|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:40:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave-----I assurted "The long term data(which i pointed to) shows much change in co2 and temp over a 420,000 period of time."
Your response:"Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?"
Dave, lets not assume any longer.
Whats the point of your question?
My answer is yes. |
Why do you refuse to move on in a logical fashion?
My point should have been clear from my earlier question, which you've neglected to answer: why was the CO2 level so high 400-600 million years ago? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:44:17 [Permalink]
|
Mabuse---You are correct the comparison is between 1961-2003 data set and 1993-2003 data set.
This show my point better as the report compares a 52 year data set to a 10 year data set.
That is a sample diffrence of 520%,(worse comparison than i previouly contended)
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:48:40 [Permalink]
|
Sorry ---
It is a 42 year data set verses an 10 year data set.
I had the math correct(42 years), I just incorrecly stated 1961-1993(should have cut and past) vs 1993-2003.
The correction is 1961-2003 data set(42 years) vs 1993-2003(10 years).
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:48:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Mabuse---You are correct the comparison is between 1961-2003 data set and 1993-2003 data set.
This show my point better as the report compares a 52 year data set to a 10 year data set.
That is a sample diffrence of 520%,(worse comparison than i previouly contended) |
"Worse" in what way?
Why do you refuse to tell us why the IPCC chose to make such a comparison? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:55:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave---As you conitnue to contend that I do not understand your meaning, I am asking you to clarify.
****Dave-----I assurted "The long term data(which i pointed to) shows much change in co2 and temp over a 420,000 period of time."
Your response:"Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?"
Dave, lets not assume any longer.
Whats the point of your question?
My answer is yes.****
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:01:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave---As you conitnue to contend that I do not understand your meaning, I am asking you to clarify. |
So long as you keep asking me what my point was every time I try to show you what my point was, you will keep this discussion going nowhere (which is how I think you'd prefer it, since you refuse to reference your cites and refuse to move the discussion along in a logical manner).
You've already answered one question: yes, the CO2 levels were very much higher in the distant past. The next step is to answer the question of why they were that way.
I suspect you will continue to refuse to answer that question because it doesn't fit with the speculation you've already expressed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:12:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave---We are talking about mmgw and the data presentation in the ipcc.
"IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?"
Why would the ipcc present two data sets that are diffrent by 420%?
I contend that the government agents that reviewed, approved and published the final report(as stated in the ippc documents) presented the data in this manner so that it would be precieved as more dramatic.
Why do think that the data was presented in this manner?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:15:55 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
Kil---Thanks for the reasoned response.
The problem is that they are making comparisons from two vastly diffrent data sets.
1961-1993 avg rate of increase 1.3 to 2.3 (42 year data set)
1993-2003 avg rate of increase 2.4 to 3.8 (10 year data set)
Surley you understand why it is mathmaticly invaild to compare two data sets which are diffrent in sample by a factor of 420%. |
Once again:
For 1993-2003, the sum of the climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total sea level rise that is directly observed (see Table SPM-1). These estimates are based on improved satellite and in-situ data now available. For the period of 1961 to 2003, the sum of climate contributions is estimated to be smaller than the observed sea level rise. The TAR reported a similar discrepancy for 1910 to 1990. {5.5} |
I don't understand what you don't understand. While using the newer, better data collection method they solved a discrepancy problem that the older and less accurate method left unresolved. Both methods show an increase in the sea levels but the original method could not be reconciled with the “sum of climate contributions…”
Are you suggesting that we should wait another 30 years to look at the satellite data? Or throw away the previous forty years of data collection, which also shows an increase in sea levels? Why do that? The newer data is more accurate, it sheds light on the previous 40 years of data collection and a problem associated with the method used for that time period and is therefore comparable.
This is not a way of fudging figures, as you seem to think. It's a way of bringing the older data into its proper perspective when compared to more reliable data collection methods.
You have several choices here. You can choose to agree with the 40 year data which says the sea levels are rising, or, the newer data which says the sea levels are rising faster than we knew before the use of satellite altimetry. Or, you have the choice of blathering on about the sample size. I don't care. Wave it all away…
The sample size argument you are kvetching about is nothing but a strawman, since both data are presented with explanation and with no attempt to manufacture or hide time periods or collection methods.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:17:39 [Permalink]
|
Correcton to my question:
"Why would the ipcc present two data sets that are diffrent by 420%?"
Should be:
Why would the ipcc COMPARE two data sets that are diffrent by 420%?
By the way can you edit your own posts?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:26:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way can you edit your own posts?
|
Yes. There are icons above each post. The one with the paper and pencil is the edit feature. Click it and edit... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:26:50 [Permalink]
|
Kil---Thanks again for your reasoned response.
"This is not a way of fudging figures, as you seem to think"
I do not think that the figures are fudged.
I am contending that the data is presented in a way to be more dramatic.
I do not state that sea levels are not rising, to the contrary.
I do believe the data.
Just wanted to see if edit works.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 05/14/2007 21:30:52 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Kil---Thanks about the edit, I could not see the icon as I was not logged in.
I presume that the post function saves the loggin info.
Ohh no---now there is a quick reply box and edit fuctions---this could get bad for me!!! |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 05/14/2007 21:32:52 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:45:47 [Permalink]
|
I hope you all are enjoying this as much as I.
We debated: Governmental influcence over the data presentation.
(clear this happens: the argument is to degree and sucsess)
One minor presentation of fact.
(I may have lost this one, but it is an agument of
perception)
Should we continue with this thread or shall I start new?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 22:07:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I hope you all are enjoying this as much as I. |
We must; otherwise, why would we persist, eh? We debated: Governmental influcence over the data presentation.
(clear this happens: the argument is to degree and sucsess) |
Clear to whom? You have yet to make this clear to anyone. One minor presentation of fact.
(I may have lost this one, but it is an agument of perception) |
To which presentation of fact are you referring? | Should we continue with this thread or shall I start new? |
Prior to your starting a new thread, I would very much appreciate a response to the points I have raised in my earlier posts. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 22:39:06 [Permalink]
|
Boron---"If you are unsatisfied by the facts presented in this paper"
---I am not unsatisfied by the facts , I am unsatisfied by the
presentation .
---I am unsatisfied that causality is not shown(only implied).
next:"What you are doing here is called equivocation."
Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one
meaning (thanks for the link)
---The ipcc uses the same words giving them equal promenance.
I trusted the ipcc when they equated the word "review" in their
explaination list of how the document is created.
next:"Maybe you contend that the science always wins the arguement with the governments that are funding the science?
Well, yes. Those scientists who yield to governmental pressure get
blacklisted, and have a very difficult time finding work. Also,
part of the "peer-review" process."
---The "peer review" process for the ipcc document ends in step 4 of
the 10 steps it takes to get to publishing.
---Also scientist hold no special power over human nature, like most people most scientist are generally "good people"; but like all people sometimes the event is bigger than the individual.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
