The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[ERayR]

you are judging me, and you are also misrepresenting what I am saying. 

I did not use offensive language.  

 

Insert something about pots, kettles and black here.

Edited April 18, 2015 by ERayR

[TheSkepticChristian]

 Just because 2014 was the most probable out of all of the improbable years, doesn't make their percentages go above 38-48% probability.

 

but it is nearly 100% probable that 2014, 2010, or 2005 is the warmest year, so how does that help your case? 

I am still waiting for you to answer my question. 

 

It seems that 2015 will be one of the hottest years too 

Edited April 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

but it is nearly 100% probable that 2014, 2010, or 2005 is the warmest year, so how does that help your case? 

I am still waiting for you to answer my question. 

 

Apparently you don't understand my case. 

 

It seems that 2015 will be one of the hottest years too 

 

 

Yes, there is a high probability of 38% or something.  They don't even know how to take the temp of the planet dude!  The most accurate and thorough readings are surface temps and atmospheric temps.  They are HIGHLY confident that those are not doing much in the warming department (even thought the atmosphere is where all the C02 is supposedly collecting more and more heat...why aint it heating up then?)

[ERayR]

It seems that 2015 will be one of the hottest years too 

 

And that is a sure thing with a probability of 38% - 48%.  Understood.  wink, wink

[pogi]

but it is nearly 100% probable that 2014, 2010, or 2005 is the warmest year, so how does that help your case? 

 

Not true.  The only thing that they claim 100% probability on is that 2014 was one of the 20 hottest years on record from 1880.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Not true.  The only thing that they claim 100% probability on is that 2014 was one of the 20 hottest years on record from 1880.

 

CFR 

I said nearly 100%. The table only shows 2014, 2005, 2010, and 1998. If other years are on the list, together they will make about 1%. 

 

a 38% probability of being right and a 62% probability of being wrong.  Far too complex!

 

that is not accurate, it is 38% out of 2010, 2005, and 1998, not 38% out of 62% 

 

Edited April 19, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

 The most accurate and thorough readings are surface temps and atmospheric temps.  They are HIGHLY confident that those are not doing much in the warming department (even thought the atmosphere is where all the C02 is supposedly collecting more and more heat...why aint it heating up then?)

 

There are many methods to measure the temp of the ocean, they all point to the same conclusion that the oceans are warming very fast. 

 

why aint it heating up then?)

 

The land-ocean surface temp is still warming, but there are many plausible explanations for the recent speed bump  

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2015/02/26/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/

Edited April 19, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

“We expect that we are going to get more warm years, and just as with 2014, records will be broken increasingly in the future. But perhaps not every year,” said Gavin Schmidt, who leads NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its global temperature records for this March on Friday, ranking it as the warmest March in their 136-year archive. The global average temperature for the month was 1.53°F above the 20th century average and beat the previous record holder (March 2010) by almost a tenth of a degree. The Japan Meteorological Agency also ranked March as the hottest in its records, while NASA put it in 3rd place, behind 2010 and 2002. Each agency handles temperature data in slightly different ways, which can lead to different rankings for months and years, though there is broad agreement between all three on the overall warming trend.

[Zakuska]

The surface has been cooling for the last 18 years, the atmosphere (you know the part that contains C02) has seen almost no warming (despite the climbing C02).  Ocean surface has not been warming.  They don't know how or why the deep ocean is warming (I have already demonstrated that some scientists don't believe the deep ocean is warming and showed their research, but you ignore it).  They can't even measure the temperature of the core of the earth so how can you give me an accurate graph of "global temperatures"  That is ridiculous!  What if the core is warming the deep ocean through transference?  That is a better explanation than "winds" causing the deep ocean to warm.  

 

The tree rings and ice caps only account for surface and atmospheric temperatures, so we can't start throwing the deep sea into the mix now.  We have to keep the data consistent across the board.

heat moving down to the deep is a new one for me.

[Zakuska]

Do you know how elitist this sounds?  Only we the elite few can understand.  The general public, well they are just too stupid.

Sounds like what William tindale faced with the Bible.

[Zakuska]

Yes that is exactly what science does. IE; There was no better than 50/50 chance that the first American men to land on the moon would do so; to safely land and return alive. Also it was even longer odds that the Apollo 13 mission crew members would survive, but they did.

 

Same with Climate Science

SEE http://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/five-things-know-about-2014-global-temperatures

SEE http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

SEE http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

 

Here a list of the scientific organization that accept AGW

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

We humans really are causing the globe to warm through our release of CO2.

SEE

 

Science doesn't care what you. or I,  believe. It's not a popularity contest. We don't through out the Theory of Gravity just because your scale said you gained a few pounds over Thanksgiving dinner.

its not a popularity contest and in the same post you list a popularity contest to suport your claim re: agw... crazy.

[Zakuska]

Sorry, skeptics: NASA and NOAA were right about the 2014 temperature record, Washington Post 

 

Last month was hottest March worldwide since 1880

http://news.yahoo.com/march-hottest-worldwide-since-1880-151603683.html

record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1 in the USA

Anthony Watts / July 31, 2014

Numbers released today by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center show that not only has July been abnormally cool in the USA, but so has 2014 in general. For the last 30 days, there have been 574 record highest temperatures in the USA, and 1,726 record lowest. A ratio of 3 to 1, indicating that July was very cool. But, the year so far has also been cool.

So far for the USA year to date, the numbers of record lows outpace the highs two to one.

This year, here have been been 12,644 daily record lowest temperatures versus 6,615 record highest temperatures in the USA, a ratio of 1.91 to 1.0.

For all types of high and low daily records for the year to date, there were 29,372 cold records versus 16,761 warm records, a ratio of 1.75 to 1.0

If all high and low daily record types are considered for the last 365 days, cold still outpaces warm. There are 46,712 cold records versus 36,650 warm records.

The ratios for monthly all time records also see cold records outpacing warm ones.

[mfbukowski]

We all have 24 hours in a day, and what separates those who accomplish something with their lives and those who do not, is how they use their time.

[Calm]

We all have 24 hours in a day, and what separates those who accomplish something with their lives and those who do not, is how they use their time.

That is so depressing. 

 

[mfbukowski]

That is so depressing. 

 

It's an inconvenient truth.

[TheSkepticChristian]

So far for the USA year to date, the numbers of record lows outpace the highs two to one.

wattsupwiththat.com? Please do not ignore the data I presented. 

 

 how they use their time.

 

There would be no need for this lengthy debate if we all humbly listen to this simple advice 

 

Edited April 20, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1 in the USA

Anthony Watts / July 31, 2014

Numbers released today by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center show that not only has July been abnormally cool in the USA, but so has 2014 in general. For the last 30 days, there have been 574 record highest temperatures in the USA, and 1,726 record lowest. A ratio of 3 to 1, indicating that July was very cool. But, the year so far has also been cool.

So far for the USA year to date, the numbers of record lows outpace the highs two to one.

This year, here have been been 12,644 daily record lowest temperatures versus 6,615 record highest temperatures in the USA, a ratio of 1.91 to 1.0.

For all types of high and low daily records for the year to date, there were 29,372 cold records versus 16,761 warm records, a ratio of 1.75 to 1.0

If all high and low daily record types are considered for the last 365 days, cold still outpaces warm. There are 46,712 cold records versus 36,650 warm records.

The ratios for monthly all time records also see cold records outpacing warm ones.

 

Anthony Watts.

SEE Bad. Badder, BEST

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9bYCTVVfBcAC08snIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=Bad.+Badder%2C+BEST&vid=73b81bb178417daa2eebf08b4200398f&l=7%3A28&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.v2f7Vuy%252brlYB7qrHHIKLkA%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtciQts-8Cxo&***=Bad%2C+Badder%2C+BEST&c=0&sigr=11boljur6&sigt=10ha5qmo2&sigi=121e6v5n6&age=1319547789&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&hsimp=yhs-005&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

[TheSkepticChristian]

  They are HIGHLY confident that those are not doing much in the warming department (even thought the atmosphere is where all the C02 is supposedly collecting more and more heat...why aint it heating up then?)

5:30 to 14:00 

 

Edited April 20, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

wattsupwiththat.com? Please do not ignore the data I presented. 

 

 

There would be no need for this lengthy debate if we all humbly listen to this simple advice 

 

 

For priding yourself on being a critical and independent thinker you surely do rely on videos and sound bites for your independent ideas.

[TheSkepticChristian]

For priding yourself on being a critical and independent thinker you surely do rely on videos and sound bites for your independent ideas.

 

not really, i found that video yesterday, and it explains stuff that I already know. Videos are not the source of my thinking and ideas. 

 

I don't pride myself.

[mfbukowski]

 

There would be no need for this lengthy debate if we all humbly listen to this simple advice 

Which advice was a total waste of time. "Listen to the experts"

Brilliant. I am so glad I watched a video telling me to listen to the experts.

You owe me 5 minutes of my life back.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Which advice was a total waste of time. "Listen to the experts"

Brilliant. I am so glad I watched a video telling me to listen to the experts.

You owe me 5 minutes of my life back.

 

read the scientific literature, not stuff from amateurs or bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data. Why? because "We live in remarkable times. Miraculous advances in medicine, science, and technology have improved the quality of life for many. Yet there is also evidence of great human suffering and distress. In addition to wars and rumors of wars, an increase in natural disasters—including floods, fires, earthquakes, and disease—is impacting the lives of millions worldwide...Caring for the poor and needy is a fundamental gospel doctrine and an essential element in the eternal plan of salvation." - Oct 2014 General Conference 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/the-law-of-the-fast-a-personal-responsibility-to-care-for-the-poor-and-needy?lang=eng&query=science

 

Hitchens was not convinced that AGW is happening, but he made a good point. 

 

Edited April 20, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

read the scientific literature, not stuff from amateurs or bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data. 

 

So you don't want me to read or watch your links and videos to amateurs and bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data?  Well, I have already committed to you that I won't watch any more of your videos, so why do you keep pushing them on us if you don't want us to watch them?

 

Considering that 99.9% of your arguments come from amateurs and bloggers, I have no doubt that  99.9% of what you read is coming from the sources that you are asking us not to read. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

So you don't want me to read or watch your links and videos to amateurs and bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data?  

 

You don't have to, but the video in post 868 cites scientific papers, and you can verity the info yourself. The video in post 868 was made by a geologist. 

 

Considering that 99.9% of your arguments come from amateurs and bloggers, I have no doubt that  99.9% of what you read is coming from the sources that you are asking us not to read. 

 

Really? Here is a small sample 

• Warming up, turning sour, losing breath: ocean biogeochemistry under global change
• A 2000 year record of Atlantic Water temperature variability from the Malangen Fjord, northeastern North Atlantic (Hald et al. 2011)
• Global ocean re-analyses for climate applications (Masina et al. 2011)
• Deep ocean warming assessed from altimeters, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, in situ measurements, and a non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation model
• Synchronous intensification and warming of Antarctic Bottom Water outflow from the Weddell Gyre
• Narwhals document continued warming of southern Baffin Bay
• Long-term trends in upper ocean structure and meridional circulation of the Southern Ocean south of Australia derived from the SODA reanalysis
• Simulated Rapid Warming of Abyssal North Pacific Waters
• Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
• What caused the observed 20th century weakening of the Walker circulation? (Power & Kociuba, 2011)
• The Changing Cryosphere: Pan-Arctic Snow Trends (1979–2009) (Liston & Hiemstra, 2011)
• Anthropogenic Influence on Long Return Period Daily Temperature Extremes at Regional Scales
• Temperature trends at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
• Thermal state of permafrost in North America: a contribution to the international polar year
• Towards the Detection and Attribution of an Anthropogenic Effect on Climate (Santer 1995)

Edited April 20, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you don't want me to read or watch your links and videos to amateurs and bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data?  Well, I have already committed to you that I won't watch any more of your videos, so why do you keep pushing them on us if you don't want us to watch them?

 

Considering that 99.9% of your arguments come from amateurs and bloggers, I have no doubt that  99.9% of what you read is coming from the sources that you are asking us not to read. 

Well, there is a 62% chance that all MFT has done is read bloggers and amateurs. So I ask this, is it more probable or less probable that he has gone to the experts?