Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

Recommended Posts

One word can change the meaning of a statement 

 

You AGREED with both sentences as they were written, now reconcile the two.

 

What word is wrong here:

 

2014 has no higher than a 38% probability of being warmer than any given year from 1880-2014 (can you refute that?) 

 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

The heat is skipping the atmosphere according to the studies, therefore no thermal expansion being caused by C02.  Acid does not effect temperature. 

 

It is not skipping the atmosphere. About 10% is going into the atmosphere measured, amongst others, by NASA, NOAA, AMS, and your local weatherman, indicated by the melting of the northern pole, glaciers, plant growth patterns, and the like. The 90% rest of it is heating our oceans, measured by ocean surface and deep temperature readings, indicated by subsurface melting of the southern pole, changes in sea life, and increasing acidification. Actually Ph does affect water temperature.

SEE http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Aqueous_Solutions/The_pH_Scale/Temperature_Dependent_of_the_pH_of_pure_Water

 

If you don't understand the science that is no problem. What is a problem is if you claim to understand the science and make demonstrably false claims.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not skipping the atmosphere. About 10% is going into the atmosphere measured, amongst others, by NASA, NOAA, AMS, and your local weatherman, indicated by the melting of the northern pole, glaciers, plant growth patterns, and the like. The 90% rest of it is heating our oceans, measured by ocean surface and deep temperature readings, indicated by subsurface melting of the southern pole, changes in sea life, and increasing acidification. Actually Ph does affect water temperature.

SEE http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Aqueous_Solutions/The_pH_Scale/Temperature_Dependent_of_the_pH_of_pure_Water

 

If you don't understand the science that is no problem. What is a problem is if you claim to understand the science and make demonstrably false claims.

 

Which is higher ocean surface temperature or deep ocean temperatures?

Share this post


Link to post

Which is higher ocean surface temperature or deep ocean temperatures?

 

They are both increasing but at different rates with plenty of bumps/slowdowns along the way. At the molecule thin layer of the surface temperatures reach boiling, which is evaporation. The deeper you go the cooler it gets, as a general rule. While not monolithic we are observing is an increase in deeper ocean temperatures.

SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Deep-Ocean-Warms-When-Global-Surface-Temperatures-Stall--.html

Share this post


Link to post

Actually Ph does affect water temperature.

SEE http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Aqueous_Solutions/The_pH_Scale/Temperature_Dependent_of_the_pH_of_pure_Water

 

If you don't understand the science that is no problem. What is a problem is if you claim to understand the science and make demonstrably false claims.

 

Increased acidification of water does not increase water temperature, it decreases it according to your paper.  Sorry, doesn't help  your argument.

 

The formation of hydrogen ions (hydroxonium ions) and hydroxide ions from water is an endothermic process.

 

I do understand science.  I was top of my class in college chemistry.  I had to be.  The nursing program was far too competitive to not excel in every pre-requisite.  Only 40 students out of about 350 applicants were accepted.  It was by far the most competitive program at the university with the most challenging pre-requisits (Chemistry, Math 1050, anatomy, physiology, biology, micro-biology, etc.)  I aced all of them (you pretty much had to to be accepted).   I do understand science.  Believe it or not, for my electives I also took geology and oceanography (I was interested in it as a scuba diver).  I am concerned about the acidification of the oceans, but not because it is warming the planet. 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

They are both increasing but at different rates

 

 

How confident are you about that warming in the deep?

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

 

A few snippets:

 

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. [You mean temperature doesn't follow C02 after all?]  The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

 

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim.

The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.

 
How confident are scientists of any global warming at all?
 
No greater than 38% from 1880-2014.  Your turn TSS, can you refute it?
Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

 

How confident are you about that warming in the deep?

 

 

 

Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface (land-ocean). This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer of the ocean, and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer. 

So although greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, don't directly warm the oceans by channeling heat down into the oceans, they still do indeed heat the oceans, and are likely to do so for a very long time.

Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to theatmosphere. One way to think about this is to compare the gradient (steepness) of a flowing river - water flows faster the steeper the river becomes, but slows as the steepness decreases.

The same concept applies to the cool skin layer - warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean.

 Using intruments to simultaneously measure the 'cool skin', the ocean below, and the amount of heat (longwave radiation) reaching the ocean surface, researchers were able to confirm how greenhouse gases heat the ocean. It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions, but the relationship was nevertheless established.  

oceanskin-Minnettgraph.gif

Figure 2 -The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave (heat) radiation. The net forcing is negative as the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean skin layer, but approaches zero under cloudy conditions. See RealClimate post "Why Greenhouse Gases Heat The Ocean" by Professor Peter Minnett.

Share this post


Link to post

It really takes a magic trick to jump from 38% to 100%.  A very good example of ex nihilo creation.

 

Look, Deseret news knows how to do magic too, but it is not magic, it's called Mathematics and English . 

 

Deseret News "Each year from 2010 through 2014 has at least a 50 percent chance of being warmer than 1998" 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695199448/Global-heat-wave-after-2009.html?pg=all

Share this post


Link to post

The media also reported that 2014 was the warmest year on record.  Doesn't mean much.

 

2014 has no higher than a 38% probability of being warmer than any given year from 1880-2014

 

Remember when you agreed with this?  Are you back peddling now?

 

Post 1082 didn't answer my question, nor did it address the link from NASA.  Stop reposting stuff, it is annoying and not even relevant. It says nothing about deep ocean warming.

 

Still waiting for an answer to post 1076.

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

Look, Deseret news knows how to do magic too, but it is not magic, it's called Mathematics and English . 

 

Deseret News "Each year from 2010 through 2014 has at least a 50 percent chance of being warmer than 1998" 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695199448/Global-heat-wave-after-2009.html?pg=all

 

Can't argue with that. Each of those years individually individually have a 50% chance of being hotter than 1998.  They also have a 50% chance of not being warmer that 1998.

 

The premise is that year x is hotter than the target year.  There is two possibilities with only one possible outcome, yes or no..  So it has a 50% chance of being one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't argue with that. Each of those years individually individually have a 50% chance of being hotter than 1998.  They also have a 50% chance of not being warmer that 1998.

 

 Deseret News "Each year from 2010 through 2014 has at least a 50 percent chance of being warmer than 1998" 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695199448/Global-heat-wave-after-2009.html?pg=all

 

Do you know what "at least" means?

 

 

Remember when you agreed with this?  Are you back peddling now?

 

Oh boy, I did not contradict myself, it is hard for me to understand why you can't understand anything I am saying.

I am done explaining stuff to you 

 

 

 

I still have no idea how you got the magic number of 100%.

 

It is 7th grade Math, but I will explain. You can use many methods to compare 2014 to 1998. 

I added  4% (1998) + 38% (2014) =  42%. 

 

I converted 42% to 100% to eliminate other possibilities to only compare 2014 and 1998. 

 

So if I only compare 2014 and 1998, 2014 has a 90% chance of being hotter than 1998.  

 

Not very complicated. 

 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian

Share this post


Link to post

No, Deseret News "Each year from 2010 through 2014 has at least a 50 percent chance of being warmer than 1998" 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695199448/Global-heat-wave-after-2009.html?pg=all

 

Do you know what "at least" means?

 

 

 

 

Yes, English is not my second language, I know what at least is.  In this case it is a phrase John Lauerman inserted to make it seem this statistic meant more than it does. 

 

Do you know what each means.  It means each year is an individual possibility.  Also there are only two possibilities for each year.  It has to be one or the other therefore it is or it isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post

Do you know what each means.  It means each year is an individual possibility.  Also there are only two possibilities for each year.  It has to be one or the other therefore it is or it isn't. 

 

Pogi said, "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034

That is not 50% according to Pogi. 

 

Anyways, forget it. Just please try to understand the Math, it is simple 

 

 

It is 7th grade Math, but I will explain. You can use many methods to compare 2014 to 1998. I added 4% (1998) + 38% (2014) = 42%.

 

I converted 42% to 100% to eliminate other possibilities to only compare 2014 and 1998.

 

So if I only compare 2014 and 1998, 2014 has a 90% chance of being hotter than 1998.

Edited by TheSkepticChristian

Share this post


Link to post

I added  4% (1998) + 38% (2014) =  42%. 

 

Why?

 

 I converted 42% to 100% to eliminate other possibilities to only compare 2014 and 1998. 

 

 

Huh? 100% represents all possibilities.  If you add up the probabilities of each year from 1880 - 2014 you would have 100%.  So why (not to mention how) would you convert 42% to 100%, that is not logical at all. 

 

4% and 38% already account for all other possibilities.  Thats why they are "percentages" or "fractions" of the total possibilities.  If you want to convert them to fractions, the chances would be 4/100 and 38/100 respectively.  Now, you have to subtract the two to figure out how much greater the chances are of one from the other 4/100 - 38/100 = 34/100. 

 

 So if I only compare 2014 and 1998, 2014 has a 90% chance of being hotter than 1998.  

 

 

Your 42% magically turned into  all possibilities represented by "100"%.  Then your 100% magically turned into 90%.  Show your steps. 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

Pogi said, "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034

That is not 50% according to Pogi. 

 

 

Post #1034

2014 (38% chance of being the hottest) minus 1998 (4% chance of being hottest year) equals = 2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998.  Very low degree of confidence - not very likely. 

 

Note Pogi did not say 38% chance of be warmer than 1998.  That 38% was the chance of being the hottest since 1880.  As in all math problems you have to understand what you are measuring.

 

Do me a favor and go back and read carefully.

Share this post


Link to post

Why?

 

Because if you are going to say how much chance does 2014 of being hotter than 1998, that means that we are only interested in 2014 and 1998, so we add 38% (2014) + 4% (1998) = to get 42%. 

If we are only interested in 2014 and 1998, that means that we eliminate (ignore) the other years, so 42% becomes 100%. 

 

To do that, you multiply 42 * (100/42) = 100%. 

 

Then you do the same with 4% * (100/42 )=  9.5%

and 38 * (100/42) = 90% 

 

So that means that 2014 has a 90% of being hotter than 1998, after we eliminate the other possibilities. 

 

Saying "greater chance" is a totally different statement, so I agree that 2014 has a 34% greater chance than 1998.  

Edited by TheSkepticChristian

Share this post


Link to post

  That 38% was the chance of being the hottest since 1880. 

 

Pogi has been saying a lot of stuff, but it is clear what Pogi said,  "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034

Then he corrected himself by adding "greater chance" 

 

2014 has a 38% chance of being the hottest since 1880, but all the years before 1998 have about 1% combined, so we can ignore the years before 1998 because their probability is very insignificant.  

 

 

Do me a favor and go back and read carefully.

 

 

I am, but Pogi keeps changing his claims. 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian

Share this post


Link to post

The latest is that there are several volcanic eruptions worldwide which will lower the earth's temperature.

Man proposes, God disposes.

Share this post


Link to post

Pogi has been saying a lot of stuff, but it is clear what Pogi said,  "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034

Then he corrected himself by adding "greater chance" 

 

2014 has a 38% chance of being the hottest since 1880, but all the years before 1998 have about 1% combined, so we can ignore the years before 1998 because their probability is very insignificant.  

 

I am, but Pogi keeps changing his claims. 

 

You of all people should understand an inadvertent omission and correction.

 

In math and especially in probability it is not safe to assume we can ignore anything.

 

And you continue to ignore questions directed at you and you keep misrepresenting what is being said.  Could thast be part of the problem?

 

Can you just admit that the caase for man caused GW is not as good as you had thought it was?

Share this post


Link to post

In math and especially in probability it is not safe to assume we can ignore anything.

 

I agree, but you can also make  scenarios that don't include all possibilities. It is just a  scenario, that is why. 

So you still do not understand what I am talking about 

 

 

Can you just admit that the caase for man caused GW is not as good as you had thought it was?

 

It is very good, and it is in the scientific literature. 

 

Pogi can misrepresent the data all he wants. 

 

A global warming thread? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×