Climate continues to change.

[Conager]

In Yankland EVRYTHING is politicized along partisan lines.

Which is weird I know lots of people myself included that do not agree with everything that they are primary American political affiliation with lead you to assume.

For example Republicans for years I've been fairly pro-life and really frown on anybody being vocally pro-choice. recently the head of the DNC said there is no room in the party for anyone who is not staunchly pro on demand abortion. Nancy Pelosi in a rare bit of wisdom pointed out that many of her family members are staunchly pro-life and she sure not going to kick them out of the democratic party for being so.

it's probably not true but it just looks to me like most Democrats are right down the line on believing all of the same things. I'm sure they think the same thing of most Republicans for example.

All of it is pretty non-productive. No one ever changes anyone's mind.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Significant figures is only relevent when discussing malfeasance in collating and presenting data. I realize even though I've explained it several times that you still don't understand the concept.

What you have not explained is how it applies here.

 

[phrodeau]

What?

You can't follow several different points of contention in your own thread about the subject that you present yourself as knowlegable about?

Significant figures is only relevent when discussing malfeasance in collating and presenting data. I realize even though I've explained it several times that you still don't understand the concept. It has to do with decimal points I suspect you weren't very good with fractions.

Too funny. Significant figures is about the level of precision, and has fuckall to do with decimal points and fractions.

 

[GiaCat]

Different methods yield different results

True, it depends who is funding the researchers. If its Capitalists funding then the climate is cooler. If its Socialists the climate is warmer.

 

[KingOrfeo]

True, it depends who is funding the researchers. If its Capitalists funding then the climate is cooler. If its Socialists the climate is warmer.

Well, there aren't many socialists, and they don't have a lot of money, but despite lack of such funding the consensus among climatologists is warmer.

 

[Conager]

Well, there aren't many socialists, and they don't have a lot of money, but despite lack of such funding the consensus among climatologists is warmer.

Socialist have all kinds of other peoples money. In America that amount is unlimited and envumbers future generations.

Look a GW Bush's medicare drugs program. Until the ACA the most ambitious and expensive socialist program up to that time.

 

[GiaCat]

Well, there aren't many socialists, and they don't have a lot of money,/QUOTE]


What, are you kidding me?

 

[phrodeau]

Well, there aren't many socialists, and they don't have a lot of money, but despite lack of such funding the consensus among climatologists is warmer.

*psst* I don't think he knows what the words mean.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What, are you kidding me?

Not at all. It is just that I know what the word "socialist" means, and you and Conager apparently do not. Hint: It ain't the Democrats and it ain't the USG.

 

[Conager]

Too funny. Significant figures is about the level of precision, and has fuckall to do with decimal points and fractions.

Your google-foo is weak. Describing precision is a job for mathematics and how many decimal points to include or exclude is very much a factor.

I appreciate you at least scanning the interwebs, however briefly, in an attempt to grasp the concept.

 

[phrodeau]

Your google-foo is weak. Describing precision is a job for mathematics and how many decimal points to include or exclude is very much a factor.

I appreciate you at least scanning the interwebs, however briefly, in an attempt to grasp the concept.

So make sure you use lots of decimal points in your numbers.

I know Pi to eight significant digits. 3...14..1.5.9..26.

 

[Conager]

Well, there aren't many socialists, and they don't have a lot of money,

What, are you kidding me?

The thing you need to remember about people that feel OK morally about using other peoples money to finance their utopian dreams is they know that anyone and everyone with a dollar to confiscate opposes them. They continually rebrand and rename what it is they favor. No matter what label you use, it is not them; they are some entirely new flavor of collectivism.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Your google-foo is weak. Describing precision is a job for mathematics and how many decimal points to include or exclude is very much a factor.

And that applies here how?

 

[Conager]

So make sure you use lots of decimal points in your numbers.

I know Pi to eight significant digits. 3...14..1.5.9..26.

Again displaying you cannot grasp the concept. There's no such thing as a digit that is universally significant. A figure is either appropriate to include in your cslculation with a particular level of precision or it is not.

As long as we are showing off, I routinely rattle off 3.141592654, but have never encountered a case where my needs and yardstick would call for more than 22/7ths.

I once memorized pi to 26 places while drunk on rum. This was not significant because I didn't need to win a shot in a bar bet.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The thing you need to remember about people that feel OK morally about using other peoples money to finance their utopian dreams is . . .

. . . that that does not make them socialists. E.g., FDR was no socialist. LBJ was no socialist. Obama is no socialist. Euro social democrats are not socialists even when their party is named that; the actual socialists have their own further-left parties that might be named communist or something. A mere welfare state, however vast, is not a form of socialism, which requires at minimum state/social ownership and control of most of the means of production. Not even state-owned enterprises are instances of socialism unless they penetrate the economy pretty thoroughly -- most OPEC nations have nationalized oil industries, but that does not make them socialist states.

 

[Conager]

And that applies here how?

Its a math thing, you wouldn't understand.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Its a math thing, you wouldn't understand.

If you can explain it, I can probably understand it. If you can't or won't, you probably don't understand it yourself.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Well, abortion is so politicized in many countries, isn't it? Not as thoroughly as here, but still. And then there's immigration -- seems to be partisan-politicized in every country that attracts significant numbers of immigrants.

There was a thread here a couple of days ago complaining about lefties and ESPN! Don Cherry is well known as a conservative but come on...! I wouldn't be surprised if abortion is only talked about in the US. Not even our right wing party will get behind it up here.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There was a thread here a couple of days ago complaining about lefties and ESPN! Don Cherry is well known as a conservative but come on...! I wouldn't be surprised if abortion is only talked about in the US. Not even our right wing party will get behind it up here.

I was thinking of Europe, there are so many Catholics there.

 

[KingOrfeo]

it's probably not true but it just looks to me like most Democrats are right down the line on believing all of the same things. I'm sure they think the same thing of most Republicans for example.

But it's assymetrical. The Pubs are an ideological party, the Dems a coalition of interest groups.

 

[Conager]

If you can explain it, I can probably understand it. If you can't or won't, you probably don't understand it yourself.

If you have spent three decades in school as you have with your endless student lion deferrals and do not already understand the concept, math and science are not your thing.

Don't feel bad, I've explained it several times to phrodeau, who seems bright other than his defficiencies in science and he doesn't get it either.

In short, you cannot accurately describe the contents of the ocean in terms of thimblefulls if you are measuring it in hectares and fathoms.

Likewise, if you were to measure it in thimblefulls, but recognized that you miss crags and crannies and the absorbant, yellow, and porous contents of sponges and spilt goodly number, and had a drop here and a drop there lost from each, your talley down to the last thimblefull is not accurate to the thimblefull.

Now cue you pretending to understand and repeating, "what has that got to do with climate change?" As you do, each time the subject comes up.

 

[phrodeau]

If you have spent three decades in school as you have with your endless student lion deferrals and do not already understand the concept, math and science are not your thing.

Don't feel bad, I've explained it several times to phrodeau, who seems bright other than his defficiencies in science and he doesn't get it either.

In short, you cannot accurately describe the contents of the ocean in terms of thimblefulls if you are measuring it in hectares and fathoms.

Likewise, if you were to measure it in thimblefulls, but recognized that you miss crags and crannies and the absorbant, yellow, and porous contents of sponges and spilt goodly number, and had a drop here and a drop there lost from each, your talley down to the last thimblefull is not accurate to the thimblefull.

Now cue you pretending to understand and repeating, "what has that got to do with climate change?" As you do, each time the subject comes up.

So I'm guessing it has something to do with thermometers. Either thermometers aren't accurate enough, they aren't being logged often enough, or there aren't enough of them.

How, scientifically, do you arrive at whichever conclusion you do? What, in your scientific opinion, would be good enough? Do you have any understanding of statistics, or do you only know about thimbles?

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you have spent three decades in school as you have with your endless student lion deferrals and do not already understand the concept, math and science are not your thing.

I learned about sig-figs in high school physics, that's not the problem. But you have yet to explain, anywhere in this thread that I can recall, how they apply to the climate change question.

 

[trysail]

...All of this “hottest year on record” nonsense is absurd, we are talking about very small changes in the average temperature. The surface temperature records are only accurate to +-0.2°C at best and almost all of the last 35 years of satellite and weather balloon data fit between -.2°C and +.2°C...

-Andy May, Ph.D.​

​

 

[water505]

So I'm guessing it has something to do with thermometers. ?

I'll send one to you. I'll bet your temp soars all the way up to 72F.