The subject of statistics

[Orton's Arm]

You should look at it from everyone else's point of view.  It's no less unrealistic and baseless as damn near everything else you post. 

 

Really, "high" explains so much more than "sarcastic".  I think I'll just assume from now on that you're on opiates...

821701[/snapback]

Six feet.

[/dev/null]

good gawd, this thread is still going?

[meazza]

good gawd, this thread is still going?

821735[/snapback]

 

The mod won't make it die

[Bungee Jumper]

good gawd, this thread is still going?

821735[/snapback]

 

Only because HA has an unhealthy interest in the length of my...uh, bungee cord.

[IBTG81]

I can't believe HA has sucked you all in.

 

Bravo!

[Taro T]

The mod won't make it die 

821739[/snapback]

Well, if Charlie Brown would stop trying to kick the football the thread would peter out on its own.

 

Fortunately, I don't see that happening until we get to at least page 18.

[Ramius]

I'm actually getting a little tired of this whole flame war, so I'll merely focus on the portion of your post that deals with the environment. Scientists agree that carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have dramatically risen over the last 100 years. The debate to which you're referring is about whether the increase in carbon dioxide has produced global warming, and if so to what extent.

 

Measuring carbon dioxide levels is simple: you go out and take a bunch of air samples from various places around the planet. That tells you what the carbon dioxide level is like today. Because people have been doing this for a few decades, you can get a pretty specific idea what these levels were like a while back. And by taking core samples from glaciers, it's possible to see what CO2 levels have been like for hundreds or thousands of years.

 

Based on such research, scientists have concluded the Earth's atmosphere is getting more carbon dioxide. This conclusion is not controversial, and is pretty much what you'd expect from burning a lot of coal and oil and other fossil fuels. But measuring global warming is very hard. Weather varies a lot from year to year, it varies by location. Also, the data are incomplete--you may not know what the temperature of Mt. McKinley was on Oct 5, 1895. Adding to the confusion is the fact that cities represent localized heat sources. All those cars in Los Angeles represent a significant local source of heat. If you noticed the ten year moving average temperature of Los Angeles was 4 degrees warmer now than it was in 1895, is it a sign of global warming, or is it just a local effect from all those cars and asphalt and other urban junk? This is an area where very smart scientists debate other scientists of equal intelligence.

 

My own feeling is that we should be messing with the environment as little as possible, because we don't understand the long-term effects of the changes we're creating.

821492[/snapback]

 

Oh boy, here we go again!

 

Memo to holcombs arm...try not to debate science issure on which you have no !@#$ing idea what you are talking about with published scientists.

 

As for global warming...the earth CO2 levels now are in the 300 ppm range. Millions of years ago, they were as high as 3000 ppm. I took an entire course on global warming on which we were required to write a 50 page white paper on the topic. The conclusion of 99% of the class...the globe is warming, but NOT because of human activity. Its called natural warming/cooling cycles.

 

Of course, using your lahjik, i can omit all the previous warming cycles in history to show make a case that global warming is unnatural.

[Bungee Jumper]

Oh boy, here we go again! 

 

Memo to holcombs arm...try not to debate science issure on which you have no !@#$ing idea what you are talking about with published scientists.

 

As for global warming...the earth CO2 levels now are in the 300 ppm range. Millions of years ago, they were as high as 3000 ppm. I took an entire course on global warming on which we were required to write a 50 page white paper on the topic. The conclusion of 99% of the class...the globe is warming, but NOT because of human activity. Its called natural warming/cooling cycles.

 

Of course, using your lahjik, i can omit all the previous warming cycles in history to show make a case that global warming is unnatural.

821918[/snapback]

 

...although there is a chronological correlation between increased use of carbon fuel and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

And as we all know from HA's teachings, correlation = causation, which is why we can cross-breed doctors to make little itty bitty baby doctors. So obviously we're wrong...just because...

[Ramius]

...although there is a chronological correlation between increased use of carbon fuel and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

And as we all know from HA's teachings, correlation = causation, which is why we can cross-breed doctors to make little itty bitty baby doctors.  So obviously we're wrong...just because...

821935[/snapback]

 

granted, humans arent helping the situation. That was another conclusion of the paper. But i wouldnt expect him to understand that.

 

But to think that the earth would stop warming if humans stopped all emission of greenhouse gasses in laughable. Mother earth would just smile and keep on warming.

 

Humans WANT to think that we are causing warming, because it gives us control over the situation, which is comforting. The scariest thing to the human race is something they cant control.

[Alaska Darin]

No.

 

It isn't about that.

821700[/snapback]

Ooh. Another riddle.

[GG]

But to think that the earth would stop warming if humans stopped all emission of greenhouse gasses in laughable. Mother earth would just smile and keep on warming.

821938[/snapback]

 

Is this analogous to babies smiling when they're passing gas?

[Orton's Arm]

Only because HA has an unhealthy interest in the length of my...uh, bungee cord. 

821837[/snapback]

Are you trying to tell us that you chose a longer than normal bungee cord because you were compensating for a shorter than normal something else?

[Orton's Arm]

Oh boy, here we go again! 

 

Memo to holcombs arm...try not to debate science issure on which you have no !@#$ing idea what you are talking about with published scientists.

 

As for global warming...the earth CO2 levels now are in the 300 ppm range. Millions of years ago, they were as high as 3000 ppm. I took an entire course on global warming on which we were required to write a 50 page white paper on the topic. The conclusion of 99% of the class...the globe is warming, but NOT because of human activity. Its called natural warming/cooling cycles.

 

Of course, using your lahjik, i can omit all the previous warming cycles in history to show make a case that global warming is unnatural.

821918[/snapback]

CO2 levels and global warming is a subtle and complex issue, and arguably an inappropriate one for a bull in a china shop such as yourself. It's true that over the very long term (think tens of millions of years) a slight imbalance in the Earth's carbon cycle has caused CO2 levels to gradually fall. This is, perhaps, why the Earth is cooler now than it was during the days of the dinosaurs.

 

Now let's look at a shorter timespan: the 10,000 years before significant industrial activity. During those 10,000 years, carbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere varied from 260–280µL/L. After significant industrial activity started taking place, the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere gradually rose to its present level of 381 µL/L.

 

Correlation does not prove causation, so it's not known with any certainty how much of the increase is due to human activity. But people affect the carbon cycle in two ways: we increase the rate at which carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. We decrease the Earth's ability to take carbon out of the atmosphere by chopping down forests. Sometimes human activity can destroy aquatic plant life. Even if humans left 95% of nature's carbon absorbsion capacity intact, and even if humans only increased carbon emissions by 5% above their natural levels, these two factors would combine to create an imbalance in the carbon cycle. Over time, this carbon surplus would add up, and would result in a gradual increase in the Earth's atmospheric carbon.

 

I realize there are other factors at work here beyond human activity. I also realize that many things affect climate change beyond changing levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. But, in general, human activity tends to push carbon levels in the same direction (always higher). I don't like the idea of messing with the Earth's ecosystem in this way when we know so little about how it works. I'm especially reluctant to mess with the Earth's ecosystem when there's evidence of dramatic climate changes from the past. That evidence shows that a dramatic climate change could easily happen again.

[GG]

I'm especially reluctant to mess with the Earth's ecosystem when there's evidence of dramatic climate changes from the past. That evidence shows that a dramatic climate change could easily happen again.

822094[/snapback]

 

Yes, we've seen past evidence of your views.

 

But, we've yet to see any recommendations of how you would go about putting your final solutions into place.

[Bungee Jumper]

CO2 levels and global warming is a subtle and complex issue, and arguably an inappropriate one for a bull in a china shop such as yourself. It's true that over the very long term (think tens of millions of years) a slight imbalance in the Earth's carbon cycle has caused CO2 levels to gradually fall. This is, perhaps, why the Earth is cooler now than it was during the days of the dinosaurs.

 

Now let's look at a shorter timespan: the 10,000 years before significant industrial activity. During those 10,000 years, carbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere varied from 260–280µL/L. After significant industrial activity started taking place, the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere gradually rose to its present level of 381 µL/L.

 

Correlation does not prove causation, so it's not known with any certainty how much of the increase is due to human activity. But people affect the carbon cycle in two ways: we increase the rate at which carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. We decrease the Earth's ability to take carbon out of the atmosphere by chopping down forests. Sometimes human activity can destroy aquatic plant life. Even if humans left 95% of nature's carbon absorbsion capacity intact, and even if humans only increased carbon emissions by 5% above their natural levels, these two factors would combine to create an imbalance in the carbon cycle. Over time, this carbon surplus would add up, and would result in a gradual increase in the Earth's atmospheric carbon.

 

I realize there are other factors at work here beyond human activity. I also realize that many things affect climate change beyond changing levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. But, in general, human activity tends to push carbon levels in the same direction (always higher). I don't like the idea of messing with the Earth's ecosystem in this way when we know so little about how it works. I'm especially reluctant to mess with the Earth's ecosystem when there's evidence of dramatic climate changes from the past. That evidence shows that a dramatic climate change could easily happen again.

822094[/snapback]

 

Got that, Ramius? The carbon cycle is too complex for you, but genetics is simple.

 

And either one can be explained with statistically invalid bull sh-- that you just don't understand because your parents are mechanics.

[Orton's Arm]

Got that, Ramius?  The carbon cycle is too complex for you, but genetics is simple. 

 

And either one can be explained with statistically invalid bull sh-- that you just don't understand because your parents are mechanics.

822145[/snapback]

A four foot post. Keep up the improvement.

[Ramius]

CO2 levels and global warming is a subtle and complex issue, and arguably an inappropriate one for a bull in a china shop such as yourself. It's true that over the very long term (think tens of millions of years) a slight imbalance in the Earth's carbon cycle has caused CO2 levels to gradually fall. This is, perhaps, why the Earth is cooler now than it was during the days of the dinosaurs.

 

Now let's look at a shorter timespan: the 10,000 years before significant industrial activity. During those 10,000 years, carbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere varied from 260–280µL/L. After significant industrial activity started taking place, the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere gradually rose to its present level of 381 µL/L.

 

Correlation does not prove causation, so it's not known with any certainty how much of the increase is due to human activity. But people affect the carbon cycle in two ways: we increase the rate at which carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. We decrease the Earth's ability to take carbon out of the atmosphere by chopping down forests. Sometimes human activity can destroy aquatic plant life. Even if humans left 95% of nature's carbon absorbsion capacity intact, and even if humans only increased carbon emissions by 5% above their natural levels, these two factors would combine to create an imbalance in the carbon cycle. Over time, this carbon surplus would add up, and would result in a gradual increase in the Earth's atmospheric carbon.

 

I realize there are other factors at work here beyond human activity. I also realize that many things affect climate change beyond changing levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. But, in general, human activity tends to push carbon levels in the same direction (always higher). I don't like the idea of messing with the Earth's ecosystem in this way when we know so little about how it works. I'm especially reluctant to mess with the Earth's ecosystem when there's evidence of dramatic climate changes from the past. That evidence shows that a dramatic climate change could easily happen again.

822094[/snapback]

 

Of course, theres no way a bull in a china shop, such as myself, could even begin to understand this. I obviously didnt take any bio classes that covered the carbon cycle while an undergrad earning my Bio-Molecular science degree, so i apparently have no clue on how the cycle works or what influences are there.

 

But, once again, you display your inability to critically assess a given situation. At this point its rather comical. You want to only view the last 10,000 years. Hello! McFly! You cant just isolate the last 10,000 years when historical evidence demonstrates that numerous times throughout history, the CO2 levels were an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE higher than they are today. But then again, ignoring and omitting contrary evidence is your strong point.

 

Take a look at this paper, specifically figure 3. The current 300 ppm pales in comparison to the CO2 levels that help steady at 1500-2000 ppm for millions of years. Theres about 500 more papers just like this too.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/20/12567

 

Cycles like these occur over varying timeframes. They occur over a decade, over a century, over a millenia, over tens and hundreds of thousands of years.They occur over millions of years. You cannot just look at a mere fraction of the earth's history and come up with a conclusion. But i dont suppose you could even begin to understand something as complex as a fractal.

 

Dont !@#$ with me when it comes to science. you are way over your head. Whats your next agenda, going to tell me that dinosaurs didnt have feathers?

[Ramius]

Got that, Ramius?  The carbon cycle is too complex for you, but genetics is simple. 

 

And either one can be explained with statistically invalid bull sh-- that you just don't understand because your parents are mechanics.

822145[/snapback]

 

mechanic and teacher. i guess society would have been better off had my mom gotten her tubes tied, instead of working her ass off and going to night school while she was raising me by herself. I'm not even sure why my mom even bothered getting her Masters degree. she should have just accepted her place in society and done nothing. Maybe she would have made some money by winning "America's Stupidest Woman ©".

[Bungee Jumper]

Of course, theres no way a bull in a china shop, such as myself, could even begin to understand this. I obviously didnt take any bio classes that covered the carbon cycle while an undergrad earning my Bio-Molecular science degree, so i apparently have no clue on how the cycle works or what influences are there.

 

But, once again, you display your inability to critically assess a given situation. At this point its rather comical. You want to only view the last 10,000 years. Hello! McFly! You cant just isolate the last 10,000 years when historical evidence demonstrates that numerous times throughout history, the CO2 levels were an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE higher than they are today. But then again, ignoring and omitting contrary evidence is your strong point.

 

Take a look at this paper, specifically figure 3. The current 300 ppm pales in comparison to the CO2 levels that help steady at 1500-2000 ppm for millions of years. Theres about 500 more papers just like this too.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/20/12567

 

Cycles like these occur over varying timeframes. They occur over a decade, over a century, over a millenia, over tens and hundreds of thousands of years.They occur over millions of years. You cannot just look at a mere fraction of the earth's history and come up with a conclusion. But i dont suppose you could even begin to understand something as complex as a fractal.

 

Dont !@#$ with me when it comes to science. you are way over your head. Whats your next agenda, going to tell me that dinosaurs didnt have feathers?

822229[/snapback]

 

You think Herr Scheisskopf even knows what the carbon cycle is? Why are you even bothering at this point?

[GG]

Maybe she would have made some money by winning "The world's dumbest woman".

822233[/snapback]

 

Hey hey hey.

 

Where the heck is Ahr & Ahr Associates for this blatant copyright infringement?

 

Get it right - it's America's Stupidest Woman © ™