Climate continues to change.

[Christobal]

This is a fake.

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/4/0/0/9/5/a4334152-136-time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming.gif

Here is the real cover:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2007/1101070409_400.jpg

From 1977?

Edited to add

The Sopranos weren't even imagined in 1977. Look at the corner of the Time you posted.

 

[Antoninus]

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Sopranos weren't even imagined in 1977.

And therefore the purported 1977 Time cover actually dates from much later.

 

[Christobal]

Here is the author of the original global cooling explaining how he got it wrong based on bad science. This is just because science hadn't figured things out yet. Now the newer science tells him he right again. I hope this science lasts.


http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...l_cooling_how_climate_change_deniers_use.html

 

[Christobal]

And therefore the purported 1977 Time cover actually dates from much later.

Point conceded. I was wrong.

 

[thør]

http://www.begum9.com/Assets/ProductImages/polar_bear.gif

 

[KingOrfeo]

http://www.begum9.com/Assets/ProductImages/polar_bear.gif

zziiiiiiiipppp

 

[Conager]

No, it means when your calculations produce a figure with a large number of digits to the right of the decimal point, you should disregard as unimportant all but the first two or three. Irrelevant here.

Are there any subjects that you know anything at all about?

Sometimes, NO decimal places at all are relevant. Sometimes, infinitesimally small graduations are, in fact, relevant. You know...depending on the actual rules of significamt figures. Because math.

It has nothing at all to do with how many decimal places are involved in your final calculation and everything to do with the actual precision of your data.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Are there any subjects that you know anything at all about?

Sometimes, NO decimal places at all are relevant. Sometimes, infinitesimally small graduations are, in fact, relevant. You know...depending on the actual rules of significamt figures. Because math.

It has nothing at all to do with how many decimal places are involved in your final calculation and everything to do with the actual precision of your data.

And that is why, in science as distinct from math, you usually should disregard all but the first two or three digits after the decimal point -- because your data are not precise enough to warrant considering them; they are within the margin of error.

 

[Conager]

And that is why, in science as distinct from math, you usually should disregard all but the first two or three digits after the decimal point -- because your data are not precise enough to warrant considering them; they are within the margin of error.

Ask you something. Have you ever admitted that you're just wrong once in your entire life?

You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in many fields of science you have to use scientific notation because you are so far right of the decimal point.

Your rule of thumb would work just fine for all physical science experiments that a child could do with items found in his kitchen.

 

[Jamiegeo]

Speaking of kitchen: has anybody tried cornflower and water mix, so it
Acts like and feels like a liquid but is like weird and gooey and stuff and cool
N stuff??

Yeah i know, my point is fractionally decimal and should always be rounded down..

Carry on.

 

[phrodeau]

I remember all of the significant figures involved in the massive effort to combat the global ice age of 1976. There was Velikovsky, Irwin Corey, Dr. Suess, Millikan and Fletcher.

 

[phrodeau]

Ask you something. Have you ever admitted that you're just wrong once in your entire life?

You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in many fields of science you have to use scientific notation because you are so far right of the decimal point.

Your rule of thumb would work just fine for all physical science experiments that a child could do with items found in his kitchen.

And I'm sure that you are aware of the proper use of scientific notation. Please tell us all where the decimal point goes in a properly-constructed number.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ask you something. Have you ever admitted that you're just wrong once in your entire life?

Yes.

You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in many fields of science you have to use scientific notation because you are so far right of the decimal point.

I'm entirely aware of that. The significant-figures rule is situational; it depends on how precise are your data and what is the margin of error, you disregard all digits outside that margin.

 

[thør]

First yearly CO2 forecast predicts one of biggest rises ever.

 

[Conager]

Yes.



I'm entirely aware of that. The significant-figures rule is situational; it depends on how precise are your data and what is the margin of error, you disregard all digits outside that margin.

So, if your data is accurate past your completely arbitrary cut off point of those beyond "the first two or three," you actually <do> include them. . .making your initial statement what is known as "wrong."

I give you some credit though for your hastily Googling for understanding and your artful backpedaling when you clearly didn't have any idea what sthe concept of significant figures refers to.

Phrodeau still has no idea after 3 years of having it explained to him. He still maintains that the planet has warmed even if the delta of change is less than the margin of error, which is calculated using a SWAG based on what is known about the significant figures in the data set.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I give you some credit though for your hastily Googling for understanding and your artful backpedaling when you clearly didn't have any idea what sthe concept of significant figures refers to.

I learned it in high-school physics.

And you have yet to demonstrate how the concept is relevant to climate change.

 

[Conager]

And I'm sure that you are aware of the proper use of scientific notation. Please tell us all where the decimal point goes in a properly-constructed number.

I like that you said "please."

Who is this "us" of which you speak? There are others that require tutoring on the subject?

We can talk about you gaining an understanding about scientific notation after you turn in your tardy homework on significant figures.

I can't say for sure whether you have the requisite foundation to explain to you that not all numbers expressed in scientific notation will include a decimal point. For example: .0000006 since the only number to be raised to a negative power is an integer.

Have you tried MIT's online courses to fill in your missing knowlege? All courses are available for no charge. You just don't get college credit for them. That should not be a problem since you (I assume) already have a college degree in some participation trophy field or the other and once you have that piece of paper no one really asks what your degree is in.

 

[Conager]

I learned it in high-school physics.

And you have yet to demonstrate how the concept is relevant to climate change.

Your high school physics teacher told you to just do the math then arbitrarilly lop off all but the last two or three digits?

...and only on the final results, not minding the digits on the numbers that went into your solution?

I was never that impressed with ¡Jeb! but perhaps I was hasty. Having met you, a pre-Bush graduate of a Florida high school, I can see he must have made great strides in education.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I repeat, how is the concept of significant figures relevant to climate change?

 

[phrodeau]

I like that you said "please."

Who is this "us" of which you speak? There are others that require tutoring on the subject?

We can talk about you gaining an understanding about scientific notation after you turn in your tardy homework on significant figures.

I can't say for sure whether you have the requisite foundation to explain to you that not all numbers expressed in scientific notation will include a decimal point. For example: .0000006 since the only number to be raised to a negative power is an integer.

Have you tried MIT's online courses to fill in your missing knowlege? All courses are available for no charge. You just don't get college credit for them. That should not be a problem since you (I assume) already have a college degree in some participation trophy field or the other and once you have that piece of paper no one really asks what your degree is in.

So the decimal point doesn't appear in a scientific notation of a number with one significant digit, whoopdedoo. That does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Conager]

So the decimal point doesn't appear in a scientific notation of a number with one significant digit, whoopdedoo. That does not mean it doesn't exist.

If this disinterests you, why the query?

What is a "significant digit?"

 

[Conager]

I repeat, how is the concept of significant figures relevant to climate change?

For the third time, it goes to the margin of error for any and all calculations relating to the field as it pertains to the precision of the data, which is dependent on the accuracy and reliability of the instruments you used.

A mercury bulb thermometer is a lot less accurate than modern instuments, just for one small example.

You cannot express the depth of an ocean trench to the nearest millimeter if your rope is marked out in fathoms.

 

[KingOrfeo]

For the third time, it goes to the margin of error for any and all calculations relating to the field as it pertains to the precision of the data, which is dependent on the accuracy and reliability of the instruments you used.

A mercury bulb thermometer is a lot less accurate than modern instuments, just for one small example.

You cannot express the depth of an ocean trench to the nearest millimeter if your rope is marked out in fathoms.

Fine. Now, how is that relevant to climate change? Would the climatologists get different results with significant-figures analysis? How?

 

[phrodeau]

For the third time, it goes to the margin of error for any and all calculations relating to the field as it pertains to the precision of the data, which is dependent on the accuracy and reliability of the instruments you used.

A mercury bulb thermometer is a lot less accurate than modern instuments, just for one small example.

You cannot express the depth of an ocean trench to the nearest millimeter if your rope is marked out in fathoms.

Fine, fine. So you work with what you've got. Here is a chart.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/images/research/monitoring/compare_datasets_new_logo_cm.png

The gray area is the 95% confidence range. Notice how it is starts wider in the distant past, and gets narrower as it gets closer to the present day. That is on account of more accurate measuring tools.

I know, you want us to believe that the chart should be solid gray. And maybe you've never seen a thermometer accurate to within two degrees. I'm sorry, but the data trumps your argument.