The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[pogi]

How many times do I have to tell you that the top five hottest years are most likely after 1998? Do you Math, Do some critical thinking 

 

How many times do I have to tell you that nobody denies that!

 

Let's say you have a business, there has seen some growth up to 1998 (the highest profit year to date), then your growth dips a little and comes back up to the same point in 2005 and again in 2010, and again in 2014.  To say that the 5 highest profit years are from 1998-2014 doesn't mean that there has been any growth in your business from 1998-2014.    

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

How many times do I have to tell you that nobody denies that!

 

Let's say you have a business, there has been some growth up to 1998, then your growth dips a little and comes back up to the same point in 2005 and again in 2010, and again in 2014.  To say that the 5 highest profit years are from 1998-2014 doesn't mean that there has been any growth in your business from 1998-2014.    

 

To the same point? What? Not really 

 

The top five are hotter, not the same, that is why they are the top 5. How can the top five be the same as the years before 1998? 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

DO you know what "TOP" means? 

[pogi]

you and mola "2014 is unlikely to be hotter than 1998." see Post 1011

 

I stand by that because a 34% chance is more unlikely than likely.  So where did I say that 1998 is likely hotter than 2014?

 

2014 is likely hotter than 1998, but the chances are slim. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

2014 is likely hotter than 1998, but the chances are slim. 

 

2014 has a 34% NASA chance of being the hottest compared to all the years, not compared to 1998 alone. 

Boy, I realize that you are not understanding any of this stuff 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

How many times do I have to tell you that nobody denies that!

 

Let's say you have a business, there has seen some growth up to 1998 (the highest profit year to date), then your growth dips a little and comes back up to the same point in 2005 and again in 2010, and again in 2014.  To say that the 5 highest profit years are from 1998-2014 doesn't mean that there has been any growth in your business from 1998-2014.    

 

How are the top 5 going back to the same? They are the top 5, do you know what "top" means?

 

See the graph, the top 4 highest points are higher than any point before 1998. 

 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

To the same point? What? Not really 

 

The top five are hotter, not the same, that is why they are the top 5. How can the top five be the same as the years before 1998? 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

DO you know what "TOP" means? 

 

Top means "plateau", "peak", "no point higher", "hasn't been any hotter than this", etc. etc. etc.

 

Place 8 points equally spaced along this graph below.  Where are the five highest points?  Do you see any incline where you charted those 5 points?  This is not trickery or magic.

 

 

(Edit: the graph is not showing up.  Imagine a short climb on a graph followed by a plateau.

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Where are the five highest points?  Do you see any incline where you charted those 5 points?  This is not trickery or magic.

 

 

See the graph, you can see the top five, or peaks. The top five are more likely after 1997. 

 

[pogi]

See the graph, you can see the top five, or peaks. The top five are more likely after 1997. 

 

Unfortunately the scientists are not very confident in the accuracy of that graph (38% max!), but even still, if you average out the temps (highs and lows from the peak in 1998) it is practically a flat line.  

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

2014 has a 34% NASA chance of being the hottest compared to all the years, not compared to 1998 alone. 

Boy, I realize that you are not understanding any of this stuff 

 

???

 

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.  

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

???

 

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.  

 

There is your Math or English again, that is not how you compare the probability between 2014 to 1998. 

How can 2014 have a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998? Not a logical contradiction again. 

 

 

Unfortunately the scientists are not very confident in the accuracy of that graph (38% max!), but even still, if you average out the temps (highs and lows from the peak in 1998) it is practically a flat line.  

 

No, the average of 2000 to 2010 is higher than the average of 1987 to 1997

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Dimming-in-the-Hottest-Decade.html

 

 

it is practically a flat line.  

 

1) That is not accurate, but even if it is, the evidence says that the planet should be getting a lot colder, but it is warming. 

There are many of reasons why the Earth should be getting a lot colder, one of the reasons is the sun 

 

Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year. In more meaningful terms, the planet has been accumulating energy at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. Our climate is still accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

 

Natural influences

1. Volcanic eruptions. The recovery from the Pinatubo eruption is responsible for a short term warming. GCMs predict that this is a significant contribution to recent warming. However Neely et al (2013) find evidence of a significant cooling contribution from recent volcanoes.

2. The El Nino oscillation. The recent run of La Niñas produces a moderate cooling effect.

3. The solar cycle. The current low solar activity produces a small cooling effect.

4. Longer term oscillations, including the AMO and PDO.

5. Changes in ocean heat uptake. A number of recent papers have found evidence that heat has been going into the oceans rather than the atmosphere recently, see in particular Balmaseda et al (2013), Guemas et al (2013), Nuccitelli et al (2012) and Levitus et al (2012) (and also used in Otto et al, 2013).

So why is the planet still getting warmer? Or according to you, the same? 

 

 

 "hasn't been any hotter than this", etc. etc. etc.

 

 

You would have made the same arguments in 1905, you would have said global warming stopped. 

You would have made the same argument in 1950, you would have said global warming stopped. 

 

The warming will accelerate around 2025, then it will slow down in 2026, you will be saying that global warming stopped. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

There is your Math or English again, that is not how you compare the probability between 2014 to 1998. 

How can 2014 have a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998? Not a logical contradiction again. 

 

That is how you compare probabilities.  Come on now MFT, you can do this.  How much greater a chance does 2014 have of being warmer than 1998?

 

Try to figure this one out on your own.

 

(Hint: 38% - 4% = 34%)

 

If you disagree with me, tell me what the right answer is instead of just telling me I'm wrong.  If you know...prove it. 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Dimming-in-the-Hottest-Decade.html

 

 Why do you always accuse us of turning to the crap blogs etc. yet you are the only one that reads them?  I will not read that because you have asked me not to.  I expect the same from you.

 

So why is the planet still getting warmer? Or according to you, the same? 

 

Is it getting warmer?  How confident are the scientists? 

 

If the sun is getting colder, and all other "natural influences" are affecting climate as you say, to the point where the atmosphere is actually cooling (according to you), the surface is not warming either, then how could the deep blue sea be warming?  Where is the heat coming from?  Not the sun, not the atmosphere (where all the C02 is), there simply is no source for the deep ocean warming other than volcanic activity.  

 

If C02 is the primary cause and source of climate change, i.e. the "driving" factor, where must we see heat being trapped to in-turn warm the planet?

 

A) The deep ocean

B) Land surface 

C) Ocean surface

D) The center of the planet

E) The atmosphere

F) Your mom's house

 

Scientists are not confident in their ability to determine global temps.  This is not reliable stuff here.  What we can measure with a high degree of confidence is the atmosphere and surface temps- not warming. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is how you compare probabilities.  Come on now MFT, you can do this.  How much of a chance does 2014 have of being warmer than 1998?

 

Try to figure this one out on your own.

 

(Hint: 38% - 4% = 34%)

I confess even I missed this. You are correct. The math doesn't lie.

[ERayR]

2014 has a 34% NASA chance of being the hottest compared to all the years, not compared to 1998 alone. 

Boy, I realize that you are not understanding any of this stuff 

 

Pogi you have just become one of the poor ignorant little people.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is your Math or English again, that is not how you compare the probability between 2014 to 1998. 

How can 2014 have a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998? Not a logical contradiction again. 

 

 

 

I have 2 boxes of oranges. There are 7 (4%)oranges in box A (1998). There are 10 (38%)oranges in box B (2014). How many more oranges are in box B over box A (34%)?

[thesometimesaint]

SEE http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich

[pogi]

SEE http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich

 

Sorry, MFT asked me not to.  I actually give him credit for that good advise which you should follow. However, since MFT doesn't listen to his own advice, I don't blame you for not giving much credence to his advice. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

How much greater a chance does 2014 have of being warmer than 1998?

 

Try to figure this one out on your own.

 

(Hint: 38% - 4% = 34%)l temps.  This is not reliable stuff here.  What we can measure with a high degree of confidence is the atmosphere and surface temps- not warming. 

 

You do not subtract, to say that 2014 only has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998 is saying that 1998 has a greater chance than 2014, logic. 

 

What you do is (a method) 

 

NASA 4 + 38 = 42, you convert 42% to 100% because we eliminate the other possibilities.  

 

4     =>   9

42        100

 

38   =>  90

42       100

 

Therefore, 2014 has a 90% (round) chance of being warmer than 1998. 

 

 

If C02 is the primary cause and source of climate change, i.e. the "driving" factor, where must we see heat being trapped to in-turn warm the planet?

 

It is called physics, if you do not understand the Math, I doubt you will understand the physics.  

Read the papers 

 

Changes in ocean heat uptake. A number of recent papers have found evidence that heat has been going into the oceans rather than the atmosphere recently, see in particular Balmaseda et al (2013), Guemas et al (2013), Nuccitelli et al (2012) and Levitus et al (2012) (and also used in Otto et al, 2013).

[TheSkepticChristian]

if you want to do good research, get a subscription in Nature and Science, good research is not free, ask Brian Hales. 

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry, MFT asked me not to.  I actually give him credit for that good advise which you should follow. However, since MFT doesn't listen to his own advice, I don't blame you for not giving much credence to his advice. 

 

SEE

[pogi]

You do not subtract, to say that 2014 only has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998 is saying that 1998 has a greater chance than 2014, logic. 

 

What you do is (a method) 

 

NASA 4 + 38 = 42, you convert 42% to 100% because we eliminate the other possibilities.  

 

4     =>   9

42        100

 

38   =>  90

42       100

 

Therefore, 2014 has a 90% (round) chance of being warmer than 1998. 

 

To say that 2014 has a 34% "greater" chance of being warmer than 1998 is NOT saying that 1998 has a greater chance (how are you coming to that conclusion?).  This is not rocket science here.  I am not trying to trick you.  This is basic, basic stuff.  This is lower level math than MATH 95. 

 

2014 has no higher than a 38% probability of being warmer than any give year from 1880-2014 (can you refute that?) 1998 has no higher than a 4% probability of being warmer than any given year from 1880 - 2014, including 2014 (can you refute that?)  If you want to figure out how much "greater" a chance 2014 has of being warmer than 1998, you have to figure out the difference (subtraction) in probabilities. 38 - 4 = 34% "greater" chance. 

 

Why must you subtract and not add (as you tried to do for some weird reason) 4 from 38?  Because you have to account for the 4% chance that 1998 is warmer than 2014.

 

 

It is called physics, if you do not understand the Math, I doubt you will understand the physics.  

Read the papers 

 

Changes in ocean heat uptake. A number of recent papers have found evidence that heat has been going into the oceans rather than the atmosphere recently, see in particular Balmaseda et al (2013), Guemas et al (2013), Nuccitelli et al (2012) and Levitus et al (2012) (and also used in Otto et al, 2013).

 

I understand physics.  

 

If reduced heat from the cooling sun (according to you) has been going down into the deep ocean instead of up into the atmosphere (which means that C02 never traps the radiated heat from the surface), how is C02 responsible for any warming?  How is it the "driving" factor?

Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To say that 2014 has a 34% "greater" chance of being warmer than 1998 is NOT saying that 1998 has a greater chance (how are you coming to that conclusion?).  This is not rocket science here.  I am not trying to trick you.  This is basic, basic stuff.  This is lower level math than MATH 95. 

5

2014 has exactly a 38% probability of being warmer than any give year from 1880-2014 (can you refute that?) 1998 has exactly a 4% probability of being warmer than any given year from 1880 - 2014, including 2014 (can you refute that?)  If you want to figure out how much "greater" a chance 2014 has of being warmer than 1998, you have to figure out the difference (subtraction) in probabilities. 38 - 4 = 34% "greater" chance. 

This is really interesting. Here we are talking basic math. Some of us can't even agree on the basics.

 

Even though I am pretty confident that I know why this is, it is worth exploring on it's own.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[pogi]

if you want to do good research, get a subscription in Nature and Science, good research is not free, ask Brian Hales. 

 

I have access to most respected peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals through UVU's online sources.  

 

Do you pay for Nature and Science?

[thesometimesaint]

To say that 2014 has a 34% "greater" chance of being warmer than 1998 is NOT saying that 1998 has a greater chance (how are you coming to that conclusion?).  This is not rocket science here.  I am not trying to trick you.  This is basic, basic stuff.  This is lower level math than MATH 95. 

 

2014 has exactly a 38% probability of being warmer than any give year from 1880-2014 (can you refute that?) 1998 has exactly a 4% probability of being warmer than any given year from 1880 - 2014, including 2014 (can you refute that?)  If you want to figure out how much "greater" a chance 2014 has of being warmer than 1998, you have to figure out the difference (subtraction) in probabilities. 

 

 

 

I understand physics.  

 

If reduced heat from the cooling sun (according to you) has been going down into the deep ocean instead of up into the atmosphere ( which means that C02 never traps the radiated heat from the surface), how is C02 responsible for any warming? 

 

If you understood physics you understand that CO2 is not itself a heat source, but it does trap the heat generated.

SEE  https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwrTccS3gTpVxkYArBonnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aWRtNmFyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMV8x?p=youtube+video+of+CO2+trapping+heat&tnr=21&vid=D3C433A1DE548FF44523D3C433A1DE548FF44523&l=129&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.MnpIctZhVNK4ccU%252bJuhUiQ%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=121k6ni8p&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-RTLU4VTZ9o&sigr=11bpch832&tt=b&***=The+Greenhouse+Effect+-+Heat+trapping&sigt=115l3nk1k&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dyou%2Btube%2Bvido%2Bof%2BCO2%2Btrapping%2B%2Bheat%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001&sigb=142hp1ht3&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 .

[TheSkepticChristian]

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

 

I agree with that (according to NASA), but you keep changing the subject, you said that 2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998, I do not agree that 2014 only has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998. That is wrong Math or wrong English. 

 

According to my own simple calculations, 2014 has about a 90% chance of being warmer than the year 1998, do you disagree with that?

 

 

I understand physics.  

 

If reduced heat from the cooling sun (according to you) has been going down into the deep ocean instead of up into the atmosphere (which means that C02 never traps the radiated heat from the surface), how is C02 responsible for any warming?  How is it the "driving" factor?

 

I doubt you understand the math and physics that climate scientists use. CO2 traps heat, but most of the heat that CO2 traps is absorbed by the oceans. There are many reasons why the Earth should be getting a lot colder, Human sulphate emission, solar cycles, El Niño oscillation, Longer term oscillation, but the Earth is still getting warmer, how you explain that? 

 

Look at the evidence by reading the papers 

Balmaseda et al (2013), Guemas et al (2013), Nuccitelli et al (2012) and Levitus et al (2012) (and also used in Otto et al, 2013).

 

 

 

Do you pay for Nature and Science?

 

I have access to most scientific journals at the University  

Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

I said:

 

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

 

You said:

 

I agree with that (according to NASA)

 

But for some strange reason you contradict yourself here:

 

According to my own simple calculations, 2014 has about a 90% chance of being warmer than the year 1998, do you disagree with that?

 

I don't know if you knew this, but 90% > 38%.  

 

Did you not just agree that 2014 has no greater than a 38% chance of being warmer than any given year from 1880-2014 (yes my friend, that included 1998)?  What does that tell you about your calculations (I'll let you answer this one on your own)?

Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi