olofscience
-
Content
2,539 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
The troll must be scared, it hasn't answered the question, and is trying to deflect with an off-topic comment.
-
The troll doesn't do legitimate predictions. It can't even read the actual papers, so it has to fall back on media interpretations of papers.
-
So, which of those were predictions I made?
-
So the troll is making a prediction again like Vahrenholt. See how that aged: My prediction: the troll will move the goalpost from 400ppm (to 450 maybe? how about 500?) the troll will revert to saying "yes it's warming, but it's good!" It's hilarious to see how he's trying to salvage the ruins of his argument against an article dated December 18, 2020.
-
Yes, you are.
-
Again, it wasn't blamed, the article was in December 2020, 2021 hadn't happened yet. Their prediction was spot on. Nice try.
-
Since your brain can't handle more than one variable at a time, you won't understand the answer. For those who can handle more than one variable, here's basically brent's argument: the sun sets in summer, it gets colder. "summer has paused!" It's hard to overstate how stupid the argument is.
-
It is according to NASA. Link
-
You didn't predict it. Especially the cause being La Niña. And yes, it was accounted for. 2020, the warmest year on record, is NOT an El Niño year.
-
It's just the sad predictability of the troll. I predicted he'll make this thread, and he did. He's crowing about the data coming in how October 2021 is 6th warmest, but it was also already predicted and explained back in 2020. Now he's predictably hiding and blaming the NOAA for his misrepresentation.
-
And this was also predicted because of the La Niña event in the tropical Pacific. Source: article from December 2020 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55365414 You've really got nothing, brent.
-
You are not, you're misrepresenting, that's what you're doing. You got it wrong, not them.
-
Actually, in the case of temperatures, taking an "average" really means doing a discrete integral around the temperature curve, then using the mean value theorem for integrals to calculate the "average" value. Something that's quite beyond this troll's ability, I'm sure.
-
But you haven't calculated the YTD average, nor can you do any competent data analysis Ever heard of Lowess smoothing? It's a bit like taking an average too. Here, NASA has done it for you: Source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
-
The troll isn't even bothering to comment on the video, that's how little he has to contribute to the conversation.
-
This is funny the troll says it, just because the NOAA said it was the 6th-warmest October on record in the US (4th warmest globally). But the troll was silent when it was announced July 2021 was the warmest month on earth ever recorded: https://www.noaa.gov/news/its-official-july-2021-was-earths-hottest-month-on-record Cherry-picking at its finest. Edit: also, I predicted this post by the troll:
-
Thing is, they believe themselves to be good at math and analysis, despite having no evidence of it whatsoever.
-
Looking at other threads like Biden's critics corner, woke is a joke, covid-19 - it looks like the right wingers are just using this forum to spew a steady stream of youtube videos, memes and misinformation articles that they themselves get from Facebook. Very few of them (if any) actually have any independent capability to analyse* data. One reason so many of their posts are just videos or links, and little (coherent) commentary or discussion. (*Yes, even just taking averages. Don't even mention bayes' theorem or any serious statistical analysis.) Imagine if the "posts video without any comment" rule was implemented more...but in any case, it supports my theory that a lot of this, not all, but a lot, will go away if Facebook went away.
-
I'm more interested in the lunar base habitat that they should build when they arrive. Although radiation on the moon is about half of what you get in interplanetary space, the dose is still high enough to limit stays on the surface to a few days. Not much point in going back if stays are that short.
-
fixed, sorry
-
Already did. My thoughts can be summed up in 4 words: correlation is not causation. There won't be any conflict because the RCT result will most definitely be more reliable than any uncontrolled study.
-
The gold standard for medical effectiveness is the RCT. Not anecdotes. By the way, are you aware of nwt's medical background?
-
I'll help you out - by just repeating what nwt said: So your conclusion was WAY off. You seem very determined to demonstrate how bad you are at math...
-
Demonstrating your inability to do maths again? You should ease off on the scotch, you know
-
Just to lay to rest the common myth about "global cooling" being the main thing scientists were saying in the 70s: A study was done counting the papers published between 1965 and 1979: 7 articles predicting cooling 44 predicting warming 20 that were neutral Source, because I'm not brent: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf An easier to read article discussing the same strawman: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
