Global warming: the chilling effect on free spe...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And your evidence that it does?

If one year was a little hotter or colder wouldn't that naturally influence the next?

Let's say on the last day of year 1, the temp is 20C. The next day's temp, the first day of year 2, will be influenced by whatever the previous day's temp was.
Won't it?
On a bigger scale then, can't we say that one year's temp is influenced by the last?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not a global warming naysayer. The evidence is so blindingly obvious it smacks you in the face.
But I'm not sure about your logic here ...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The odds of any year being warmer or cooler than the long term average are 50% by definition, otherwise the average wouldn't be the average!

That's true of the median but the not the mean which is likely what you wish to talk about. If you have a set of data with a skewed distribution then the chance isn't 50-50 anymore. It doesn't actually really affect you reasoning (as global temperatures don't have such a skewed behaviour) but be careful when stating things are true by definition.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's true of the median but the not the mean which is likely what you wish to talk about. If you have a set of data with a skewed distribution then the chance isn't 50-50 anymore. It doesn't actually really affect you reasoning (as global temperatures don't have such a skewed behaviour) but be careful when stating things are true by definition.

Indeed, but as you say, your data set would have to be non-normal.

Originally posted by amannion
If one year was a little hotter or colder wouldn't that naturally influence the next?

Let's say on the last day of year 1, the temp is 20C. The next day's temp, the first day of year 2, will be influenced by whatever the previous day's temp was.
Won't it?
On a bigger scale then, can't we say that one year's temp is influenced by the last?

Don't get ndingly obvious it smacks you in the face.
But I'm not sure about your logic here ...

But would the temperature on the 31st Dec 2005 affect the temperature on the 25th June 2006? Or the 31st December 2006? For that to be true you'd see temperature cycles, not stochastic year on year fluctuations like in this graph.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/artwork/globalwarming/globaltempchange.gif

This one is good too;

http://www.yhub.org.uk/resources/Climate%20Change%20Micro%20Site/Figure%201%20-%20global%20temperature%20change%20over%20the%20past%201000%20years.jpg

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Funny, I was thinking the same of you. You laugh and berate the religious Creationists because they ignore the scientific evidence of evolution, yet you ignore the scientific evidence of global warming. Both are pretty much equally well accepted by the scientific community, but you just think you know better, right?

Actually I argue against the botherers mainly from a philosophical base...that is a principled philosophical base, which is why I kick your ass so regularly.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
[b]You're trying to mislead, wont work, we weren't discussing MIC.

You're dismissing the impact of an increase of CO2 because it is such as small percentage of the overall atmosphere. My point was that small doesn't necessarily equal inconsequential, as you tried to suggest, and which xs applauded.

Also, using your simplistic maths, a doubling of ...[text shortened]... for you to dismiss? When, in your limited mind, is small small enough to be dismissed?

D[/b]

Still waiting for a rebuttal Raggy, Does a CO2 increase in the amount of .003% of the atmosphere harm humans?

Also you were going to reply to all the other points. If you're not going to...that's fine. Just don't say that you are and then....?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Actually I argue against the botherers mainly from a philosophical base...that is a principled philosophical base, which is why I kick your ass so regularly.

Don't worry, hell will let you know if you ever manage to kick my ass, by freezing over.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Still waiting for a rebuttal Raggy, Does a CO2 increase in the amount of .003% of the atmosphere harm humans?

Also you were going to reply to all the other points. If you're not going to...that's fine. Just don't say that you are and then....?

Would it matter if your water was 0.01% cyanide?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Would it matter if your water was 0.01% cyanide?

Possibly, but you can take a breath of CO2 and all it does is tickle your nose. Maybe you could experiment doing the same with the cyanide🙄

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Don't worry, hell will let you know if you ever manage to kick my ass, by freezing over.

You see as a principled libertarian I would never regulate the botherers nor would I take money (under threat of force) from them to push my agenda or grow grass. The people I deal with do so voluntarily.

Just dropped a few degrees in hell.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You see as a principled libertarian I would never regulate the botherers nor would I take money (under threat of force) from them to push my agenda or grow grass. The people I deal with do so voluntarily.

Just dropped a few degrees in hell.

No no. Be honest, as a self-serving conservative you would never put in place practices which allow some measure of relief to be brought to the poorest and weakest members of society. You would never invest, communally (because, let's face it, neither individuals nor any but the biggest companies are able to have their own R&D departments), in developing a knowledge economy, with all the benefits that they have (look at Japan, for example). You would never put in place safeguards to protect people, if it came at the expense of your current account.

I think it just got a few degrees warmer again - must be that Global warming.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Possibly, but you can take a breath of CO2 and all it does is tickle your nose. Maybe you could experiment doing the same with the cyanide🙄

Would it matter to your dog if your dog's water was 0.1% theobromine? And yet chocolate is full of it and all that does is taste good to you.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You see as a principled libertarian I would never regulate

So what you're saying is that you're happy to eat 10 day old food? You don't mind gastroenteritis.

You don't mind shoddy installations of electrical appliances, where fire is a very real risk.

You don't mind dodgy gas cooker installations, where CO poisoning is inevitable.

You don't mind driving a car with brakes which only work some of the time.

I'm glad I don't live in your looney world of no regulations. 🙄 Best of luck with it.

D

Originally posted by Wajoma
Kyoto has been a total waste of time and effort, I cry for the trees cut down to be made into paper so that screeds of BS about KP may be written on it. I grit my teeth in anger for the amount of my tax dollars spent flying petty bureauRats (probably in business class) around the world to discuss KP

How can you declare something a waste of time when it has only been in operation for just about a year and a half.

Do you not think that if the first set of targets aren't met, and governments have to pay fines, that they'll instead invest in actually getting the problem solved.

Just one small experience I've had. I own a business and we've recently had water meters installed (during which a team of workers were employed for a couple of months, ie: not dead money). At first I was wary, as I think we use quite a bit of water, but when the bill arrived, it was for €3 for 4 months (actual charges are starting next year), plus €75 installation fee. So basically, it impacts my business not at all. Now consider a business person with taps which don't turn off, or chronic leakage. What this regulation does is provide an incentive for the lazy business man to fix his tap, or just to let him know that he has a leak somewhere along the line.

Kyoto needs time to build momentum. I believe that if more countries sign up (most importantly the U.S), then it can be the stepping stone to the sustainable industries which we require.

D

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And your evidence that it does?

El Nino-Southern Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation are just some of the world's large-scale atmospheric systems that fluctuate over time-scales greater than one year.

Edit: to say that a year is independent from a previous year is to disregard the notion of 'climate', something which you acknowledge exists in your other posts.