The nub of the climate change thing problem

[houndawg]

Pre-settlement, forest fires in these parts were relatively self-containing as adult ponderosa pines are extremely fire resistant. Fires would come along and clear out the over-abundance of saplings and underbrush. When settlers first appeared the forests were not nearly as thick as today, you could supposedly drive a wagon between the trees. Now, with a greater fuel load due to fire suppression, fires that would have been much smaller and shorter lived, explode.

Fires are also a regenerative part of nature. We had a 13,000 acre fire nearby last August. I'm going to be hiking it in the spring in search of morel mushrooms that pop up in burn areas.

You'd love it here.. mycological majesty...

[houndawg]

Well, your perspective is idiotic, but hey; SHIT1990 has your back.

NO, I disagree with TM frequently.

But you are correct in asserting that there is an amount of prestige and legitimacy in being endorsed by me.

Someday parking tickets with your signature will be of great value.

[houndawg]

Just wanted to see if you're out of bed yet.

Yeah, TM

He wasnt being a nonreading fvcktard

He was jus checkin on ya

You are peevish beyond your years young Skywalker...

[houndawg]

Hippie...

...you are **** up.

Hey look I don"t care about Global Climate Change
I never have and I never will

But to say:
"Man can't effect anything on this planet" is just plain STUPID
And yes STUPID is the only word to properly describe that attitude

1) We have Nuclear Weapons
2) We can and do DAM Rivers
3) We can over fish rivers and seas (see: Salmon)

and on and on....
The list is ENDLESS of stuff we're capable of massively **** up

All that said: Do I blame population for Global Climate Issues..?
Answer: Meh... who knows
But lets stop pretending that its only mans ego
That says we're capable of destroying or severely altering this planet

We have the power to completely **** IT UP
We have enough Nuclear weapons to turn it into the moon

If it wasn't stupid he wouldn't have said it.

[JohnStOnge]

The global temperature from 2014 broke the previous record warmest years of 2005 and 2010 since record-keeping began in 1880.

Wow. The warmest of 135 years on a somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 billion year old planet. Something else.

[HI54UNI]

What happened to the "Pause"?

The planet's warmest year on record was 2014, federal scientists announced Friday.

"Humans are literally cooking their planet," said Jonathan Overpeck, an atmospheric scientist from the University of Arizona.

The global temperature from 2014 broke the previous record warmest years of 2005 and 2010 since record-keeping began in 1880.

Two separate data sets of global temperature — from NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — confirmed the record. Another data set released last week by the Japan Meteorological Agency also found 2014 was the planet's warmest.

The average temperature for 2014 was 58.24 degrees globally, 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average, NOAA said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... /21857061/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NASA: well maybe it was the hottest, we're not sure.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... right.html

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right



The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

[kalm]

What happened to the "Pause"?



http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... /21857061/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NASA: well maybe it was the hottest, we're not sure.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... right.html

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right



The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Does this take into account the 30,000 NOAA weather stations?

[travelinman67]

NASA: well maybe it was the hottest, we're not sure.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... right.html

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right



The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Does this take into account the 30,000 NOAA weather stations?

HEY! D1B!!

Read what you posted.

BTW, it IGNORED satellite data which conflicted with their cherry picked 3000 stations.

More propaganda bullshit.

[kalm]

Does this take into account the 30,000 NOAA weather stations?

HEY! D1B!!

Read what you posted.

BTW, it IGNORED satellite data which conflicted with their cherry picked 3000 stations.

More propaganda bullshit.

[CID1990]

So it looks like NASA is not really sure 2014 broke the record or not..,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That isnt important, though. What is notable is that if NASA is actually correct and 2014 really was the hottest year on record, then it beat 2010 by ONE ONE HUNDREDTH of a degree.

Remember the settled and unassailable science that gave us the "hockey stick" model of increasing temperatures? Observable weather is not complying with the models and predictions. We could well be artificially warming the globe, but this is a good example of how science is NEVER settled and it only weakens an argument to try to take that tack.

[JohnStOnge]

Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Just as an aside, people put too much stock in the difference the number of measuring points makes when it comes to getting a reliable estimate. I'm talking about in any situation. What you are looking for is an unbiased estimate. And that has nothing to do with the number of measurements.

When you talk about measuring temperatures at some number of points on the planets those points are a sample representing the planet. And whether they result in an unbiased estimate or not depends on how they were selected. Unless they were selected according to some probability sampling approach, you can not rely on the estimate derived from them being unbiased.

If you have a sample of 100 points on the surface with the points selected according to some probability sampling approach, that gives you a better estimate than if you have 10,000 points...or more...that you used just because they happen to be there already.

[AZGrizFan]

So it looks like NASA is not really sure 2014 broke the record or not..,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That isnt important, though. What is notable is that if NASA is actually correct and 2014 really was the hottest year on record, then it beat 2010 by ONE ONE HUNDREDTH of a degree.

Remember the settled and unassailable science that gave us the "hockey stick" model of increasing temperatures? Observable weather is not complying with the models and predictions. We could well be artificially warming the globe, but this is a good example of how science is NEVER settled and it only weakens an argument to try to take that tack.

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!!!!

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!!!!

[BDKJMU]

1,700 PRIVATE JETS FLY TO DAVOS TO DISCUSS GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Bunch of hypocrites!

[kalm]

1,700 PRIVATE JETS FLY TO DAVOS TO DISCUSS GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Bunch of hypocrites!

Is Davos some environmental gathering?

[YoUDeeMan]

This is hilarious. 38% chance they are correct, and yet they announce the information and it goes viral as gospel.



In the meantime, we've had 2 days where we've been above normal in the past month (I say that with a 64% chance of being correct).

[Pwns]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... mailonline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Science hater.

[Ibanez]

So it looks like NASA is not really sure 2014 broke the record or not..,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That isnt important, though. What is notable is that if NASA is actually correct and 2014 really was the hottest year on record, then it beat 2010 by ONE ONE HUNDREDTH of a degree.

Remember the settled and unassailable science that gave us the "hockey stick" model of increasing temperatures? Observable weather is not complying with the models and predictions. We could well be artificially warming the globe, but this is a good example of how science is NEVER settled and it only weakens an argument to try to take that tack.

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!!!!

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!!!!

I don't like that term, "settled science".

[CID1990]

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!!!!

IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!!!!

I don't like that term, "settled science".

That's because there is rarely any such thing.

[Cap'n Cat]

[travelinman67]

"LOOK AT ME!! HEY!!! LOOK AT ME!!!

Warmist Bill McKibben..."Blizzard caused by warming"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/26/ ... e-at-work/



Cappyfail.

Again.

Next

[JohnStOnge]

Just to kind of parse the terminology. There isn't a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year during a certain period. It either was or it wasn't. The chance is either 0 or it is 100%.

What they're probably talking about is confidence level. As in 38% confidence level. What that means is that if you started off assuming that it was NOT the warmest year, there would only be a 38% chance that they would've observed what they observed.

But it's still bad that people ran with that "warmest year" stuff if what they're talking about is a 38% confidence level. By convention, in...yes...science...people don't say they've shown something to be true unless they have a 95% confidence level. It's really, really, bad for someone to create the impression that they've shown something when they have a confidence level like 38%. To me it implies a lack of objectivity.

I don't know whether NOAA is responsible for that or the press is. A lot of times you read something the press says then when you really look up what the scientists actually said you see that the press saw something and ran with it. Scientists get mis represented by the press a lot (shocker). But if it's true that what we're talking about here is a 38% confidence level and it becomes established in the popular consciousness that 2014 was the warmest year within a certain period that's bad. It means yet another false impression created by the media. Or somebody.

[kalm]

"LOOK AT ME!! HEY!!! LOOK AT ME!!!

Warmist Bill McKibben..."Blizzard caused by warming"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/26/ ... e-at-work/



Cappyfail.

Again.

Next

What's wrong with McKibben? Is he trying to get rich off this as well?

[CID1990]

How about explain that settled science of the hockey stick model, Cap'n?

[CID1990]

Warmist Bill McKibben..."Blizzard caused by warming"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/26/ ... e-at-work/



Cappyfail.

Again.

Next

What's wrong with McKibben? Is he trying to get rich off this as well?

He doesn't seem to be trying to defend the hockey stick, though!

Wonder what happened to THAT settled science?

[travelinman67]

Warmist Bill McKibben..."Blizzard caused by warming"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/26/ ... e-at-work/



Cappyfail.

Again.

Next

What's wrong with McKibben? Is he trying to get rich off this as well?

Next...Bill Nye, The Lying Guy...

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=8CUowymnKbE[/youtube]

...Nye went on to add...