Remember me
▼ Content

What does 'Carbon-Pricing' mean?


What does 'Carbon-Pricing' mean?15-05-2019 03:53
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zSlhWk3-w

This short video clip sums it up pretty good, and a lot of what Climatology is all about. This how they educate young people about the carbon-cult, in a fun and interesting way. The 'scientist', a well know celebrity quickly goes through the details, the presents a 'graphic' demonstration of the principals. Apparently, a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, from about 50 years ago, qualifies you as a climate scientist. Maybe he was given an honorary degree in Climate Science, because he was a TV star...

Was sort of wondering about the use of 'average', and what that really means. Since he claims a 4-8 degree increase be the end of the century. Seems to me, that average, could, in reality, be experienced in several different ways, and still give the same numbers. It could be basically the same temperature, most of the time, with some really hot periods occasionally. It could be spread more or less evenly. Could be just general, nice, warm weather, all year long, instead of brutal winters. Probably a dozen different ways to view what average could actually mean, over such a long time span.
15-05-2019 05:50
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The only thing that is required to be "qualified" as a climate scientist is a willingness to push the mmcc bullshit.

As far as average, the poles will go up a few degrees, the equator will remain the same and everything else would go up a whopping .5 to .8 degrees. Disastrous, right?

The reality is not one of their models can be accurate because none of them can explain why Antarctica and the Himalayans had ice on them more than 35 million years ago. We KNOW from actual science that the continent was covered by an ice sheet 40 million years ago but that is not possible if co2 is the cause of the warming.
15-05-2019 10:48
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
I just thought it funny, that a man who spent half his life, educating kids about science,on TV, would be used by the warmists, to educate the world. The use of profanities, something you'd never, added a lot of shock value, to a presentation obviously lacking content.
15-05-2019 14:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote: The only thing that is required to be "qualified" as a climate scientist is a willingness to push the mmcc bullshit.

I thought that was the definition of Climate Scientist.

dehammer wrote: As far as average, the poles will go up a few degrees, the equator will remain the same and everything else would go up a whopping .5 to .8 degrees. Disastrous, right?

According to the actual science of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, this is not possible. I'd be interested to learn more about your beliefs in this area.

dehammer wrote: We KNOW from actual science that the continent was covered by an ice sheet 40 million years ago but that is not possible if co2 is the cause of the warming.

By using the word "know" to express a belief you are inadvertently expressing a personal insecurity. I recommend you let go of your fear, whatever it might be, and just face your beliefs for what they are.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-05-2019 15:44
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
By using the word "know" to express a belief
Either you do not believe in any science at all, or you have to accept that there is science that doesn't not fit your belief. I know its hard to believe that the earth actually is not flat, but there are poles. Believe it or not, the earth is more than 5000 years old.

In 1988 they attempted to drill to the bottom of the glacial deposits surrounding Antarctica, and could only go back though 40 million years of deposits before the ice chased them off. They did not find the bottom
15-05-2019 15:46
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I just thought it funny, that a man who spent half his life, educating kids about science,on TV, would be used by the warmists, to educate the world. The use of profanities, something you'd never, added a lot of shock value, to a presentation obviously lacking content.
Its because he is a socialist. Like many others he is pushing the lie to convince people that give up their rights and money.
15-05-2019 16:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote: Either you do not believe in any science at all, or you have to accept that there is science that doesn't not fit your belief. I know its hard to believe that the earth actually is not flat, but there are poles. Believe it or not, the earth is more than 5000 years old.

In 1988 they attempted to drill to the bottom of the glacial deposits surrounding Antarctica, and could only go back though 40 million years of deposits before the ice chased them off. They did not find the bottom

That personal insecurity of yours runs more deeply than I thought.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-05-2019 20:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
The only thing that is required to be "qualified" as a climate scientist is a willingness to push the mmcc bullshit.

You also need to be willing to stuff enough money into the education biz to get yourself one of their bullshit degrees.
dehammer wrote:
As far as average, the poles will go up a few degrees, the equator will remain the same and everything else would go up a whopping .5 to .8 degrees.

You are not even talking about an average here.
dehammer wrote:
Disastrous, right?

None noted anywhere due to either 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Sure, we have tornadoes, hurricanes, bone chilling winters, deserts, tropical jungle, continents mostly covered with ice all the time, 7/10ths of the Earth is flooded, etc. Weather disasters are a normal part of weather.

Neither 'global warming' nor 'climate change' mean anything...literally. They are just meaningless buzzwords. So is the concept of a 'global climate'.
dehammer wrote:
The reality is not one of their models can be accurate because none of them can explain why Antarctica and the Himalayans had ice on them more than 35 million years ago. We KNOW from actual science that the continent was covered by an ice sheet 40 million years ago

How do you know? Were you there? Science has no theories about past unobserved events.
dehammer wrote:
but that is not possible if co2 is the cause of the warming.

We DO know from actual science that CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2019 20:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zSlhWk3-w

This short video clip sums it up pretty good, and a lot of what Climatology is all about. This how they educate young people about the carbon-cult, in a fun and interesting way. The 'scientist', a well know celebrity quickly goes through the details, the presents a 'graphic' demonstration of the principals. Apparently, a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, from about 50 years ago, qualifies you as a climate scientist. Maybe he was given an honorary degree in Climate Science, because he was a TV star...

Was sort of wondering about the use of 'average', and what that really means. Since he claims a 4-8 degree increase be the end of the century. Seems to me, that average, could, in reality, be experienced in several different ways, and still give the same numbers. It could be basically the same temperature, most of the time, with some really hot periods occasionally. It could be spread more or less evenly. Could be just general, nice, warm weather, all year long, instead of brutal winters. Probably a dozen different ways to view what average could actually mean, over such a long time span.


As always, it doesn't matter what degree someone has (or doesn't have). Science has nothing to do with degrees, licenses, consensus, or bad math. Science is simply the theories themselves. They must be falsifiable. They cannot conflict with one another. They must be theories (i.e. valid arguments).

Averages is not statistical math. While statistical math does make use of the simple average, the simple average itself is quite meaningless.

Statistical math requires the calculation of the margin of error value for any summary. This is why we cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

Variance sources must be declared and justified. These help to calculate the margin of error value. I use a variance of 20 deg F per mile, since this variance is not unusual to observe, especially across weather fronts.

The data to be summarized must be selected by randN (using the same method of randomization as a deck of cards). This means you cannot use 'cooked' data. The data source must be raw data.

Biasing elements must be eliminated (for temperature, things like time and location grouping are biasing elements).

Statistical math is incapable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics. This is because of its use of random numbers. This means you cannot use the summary to 'cook' data for the next summary, which is completely independent of the first one. It also means that the result of any summary does not predict the future in any way. Attempting to do so is a base rate fallacy as well as a math error.

The data is not the summary. The summary is not data. Treating one as the other is a redefinition fallacy (data <-> statistical summary).


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2019 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
By using the word "know" to express a belief
Either you do not believe in any science at all,

Science isn't a religion. It is not a belief. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
dehammer wrote:
or you have to accept that there is science that doesn't not fit your belief.

One's personal beliefs are irrelevant. Science is not a belief.
dehammer wrote:
I know its hard to believe that the earth actually is not flat, but there are poles.

No one ever said differently. Straw man fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Believe it or not, the earth is more than 5000 years old.

How do you know? Were you there? Science has no theories about past unobserved events. The age of Earth is unknown.
dehammer wrote:
In 1988 they attempted to drill to the bottom of the glacial deposits surrounding Antarctica, and could only go back though 40 million years of deposits before the ice chased them off. They did not find the bottom

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with science, the age of the Earth, or temperatures.


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2019 21:07
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you say james Hansen.
15-05-2019 21:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:Statistical math requires the calculation of the margin of error value for any summary. This is why we cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

... nor do we have the means to synchronize over the oceans, nor over the many required altitudes and ocean depths. (you touch on this later re: biasing elements)

But I was wondering if we even need any thermometers since we have satellites. [smiley omitted to fool the gullible] Can't the satellites just tell us the earth's average temperature to within a hundredth of a degree? They should be able to do that while they're calculating the earth's ice mass, no? [smiley omitted to fool the gullible] Look at this graph I've been keeping in my back pocket for just such an occasion. Satellites have been accurately measuring the earth's average global temperature anomalies since at least 1975 so chew on that one you deniers. [smiley omitted to fool the gullible]



Into the Night wrote:Variance sources must be declared and justified. These help to calculate the margin of error value. I use a variance of 20 deg F per mile, since this variance is not unusual to observe, especially across weather fronts.

Especially across land which normally changes in elevation. Especially where there is changing terrain (for several reasons). 20 deg F / mile sounds fair.

Into the Night wrote:The data source must be raw data.

What about the raw weighted averages? Those are OK, right?

Into the Night wrote: Statistical math is incapable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.

Precisely because statistics calculates the probabilities of the possibilities. This is why IPCC "predictions" are nothing more than lists of possibilities. If you ask the IPCC what result they predict from a coin flip they will answer "We predict with a very high degree of confidence that the coin could come up 'heads' and if not that result, we predict with an equally high level of confidence that the result could be 'tails'."

I have always been amazed that the IPCC could have any uncertainty about possibilities being possible.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-05-2019 22:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Statistical math requires the calculation of the margin of error value for any summary. This is why we cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

... nor do we have the means to synchronize over the oceans, nor over the many required altitudes and ocean depths. (you touch on this later re: biasing elements)

But I was wondering if we even need any thermometers since we have satellites. [smiley omitted to fool the gullible] Can't the satellites just tell us the earth's average temperature to within a hundredth of a degree? They should be able to do that while they're calculating the earth's ice mass, no? [smiley omitted to fool the gullible] Look at this graph I've been keeping in my back pocket for just such an occasion. Satellites have been accurately measuring the earth's average global temperature anomalies since at least 1975 so chew on that one you deniers. [smiley omitted to fool the gullible]


Heh. You and I, and to a certain extent gfm knows the answer to the satellite story. Let's see if the Church of Global Warming members (particularly Wake) remember it.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Variance sources must be declared and justified. These help to calculate the margin of error value. I use a variance of 20 deg F per mile, since this variance is not unusual to observe, especially across weather fronts.

Especially across land which normally changes in elevation. Especially where there is changing terrain (for several reasons). 20 deg F / mile sounds fair.

The interesting thing about elevation is that there is a standard used for ambient air temperature drop with altitude. The mistake people make with this is that they are using the standard as data. Temperatures may not fall as fast with altitude as the standard, and can even form low level inversion layers, where temperature increases with altitude. It can also drop faster than the standard, leading to unstable air and thunderstorms. These are real temperatures at different altitudes, not some declared standard.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The data source must be raw data.

What about the raw weighted averages? Those are OK, right?

Another term possibly bound to be included in The Manual.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Statistical math is incapable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.

Precisely because statistics calculates the probabilities of the possibilities. This is why IPCC "predictions" are nothing more than lists of possibilities. If you ask the IPCC what result they predict from a coin flip they will answer "We predict with a very high degree of confidence that the coin could come up 'heads' and if not that result, we predict with an equally high level of confidence that the result could be 'tails'."

When attempting to use statistics to predict, that's exactly what it becomes...nothing more than probability math, which also has no power of prediction for the same reason (random numbers).
IBdaMann wrote:
I have always been amazed that the IPCC could have any uncertainty about possibilities being possible.

That's because what they are publishing has nothing to do with statistical or probability math. What they publish is simply manufactured numbers, otherwise known as randU numbers.

No need for statistical math! Just make it up!


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate What does 'Carbon-Pricing' mean?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
carbon footprint16309-06-2019 20:27
Alberta throne speech followed by bill to repeal provincial carbon tax023-05-2019 09:20
It will be Very Hot and very Wet--We've exceeded 415ppm of Carbon Dioxide for the first Time since th3118-05-2019 19:28
California's Carbon-Tax?117-05-2019 10:16
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide506-05-2019 18:35
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact