The end of the world as we know it

[wufwugy]

That's a pretty broad statement. There's plenty of subsets of Christianity that didn't follow these lines, such as Mormonism.

Mormonism created new scripture. It is not widely considered Christian for this reason. However, it did derive from Christianity.

Omfg you really believe that in mosques they are teaching people to kill all infidels?

I see the confusion in how I said it. What I meant was that every mosque teaches the abrogation by Muhammad of all previous teachings.

The best way to settle this is to ask a typical Muslim whether it is radical or not. I suspect they would mirror my arguments that ISIS is a corruption of Islam, not a return to it's roots or some kind of savior of the religion. Most of them fucking hate it full stop.

Most Muslims are nominal and have some small influences of secularization. I'm not concerned with this or with what most Muslims think because I don't care what they think because it's not relevant to my concern with what the scriptures teach.

It's actually a lot more flexible than this. Jihad is only allowed when they are being directly threatened, such as when someone invades their home. It has to be called for by a top imam. There is no 'global jihad' currently in force against Christianity.

The scriptures, the way of Muhammad, is to lie to infidels if need be. We can assess what's really going on here by assessing what Islam has done. Its track record is one of total disavowal of the claim that it is not about eradication by force of non-Muhammad-like.

So you believe the main goal of Islam is to kill all non-believers? By that logic all those Muslims living peaceful lives next to non-muslims over the centuries were in fact traitors to their religion and should have been destroyed.

Yep. ISIS is the return to Muhammad. Islam is the way of Muhammad. These Muslims you're describing have deviated from this, but not for Islamic reasons.

Completely false. Protestantism when it emerged was no closer to scripture than Catholicism.

Whether or not it was is not the point. The point is that it was an attempt to be. All religious reformations are about an attempt to return to scripture. The Muslims today that do not follow the way of Muhammad do not do so because of scripture, but because of others things outside Islam. There is no movement in the Islamic world about reinterpreting the scriptures away from Muhammad.

Also false, at least in the way you characterize jihad.

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/und...m.html?start=9

Muhammad's jihad was by the sword. Due to abrogation, this means that Islam's jihad is by the sword. Any Muslims who claim otherwise are apostates.

[Poopadoop]

How is it indisputable? Have you made these measurements yourself? Show me the indisputable proof.

They bounce a signal from a satellite, look it up.

[OngBonga]

Again, don't know exactly. But if the surface heats up by 2 degrees and the really cold water is hundreds of metres down then I suspect it would take a long long time for that heat to work it's way down there. Heat's natural inclination is to rise, not sink.

You're mistaken here. I'll let mojo confirm it for you, but hot air only "rises" because warm air is less dense than cool air. Heat doesn't have a tendancy to rise, it has a tendancy to flow from a warmer place to a cooler place. Hot air has a tendacy to rise, this is not the heat that is causing this motion. It's increased average molecular velocity causing an "expansion" of gas, and therefore a decrease in density. Hot air basically floats on cold air.

[OngBonga]

They bounce a signal from a satellite, look it up.

"They"

Yeah, indisputable.

It's back to that issue of trust. Who are they? And how are they comparing such measurements with sea levels from a century ago?

[Poopadoop]

You're mistaken here. I'll let mojo confirm it for you, but hot air only "rises" because warm air is less dense than cool air. Heat doesn't have a tendancy to rise, it has a tendancy to flow from a warmer place to a cooler place. Hot air has a tendacy to rise, this is not the heat that is causing this motion. It's increased average molecular velocity causing an "expansion" of gas, and therefore a decrease in density. Hot air basically floats on cold air.

Hot water also floats on cold water. So I'm not mistaken. I do think most heat transfer in liquids comes through convection, not direct contact. Will need MMM to confirm though.

Anyways it's irrelevant if the fact is that the sea levels have risen arguing for why they can't have risen seems pointless.

[OngBonga]

Hot water also floats on cold water.

Yes it does, for the same reason. Warm water is less dense. Just because it's floating, does not means it's not losing heat to cooler water below. If warm water is in contact with cooler water, heat is flowing from the warm water to cooler water, guaranteed.

[OngBonga]

Anyways it's irrelevant if the fact is that the sea levels have risen....

But the evidence for this is flimsy. Prove me wrong.

[Poopadoop]

"They"

Yeah, indisputable.

It's back to that issue of trust. Who are they? And how are they comparing such measurements with sea levels from a century ago?

It's not the only method. But they can compare it over however many decades using satellites. If you're implying 'they' are some conspiracy bent on causing a global panic and so anything 'they' say is just made up crap then there's no possible rejoinder to that so I'm not even going there.

[Poopadoop]

But the evidence for this is flimsy. Prove me wrong.

You're confusing me with someone who truly, deeply cares what you believe in my friend. I've tried and you're not interested so...

[OngBonga]

It's putting faith in the honesty and integrity of the state. I don't have that in me.

15 years to the day.

[OngBonga]

You're confusing me with someone who truly, deeply cares what you believe in my friend. I've tried and you're not interested so...

You haven't tried to prove anything, you've engaged in discussion. I'm not proving anything, I'm making claims without backing any of them up, other than to say "mojo will clear it up", which in the case of heat transfer, he will.

I could prove it to you with links, just like you could prove to me that sea levels are rising, or at least attempt to prove it to me, by showing me the indisputable proof. But your proof is basically what you're being told by whatever media you're using to study this issue. You clearly have more faith than me.

[JKDS]

Here's a fact... when ice that is floating in water melts, the water level does not rise. Ice is less dense than water... which is of course why it floats. If you put ice into water, the level rises as a result of the ice displacing an amount of water equal to its mass. As the ice melts, it loses mass, and thus displaces less water. The resulting drop in water level balances out the gain in water level from the melted ice.

Melting sea ice would not raise sea levels. It can't, not unless the ice is not completely submerged. Thus, if ice is responsible for rising sea levels, it's meltwater from land, not sea. That would manifest itself in heavier river discharge from cold areas, which would be evident in the form of villages and towns on rivers downstream from meltwater regions becoming inundated, especially during spring.

Another factor that is overlooked... higher temperature means greater evaporation, both due to increased energy, and lower relative humidity. I would expect this to counter thermal expansion. Furthermore, water only starts to expand above 4 degrees, which means water that is cooler (ie, most of the water in the oceans) would actually contract as it warms, until it reached 4 degrees, at which point expansion begins.

It's all bollocks and you people just lap it up.

For sea ice, I assume you mean icebergs. I mean glaciers, which are not just floating icecubes. So yes, when glacier ice melts, it adds water to the ocean.

Fresh Water's density is greatest at 4 Celsius. Oceans are salt water. Salt water has different properties than fresh water.

[Poopadoop]

Well if I thought they blew up their own people I wouldn't put it past them either. Actually I wouldn't put it past them anyways, so who knows? I do have trouble making the link between having the means and motive to make all those scientists in different countries lie about global warming though.

[OngBonga]

I don't mistake you for someone who cares, any more than I care. I just love to argue about this kind of stuff. And if I'm being honest with myself, I'm not even sure if I truly believe that it is all a crock of shit. I just really wouldn't be surprised, and I can argue a case, using science, against climate change theory.

Nothing catastrophic has happened yet as a result of sea level rises, and it's been allegedly going on for a long time now. It's not unreasonable to have serious doubts.

[OngBonga]

Fresh Water's density is greatest at 4 Celsius. Oceans are salt water. Salt water has different properties than fresh water.

This is a good point. But... when the numbers are adjusted, it could support my position further, rather than hurt it. I can't be bothered to research this right now, I might do tomorrow if mojo hasn't chimed in.

[Poopadoop]

I don't mistake you for someone who cares, any more than I care. I just love to argue about this kind of stuff. And if I'm being honest with myself, I'm not even sure if I truly believe that it is all a crock of shit. I just really wouldn't be surprised, and I can argue a case, using science, against climate change theory.

Nothing catastrophic has happened yet as a result of sea level rises, and it's been allegedly going on for a long time now. It's not unreasonable to have serious doubts.

It just seems like it requires such a large conspiracy and one that would be difficult to manage. How do you get Prof. X in Switzerland to agree with Prof. Y in China and Prof. Z in Argentina that sea levels are rising? If they were making it up, someone would call bullshit.

Also if the media were making it all up, someone would call bullshit on another channel because that's what sparks ratings. The fact that there's a general consensus is what I find compelling. Doesn't mean they're right it just means it makes more sense to believe them than to think the opposite imo.

[OngBonga]

For sea ice, I assume you mean icebergs. I mean glaciers, which are not just floating icecubes. So yes, when glacier ice melts, it adds water to the ocean.

Well, I was thinking of floating sea ice around the North Pole. It's not icebergs, but it's completely supported by the sea, so it has maximum displacement.

Of course glaciers add to the oceans. Glaciers often melt to a degree during summer... the question then becomes a matter of averages, over time. And those averages are only as accurate as the independant numbers. Our ability to measure accurately what's actually going on is limited to the last few decades at best, which means it's unreasonable to make determinations based on century-long averages.

Our concept of "average" is not an ideal average based on small sample size.

[OngBonga]

It just seems like it requires such a large conspiracy and one that would be difficult to manage.

Well I do believe such conspiracies exist successfully.

[Poopadoop]

You haven't tried to prove anything, you've engaged in discussion. I'm not proving anything, I'm making claims without backing any of them up, other than to say "mojo will clear it up", which in the case of heat transfer, he will.

I could prove it to you with links, just like you could prove to me that sea levels are rising, or at least attempt to prove it to me, by showing me the indisputable proof. But your proof is basically what you're being told by whatever media you're using to study this issue. You clearly have more faith than me.

Clearly. But if your starting point is to believe the opposite of what scientists agree on then I think I will end up being right more often than you.

I'm open to all possibilities and it's possible everything i've heard is wrong. But I can't really be bothered to spend time becoming expert in global warming, looking up papers and reading the fine print, then citing them to people i know on the internet who demand proof, and building a case like it's my life on the line. That's what I meant.

[Poopadoop]

p.s. Global warming almost killed Hillary Clinton today. How's that for proof?

[OngBonga]

Haha how did Global Warming do that?

She has a year to live. She has a condition. They want her in power because if she dies in office, it means they can put anyone in without having to face the vote.

I really hope Trump wins.

[Poopadoop]

Well I do believe such conspiracies exist successfully.

Do you really? A worldwide conspiracy involving dozens of unrelated and superficially (at least) disinterested parties are all conspiring to promote a lie using science?

I can see it if you say the government conspired to cover up who killed JFK or that they planned 9/11 etc. but this seems an order of magnitude beyond that just in terms of getting the right people on board.

[Poopadoop]

Haha how did Global Warming do that?

She has a year to live. She has a condition. They want her in power because if she dies in office, it means they can put anyone in without having to face the vote.

I really hope Trump wins.

The video is on the elections thread.

If she dies in office, the VP becomes prez.

I think he just did.

[Savy]

Can a mod have this autoplay everytime i open this thread pls.

[Savy]

Then when I scroll onto Ongs posts I want this to cut in instead.

[Poopadoop]

I want Ong's posts to have this :

[OngBonga]

Do you really? A worldwide conspiracy involving dozens of unrelated and superficially (at least) disinterested parties are all conspiring to promote a lie using science?

I can see it if you say the government conspired to cover up who killed JFK or that they planned 9/11 etc. but this seems an order of magnitude beyond that just in terms of getting the right people on board.

It's not a case of getting people on board, it's a case of convincing them that the lies are truth, and letting them do the rest.

I don't think for a minute that the scientific community are knowingly in on the conspiracy, they are a passive part of it. I doubt mojo will like my comments here, but it's something I seriously consider... that it all starts with a compromised education.

Only a very select elite are actually a part of any conspiracy that I have in mind. If it requires ordinary scientists to willingly lie to the public, I agree it's very unlikely indeed.

[OngBonga]

I prefer RATM.

[Poopadoop]

It's not a case of getting people on board, it's a case of convincing them that the lies are truth, and letting them do the rest.

Well it's still asking a lot. Most scientists are trained to question what they're told and not take things at face value. If it was my field and I noticed everyone saying the wrong thing I'd be over the moon that I had a chance to prove everyone wrong. It's like a dream come true for a scientist.

If you're saying the scientists are somehow being fed the wrong data then it's hard to see how that is happening too, since they are the ones collecting the data in the first place. Or am I missing something?

[OngBonga]

Well it's still asking a lot. Most scientists are trained to question what they're told and not take things at face value. If it was my field and I noticed everyone saying the wrong thing I'd be over the moon that I had a chance to prove everyone wrong. It's like a dream come true for a scientist.

If you're saying the scientists are somehow being fed the wrong data then it's hard to see how that is happening too, since they are the ones collecting the data in the first place. Or am I missing something?

You're asking me questions I can't possibly know the answer to.

Honestly, I'm not nearly as set on climate change as I am 9/11. It's possible that warming is happening, but I'll always be convinced 9/11 was something other than what we're told.

At least with climate change, we will find out eventually if they're lying or not. They can't keep saying the sea is rising if it's not. And if it is... well, somewhere will go under sooner or later.

[The Bean Counter]

I didn't think there was any debate on whether the globe has seen a period of increasing temperature. Isn't the debate around what's actually causing it and whether the past x number of years is statistically unusual?

I'm basing this on the chapter in Super Freakoninics though (recommended read), which will be out of date in terms of recent thinking/research.

[Savy]

I didn't think there was any debate on whether the globe has seen a period of increasing temperature. Isn't the debate around what's actually causing it and whether the past x number of years is statistically unusual?

I'm basing this on the chapter in Super Freakoninics though (recommended read), which will be out of date in terms of recent thinking/research.

It's one of those things where there is no real debate it's just people saying stupid shit because they read something once and actually reading science is hard so fuck that. It's all well and good trying to find holes in science, it's kind of the point, but when people say things then get told an answer and ignore it anyway I just lose interest.

Funny thing is science says one thing big industry has reason to want it to be false so spends a bit of money to discredit the idea and then it gets taken over by conspiracy theorists who back the big industry they otherwise think control the world because fuck having consistent coherent ideas about things.

[OngBonga]

I didn't think there was any debate on whether the globe has seen a period of increasing temperature. Isn't the debate around what's actually causing it and whether the past x number of years is statistically unusual?

There's a debate about anything when I'm around.

Honestly, I would say that if there has been a significant increase in temperature, of course humans are a key factor. We've cut down most of the trees, the primary means of soaking up CO2.

My problem with it is that our weather seems unaffected, if anything it's cooler than it was a decade ago, and I'm unaware of any catastrophic events where the sea has reclaimed low lying land. This has been ongoing now for around 20 years or so that I can recall... I'm sure there should be a Pacific Island or two lost by now.

It's not a question of the cause, not for me anyway. It's either not happening to any significant degree, or it is and we're to blame.

It's one of those things where there is no real debate it's just people saying stupid shit because they read something once and actually reading science is hard so fuck that. It's all well and good trying to find holes in science, it's kind of the point, but when people say things then get told an answer and ignore it anyway I just lose interest.

Funny thing is science says one thing big industry has reason to want it to be false so spends a bit of money to discredit the idea and then it gets taken over by conspiracy theorists who back the big industry they otherwise think control the world because fuck having consistent coherent ideas about things.

I think you take me too seriously. I get the impression you think this is a passionate subject for me. It's not. This isn't like 9/11, where I can never accept I'm wrong. I'm actually on the fence about this issue, I just have serious doubts and like to argue. I thought you'd have learned this about me by now.

I say stupid shit not because I read it somewhere and don't want to read real science. I say stupid shit either because I find it interesting to discuss, or because it amuses me.

If you have a problem with that, don't engage me in conversation. If you decide to discuss my stupid comments with me, then do so in good faith, instead of trying to slap me down for daring to have a different opinion than what you consider to be the norm.

[Savy]

I think you take me too seriously. I get the impression you think this is a passionate subject for me. It's not. This isn't like 9/11, where I can never accept I'm wrong. I'm actually on the fence about this issue, I just have serious doubts and like to argue. I thought you'd have learned this about me by now.

I say stupid shit not because I read it somewhere and don't want to read real science. I say stupid shit either because I find it interesting to discuss, or because it amuses me.

If you have a problem with that, don't engage me in conversation. If you decide to discuss my stupid comments with me, then do so in good faith, instead of trying to slap me down for daring to have a different opinion than what you consider to be the norm.

Not at all I don't care it's why I stopped responding to your posts. When I was younger I'd have had the conversation with you but now I'm just like meh I don't care what you believe and the conversation bores me so I'll bow out. You're correct I should work on not starting the conversation in the first place.

That post wasn't aimed at you either btw it was just my thoughts on it. Thought you do somewhat fall into that group from what I've read no one has specifically given you answers to your questions or gone in depth enough to correct your assertions.

My problem with it is that our weather seems unaffected, if anything it's cooler than it was a decade ago, and I'm unaware of any catastrophic events where the sea has reclaimed low lying land. This has been ongoing now for around 20 years or so that I can recall... I'm sure there should be a Pacific Island or two lost by now.

It's not a question of the cause, not for me anyway. It's either not happening to any significant degree, or it is and we're to blame.

Things like this for example, yes the weather has changed. You can say it hasn't but go look through weather records of this country. There are also lots of places around the globe that have changed as a result of the changing weather. Spend some time on google. You can't just dismiss things for the sake of it or go off your own anecdotal evidence.

The house I live in has been the same 21 degrees since I installed my new thermostat at good 10 years ago & people are trying to tell me it's getting hotter, idiots.

[OngBonga]

Things like this for example, yes the weather has changed. You can say it hasn't but go look through weather records of this country. There are also lots of places around the globe that have changed as a result of the changing weather. Spend some time on google.

There were lots of places changing due to weather 200 years ago. Weather changes over time for a multitude of reasons. For example, here in the UK were are utterly at the mercy of the Gulf Stream... if we lose that as our primary influence, we'd lose on average over 10 degrees, so they say. That could happen as a result of the Atlantic warming, cooling, or even a meteor hitting the Atlantic, disrupting the currents.

Victorian winters were brutal in the UK. Maybe it's our influence that changed that. Or maybe the planet is still warming from the last ice age, yet to reach its natural peak. Maybe we're helping it along.

I spend a lot of time on google, fwiw. As an example...

Record temp in England - 2003
Wales - 1990
Scotland - 2003
Norther Ireland - 1976, 1983

Highest daily minimum in England - 1990
Wales - 1948
Scotland - 1995
NI - 1868

UK record temp by month -
Jan - 1958, 1971, 2003
Feb - 1998
Mar - 1968
Apr - 1949
May - 1922, 1944
Jun - 1976
Jul - 2015
Aug - 2003
Sep - 1906 (35.6 degrees, isn't likely to get beaten tomorrow even though it could be the hottest Sept day since 1906)
Oct - 2011
Nov - 2015
Dec - 1948

There is no obvious warming trend in the UK.

Let's look at USA...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._s...ature_extremes

States that have recorded their highest ever temperature this century -

South Carolina - 2012
South Dakota - 2006
Tennessee - 2012

That's it.

I'm not seeing any evidence of warming in USA either.

I'm not even seeking out favourable media here, I'm looking at records that could easily demonstrate to me that warming is clearly happening. If the records were heavily skewed in favour of 2000+, then I'd have to accept it's happening.

But it doesn't look like it to me. I can't be fucked to check every single country to see where warming is happening, and yes it's possible that the UK and USA are just examples of nations bucking the trend. But the eivdence in favour of warming is not nearly as overwhelming as most people seem to think. I've seen nothing concrete. Nothing. Just "common consensus". That isn't cold hard facts.

[Poopadoop]

This looks pretty clear. Yellow->red means warmer than average and green->blue means cooler




That said, it's irrelevant because as people say it could just be random variation unrelated to any systematic effect. Counting the number of places that have had a record temperature in some time span is even less rigorous from a statistical viewpoint because of variation. What you are doing is counting outliers which is much less reliable statistically than counting means (because it relies on much fewer data points). I can't give you a stats lecture on it because a) it would bore both of us to near death and b) I don't have time. But believe me I know what I'm talking about, and if you doubt it, go look it up.


In any case, regardless of global temperature change, it is the elements that would lead to global warming that make it believable. Here is a site that describes the exponential growth of CO2 in the atmosphere since industrialization:

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/...page/3062.aspx

the first slide pretty much says what you need to know, the others explain it in more detail.

edit: sorry I am shit at pasting videos and graphs.

[Poopadoop]

In any case I agree with everyone there's more interesting things to talk about. Hillary's apparent brain damage strikes me as infinitely more fascinating, especially if she somehow gets elected. There must be some non-zero chance of that happening and then another non-zero chance of her accidentally seizing on the nuke button. EOTWAWKI.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@ong: Almost every one of your talking points is either easily refuted by glancing at some definitions or merely acknowledging that you've completely re-contextualized sentences into colloquialisms when they were used in a specific jargon.

That said, you can spout all the nonsense you like, since your requests have been only to prove you wrong, and no one is stepping up with any form of proof aside from citing unnamed scientists and their unnamed papers. Your opposition here is 100% as scientific as you have been, in that there is a lot of conjecture and very little actual substance.


Just to clear up a few points.
1) Weather is not climate.

2) The climate has been in a state of relatively constant change since the formation of the atmosphere. No one in their right mind is saying that climate doesn't change. There are literal mountains (and deserts, lakes, canyons, etc.) of evidence against that hypothesis.

3) Icebergs are not glaciers. Glaciers are on land, and yes, the melting of the glaciers adds volume to the sea.

4) Global warming isn't going to end the human race. Humans live in every varied climate the Earth has to offer, from jungles to deserts, from the equator to the poles. Global warming is going to make things different, but not going to end us. Worst case is we become mole people who hide underground, avoiding the hellish landscape which is the surface... but we're talking a many thousands of years timeline on that.

5) CO2 and other chemicals in the atmosphere absorb certain wavelengths of light and emit lower wavelengths through metastable (short half-life) decays. Meaning that they absorb light and emit heat. Yes, greenhouse gasses are called that because they act like the windows of a greenhouse in the way they isolate a region in a thermal barrier. Yes, there is ridiculous amounts of information which demonstrates that greenhouse gasses do have a significant impact on average yearly temperatures.

6) Volcanic eruptions, release of natural methane from underground caves, etc. dwarf any human capacity to pollute the air. The only contention is whether the >90% of greenhouse gasses which are emitted by non-humans is really the to blame for the warming or if it's the <10% which is contributed by humans which is to blame.

7) Yes, hot things radiate, but the issue is that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it is emitting, which is causing a warming. Yes, it will radiate more as it heats up more, but this kind of cooling takes billions of years. White dwarf stars cool in this manner and they remain white hot for, like, ever.

[OngBonga]

That said, it's irrelevant because as people say it could just be random variation unrelated to any systematic effect.

Or it could demonstrate an ever increasing ability of humans to accurately measure the average global temperature.

How many reliable measurements do we have from 1900? How many from 2000? What about all the years in between? It's obvious that there will be a radical increase in reliable measurements as humans explore new lands and technology improves. The measurements from 1900 will be likely be based on mercury readings, which can be influenced by pressure, meaning altitutde can give slightly different readings. How well did we understand that in 1900?

There are so many factors to consider when taking averages over such a long period of time, especially considering our technological evolution during this time.

My problem is that the scientific community should well understand this, so to present such a map as matter-of-fact hard proof is misleading.

mojo - stop refuting me with facts when I'm talking shit, that's not fair.

[OngBonga]

Your opposition here is 100% as scientific as you have been, in that there is a lot of conjecture and very little actual substance.

Thinking about it, this is unfair. I've attempted to bring science into this. I've pointed out that heat will move down from warm water to cold water, which means the colder depths will be warming too. Am I wrong in this assumption? I don't know how the properties change when we consider it's salt water, but I'm prepared to accept scientific principles. If salt water doesn't contract between 1 and 4 degrees like fresh water does, then my argument against thermal expansion of the oceans might be in trouble. I'm not going to argue with sceince if it's provable by experiment. Right now, I think warming of the oceans will result in an overall contraction, because I imagine that the average ocean temperature, right down to the bottom, is well below 4 degrees. I accept that the surface will be warming much more rapidly, but the surface only represents a tiny percentage of the ocean.

I'm trying to look at this from a scientific pov... I'm just not prepared to accept "common consensus" to mean the same as "proven scientific prinicple".

[OngBonga]

In any case I agree with everyone there's more interesting things to talk about. Hillary's apparent brain damage strikes me as infinitely more fascinating, especially if she somehow gets elected. There must be some non-zero chance of that happening and then another non-zero chance of her accidentally seizing on the nuke button. EOTWAWKI.

Aren't you a even a little bit surprised that I haven't yet suggested the twitches and spasms are her shapeshifting?

[Poopadoop]

Aren't you a even a little bit surprised that I haven't yet suggested the twitches and spasms are her shapeshifting?

I'm not surprised YOU suggested it, no.

This is pretty interesting, but I'ma taking it to wuf's blog, er I mean the elections thread.

[Poopadoop]

Or it could demonstrate an ever increasing ability of humans to accurately measure the average global temperature.

It can mean anything you want it to mean. Maybe aliens are farting in the sensors and that's what's causing the apparent increase.

But to answer your question seriously, I'm sure it has been considered whether there was measurement error in old readings. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have become more precise in measuring temperature. But it's important to understandhere the distinction between systematic and random error and how each affects accuracy.

First, there's no a priori reason to think that imprecision in old recordings will be manifest in any systematic error. Rather, it's more likely that previous measurements each contained more random error, that is they were off by some amount but sometimes they overestimated temps and sometimes they underestimated temps, meaning these small errors tended to cancel out because of the sheer number of recordings.

For example, if you go outside and measure the temperature with an old-fashioned thermometer, you're likely going to be in the ballpark but off by some small amount, say some fraction of a degree on average. However, your error is just as likely to be that your estimates are too low as too high. So over a large number of recordings from hundreds or thousands of weather stations in 1900, taken on a daily basis, the averages are going to be infinitesimally close to the truth based on the law of large numbers. Like I said above, the errors will cancel out.

It's like flipping a coin and measuring how often it comes up heads. The more you do it, the closer the distribution will tend towards the true value of p(heads) = 0.5. This is called the binomial distribution and is a proven mathematical fact.

Second, even if there was a systematic bias, say all the thermometers in 1900 were underestimating temperature by 2 degrees, we could simply test those thermometers against today's systems and calibrate the previous results accordingly (adding 2 degrees to the estimates from 1900).

[Savy]

How strange that this was todays comic.

http://xkcd.com/1732/

[Poopadoop]

How strange that this was todays comic.

http://xkcd.com/1732/

All that proves is the aliens have had a population explosion so there's more of them farting in the sensors.

[CoccoBill]

Oh my. Ok.

MMM brought up good points but I feel like 1) needs some expanding.

We are talking about the rise of global average temperatures. Any slight or even massive changes in any local temperatures or local/national record temperatures are completely meaningless for global averages. What is somewhat meaningful is that the we just had a 14-month streak of breaking all-time global average temperatures every month: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ature-records/. Even this july, which was the hottest month on record, some parts of the world even had record colds.



Global warming sure isn't gonna wipe out humans, but note to self: sell beach properties.

[OngBonga]

According to that map, Alaska is red, ie record warmest.

According to wikipedia, Alaska's record was 1915.

But maps are pretty.

[CoccoBill]

https://weather.com/news/climate/new...ocean-july2016

[OngBonga]

All that proves is the aliens have had a population explosion so there's more of them farting in the sensors.

Your mockery only implies that you take me more seriously than you should. You're sorta new here so I guess it'll take time for you to realise I'm half stupid half clever and three quarters troll.

I could sit here and argue the world is flat for days if I could be bothered to put myself in the right mindset. I'm not going to, because that's too ridiculous even for me. But I'm capable.

Climate change is easier for me to argue against because I do believe it *might* be a crock of shit. The eveidence is not overwhelming, not in my opinion. It's unproven, and when the media try to impress something as proven when it is not, I have a tendancy to question it.

But if you're sitting there assuming I'm standing behind everything I say, then yeah you're taking me too seriously.

To respond to the point... aliens farting on sensors is not on the same level of likelihood as unreliable measurements and records from a century ago. You're just being silly.

[Poopadoop]

I realise ur trolling, that's why i'm trolling u back. The very quotation of mine u cited as evidence that I'm taking you seriously shows I'm not.

And I don't think you're stupid at all because your arguments all have a grain of sense to them, but you skip over things that aren't convenient to your argument because that wouldn't be fun.

I also answered your question about measurement error. I guess that's one of the parts you'd rather skip.

Also I would hazard that Scientific American is a more trustworthy source than Wiki.

[OngBonga]

Alright maybe you do get me.

[Poopadoop]

Alright maybe you do get me.

I hope so. Btw if I'm crossing the line with the mockery just tell me to f off. It's all meant to be good fun.

[OngBonga]

I hope so. Btw if I'm crossing the line with the mockery just tell me to f off. It's all meant to be good fun.

Honestly, I really don't care. There are no lines as far as I'm concerned.

[a500lbgorilla]

XKCD's comic today completely disproves climate change neggers like Ong.

[OngBonga]

It does. I can argue with science, but not comics.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How strange that this was todays comic.

http://xkcd.com/1732/

The mouseover text is good, too.

I wiki'd Abu Hureyra. Worth it.

Went on to wiki Jiahu. Very cleverly worded to NOT be the site with the earliest written Chinese language, but perhaps a precursor to Chinese writing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It does. I can argue with science, but not comics.

My Optics professor said, "If you can prove it with a picture, then you still proved it."

Feynman diagrams are cartoons.

[Savy]

It does. I can argue with science, but not comics.

A comic is a means of which to communicate. In this instance he is communicating science in a way that makes the point very obvious whilst being more fun than other sources. I'm sure if you want to verify his points they aren't hard to find and you'd probably get a response by email if you wanted to ask him things.

[OngBonga]

A comic is a means of which to communicate.

You mean it's media? You're not selling it to me very well.

[Savy]

You mean it's media? You're not selling it to me very well.

In the same way that your friends mum communicating with you in person is also media, yes.

[OngBonga]

In the same way that your friends mum communicating with you in person is also media, yes.

That's a conversation. Is a conversation in person "media"? That's a bit thin, even by my loose standards.

[OngBonga]

Media is mass communication. A conversation in private is not mass communication. A comic published on the internet is mass communication.

[Savy]

That's a conversation. Is a conversation in person "media"? That's a bit thin, even by my loose standards.

So you can create stupid conventions but no one else can?

Media is mass communication. A conversation in private is not mass communication. A comic published on the internet is mass communication.

Media is the storing and delivering of information or data. Mass media might be what you're thinking of. We'd have to dig out some website data to find the number of unique hits and decide whether we think he's getting enough that the illuminate has deemed it worth it to take him on board.

Everything you post on this site is media mate how can you even trust what you're saying.

[OngBonga]

So you can create stupid conventions but no one else can?

Yes, exactly. You feel free to jump to whatever conclusion you draw when you say you don't take me seriously.

Everything you post on this site is media mate how can you even trust what you're saying.

Well actually everything I say on this site is delivered through media. Media is the MEANS of mass communication, that's the google definition. And I don't trust what I'm saying because it's mostly based on opinion and speculation rather than fact. I just have faith in my own sincerity... I'm not trying to influence anyone's thinking, I'm just discussing shit with people.

[Savy]

Yes, exactly. You feel free to jump to whatever conclusion you draw when you say you don't take me seriously.

Have to explain this one to me, sorry.

http://tinyurl.com/hkjgt9t

[MadMojoMonkey]

The media are the stuff from which the message is made.

Media is plural of medium. In this usage, medium means what it might mean to an artist - i.e. paint, chalk, pencil, steel, wood... whatever the art is made of.

[OngBonga]

You might not take my comments seriously, but you take me seriously, because you have contempt for me.

[Savy]

You might not take my comments seriously, but you take me seriously, because you have contempt for me.

Not really just chatting shit whilst my food is cooking.

Chicken and home made oven chips, looking forward to it.

On topic - When antibiotics do go to shit and farming goes down the drain I am going to miss my cheap chicken

[JKDS]

There is zero imagination in this thread. So heres another EOTWAWKI

In 50 years, we become even more dependent on technology than we already are. Too much. A computer virus/emp/etc wipes it out and we starve.

[CoccoBill]

^Depends what we mean by "as we know it". Lot's of things can and will change the world from "as we know it", many of them though not overnight. Then again if we're talking about extinction level events, that's not one. Back to stone age maybe.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Stone age is ong's favorite age.

[OngBonga]

No, the stoned age, which is 1995 to present day.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh yeah... I see the difference, now.


I heard there's some speculative archaeological evidence of a little stoned age during the 1970's.

[wufwugy]

I suspect the fail safes will be just fine no matter the level of technology.

Imagine considering nuclear weapons back in the 1700s. I'm sure everybody would think that they would inevitably wipe out the world due to lack of fail safes.

[Savy]

I suspect the fail safes will be just fine no matter the level of technology.

Imagine considering nuclear weapons back in the 1700s. I'm sure everybody would think that they would inevitably wipe out the world due to lack of fail safes.

Funnily enough no power really has an incentive to destroy the world. That being said the level of cock ups with nuclear power have lead to much more disastrous consequences than anything else.