Timeline for Is there any climate science explanation for this graph besides severe anthropogenic heating? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 21, 2019 at 8:32 | history | closed |
David Hammen Jan Doggen Fred marsisalie Erik |
Duplicate of How can we accurately quantify the degree of scientific certainty that global heating is caused by humans? | |
| Nov 21, 2019 at 0:52 | comment | added | user967 | Can you source that? And, regardless of whether anyone believes it or not, that is the main problem with the data. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 19:54 | comment | added | polcott | @BarryCarter I think that part of the discussion has already been talked through. Hardly anyone believes that the data is unreliable for statistical reasons. They either believe that it is statistically reliable or totally faked. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 19:25 | comment | added | user967 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 19:22 | comment | added | polcott | @BarryCarter We take random sub samples of the random samples and see how much variance that we get. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 18:57 | comment | added | user967 | You're right, but the sample isn't representative either (or, if it is, how would you prove that? how can you show a non-random sample is as good as a random sample)? We discussed this extensively earlier in chat. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 16:17 | comment | added | polcott | @BarryCarter A sample of temperatures does not have to be random as long as it is representative. It is not like the temperatures are going to have subtly differing opinions. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 16:14 | comment | added | polcott | @BarryCarter There is always a best thing we can do. I am looking for the best thing we can do to convince the actual skeptics. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 15:09 | comment | added | user967 | You're looking for a silver bullet that doesn't exist. Even those who believe global warming is occurring think there's good evidence, but not 100% instant convincing evidence. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 15:08 | comment | added | user967 | The problem is temperature data is not a random sample. If it were a random sample, stratification wouldn't enter into it, it would just be basic statistics (which is what the Scientific American article talks about) | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 15:08 | comment | added | polcott | @DavidHammen I am striving to find the very most effective way to succinctly refute global heating denier liars so that the actual skeptics can be won over to the truth. Currently 33% of Americans do not believe that global heating is even occurring. 67% of Americans with a bachelors degree of better believe that global heating caused by humans is a serious problem. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 15:04 | comment | added | polcott | @BarryCarter The yearly data is shown as the very fine lines that jump up and down. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 15:00 | comment | added | polcott | @BarryCarter Most people understand that a stratified random sample can accurately measure the population scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/… | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 13:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 21, 2019 at 8:32 | |||||
| Nov 19, 2019 at 23:27 | comment | added | user967 | As others have noted, you're asking effectively the same question over and over again. In this case, the issue is temperature records don't cover the whole Earth. Also, why did temperature spike in 1940 before the spike in solar radiation? That suggests something else is going on. Also how about year by year data instead of 11 year averages? And there's an infinite number of explanations for anything. | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 0:42 | history | asked | polcott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |