Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect

Because people try and do it doesn't make it correct. I have just as much education in math and statistics as these ********* and I'm calling bullshit.

You might be uneducated. I'm not.

 

Maybe we can find out why BMWs are always effing up, why no mechanic wants to work on one, and why parts are so expensive.

 

It takes a good long while to recharge a car they tell me. When the gas stations convert to electric chargers there's going to be long, long lines and a need for a whole lot more concrete to build more recharging stations.

And where will those recharging stations get their energy? From the electric lines sure, but I'm betting that for many it will be a local coal-fired power plant.

And with cars no longer getting their energy directly from onboard combustion, a whole lot more power plants will have to be built, many of them coal-fired probably.

Hey! Smokestack lightning!

 

No, AGW posits two hypothesis...

1. The global mean temperature is increasing gradually over the long term
2. Humans are primarily responsible for that increase in the global mean tempertaure

AGW does not posit "each location will warm by the same amount", or "winter will stop showing up", "it will never be cold again in TheGreatSatan's backyard", or anything like that.

 

Completely agree with this assessment. The true essence of the issue is the calculation of the "average" which of course means the significant decimal places to which we calculate to. And of course, these 'hundredths' of a degree over which we can then hyperventilate over.

 

Then calling it global warming is either dumb or a lie.

 

My computer chip was build in China by FOXCOM. Just as yours. Not one computer chip is produced in USA.

We lead the Tech world in evry aspect. Name me a tech corporation in your country or a product of your country that i use. Just one.

Almost all engines, trubines ect in the world are German and build by Siemens. Our tech giants dominate so much, that we have zero unemployment, costant boom.

As for energy, when we have excess energy, we use gigantic water systems to store the energy. We have constant wind in many regions and we developed the first functioning fusion reactor Wendelstein X7. Meanwhile you have people living in huts...

 

Do you like primitives?

 

You are mad because i find your low living standards not acceptable? I´m sure your country has some nice aspects, if that makes you feel better.

 

Review the standard error of the mean formula: sigma/sqrt(N). The more samples you have the less the error of the mean of those samples becomes. In fact, it's always lower than the original error. You can actually demonstrate this principal yourself in Excel.

 

Slight correction here, the primary posit is that man is responsible for some portion of the warming we are seeing. To put a superfine point on it, to date, ZERO demonstrable warming can be attributed that isn't naturally occurring........ queue the hyperventilation...

 

What's the relevance of a 168 year old weather pattern as opposed to a 4 billion year old weather pattern when discussing decades?

 

TANSTAFL (there's no such thing as a free lunch) Energy is neither free nor totally clean

I wouldn't mind a hybrid car, one whose batteries charge from the combustion engine.............but I'm not paying those crazy prices. No way, no how, will I ever own an entirely electric vehicle, other than a golf cart.

 

In statistics what these self-appointed experts are doing is called castles in the clouds. You see a signal where there is just noise.

 

Okay, which natural mechanism explains the 0.15C/decade rate of warming then?

 

Which still doesn't actually demonstrate the actual contribution, does it? So, how much is it? All, most, some? 90%? 50%? 20%? 5%? .5%? Then answer is we still don't and cannot demonstrate this additive causality.

 

Comrade, you are not helping here. We should not discuss relevant facts. We MUST advance global taxation of energy.

 

Based on how big a sample size?

 

It demonstrates that computing a global mean temperature is can be really accurate...on the order of 0.01C. That was what you were refuting.

At any rate. The skeptic hero who runs the UAH satellite data program just computed the human contribution at 62%...and he's a skeptic!

 

You are assuming random error. Random error is actually quite rare in the real world. Most real world error is systematic and cannot be controlled for by averaging.

Simple example, reading a graduated cylinder. When reading a graduated cylinder you are supposed to read from the meniscus. Most people will error on the reading of a graduated cylinder high. This is systematic error. No amount of averaging can correct for this error.

In case you don't get it. I knew what response you were going to come back with and knew exactly how to counter that argument. Get this through your uneducated head. I'm naturally smarter than you. I'm better educated than you. I'm more experienced on this topic than you. You can't win.

 

It's a feeling. Kind of like a religious experience. You must have faith. Ohmmmmmmm.

 

Just one...that's all you need to falsify the hypothesis "humans are primarily responsible for the warming". Is it the Sun?

 

Exactly. And reanalysis has systematic error. That's why when you compare the global mean temperature between different reanalysis datasets they usually differ on the order of 0.1C instead of 0.01C. That's because they have systematic biases due to the way they were designed. Can you guess how we remove those biases and get back to 0.01C of precision? It's really simple and obvious!

 

Okay...that's actually pretty funny

 

If humans were primarily responsible for the warming the tropical tropopause would warm faster than the surface. It's not.

There is more than one way to falsify any theory. You need not produce an alternative theory. That kind of thinking is how man created gods. Do you have a better explanation than Thor beating his mighty hammer?