Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has committed Labor to a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 if elected to Government.
60 reduction? how?
Terry McCrann explains:
A target to cut total emissions by 60 per cent would mean something like a 90 per cent reduction in emissions per person or per unit of economic output.
Just think of that in personal terms. Could you really cut petrol use by 90 per cent? Electricity? And then essentially 90 per cent of everything else?
Looks like we'll have to shut down the internet
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Damn Cars and all hail Solar Power
Kevin Rudd, leader of the opposition in Australia has promised to spend $50 million on household solar panels in an attempt to stem global warming.
"We believe that renewable energy is a key part of Australia's future response to the challenge of climate change," Mr Rudd told reporters.
"We believe that solar power is a key part of Australia's future response to climate change.
"It also helps families to do their bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
He says that the money would be equivalent to taking 4000 cars of the road. It could also be the equivalent to buying 4000 second hand cars and passing them free of charge to the public, but that's another matter.
Even though, the rebate is only for 25%, so I guess in this case, the government are only taking 1000 cars off the road.
But anyway, we've kind of heard these do good do nothing stories before. Banning ordinary light globes and banning screen savers we found do absolutely nothing, but make people feel good - about doing nothing. Aint life easy?
So lets do the sums. Considering that a car generates around 3.5 tonnes of deadly greenhouse gas a year, 1000 cars is equivalent to saving 3500 tonnes per year. Awesome. Good work.
Now lets assume that 100% of recent warming is caused by the deadly gas (extremely unlikely), and given that Australia's greenhouse gas output is 1.5% of the worlds, and that we have seen an increase in 0.6 degrees in the last century we can work out how much we will save.
In fact considering that Australia produces 356,342,000 tonnes a year, we will save a staggering 1/100,000th of our greenhouse gas.
This means that the solar panel scheme of opposition leader Kevin Rudd will cool the world by:
0.0000000009 degrees each year.
Thank goodness the heater works in my car.
"We believe that renewable energy is a key part of Australia's future response to the challenge of climate change," Mr Rudd told reporters.
"We believe that solar power is a key part of Australia's future response to climate change.
"It also helps families to do their bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
He says that the money would be equivalent to taking 4000 cars of the road. It could also be the equivalent to buying 4000 second hand cars and passing them free of charge to the public, but that's another matter.
Even though, the rebate is only for 25%, so I guess in this case, the government are only taking 1000 cars off the road.
But anyway, we've kind of heard these do good do nothing stories before. Banning ordinary light globes and banning screen savers we found do absolutely nothing, but make people feel good - about doing nothing. Aint life easy?
So lets do the sums. Considering that a car generates around 3.5 tonnes of deadly greenhouse gas a year, 1000 cars is equivalent to saving 3500 tonnes per year. Awesome. Good work.
Now lets assume that 100% of recent warming is caused by the deadly gas (extremely unlikely), and given that Australia's greenhouse gas output is 1.5% of the worlds, and that we have seen an increase in 0.6 degrees in the last century we can work out how much we will save.
In fact considering that Australia produces 356,342,000 tonnes a year, we will save a staggering 1/100,000th of our greenhouse gas.
This means that the solar panel scheme of opposition leader Kevin Rudd will cool the world by:
0.0000000009 degrees each year.
Thank goodness the heater works in my car.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Global Warming Crisis...er I mean problem
The debate that got aired in America last year is now available to listen to. Have a listen, it's good stuff to get both sides of a debate, and when well, the "skiptics" win - even better.
As a side note, despite the topic of debate being "global warming is [not] a crisis", Brenda Ekwurzel (who was terrible!) corrected herself and said Global Warming crisis, global warming problem. She was beaten bad. Everyone else was pretty interesting.
Go here for all the audio and information.
As a side note, despite the topic of debate being "global warming is [not] a crisis", Brenda Ekwurzel (who was terrible!) corrected herself and said Global Warming crisis, global warming problem. She was beaten bad. Everyone else was pretty interesting.
Go here for all the audio and information.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Bjorn Lomborg and Al Gore
As lifted from Luboš Motl
Bjorn Lomborg is an interesting thinker but he is still a kind of environmentalist. In his testimony (click), he will calculate that if the mankind follows the Anti-Christ, it will lead to a genocide of millions of people. ;-)
He uncritically copies the numbers from environmental activists (IPCC) and compares them with the numbers created by radical environmental activists (such as Gore and Hansen). For example, IPCC predicts 3.5 centimeters of sea level ice from Greenland ice while Gore and Hansen predict 600 centimeters, almost 20,000 percent more. ;-) Lomborg will enumerate areas in which investment has much higher chances of being useful than the climate.
Al Gore's testimony is not available because Gore has violated virtually every rule of these hearings.
From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's (EPW) hearing rules.
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday's (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee's 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.
But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill - the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony - even with the new time extension granted to Gore.
As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.
The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore's testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) - the day of the hearing.
It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.
The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?
Update: At 9:29AM ET Wednesday - after the issue was raised by Fox News Channel - former Vice President Gore's testimony was received by the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. Gore's testimony was given to Committee members just 60 seconds before his scheduled House appearance and mere hours before his scheduled Senate appearance.
Via Marc Morano.
P.S.: Reuters' report about Klaus' position sounds kind of fair and balanced to me. Incidentally, drudgereport.com had the info about Klaus on the spot #1 again, for a few hours.
After Al Gore's speech
I used to think that America was kind of naturally immune against various crazy totalitarian intellectual streams and political movements, due to its mentality, history, and traditions. After seeing parts of Al Gore's testimony and the way how he was treated by some of the Democratic lawmakers, I no longer think so. This Gentleman is a mad megalomaniac and it is surprising to see what kind of a special treatment such an insane person can get in the Parliament of the most powerful and advanced country in the world.
Gore praised Europeans because "they're not talking about the science." If this were true, is it really something to be proud about? "The Earth is shaking because of glacial earthquakes in Greenland," we learned. I haven't met or read a person who would have any idea what he talks about. The CO2 regulation is like the Marshall plan, he said - no clue where the similarity comes from. The Marshall plan was a plan that helped to spark the post-war boom in Europe while the Gore plan is a plan to create a worldwide recession.
The statement that the ten hottest years "ever" occurred since 1990 is repeated many times. Does he have any idea what "ever" means? It has become so normal to generate similar lies that it is no longer a problem to say these things under oath. Leftists often humiliate creationists who believe that the planet is 6000 years old - but the fact that according to the environmentalists' statements about eternity, the planet is at most 400 years old, doesn't disturb anyone.
We face a "planetary emergency." Wow. To show how certain we are that we face a "planetary emergency", he enumerates several of his comparably mad friends from various science journals etc. - quite many crazy people are walking around. One of them argues - and Gore apparently agrees - that only the existence of gravity is more certain than the catastrophic global warming. It's just such an incredible stupidity - or lie or whatever it is - that they should have stopped him on the spot. But you know, it's Al Gore. Even if the hypotheses about the dominant greenhouse effect are true, global warming certainly doesn't belong among 100,000 most certain scientific insights we have.
He seems to have no idea what certainty is. Even the IPCC activists say that the probability that the observed recent warming is caused by the mankind is around 90%. It's about the same certainty as the certainty that tomorrow is not Thursday, and this estimated probability was clearly overstated. But can't he at least read the IPCC summary?
He impresses undemanding audience by a long arrogant celebration of politicized scientists who like to lick a part of his body and who produce a "consensus" that the Earth hasn't seen yet. The fact that whenever a debate is over, the alarmists lose these debates with the skeptics even in Democratic strongholds by 10 points, as long as the arguments of both sides can be heard, is no problem for him. For those of us who remember how the communist regime was abusing and overselling its loyal artists and actors while attacking and marginalizing others, these segments of Gore's speech sound simply disgraceful. Gore's tactics don't differ from the neo-Stalinist tactics in any significant way.
Gore refuses to take a "personal energy ethics pledge" but compares the Earth to a baby that has a fever. It turns out that Wikipedia and all other sources and textbooks are wrong when they say that fever is caused by bacteria and the immune system's reactions. According to Gore's new kind of science, the reason for a fever is that the crib's on fire and you're not supposed to speculate about the baby's ability to resist - just take whatever action Al Gore will tell you to do.
Next time when your child has a fever, you should instantly believe Al Gore that it is because his crib's is on fire and the first thing you should do is to make sure that your child no longer emits any carbon dioxide. Don't hesitate, don't think, and act: wrap plastic bag around the child's head.
Not even the German chancellor in the 1930s and 1940s - who was no modest person himself - was thinking about the whole planet as about a baby that he is supposed to control. Al Gore's megalomania exceeds almost everything we have ever seen before. He proposes all kinds of insane policies which of course include the ban of incandescent light bulbs.
Joe Barton has enumerated many of the basic arguments debunking the global warming pseudoscience of Al Gore's movie - such as the 800-year lag of CO2 concentration behind temperature. Barton has also explained that malaria doesn't explode with higher temperatures and mentioned the sea level rise that Gore overestimates by a factor of 30 even in comparison with the activists in IPCC. Bc Al Gore says it is wrong to have political people who have no scientific training altering the words of scientists. Apparently he does not recognize this is exactly what he has been doing for years.
He even has the courage and stomach to argue that alarmist scientists are those who are discriminated against the skeptics.
That's all very painful but there are apparently even more insane people than Gore: parts of the Capitol - such an impressive building - have turned into a kind of asylum. Senator Lautenberg argues that Gore has proven that carbon emission limits won't hurt the economy - wow - and even describes Gore's opponents as "Luddites". Quite an irony.
It's just all so irrational. I think that there must be laws that witnesses shouldn't lie. For a continuous multi-hour stream of untrue assertions, a witness who is not the Anti-Christ could be arrested for years or decades. But you bet that ManBearPig won't be and can't be. If the history is a good guide, the only way how such "special" people can be stopped is by a forced suicide when their capital city is occupied by a foreign army.
I wonder whether Klaus and the Czech army are ready to pay its debt we owe to America and liberate it sometime in the future if it becomes necessary. Let's hope that in this case, words and Word files will be enough. ;-)
And that's the memo.
P.S.: FoxNews deserves to be praised because it dedicates twice as much space to Klaus than to Gore in the context of the hearings. ;-)
Bjorn Lomborg is an interesting thinker but he is still a kind of environmentalist. In his testimony (click), he will calculate that if the mankind follows the Anti-Christ, it will lead to a genocide of millions of people. ;-)
He uncritically copies the numbers from environmental activists (IPCC) and compares them with the numbers created by radical environmental activists (such as Gore and Hansen). For example, IPCC predicts 3.5 centimeters of sea level ice from Greenland ice while Gore and Hansen predict 600 centimeters, almost 20,000 percent more. ;-) Lomborg will enumerate areas in which investment has much higher chances of being useful than the climate.
Al Gore's testimony is not available because Gore has violated virtually every rule of these hearings.
From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's (EPW) hearing rules.
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday's (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee's 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.
But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill - the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony - even with the new time extension granted to Gore.
As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.
The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore's testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) - the day of the hearing.
It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.
The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?
Update: At 9:29AM ET Wednesday - after the issue was raised by Fox News Channel - former Vice President Gore's testimony was received by the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. Gore's testimony was given to Committee members just 60 seconds before his scheduled House appearance and mere hours before his scheduled Senate appearance.
Via Marc Morano.
P.S.: Reuters' report about Klaus' position sounds kind of fair and balanced to me. Incidentally, drudgereport.com had the info about Klaus on the spot #1 again, for a few hours.
After Al Gore's speech
I used to think that America was kind of naturally immune against various crazy totalitarian intellectual streams and political movements, due to its mentality, history, and traditions. After seeing parts of Al Gore's testimony and the way how he was treated by some of the Democratic lawmakers, I no longer think so. This Gentleman is a mad megalomaniac and it is surprising to see what kind of a special treatment such an insane person can get in the Parliament of the most powerful and advanced country in the world.
Gore praised Europeans because "they're not talking about the science." If this were true, is it really something to be proud about? "The Earth is shaking because of glacial earthquakes in Greenland," we learned. I haven't met or read a person who would have any idea what he talks about. The CO2 regulation is like the Marshall plan, he said - no clue where the similarity comes from. The Marshall plan was a plan that helped to spark the post-war boom in Europe while the Gore plan is a plan to create a worldwide recession.
The statement that the ten hottest years "ever" occurred since 1990 is repeated many times. Does he have any idea what "ever" means? It has become so normal to generate similar lies that it is no longer a problem to say these things under oath. Leftists often humiliate creationists who believe that the planet is 6000 years old - but the fact that according to the environmentalists' statements about eternity, the planet is at most 400 years old, doesn't disturb anyone.
We face a "planetary emergency." Wow. To show how certain we are that we face a "planetary emergency", he enumerates several of his comparably mad friends from various science journals etc. - quite many crazy people are walking around. One of them argues - and Gore apparently agrees - that only the existence of gravity is more certain than the catastrophic global warming. It's just such an incredible stupidity - or lie or whatever it is - that they should have stopped him on the spot. But you know, it's Al Gore. Even if the hypotheses about the dominant greenhouse effect are true, global warming certainly doesn't belong among 100,000 most certain scientific insights we have.
He seems to have no idea what certainty is. Even the IPCC activists say that the probability that the observed recent warming is caused by the mankind is around 90%. It's about the same certainty as the certainty that tomorrow is not Thursday, and this estimated probability was clearly overstated. But can't he at least read the IPCC summary?
He impresses undemanding audience by a long arrogant celebration of politicized scientists who like to lick a part of his body and who produce a "consensus" that the Earth hasn't seen yet. The fact that whenever a debate is over, the alarmists lose these debates with the skeptics even in Democratic strongholds by 10 points, as long as the arguments of both sides can be heard, is no problem for him. For those of us who remember how the communist regime was abusing and overselling its loyal artists and actors while attacking and marginalizing others, these segments of Gore's speech sound simply disgraceful. Gore's tactics don't differ from the neo-Stalinist tactics in any significant way.
Gore refuses to take a "personal energy ethics pledge" but compares the Earth to a baby that has a fever. It turns out that Wikipedia and all other sources and textbooks are wrong when they say that fever is caused by bacteria and the immune system's reactions. According to Gore's new kind of science, the reason for a fever is that the crib's on fire and you're not supposed to speculate about the baby's ability to resist - just take whatever action Al Gore will tell you to do.
Next time when your child has a fever, you should instantly believe Al Gore that it is because his crib's is on fire and the first thing you should do is to make sure that your child no longer emits any carbon dioxide. Don't hesitate, don't think, and act: wrap plastic bag around the child's head.
Not even the German chancellor in the 1930s and 1940s - who was no modest person himself - was thinking about the whole planet as about a baby that he is supposed to control. Al Gore's megalomania exceeds almost everything we have ever seen before. He proposes all kinds of insane policies which of course include the ban of incandescent light bulbs.
Joe Barton has enumerated many of the basic arguments debunking the global warming pseudoscience of Al Gore's movie - such as the 800-year lag of CO2 concentration behind temperature. Barton has also explained that malaria doesn't explode with higher temperatures and mentioned the sea level rise that Gore overestimates by a factor of 30 even in comparison with the activists in IPCC. Bc Al Gore says it is wrong to have political people who have no scientific training altering the words of scientists. Apparently he does not recognize this is exactly what he has been doing for years.
He even has the courage and stomach to argue that alarmist scientists are those who are discriminated against the skeptics.
That's all very painful but there are apparently even more insane people than Gore: parts of the Capitol - such an impressive building - have turned into a kind of asylum. Senator Lautenberg argues that Gore has proven that carbon emission limits won't hurt the economy - wow - and even describes Gore's opponents as "Luddites". Quite an irony.
It's just all so irrational. I think that there must be laws that witnesses shouldn't lie. For a continuous multi-hour stream of untrue assertions, a witness who is not the Anti-Christ could be arrested for years or decades. But you bet that ManBearPig won't be and can't be. If the history is a good guide, the only way how such "special" people can be stopped is by a forced suicide when their capital city is occupied by a foreign army.
I wonder whether Klaus and the Czech army are ready to pay its debt we owe to America and liberate it sometime in the future if it becomes necessary. Let's hope that in this case, words and Word files will be enough. ;-)
And that's the memo.
P.S.: FoxNews deserves to be praised because it dedicates twice as much space to Klaus than to Gore in the context of the hearings. ;-)
Is the debate over?
On Wednesday March 14th a debate was held by the organization Intelligence Squared on the motion “Global Warming is Not a Crisis.”
Before the debate began, a poll was taken of the members of audience as to whether or not they agreed with the motion being debated: Global warming is not a crisis.
The results were as follows:
Those for the motion: 29.88%
Those against the motion: 57.32%
Those undecided: 12.80%
Obviously, going in, the audience was inclined to believe that we were facing some sort of crisis when it came to climate change.
Following the panelists’ presentations and debate and after the Q&A session, the audience was again polled on the same motion. This time the numbers were:
Those for the motion: 46.22%
Those against the motion: 42.22%
Those undecided: 11.56%
Clearly, the panelists speaking for the motion (i.e. global warming is not a crisis) carried the day, picking up a full 16 percentage points and the wresting a plurality from the majority.
We really should debate this topic more often, and next post Al Gore, kinda well, umm, doesnt
Before the debate began, a poll was taken of the members of audience as to whether or not they agreed with the motion being debated: Global warming is not a crisis.
The results were as follows:
Those for the motion: 29.88%
Those against the motion: 57.32%
Those undecided: 12.80%
Obviously, going in, the audience was inclined to believe that we were facing some sort of crisis when it came to climate change.
Following the panelists’ presentations and debate and after the Q&A session, the audience was again polled on the same motion. This time the numbers were:
Those for the motion: 46.22%
Those against the motion: 42.22%
Those undecided: 11.56%
Clearly, the panelists speaking for the motion (i.e. global warming is not a crisis) carried the day, picking up a full 16 percentage points and the wresting a plurality from the majority.
We really should debate this topic more often, and next post Al Gore, kinda well, umm, doesnt
Monday, March 19, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Beautiful (weathered) Esperance
Esperance is a lovely place that has a beautiful beach. When I was there last, it was boiling hot and then bucketed down like I’ve seen it rain.
Because it’s a little out of the way from Perth, it’s really the only weather station within the area that has reasonable data. Unfortunately, this reasonable data is not really that great with records going back to only 1970. Temperature readings at 9pm are only for the last 12 years.
But nevertheless we will have a quick analysis of Esperance.
Results show no significant increase in maximum temperatures, however there was an increase in minimum temperatures (Max: t = 0.24, p = 0.8; Min: t = 2.2, p < 0.05).
When looking at time rated data, all times recorded insignificant results bar 9am which had a significant increase in temperature (Mid: t = 0.6, p =0.55; 3am: t = 0.6, p =0.55; 6am: t = 1.85, p = 0.07; 9am: t = 2.5, p < 0.05; Noon: t = 1.14, p = 0.25; 3pm: t = 0.56, t = 0.57; 6pm: t = -0.08, p = 0.93; 9pm: t = -0.8, p = 0.44).
So once again this ties in pretty well with what we found south of Perth, in that temperatures increased at 9am and then decreased later in the evening.
With not much data, its probably best to head next to the outback area above Esperance for our last look at weather in Western Australia.
Because it’s a little out of the way from Perth, it’s really the only weather station within the area that has reasonable data. Unfortunately, this reasonable data is not really that great with records going back to only 1970. Temperature readings at 9pm are only for the last 12 years.
But nevertheless we will have a quick analysis of Esperance.
Results show no significant increase in maximum temperatures, however there was an increase in minimum temperatures (Max: t = 0.24, p = 0.8; Min: t = 2.2, p < 0.05).
When looking at time rated data, all times recorded insignificant results bar 9am which had a significant increase in temperature (Mid: t = 0.6, p =0.55; 3am: t = 0.6, p =0.55; 6am: t = 1.85, p = 0.07; 9am: t = 2.5, p < 0.05; Noon: t = 1.14, p = 0.25; 3pm: t = 0.56, t = 0.57; 6pm: t = -0.08, p = 0.93; 9pm: t = -0.8, p = 0.44).
So once again this ties in pretty well with what we found south of Perth, in that temperatures increased at 9am and then decreased later in the evening.
With not much data, its probably best to head next to the outback area above Esperance for our last look at weather in Western Australia.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
New Link for Global Warming Swindle
Looks like it's gone off Google Video, but never mind..You Tube despite being sued for billions (and are the same company as google!) have a link for those who missed out:
The cost of alarm
Property insurers suffered their third lowest losses for the past 20 years, as insurance firms as a whole paid out 15.9 billion dollars in catastrophe- related claims in 2006.
The insurance industry has spoken. It’s going for the models. And the higher premiums:
However, insurance companies have adjusted their modelling to account for steeper losses in the future, partly due to global warming, the study added.
The insurance industry has spoken. It’s going for the models. And the higher premiums:
However, insurance companies have adjusted their modelling to account for steeper losses in the future, partly due to global warming, the study added.
Count is wrong on all counts
Count Iblis in a comment from this article says that
You have to wonder why Jonathan only talks about p values and hides the fact that for his p values to be significantly low the temperature trend must be huge, much larger than the climate change trend.
This he is insinuating that the reason why I use p values is because it is very rare to find a significant increase in temperature and thus by it's own lack of power, rejects any sense of global warming.
Firstly, even if that were true (which is isn't), there is nothing wrong with that. We do need statistical proof that we are heating up at all the right times.
And secondly, this is completely false, and I decided to prove it (as I have actually done to count before but he obviously refuses to recognise it).
I decided to do 1000 simulations of 100 years of data of which the temperature rises from 16 degrees to 16.6 degrees - which is about the so called norm. Using a standard deviation of 0.5, which I found to be fair and, if anything to over exaggerate the variability in climate the temperature should increase slowly from 16 to 16.6.
Here is an example of one the graphs that was produced. Note the slight gradual increase in temperature, although there seems to be no major increase in the last 75 years according to this graph. But as I said this is one of a thousand that I simulated.
Incidentally, the graph above showed a significant increase in temperature (t = 2.2, p = 0.03).
But after simulating this 1000 times, I found that 811 of the 1000 simulations were highly significant (p value less than 0.01), and that 941 of the simulations were significant (p value less than 0.05). This meaning that 59 of the simulations were not significant - or about 6%
If you knew anything about statistics, this is exactly as what we would expect given that the null hypothesis was false, about a 5% false negative (in this case 6%).
Of course this also proves another thing, in that using p values for determining whether an increase in temperature is perfectly adequate.
And it also proves that Count Iblis was completely and uterrly wrong.
And it also proves that Count was keen to tell the world that the method of statistics that I use was wrong (which it isn't) when he had absolutely no proof whatsoever.
And it also proves that Count wrongly attempted to discredit the statistical analysis of this website without the obvious statistical proess.
And it also proves that if someone proves something that goes against what Count believes in he will turn to conspiracy theories.
And lastly, it proves, that Count will believe in anything, anything that agrees with his own personal zeitgeist, but the minute someone suggests something else he will attempt to discredit rather than do the scientific thing which is to engage in rational debate and attempt to find the truth.
In summary, the Count has proven he is no scientist. Unfortunetley, this religious type attitude, is the reason why climate science is being held down.
You have to wonder why Jonathan only talks about p values and hides the fact that for his p values to be significantly low the temperature trend must be huge, much larger than the climate change trend.
This he is insinuating that the reason why I use p values is because it is very rare to find a significant increase in temperature and thus by it's own lack of power, rejects any sense of global warming.
Firstly, even if that were true (which is isn't), there is nothing wrong with that. We do need statistical proof that we are heating up at all the right times.
And secondly, this is completely false, and I decided to prove it (as I have actually done to count before but he obviously refuses to recognise it).
I decided to do 1000 simulations of 100 years of data of which the temperature rises from 16 degrees to 16.6 degrees - which is about the so called norm. Using a standard deviation of 0.5, which I found to be fair and, if anything to over exaggerate the variability in climate the temperature should increase slowly from 16 to 16.6.
Here is an example of one the graphs that was produced. Note the slight gradual increase in temperature, although there seems to be no major increase in the last 75 years according to this graph. But as I said this is one of a thousand that I simulated.
Incidentally, the graph above showed a significant increase in temperature (t = 2.2, p = 0.03).
But after simulating this 1000 times, I found that 811 of the 1000 simulations were highly significant (p value less than 0.01), and that 941 of the simulations were significant (p value less than 0.05). This meaning that 59 of the simulations were not significant - or about 6%
If you knew anything about statistics, this is exactly as what we would expect given that the null hypothesis was false, about a 5% false negative (in this case 6%).
Of course this also proves another thing, in that using p values for determining whether an increase in temperature is perfectly adequate.
And it also proves that Count Iblis was completely and uterrly wrong.
And it also proves that Count was keen to tell the world that the method of statistics that I use was wrong (which it isn't) when he had absolutely no proof whatsoever.
And it also proves that Count wrongly attempted to discredit the statistical analysis of this website without the obvious statistical proess.
And it also proves that if someone proves something that goes against what Count believes in he will turn to conspiracy theories.
And lastly, it proves, that Count will believe in anything, anything that agrees with his own personal zeitgeist, but the minute someone suggests something else he will attempt to discredit rather than do the scientific thing which is to engage in rational debate and attempt to find the truth.
In summary, the Count has proven he is no scientist. Unfortunetley, this religious type attitude, is the reason why climate science is being held down.
The downfalls of global warming
Last week my traffic almost doubled due to people searching for sexy sports illustrated pictures. Might have something to do with this link.
Maybe, so here is another major problem about global warming that we have to address, otherwise we might well get more of this:
It's going to be tough. I'm not sure if I will be able to handle it.
Maybe, so here is another major problem about global warming that we have to address, otherwise we might well get more of this:
It's going to be tough. I'm not sure if I will be able to handle it.
Global Warming Expedition cancelled due to severe cold
A couple of explorers who had planned an expedition to the North Pole to highlight the effects of global warming to school groups had to abandon their mission when they encountered severe cold and frostbite!
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming.
They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Ahh yes so global warming doesn't cause warm temperature in the artic, but rather unpredictable weather. First I've heard of it
As Luboš Motl puts it
They were clearly not far from their Darwin Awards that are given to the people whose death measurably increases the genetic quality of the mankind because the dead people demonstrate unusual stupidity that leads to their death.
Every person whose IQ exceeds the women's IQ at least by 40 points knows that the amount of "trend" warming - if we can talk about it at all - is so tiny that it can hardly be measured by accurate devices - about 1 degree Fahrenheit per century - and it can surely influence nothing qualitative whatsoever about the experience at the North Pole where the temperature is frequently 100 degrees below the convenient temperatures in our apartments.
No sane person could have ever detected any "global warming signs" in his or her lifetime. The corresponding changes are tiny, completely negligible in comparison with the natural weather fluctuations and local climate variations, and can only be seen if you measure the temperatures very accurately and average them very carefully. And even if you are a scientist who does so, the interpretation is very unclear.
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming.
They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Ahh yes so global warming doesn't cause warm temperature in the artic, but rather unpredictable weather. First I've heard of it
As Luboš Motl puts it
They were clearly not far from their Darwin Awards that are given to the people whose death measurably increases the genetic quality of the mankind because the dead people demonstrate unusual stupidity that leads to their death.
Every person whose IQ exceeds the women's IQ at least by 40 points knows that the amount of "trend" warming - if we can talk about it at all - is so tiny that it can hardly be measured by accurate devices - about 1 degree Fahrenheit per century - and it can surely influence nothing qualitative whatsoever about the experience at the North Pole where the temperature is frequently 100 degrees below the convenient temperatures in our apartments.
No sane person could have ever detected any "global warming signs" in his or her lifetime. The corresponding changes are tiny, completely negligible in comparison with the natural weather fluctuations and local climate variations, and can only be seen if you measure the temperatures very accurately and average them very carefully. And even if you are a scientist who does so, the interpretation is very unclear.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Them Polar Bears are still Thriving
New research concludes, once again, and not surprisingly, that polar bears are thriving in the arctic.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The Great Global Warming Swindle
This should be recommended viewing for every single viewer of this blog. In fact, maybe the government should sent a copy of it to every school, like like they did the Al Gore flick. Enjoy this one, the scientific consensus is that you will:
No wind in Cameron's warming sails
David Cameron, the leader of Britain’s “Conservative” Party, is making as big a goose of himself over global warming as is his hero, Al Gore:
Amid much fanfare, Mr Cameron recently fitted a £2,000 wind turbine to the roof of his Kensington home, only for it to emerge that such a device had virtually no effect on cutting carbon emissions because of the lack of wind in London.
He was also derided for riding his bicycle to the Commons while a chauffeur drove behind with his shoes and briefcase.
Amid much fanfare, Mr Cameron recently fitted a £2,000 wind turbine to the roof of his Kensington home, only for it to emerge that such a device had virtually no effect on cutting carbon emissions because of the lack of wind in London.
He was also derided for riding his bicycle to the Commons while a chauffeur drove behind with his shoes and briefcase.
Friday, March 09, 2007
No more baseball
Sports Illustrated suggests that global warming will put an end to baseball as we know it:
Personally I prefer this cover:
Personally I prefer this cover:
Monday, March 05, 2007
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Martians are hot!
News in that Mars is warming of recent as well with long term studies concluding that the Mars ice caps near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers.
Not sure if long term is 3 years, but hey. As reported:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Seems to agree with my analysis.
Not sure if long term is 3 years, but hey. As reported:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Seems to agree with my analysis.
Al Gore gore's up energy
Plenty of news of how Al Gore tells others to use less energy but uses 20 times more than the average American.
A great article here: http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2007/03/carbon-indulgences.html
But a must read is Andrew Bolt's latest article: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_its_a_joke_right/
A great article here: http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2007/03/carbon-indulgences.html
But a must read is Andrew Bolt's latest article: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_its_a_joke_right/
Bjorn Lomborg Interview
Interesting Bjorn Lomborg interview despite the arrogance of the interviewer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)