expand...

Carter said "these solar panels will still be providing energy in 2000"..........they were removed in 86 when the WH was reroofed.......

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar-panel-array/
 
Bigdog said:
And yet we use sea level as a reference point, ... for elevations and barometric pressure.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true.

We use a generic and arbitrarily assigned 'sea level'. It may or may not be the actual sea level in a location. It is not the global sea level necessarily either. It is instead a set of standard conditions (14.7aspi @ 50 deg F is assigned 29.92 inches of mercury). That standard is quite literally arbitrarily chosen and has nothing to do with actual global sea level.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Carter said "these solar panels will still be providing energy in 2000"..........they were removed in 86 when the WH was reroofed.......

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar-panel-array/
Click to expand...

Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, like batteries, have a lifetime. The life expectancy of PV panels is somewhere between 15 and 25 years. Thin film panels tend towards the lower number. They also slowly lose their efficiency producing less and less power over their lifetime.

https://www.siliconsolar.com/what-i...usually have a life expectancy of 20-40 years.

So, they really aren't a "renewable" other than in the sense that periodically you have to replace them. People buying solar for their homes are really paying for 20 years of electricity today, or on a credit card. There's no 'something for nothing' involved in that. The companies selling solar are nothing but modern day shills and hucksters taking people for a ride and looting their bank accounts.
 
Into the Night said:
That's not quite true.

We use a generic and arbitrarily assigned 'sea level'. It may or may not be the actual sea level in a location. It is not the global sea level necessarily either. It is instead a set of standard conditions (14.7aspi @ 50 deg F is assigned 29.92 inches of mercury). That standard is quite literally arbitrarily chosen and has nothing to do with actual global sea level.
Click to expand...

My statement is 100% true.
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. A desert climate is still a desert climate A marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing changes.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you acknowledge that there are scientific classifications of climate.

I have high confidence that much of the Artic had a significantly warmer, different climate in the past.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
My statement is 100% true.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true.

We use a generic and arbitrarily assigned 'sea level'. It may or may not be the actual sea level in a location. It is not the global sea level necessarily either. It is instead a set of standard conditions (14.7aspi @ 50 deg F is assigned 29.92 inches of mercury). That standard is quite literally arbitrarily chosen and has nothing to do with actual global sea level.
 
Bigdog said:
Well, at least you acknowledge that there are scientific classifications of climate.
Click to expand...
No science here. Science is not a list of climates. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Bigdog said:
I have high confidence that much of the Artic had a significantly warmer, different climate in the past.
Click to expand...
Climate has no quantifiable value. You have no idea of temperatures of the Arctic in the past. You are guessing. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Arctic. No defined boundary. Not enough thermometers.
 
Into the Night said:
That's not quite true.

We use a generic and arbitrarily assigned 'sea level'. It may or may not be the actual sea level in a location. It is not the global sea level necessarily either. It is instead a set of standard conditions (14.7aspi @ 50 deg F is assigned 29.92 inches of mercury). That standard is quite literally arbitrarily chosen and has nothing to do with actual global sea level.
Click to expand...

That does not change the fact that my statement is 100% true.
 
Into the Night said:
No science here. Science is not a list of climates. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Climate has no quantifiable value. You have no idea of temperatures of the Arctic in the past. You are guessing. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Arctic. No defined boundary. Not enough thermometers.
Click to expand...

Scientific Climate classifications are falsifiable.

I accept Artic Fossils as evidence of a warmer, different climate in the Artic past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top