How dare those third world countries use cheap energy to save their people from starving.
We have people in the future to think about.
Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level
- Status
We have people in the future to think about.
T
Theo520
Guest
I asked for your source, can you back it up?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I believe the fact you are asking about is that the number of digits one normally uses to present a number depends on how certain one is of the value of that number. That you are disputing such a basic fact betrays a desperation to discredit any scientific claim about global warming. Frankly, I don’t understand your focus. I’ve seen better arguments against global warming - including form you. Why are you wasting your time belaboring this one obvious and irrelevant point?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I actually know some people in the 3rd world, and they are quite happy to do what they can to mitigate CC, unlike heel-dragging Americans.
On villager in India spilt some 55 gallon drums down the middle and made a crude wind generator to pump water. And there are a tremendous number of examples.
BTW, per capita they emit far less GHGs than Americans.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
While you ignore that all this discussion about precision and digits is just a red herring – see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14375815&postcount=344
I doubt we are getting the full story here.
Actually, I doubt they are getting the full story as well.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I hear you. I’ve been in the pro-life movement, more in the 70s right after Roe v. Wade than later, due to my studies & workload. I guess using the term more broadly would detract from the much more serious issue of abortion.
However, I do think it would even help the pro-life movement if participants also expressed some concern now and then, at least in principle, for other issues that involve harming and killing people. It would make them seem more genuine. I also realize that we have limited time and energy, and people can’t be heavily involved in various movements. I applaud those who are heavily involved in the pro-life movement.
The reasons I got more into environmental issues in the early 90s is (1) while I’ve never had an abortion, I came to realize I am harming and killing people thru my contributions to environmental problems (it was a painful realization), and (2) we’ve always had very strong pro-life programs and a good number of participants in my parishes, but nothing for environmental issues.
So I started a small env group in my parish up north during the mid to late 90s – about 8 parishioners out of the 2000+ families in the parish. Some pro-lifers (a much larger group) were pretty nasty to us, saying we were only concerned saving baby seals, but they were about saving human babies (part of the misconception that env issues don’t involve harms to humans). In my new parish since 2002 I wanted to start a similar group, but the priest had us start a “social concerns” committee instead, and since 2008 I haven’t had time for that even.
While I think it is fine that my parishes speak out frequently against abortion, I would really appreciate it if they would, say, once a year, or once in 5 years, say something about our responsibility re environmental problems. I one time asked my priest if he could say something about climate change, and he told me he was afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics in our parish – in Rush they trust, they are a Rush-fearing people.
So that’s that. End of story. Everyone go on their merry way and have a blessed New Year.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The point is very basic one. If you are genuinely interested, but in doubt about this, I would recommend that you not ask for “a source”, but seek an opportunity to gain foundational experience.
FWIW, here is a nice tract from MIT:
web.mit.edu/10.001/Web/Course_Notes/Statistics_Notes/Significant_Figures.html
And here is an interesting little paper in a specific rea ofapplication:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0731708506000069
F
faithsmind
Guest
If your data were to be true, and I don’t doubt that it is at this point,
then how can everyone who is convinced of the warming trends be so sure as to what the causes are? It seems to me that new industry and population control are just two pieces of the puzzle playing into global control.
F
faithsmind
Guest
I just have to clarify here that I absolutely do not tolerate human population control.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Sorry, I just dropped in to weigh in on some difficulties that people had on fundamental measurement theory, As to the causes of climate change, there is good data and reasonable models linking climate trends over the centuries to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. I know numerous people involved in this work, and many scientists. From my perspective, attacks on their capabilities or motives as scientists widely miss the mark. I don’t have much to add on discussion of public policies…
F
faithsmind
Guest
I’m not attacking the numbers they’ve reached.
I’m surprised you don’t have much to add on the discussion of public policies in this thread. You seem very much involved in that on other threads.
T
Theo520
Guest
Lynn, I referenced sources, including the UK Met.
Why do you find it unreasonable to to ask for a reference what seems a homemade method of calculating significance. If his method was valid, there would be hundreds of links.
T
Theo520
Guest
If it’s theory that applies to calculating significant digits for a mean, you can link to a source; right, obviously you could do that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Significant digits is a grade-school approximation to the more precise theory of uncertainty of calculated results. In the case of means, the formula for that involving the square root of the number of operands is well known, and we have provided several links to it, which you have refused to acknowledge, apparently because they did not contain the exact words “significant digits.”.
Why are you belaboring this obvious point? What are significant digits if not a measure of certainty? You would not write 23.567 if the real value could also be 23.522? The last two digits are not significant because we are not certain of the value to that extent. But if we are certain that the true result is 23.567 and not 23.566 or 23.568, then those last two digits are significant.
How about discussing real issues instead of wasting time on this dead end of significant digits?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Huh? Is this a response to my post #358?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
There is quite a bit we can do without calling for population control.
It’s sort of interesting that it is mainly those non-environmentalist CC accepters who jump to blaming overpopulation…instead of the harder work of thinking about what they can do to reduce their GHGs. That’s what I’ve found when I present the CC issue, hoping that instead they will ask, what can I do?
Bad, evil solution – let everyone abort their children or not have children, so I don’t have to lift a little figure to reduce my GHGs
These types are no better than those who deny CC.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You miss the point. You need decades of data to detect a trend, so all this digit talk re temps over the past 20 years is unnecessary. It took many decades to finally detect with p=.05 or 95% confidence that CC was happening, which happened in 1995.
You have to look at the big picture of the past 40 or 50 years, not comparing 1998 (which was a string el nino year, making it sort of an outlier) with the temps since then.
Or if you insist on comparing 2 years within the past 25 years, why not use 1992 as a comparison. Acc to the chart that is about at the 0.3C mark, compared to 2015, which is about at the 0.9C mark? Then if those are rounded off, it is 0 to 1C.
F
faithsmind
Guest
Has there been any research done on forces outside of the atmosphere that may have contributed to a lack of temperature stability?There is quite a bit we can do without calling for population control.
It’s sort of interesting that it is mainly those non-environmentalist CC accepters who jump to blaming overpopulation…instead of the harder work of thinking about what they can do to reduce their GHGs. That’s what I’ve found when I present the CC issue, hoping that instead they will ask, what can I do?
Bad, evil solution – let everyone abort their children or not have children, so I don’t have to lift a little figure to reduce my GHGs
These types are no better than those who deny CC.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Yes. There is a summary here.
epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change
You can find more in-depth analyses and reports at NOAA and IPCC sites.
- Status