Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

781 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

lost_shaman
9 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

One last time, before you fail this arithmetic section.

How many ENSO-neutral months are there?

I've explained this to you. You obviously do not understand the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

How many? Just one number. I believe you can get this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

How many? Just one number. I believe you can get this!

Well I don't believe you understand ENSO and associated indices. What you are failing so hard at understanding is that positive numbers are warm phases and vice versa with negative numbers. You can't just count nuetral months without labeling them as cool phases or warm phases. SO YOU count them even though I've done this  for you several times.

Edit: So at the end of the day your are wrong and you have doubled and tripled down on being wrong. 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

So, arithmetic not working out.  Math isn't for everyone.

I can't reach everyone.  I didn't expect much, though.

9>6. And 9>8.  Essan remains correct. Shaman remains incorrect.  Basics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

So, arithmetic not working out.  Math isn't for everyone.

I can't reach everyone.  I didn't expect much, though.

9>6. And 9>8.  Essan remains correct. Shaman remains incorrect.  Basics.

Wrong. Essan was wrong. You are wrong. We have been in ENSO warm phase since June of last year, and Weak El Nino since October of last year. Thats most of the last 16 most in the warm phase or El Nino not the other way around.

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

You don't even know the difference between climate and weather and yet you're on here making a fool of yourself.

Weather is what you see when you look out the window.  Climate is the 30-year average of everything visible from that window.  Thirty years is used because smaller numbers are subject to the finite population correction.  It can be used, but it is a pain and small sample sizes are not very reliable, anyway.

Doug

 

Making a fool, Gore's major predictions in 2006 for 2016 is the fool, and the fools that follow him.

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Mr. Shorten is correct.  There is a cost to inaction.  Willing or not, we'll pay it.

In fact, we already are:  beef prices in the US are higher because of the 2011 drought.  The cost of repairing hurricane damage along the east coast and Puerto Rico is in the billions.  The dead number in the thousands.  That's NOW, not sometime in a vague future.

Doug

I would say at this point that, "woosh" is an appropriate word.

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Only if we are seeing Global Cooling!

Yes Capt. Obvious.

Good dodge Doug. I was not making any point about a two year anomaly the graph shows how the different baselines show different levels of warming when the actual data is exactly the same!

That said, the 1951 - 1980 baseline was the coolest baseline of the 20th century. So it over exaggerates the delta T anomalies.

I know that it takes considerable effort to talk to the faithful, l was called names and one b****ed and moaned for doing nothing more than posting and discussing the Gore mess elsewhere. The faithful have an unnatural obsession with this and no evidence will sink in, but it does make them angrier, so there is that.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Which one? In post #34 the graph I posted goes through June 2019. Then I posted a graph talking to Doug about Baselines, that one ended in March. 

Then to muddy that watters Essan posted to a chart that ended in April. 

But really you two are confused because you don't have much of a clue about any of this stuff so I'm sure it's all very hard for you guys to follow. 

Evidence won't convince, but a bullet in the head is always effective.

But let's get back on topic...

2r4VIDI.jpg

I know climate and weather is different, as is sane and insane.

SW8PAxz.jpg

Or maybe we need Climate Connectivity Corridors in the US, that will fix it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/15/stunningly-stupid-study-touts-the-need-for-plants-and-animals-to-have-climate-connectivity-corridors-to-escape-climate-change/

So if your indoor plant starts to fry becuase of climate change, (thanks to the gov, finding a new way to p*** your money away) you have all of the roads laid out so you can quickly hop in your car and drive somewhere cooler, to excape the impending doom, or your plant does.

Antarctica would do, plenty of palm tree's there, for the shade.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

I watched this entire thing to see if it was satire or not, unfortunately it isn't, which l guess makes it even funnier.

Apparently the unfaithful are stupid, which makes the believers ............

And don't bother reading the YT comments, all of the intelligent ones knocking this crock, have been removed, so only the faithful are left, (l know this since someone posted about "good luck with making iron and such with this setup" and before l had a chance to reading it in full it was gone).

Propaganda for the faithful, nothing more.

 

Buts let's get seriously stupid...

Paper clothing and using one piece of toilet paper, ooook.

 

This guy is joking by the way, least l am pretty sure he is, (hard to tell these days).

And this drug induced youngster, is a sterline testimonial.

And this was 8 to 3 years before Gores, end is nigh 2016 non event, so they were working hard on stupid back then.

 

The obvious question is is she serious, yep.

Federal law on toilet paper use, doesn't get any dumber than this.

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

Don't forget the attempts to prevent global warming.  Especially the chemtrails.  Which are now everywhere! :o
 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
12 hours ago, tmcom said:

Making a fool, Gore's major predictions in 2006 for 2016 is the fool, and the fools that follow him.

I do not follow Gore.  He is not a climate scientist.  I would like to discuss his predictions point-by-point.  I asked you to post a link to a list of those, but all you put up was a video.  Do you want to discuss them, or is ranting more your style?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I do not follow Gore.  He is not a climate scientist.  I would like to discuss his predictions point-by-point.  I asked you to post a link to a list of those, but all you put up was a video.  Do you want to discuss them, or is ranting more your style?

Doug

His predictions point by point, well we can but none of them came true, so.

But as you have said Gore is no expert, but the scientific consensus and the so called expert he cited in his 2009, rant could be.

 

So let's stay with the IPCC for 2007, (l downloaded the summery for policymakers).

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/

I skimmed through that one, and they kept hinting at impending doom but not quite saying it.

But the best part is the small text below the first page.

Quote

Numbers in square brackets indicate a 90% uncertainty interval around a best estimate, i.e. there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range. Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the corresponding best estimate.

Geesh, ok, covering their a***es is what they seem to be saying.

So if they cite a 5%, (they typically say 3%) global temp, increase, then that has a 90% chance of being wrong, on top of a small chance of it being higher or lower.

So 5% could either be almost 5% or just above 5%, as well as having a 90% chance of not happening!

Quote

Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the corresponding best estimate.

The IPCC clearly have a copy of Yes Minister on their shelves.

Symmetric meaning part of or whole, or in this case "part of" so...

Quote

Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily part of the corresponding best estimate.

Not necessarily part of, so that means all of our numbers may or may not be almost 100% wrong!

So when they say, the earth will warm by 3%, give us a couple of billion, what they are really saying is, it probably isn't true, give us a couple of billion, so we can go to Jamaka for a fact finding tour in a Luxery Hotel.

I think l will go back to ranting now.

B)

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

But lets give the other side a voice, since anthropomorphismistic climate change, is serious, (seriously funny).

Here is a pastor of climate change, so you can trust him, and l am sure l will buy the "The Last Hours of Humanity" e-book, and share it with my friends, (religious cult dodma) or go and buy the 2040 bible, since that is really full of it.

This quote got it...

Quote

2019... and even 6 years ago when this climate Armageddon's-a-comin' B.S. was being spouted it was ridiculous. With 6 more years of data it is now toe-curlingly ludicrous! This guy belongs on Sunday morning religious TV shows. He'd fit in really well there!

Lol, so 2047 is the official date of no turning back, dogs and cats living together biblical stuff happening, but we of course have a window of opportunity, just give us 100trillion and we will be saved, (some will never be saved).

But lets get religion into this, since the Pope is an obvious expert on the climate, as is a 16 year old.

This crap gets funnier by the day.

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

This guy did a half hour of climate change, just what we need, considering the desperate nutters that are out there.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

It seems that saying that Gores failed predictions are not getting through, so maybe if others saying it it might?

Sorry l should say Climate Crisis Emergency Terror!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 6/15/2019 at 10:14 PM, tmcom said:

His predictions point by point, well we can but none of them came true, so.

We will only know whether they came true when we know EXACTLY what they were.

On 6/15/2019 at 10:14 PM, tmcom said:

Numbers in square brackets indicate a 90% uncertainty interval around a best estimate, i.e. there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range. Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the corresponding best estimate.

No statistically-derived estimate is an exact number.  Standard errors and deviations are a part of EVERY estimate.  There is a 68% chance that the true value of a number is within one standard error of the estimate.  This is elementary statistics; it is both an advantage and a disadvantage of statistics.  It is customary to use 1.96 times the standard deviation as the limit of confidence; that corresponds to a 95% confidence interval.

As a footnote here:  a 90% confidence limit is getting pretty far afield.  That should be a warning that results are preliminary.

On 6/15/2019 at 10:14 PM, tmcom said:

Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the corresponding best estimate.

If you transform your dependent values, run your regression and then detransform the results, you have just created an asymetric error field around your central estimate.  This is usually represented as a subscript with the upper limit first, followed by a slash, followed by the lower limit.  There is nothing untoward about the process.  The fact that this was done is usually announced so that readers will know they are not looking at a mistake.

On 6/15/2019 at 10:14 PM, tmcom said:

Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily part of the corresponding best estimate.

Uncertainty intervals have to be calculated as an extra step in the process.  So often, they aren't calculated.  You must check each number to see whether there is a confidence limit for it; if not, you will have to calculate your own, providing the data to do so are present.

 

 

This should be considered informed speculation at this point, not established science, but:  the two months or so of rain the US is still receiving cover an area from the Central Rockies to the East Coast.  The thinking is that this may become a permanent part of our weather.  The acid test is to see what happens over the next few years.

From the Civil War (1860s) to the 1950s, Oklahoma had a major drought every 20 years or so.  Since the 1950s, droughts have been getting less frequent, less intense and of shorter duration.  And now we have the wettest year on record.  Does anybody see a pattern here?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We will only know whether they came true when we know EXACTLY what they were.

Watch Gores trailer to his Inconvenient Truth and his 2009 update, (l believe his full doc, is available online) which gives predictions of mainly substantial flooding, which didn't happen.

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

No statistically-derived estimate is an exact number.  Standard errors and deviations are a part of EVERY estimate.  There is a 68% chance that the true value of a number is within one standard error of the estimate.  This is elementary statistics; it is both an advantage and a disadvantage of statistics.  It is customary to use 1.96 times the standard deviation as the limit of confidence; that corresponds to a 95% confidence interval.

As a footnote here:  a 90% confidence limit is getting pretty far afield.  That should be a warning that results are preliminary.

If you transform your dependent values, run your regression and then detransform the results, you have just created an asymetric error field around your central estimate.  This is usually represented as a subscript with the upper limit first, followed by a slash, followed by the lower limit.  There is nothing untoward about the process.  The fact that this was done is usually announced so that readers will know they are not looking at a mistake.

Uncertainty intervals have to be calculated as an extra step in the process.  So often, they aren't calculated.  You must check each number to see whether there is a confidence limit for it; if not, you will have to calculate your own, providing the data to do so are present.

This should be considered informed speculation at this point, not established science, but:  the two months or so of rain the US is still receiving cover an area from the Central Rockies to the East Coast.  The thinking is that this may become a permanent part of our weather.  The acid test is to see what happens over the next few years.

From the Civil War (1860s) to the 1950s, Oklahoma had a major drought every 20 years or so.  Since the 1950s, droughts have been getting less frequent, less intense and of shorter duration.  And now we have the wettest year on record.  Does anybody see a pattern here?

Doug

Geesh, apparently Yes Minister is really popular, l read the one they gave to the US gov, with the "this is probably untrue, disclaimer" so regardless of the knowledge base it succeeded in getting the grant cash.

Or they said there is a 90% change that this isn't true, and the 10% chance that it is true, is probably not true.

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Watch Gores trailer to his Inconvenient Truth and his 2009 update, (l believe his full doc, is available online) which gives predictions of mainly substantial flooding, which didn't happen.

Whilst you may believe that politicians know more about climate science than anyone else, and always tell the absolute truth, many of us beg to differ ;)  

I couldn't watch his stupid film - which, as I have suggested before, may have been sponsored by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate science, there were so many errors in it!

Using Gore to prove that climate science is wrong is like using an Avengers movie to prove aliens are visiting Earth!

That said, has anyone noticed any floods in the US recently?  No?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Or they said there is a 90% change that this isn't true, and the 10% chance that it is true, is probably not true.

It would be the other way around:  a 90% chance that "X" is true.  Even that isn't too good.  Most natural resource work uses 95% confidence.

16 minutes ago, Essan said:

That said, has anyone noticed any floods in the US recently?  No?

Let's see...  How about Sand Springs, Oklahoma?  I think the river (Arkansas) is going down, but I don't know whether the city downtown is above water, yet.  Stillwater Creek flooded a subdivision near here last week.  A good friend had a foot of water in his house.  Just cleaning up the ness now.  They are discharging 100,000 gallons a minute from Keystone Reservoir, trying to keep the pool from topping the spillway.  The spillway is dirt and would probably wash out if the pool gets above it.  Still raining.  Stay tuned.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

We are in a deep Solar Minimum which means increased Cosmic rays that have long been hypothesised to seed Clouds which would increase rain events. Also that persistent High pressure system over the South-East last month forced all the rain to repeatedly occur over the same corridor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

Doug, you said it is customary to apply 1.96 times the standard deviation as the limit of confidence that corresponds to a 95% confidence level. 

If that is true, it should be I'd have simply said 2 times the standard deviation was the norm, then there is no anomaly in the current Global Temperature record. 

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

0.59 x 1.96 = 1.15 C

0.59 is roughly the accurate standard deviation in the NASA GISS Temp record. Therefore, no year in the current record even exceeds the 95% confidence threshold when there are more than 95 years in the population!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)

Also today the 10.7 cm Radio Flux from the Sun reached a LOW of 66 standard flux units (sfu's). The theoretical lower limit is 67 at 1 AU!!!  66 sfu's is something we've never seen before!

 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 hours ago, Essan said:

Whilst you may believe that politicians know more about climate science than anyone else, and always tell the absolute truth, many of us beg to differ ;)  

I couldn't watch his stupid film - which, as I have suggested before, may have been sponsored by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate science, there were so many errors in it!

Using Gore to prove that climate science is wrong is like using an Avengers movie to prove aliens are visiting Earth!

That said, has anyone noticed any floods in the US recently?  No?

True, but Gore also had supposedly overwhelming support for his predictions, in 2006, from peer reviewed papers, and was wrong, or all of the scientists were wrong.

And if oil companies got to the data, he used, then the same should be true today, or any future predictions are a crock.

 

Or any way you cut it, giving speeches about the world ending in 2030 or 2047, (that is the official date) is either dead wrong or false.

 

And even Military supercomputers doing several trilobites of number crunching per second cannot get past the next day when making future predictions.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

We are in a deep Solar Minimum which means increased Cosmic rays that have long been hypothesised to seed Clouds which would increase rain events. Also that persistent High pressure system over the South-East last month forced all the rain to repeatedly occur over the same corridor.

 

The problem is the polar jet stream is kaput ;)    The whole northern hemisphere is being affected, from Europe to China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
6 hours ago, Essan said:

The problem is the polar jet stream is kaput ;)    The whole northern hemisphere is being affected, from Europe to China.

Again we are in a deep Solar Minimum which cools the Thermosphere and has been hypothesised to affect the jet streams, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
58 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Again we are in a deep Solar Minimum which cools the Thermosphere and has been hypothesised to affect the jet streams, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

That may be a contributory factor, but the main reason is more likely the decline in temperature gradient due to recent Arctic warming - whatever the reason might be for that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Save the planet?

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.