Annie Bynnol Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 18 minutes ago, Uggy said: Not a misquote, that is a direct copy and paste of your last paragraph. Urban heat sprawl does increase urban air temperatures but we know that because we can measure it, we don't know that happened 2000 years ago because we couldn't measure it, we may be able to surmise that but not know. You have answered you own question. For four hundred years+ it has been possible to measure temperatures with scientific thermometers and temperature scales. In that time many 'urban sprawls' have evolved or started anew and measurements show increasing temperatures linked to urban development. Plot this data onto a graph and it will show a slope. This slope reveals the rate of warming over 400 years and can be tracked back to estimate temperatures backward in time. In many cases written records, comparisons and archaeological evidence can be used to calibrate the model. There are many things we could not/cannot measure directly eg Absolute Zero, furnace temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 1 minute ago, Annie Bynnol said: You have answered you own question. For four hundred years+ it has been possible to measure temperatures with scientific thermometers and temperature scales. In that time many 'urban sprawls' have evolved or started anew and measurements show increasing temperatures linked to urban development. Plot this data onto a graph and it will show a slope. This slope reveals the rate of warming over 400 years and can be tracked back to estimate temperatures backward in time. In many cases written records, comparisons and archaeological evidence can be used to calibrate the model. There are many things we could not/cannot measure directly eg Absolute Zero, furnace temperature. I disagree, because we don't know what if anything was done to mitigate temperature increase in those times, we know most urban areas 2000 or more years ago were near rivers or large bodies of water we also know that most didn't have the number of people in them that we have now, because of urban stings being mostly in those types of places the urban temperature may well have been cooler than the surrounding rural areas, Comfort's always been desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 10 minutes ago, Uggy said: I disagree, because we don't know what if anything was done to mitigate temperature increase in those times, we know most urban areas 2000 or more years ago were near rivers or large bodies of water we also know that most didn't have the number of people in them that we have now, because of urban stings being mostly in those types of places the urban temperature may well have been cooler than the surrounding rural areas, Comfort's always been desirable. Stings should read sites, but when I tried to edit, I wasn't allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 20 Author Share Posted July 20 18 hours ago, trastrick said: I don't believe politicians grandstanding has any relevance to the climate change debate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 1 hour ago, Uggy said: I disagree, because we don't know what if anything was done to mitigate temperature increase in those times, we know most urban areas 2000 or more years ago were near rivers or large bodies of water we also know that most didn't have the number of people in them that we have now, because of urban stings being mostly in those types of places the urban temperature may well have been cooler than the surrounding rural areas, Comfort's always been desirable. Of course it is known how people cooled themselves and their surroundings thousands of years ago-those methods are still used by millions right now. It's all to be seen and read in the archaeology, architecture, choice of building materials, the urban planning, the literature, the engineering, the fashion etc. ,etc. What is painfully obvious is that these measures are at their most extreme in urban areas as the heat generated by the concentration of human activity and the consequent explosion of energy demand was greatest. Things were so bad that many activities were banished from cities in Egypt, Rome, China etc. It is all to be seen now in hundreds of towns and cities across the world - and as the urbanization increases how the need for solutions led to novel solutions. The same sources tell us how extraction, manufacturing, industry, agriculture etc. impacted on peoples lives and include the impact of fuel burning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 13 minutes ago, El Cid said: I don't believe politicians grandstanding has any relevance to the climate change debate. Unfortunately some take every opportunity to remind us of their obsession with what they imagine as a 'war' between the Right and Left and even Trump and Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 6 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: Talking about climate change is not the same as applying statistical techniques to billions of bits of data collected over time. Talking about climate change is not the same as understanding it. The use of the term "significant" in statistics means the linkage between the variables is not occurring by chance and can be ascribed a number to or range of certainty. The use of numbers also enables others to check the accuracy of the work done, whether the findings can be repeated and most import does new data support the initial findings. There is no need for you to worry so much about the left wing media and "... Algore, Kerry, Biden, Greta, et al" as they and their opinions are statistically insignificant, but the evidence for unprecedented change is. Lol I'm very familiar with applied statistics, thank you very much. No need for your In my semi retirement I was responsible for the statistical reports for a major third party Insurance Administration Consulting Corp. But no matter. We all know what "significant" means. No need for your usual hectoring and dissembling word salads. It simply means: consequential meaningful notable substantial As applied to the ""... Algore, Kerry, Biden, Greta, et al" it means that they are "consequential" to the climate debate, because the President and VP of the U.S. and assorted left wing politicians and a child advocate, have been the most vocal supporters in the Media. Along with the United (?) Nations, they and the Media are "influencers". They parrot the line, incessantly and their wild claims of "The End is Nigh! Give Up Your Worldly Goods and Ye Shall Be Saved", are taken at face value by a gullible public. They are awarded "Person of the Year" Status on magazine covers, are at the very height of political power, and win Pulitzers, Emmys and even Nobel Peace Prizes. But no credible scientist will come forward to confirm these fear mongering speculations, guesstimates, and fortune telling about the future. Odd that!😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 30 minutes ago, trastrick said: Lol I'm very familiar with applied statistics, thank you very much. No need for your In my semi retirement I was responsible for the statistical reports for a major third party Insurance Administration Consulting Corp. But no matter. We all know what "significant" means. No need for your usual hectoring and dissembling word salads. It simply means: consequential meaningful notable substantial As applied to the ""... Algore, Kerry, Biden, Greta, et al" it means that they are "consequential" to the climate debate, because the President and VP of the U.S. and assorted left wing politicians and a child advocate, have been the most vocal supporters in the Media. Along with the United (?) Nations, they and the Media are "influencers". They parrot the line, incessantly and their wild claims of "The End is Nigh! Give Up Your Worldly Goods and Ye Shall Be Saved", are taken at face value by a gullible public. They are awarded "Person of the Year" Status on magazine covers, are at the very height of political power, and win Pulitzers, Emmys and even Nobel Peace Prizes. But no credible scientist will come forward to confirm these fear mongering speculations, guesstimates, and fortune telling about the future. Odd that! In the world where accuracy is more important than politics or beliefs, i.e. mathematics, statistics and science, the use of significant and its derivations has a specific meaning and can be given specific numerical value whereas "consequential, meaningful, notable, substantial" do not have any mathematical meaning or value. For example: A witness says "There is meaningful*relationship between rainfall and flooding in the Don" The fact finder says "How strong is the relationship?" The witness replies "On a scale of 0 to 1 the significance(p) is 0.1." The finder replies "A p value of 0.1 makes the link between rainfall and flooding substantial * but it is not statistically significant (as it would need to be 0.05 or better). Can you explain why?" The witness replies that "Other variables such as 'previous rain events' would need to be considered." *consequential, meaningful, notable or substantial could be used here but not significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 16 hours ago, peak4 said: Absolutely, and forecast to be wet tomorrow, but that's local short term weather, not global long term climate. Thug Life wasn't saying it is. She was just making an observation 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 11 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: In the world where accuracy is more important than politics or beliefs, i.e. mathematics, statistics and science, the use of significant and its derivations has a specific meaning and can be given specific numerical value whereas "consequential, meaningful, notable, substantial" do not have any mathematical meaning or value. For example: A witness says "There is meaningful*relationship between rainfall and flooding in the Don" The fact finder says "How strong is the relationship?" The witness replies "On a scale of 0 to 1 the significance(p) is 0.1." The finder replies "A p value of 0.1 makes the link between rainfall and flooding substantial * but it is not statistically significant (as it would need to be 0.05 or better). Can you explain why?" The witness replies that "Other variables such as 'previous rain events' would need to be considered." *consequential, meaningful, notable or substantial could be used here but not significant. Have a nice day!😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now