Reptile & Amphibian Forums

In case you missed it, read this - its pretty interesting - bare with me, its a little long, but worth the effort.

Below, rodney set out to provide us with "Yet another reason why I don't belive in global warming" He presented some "statistical analysis" as he calls it that proved his point. But take a look, see if you can figure out where his "analysis" hit the ditch!

Rodney said:

Here is some simple statistical analysis.

That means that on average, you should hear a news report that your city is the warmest it has been on this day every 200 days, or every 7 months or so. (And this is assuming that temps. are totally random!) Now throw in the global warming theory, and that 7 months should be considerably shorter! Do you think that you hear, on the news, that your particular city is experiencing the warmest day ever recorded for this date at a rate of considerably less than once every 7 months? After all, we have been warming for a long time if you believe the alarmists!

Here's the interesting thing. rodney asserts that if we have NO global warming we would see (on average) all time record high temps every 200 days, and by implication, all time record lows every 200 days. Obviously, this isn't the case! So did this stop rodney's "statistical" analysis? Of course not - he forged ahead into the murky land of muddy thought.

So here's the challange! If rodney's analysis is correct, why don't we see record high temps, and record low temps, on average, every 200 days? Or, god forbid, if rodney's analysis is incorrect, where did his thinking go astray?

Since you are starting a new thread, and since this is related, here is a link to my reply to your last post in the previous thread.

forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=435585,438829

Rodney

I went to sleep last night flipping coins....(lol)

It (besides the warming issue) illustrates the weakness of statistics. Logic dictates that in a set of circumstances (such as coin flipping) the most likey scenario is......50/50.

The problem is that life does not fit into a balance sheet and other factors can influence the outcome. Shoot the coin flipper and you no longer have a 50/50 outcome. Suppose the coin is heavier on the head side? you can control the fate of the coin by the speed and height that you flip it with (my father was a master at this game, which is why he loved to settle things with a coin toss-his coin).

So it is that all this noise about 200 this or spikes is irrelevant. What does matter is the mean temperature. Is the average highs-or lows going up.

(did I mention that I'm not a fan of statistics? (lol))

As to glaciation...a thought. if your glaciers are growing this could still be an example of global warming. if the rise in day time temperature is less severe and the night time temps are warmer-but still falling in the freezing range, then the result would be more evaporation durring the day and greater precipitation at night as snow.

The result would be a lower sea level and thicker glaciers. Your articles pointed out that fact Rodney.
Any thoughts on this?

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I should point out that if it were Global warming, the eventual rise in temperature would bring the nightime temps above freezing and then rapid glacial shrinkage would result.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Guess what Frank, I am a huge fan of statistics! LOL -- They are never wrong, they can't be. They are just a tool that some people don't understand or use correctly.

Actually, If you flip enough coins, you will eventually come up with 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 heads in a row. You may have to flip that coin hundreds of trillions of times, but these scenarios will all happen eventually. And you won't be up all night flipping coins, you will be flipping coins for many years. Your life probably isn't even long enough for the 10,000 heads in a row to occur, but that doesn't mean that it won't. It's basically the philosophical argument that if you place an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will eventually write "War and Peace". More importantly, the more flips that occur, the greater likely hood that you will reach 50/50 result. After all, if you just flip the coin an odd number of times, you can never reach a 50/50 result. For instance, if you flip just once, you will get 100% heads or tails, if you flip 3 times, your best result will be 66.6%, if you flip 101 times, your best result becomes a ratio of 50:51, etc. If you flip 1,000,001 times, your best result will be 50:50.0001. The probability that you achieve a 50/50 result goes up with more flips, but the chances on any one flip is still 50/50, and the results will always be 50/50 on average. Just because you haven't met the average yet, doesn't mean it isn't true.

As for your father, he could just as easily have produced heads as he did tails. This trick is based on the rotation rate and time that the coin is in the air. It can easily be manipulated, but we were talking about something that people can't influence. And even if your father did this (I know he could, I have done it myself, though not a master at it), why would his results (with him trying to manipulate the flip) be different this year compared to any other year? That is the beauty of the analysis I did, I was comparing data between different years, not heat waves that occurred within any one particular year. If he achieved 80% heads last year, all things being the same (his skill level at doing this), he would achieve similar results this year, or the year previous.

As for your theory of warmer winters and nights that are still cold enough to keep snow/glaciers frozen, I like it, but I don't buy it. Ice can be much colder than 32 degrees. Thus, it will be much closer to its melting point when the air is above 32. For instance, if it is cold enough in one place so that one glacier is at 2 degrees, while another is at 31 degrees, the one at 31 will melt significantly during the day were air temps are at 35 degrees, while the one at 2 degrees won't melt at all. So a massive melt, all of the sudden, from this would not happen.--good thinking though.

Here's one from me. (Please don't let Pulatus see this!-LOL) Since we know that most green house gas warming is from water vapor (95%), and most extreme heat waves seem to also be very dry air (at least where I live--we don't get the humid heat like many other places), maybe it is the dryness of the air that reduces the global warming effect, causing most of the warming that is seen to occur happen when it is cold to moderate.

Here's another one, we know that there are a lot more trees than there used to be, due to improved fire fighting techniques and anti-logging environmentalists, etc. Trees produce a lot of water vapor. Maybe if there is global warming, it is due to all the added water vapor that these trees make, and not from any man made source, other than our conservation efforts backfiring.

(hehe----I can hear pulatus screaming now!

Just curious, but did you notice how Pulatus tried to debase my statistical analysis by calling it funny, and an overly simplistic high school math analysis that he understood completely, and then he ran to this forum to try and challenge people to answer why my analysis was wrong because he couldn't. So silly.

Rodney

Rodney...You A FAN of Statistics??????? Who would have thought!!!!! (lol) No surprise there friend.

Accurate Statistics are 100% accurate (which is not my point). However...Tat is only half of the picture. Interpretation of Statistics is the hook. Two (or more people) can look at the same statistics and (depending on their personal viewpoint)come up with entirely different conclusions. That is why I never trust it when the arguement breaks down to statistics.

My father was an amazingly skilled man with his hands. He was a master of Calligraphy (he wrote three books on it)and brilliant on the accordian. Coins landed as he wished-every time...(which curtailed much teenage fun...)

Good response on my melting theory...as long as the daytime temp rises for a significant time above freezing. Results would depend on time exposed to higher heat as well as altitude...

Actually the factor has more to do location than anything else which is why this is such a slippery bear to catch.

Actually there are less trees than there used to be. The entire eastern USA for example was forest land before the white man came and built cities and farm land on top of it. This is according to the writtings of early settlers and explorers. There are some interesting hhistorical consequences to this massive forrest being there and the sudden change to the great plains. Did you know the Sioux peoples were a struggling forest tribe that was driven into the plains. if it were'nt for the Spanish horses they found there history would have ben very different.

The rainforests of the world are diminishing at an incredable rate. Especially in South America, where they are consistantly being bulldozed to make room for farm land. No...It aint the trees.

I have pointed out that South Florida (our countries largest producer of humidity...execpt maybe the Louisiana Bayous) is turning into a more arid climate.

Here's another thought, maybe it is all the particles of pollution that our atmoshere is being coated with (that which makes visable smog (even here) that is causing global problems...

Frank Statistics can be funny...think of loads of little ants building all kinds of tunnels....(my humor has been called strange)
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I agree with everything you said in that post, except the trees. This is based on what I have heard, and I have no way to verify it, but I understand that in the West, where I live, there are so many more trees than there used to be, that it dwarfs deforestation in other parts of the world. This area (from California, into Oregon, Washington and Canada) is supposed to be the largest, or second largest rain forest on the planet (the Amazon would be the other) with tree populations around 10 times what they used to be on average. (Funny, it doesn't seem like a rainforest when it is cold and rainy, seems like it should be warm.) I have no way to verify this, but then again, it is not only the trees, but the kind of trees (some faster growing ones should produce a lot more water vapor than slower growing ones), the size of the trees, the water available to their root systems, etc. But, if this is true, a 10 times overpopulation in a very large rainforest like this could easily mean more trees world wide. 9 (normally populated) forests the exact same size would have to be eliminated just to make the worldwide tree population "even".

Except for the woodpeckers, I am familiar with all the birds mentioned in the clip below, I used to regularly observe these when hiking.--when I had more free time and wasn't raising animals for a living!--LOL.

But we should also recognize the negative effects of overcrowded forests on wildlife and the widespread need for active forest management.

These birds need the relatively open forests that greeted Lewis and Clark, but a century of fire suppression has left western forests overgrown, in many places 15 times denser and choked with undergrowth. As a result, populations of such birds are much lower in these forests than in other areas where foresters have maintained a natural density of trees and brush through either prescribed burns or thinning.

The whole article

www.doi.gov/news/opeds/fire.htm

While looking for data on tree populations, I ran across this also, it's very funny.

zapatopi.net/treeoctopus.html

Rodney

I think you will find more about what I am talking about if you read about the eastern forests. For example...try reading the history of the French and Indian wars-Braddocks massacre (not the battle against montcalm on the plains of Abraham (Quebec). and explorers like Daniel Boone.

It's not surprising that the fictional writings of Zane Grey and other early American authors give rather good descriptions of the eastern forrests as well*. Louis and Clark's expedition as I recall came up the snake river into the northwest which was also a huge forest.

I note that your article is an editorial. I do know something about birds as my mother was involved in wild bird rescue and helped found the Snyder Park Wildbird care center. I grew up around them.

I can't speak on a per species basis (on western birds) but Eastern Woodpeckers thrive in heavily forested areas. Much better (I should add than octopuses (lol)).

Frank

* suggested reading
SPIRT OF THE BORDER
DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Like I said before, I know there is deforestation in many parts of the world, and it is a problem. Madagascar being one of the worst places. I don't disagree with that. But I do disagree that this deforestation is necessarily larger than the increases in some other places, so that the total world tree population is smaller. Since a forest that had 10 times more trees than normal will off set total elimination of trees in an area 9 times its size, or the cutting of half of all trees in an area 18 times its size, I think this is quite plausible. (I have even heard of some estimates as high as 20 times as many trees per acre than historical norms.)

(Do you remember the pro-global warming article that said trees are now growing in places that never grew them that far north before, due to global warming? While I don't believe this, (due to the short time frame they mentioned in that article}, that would also be a substantial increase in tree populations if it was true.)

I'll keep looking to see if I can find credible evidence of this (total historical tree data), or not, and I'll let you know if I find anything.

Rodney

This is beggining to sound like apples and oranges. You seem to be concentrating on the number of trees per acre...While to me the important point is square miles of forrested land.

All forests go thru cycles (natural fires are often part of promoting the cycle)and depending to a great extent on the kind of trees, it can acheive what we call a climax situation in less than ten years. Sounds crazy? Here in Florida the introduction of Brazilian pepper, Maleleuca and Australian Pine (three rapid growing species) has resulted in the creation of incredibly dense forests in a relatively short span.

In Florida the Royal Poinciana can grow to the height of 30 feet in just five years (had one in my back yard).

Mt point is that these forests that are so dense that a man can have difficulty walking thru them...Are not enough to offset the thousands of square miles that have been deforested.

Our climate is changing HERE and over developement and over population are the obvious culprits-not the trees. I'm not saying this is the case in other Bio-climes (shoot I've never been to the Pacific North West) but it is true here.

In any case, I wanted to clarify that when you read about the great eastern forest that used to exist, we are talking about square miles of forest not trees per square foot. Also that you are right in that just more trees is not better...and it is not what ecologists are talking about. It is the loss of forested land that is the issue. Having the amount of trees in one acre that should be in 20 acres is not the same thing and can be a negative instead of a positive.

See this is where statistics can fail. When you use only one part to justify a point and overlook the rest of the equasion then you can draw a wrong picture from the right statistics.

Statistically millions of gallons of water from a broken dam can benifit the whole surrounding desert country side...but the town right under the dam is in a world of S---!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

This is beginning to sound like apples and oranges. You seem to be concentrating on the number of trees per acre...While to me the important point is square miles of forested land

Again, I agree completely.

I clearly stated "more trees" when talking about global warming and global water vapor. (my apples) To me, when talking about more worldwide water vapor from more trees, it can only mean an increase in total worldwide tree population. While trees per acre is a part of this (there must be more trees per acre somewhere if there are "more" trees), to me, "more" means "more"--period.

How you ever got off on interpreting "more trees" to mean the distribution of trees (your oranges), is beyond me!

I made the original statement "apples, or more" and you countered with that is not true, I'll prove it by saying "oranges, or distribution". Why did you start talking about oranges?

To me, "more" has always meant an increase in number and never an indication of the location of those numbers. Again, a failure to understand the definition of a word.

If I said there are more cars today that rely on gasoline, than 10 years ago, would you assume I meant only on one particular continent? Or in one particular country? Or would you assume that more meant total cars in the world?

Frankly, I don't see "more cars in the world" to be an assumption, but exactly what the original statement said. Just like my "more trees statement" meant exactly that, MORE trees.

Do you know a different definition of more that I haven't heard of?

Rodney

Easy there Rodney....Over-react much???

I figured that you might be heading in that direction and I wanted to be sure because it didn't make sense to the arguement.

I have always argued that the miles of "healthy forest" was what mattered. The only time I have reffered to the density of trees per acre was when you brought up the Bird issue and I commented on the local effects of dense forest. I clearly stated that I could not comment on California which I don't know much about(California that is)and I said so...Note that.

But it makes my point as when you refer to an unhealthy overgrowth...who's responsible? So if this tree over population is causing as you say a large part of the problem...then guess who is guilty?

Not Nature...for her cycles would have kept tree density lower to a healthy cycle...and that is what ecologists are complaining about. The severe reduction of healthy forests.

I'm a little irritated as I remember you lecturing me about Florida ecology a while back...something you are not familiar with, where I have nearly 50 years experience living here with them. (remember the posts about that study that Bush (Gov) signed on?). You were (and probably are still) convinced that you were right on that issue.

I (at least) readily admit when I don't know something.

Anyhow...

As I tried to point out. The difference means a lot when you compare tree over density vs miles of healthy forested land.

That is why I say again...statistics are just numbers. They can be bent to mean anything the person want's to justify. Hey there might be more trees (though I deeply doubt that to be the case even if you are jamming them together). But the resulting produce from those clustered trees is not the same as from a healthy forest.

So saying there is no problem from (for example) depletion of forests) because statistically there are more trees is just plain dumb. Quality vs quantity.....

It takes more than just cold numbers to properly interpret what is going on. It takes a knowledge of how the whole picture fits together to understand what it means.

You seem too wrapped up in disecting apples and oranges...and making too much of the difference.....Try looking out someone else's window instead of being so convinced that only your glass is clear...

Obbsessive.

Define that......

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Well we have one more utterly unbelievable assertion from the mind of rodney. Now global de-forestation is no big deal since forests are actually increasing!

And global warming isn't happening because if it were, we would be seeing more than 1 record high temp every 200 days! Thats right - rodney proved global warming wrong just like that!

And of course we all remember that global warming happens mostly at night

And that the majority of all scientists don't believe in global warming! Thats right - rodney found two unrelated surveys, compared them and Ta-Dah! Made his proclomation.

Of course, we know from rodney that the entire global environmental movement may well be a Communist plot too! Thats right kids, he actually said that.

Thanks for the amusement rodney...

Actualy...the concept of nighttime temps and the relation to global warming came from me.

The logic being that plotting increased heat retention at night would be a more accurate means of measuring global warming than daily highs which in a greenhouse effect situation would not be as dramatically measureable.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I understand your point. Research has shown that the global averages are warming largely due to less low nighttime low temps rather than higher daytime high temps. But some time ago rodney misstated that fact by declaring "global warming happens mostly at night" which is as wrong as it is humerous.

Global warming obvioulsy happens 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The result appears to be higher nightime lows and increased cloud cover during the day - in general moderating what might otherwise be much higher temps, greatly accelerated global warming and more severe impact on man and wildlife.

What we know is that we have a global system that is wobbling - we don't know exactly why and we don't know exactly what it means for life on earth. There are those who obfuscate this reality on both sides. Rodney hollers holy hell about the "environmental extremists" then turns right around and produces equally absurd assertions, completely backed up of course with his "Statistical Analysis"

Reminds me of the time he claimed his high school class "proved" left wing bias in the press! Only from the mind of rodney!

"global warming happens mostly at night" which is as wrong as it is humerous.

Global warming obvioulsy happens 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Since when does "mostly" mean that no warming occurs at any other time! Mostly, means that more occurs then! In fact, (again a serious comprehension problem) mostly means that it must occur at other times also!

Yikes!!!!!

SOMEBODY NEEDS A DICTIONARY!!!

Rodney

Words do mean something, at least they do to me. I sure wish you would learn to read properly!

Where did I say that deforestation is no big deal? I only said that there are "more" trees than there used to be when referring to water vapor, the main greenhouse gas. I am sorry your comprehension level is so low. I do feel sorry for you.

And global warming isn't happening because if it were, we would be seeing more than 1 record high temp every 200 days! Thats right - rodney proved global warming wrong just like that!

Again, a failure to be able to read and comprehend. I have about a dozen reasons I don't believe in global warming, and none to make me believe it does. I clearly stated that this is yet another reason that tends to make me believe this. How do you equate that this "tends to make me believe" with "proves"?
Again, a serious comprehension problem.

And of course we all remember that global warming happens mostly at night

The statement was, that "the temperature readings that some global warming alarmists say indicate global warming are increasing "most" at night and during the winter." This isn't my data, it is data from global warming alarmist. And isn't that exactly what you and Frank have been arguing when you were unable to understand my statistical analysis regarding heat waves? That the lower temps, and the mean temps rising are more important than high extremes? So, first, high temperatures are unimportant as far as global warming is concerned, it is the lows and medians rising that matter, now it is lows aren't going up? So let's see, now we have a serious comprehension problem again, but this time it is combined with hypocrisy.

And that the majority of all scientists don't believe in global warming! Thats right - rodney found two unrelated surveys, compared them and Ta-Dah! Made his proclomation.

Wrong again, I said most scientist don't believe in global warming, and the liberal media shouldn't refer to it as fact, when it hasn't been proven. The media should refer to it as a theory, since that is all it is. Then you complained about my using the term "most". I countered with two petitions, one that was started in the scientific community as the result of the other petition started by global warming alarmists. NEWS FLASH!!When something is the result of, or caused by something else, that means they are related! This does not mean they are totally unrelated! You didn't like this evidence, so I gave you multiple polls that said the same thing. You then tried to discredit those polls by quoting "Gallup's randomness rules" without even realizing the polls you tried to discredit were made by gallup! And now you are trying to ignore those polls and concentrate on the petitions! More inability to comprehend, but an amazing ability to misrepresent!

Of course, we know from rodney that the entire global environmental movement may well be a Communist plot too! Thats right kids, he actually said that

Again, a total misrepresentation. I said I heard someone talking about this from an article they read in a major new magazine many years ago, and wanted to know if anyone else had evidence of this. After all, it makes sense. Radical environmentalism would be an excellent weapon for the Soviet Union to use against the U.S. during the cold war, to devastate our economy, since we produced so much compared to the rest of the world back then. What better weapon to use against an economy than something as anti-business as this? I also clearly stated that I didn't know if this was true, and that is why I was looking for the original article or credible evidence of this. Again, a comprehension problem on you part. Pick out a very minor point, and totally eliminate all the important points. I once had a gyroscope that couldn't spin as fast as you!

(Sorry for all the bold type fonts, but I do that to try and get people like pulatus to emphasize certain words they read so they can't misrepresent what I have said. Unfortunately, even this doesn't seem to help!)

I won't bother to go back and provide the links again (like I have done 4 time before) to prove that you are lying about all these issues once again, and that what I am saying is totally accurate.

I can't figure out if you are a compulsive liar, a historical revisionist, or if your inability to comprehend things leads you to delusional conclusions. I'm pretty good at problem solving, but I can't figure this one out.

Just curious, are you still beating your wife like you said you used to? (since you repeatedly lie about what I said, I can do the same. The difference is, I only do it to demonstrate your outrageous behavior. I would never do so without pointing out that it is indeed a lie.)

Rodney

NP
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

..

Some things don't belong in a forum that is supposed to be for entertainment and friendly debate.

True or not.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Glaciers - sublimation was not mentioned and is a considerable factor.

Forestation - increase in atmospheric methane (i.e. greenhouse gases) due to termite flatulence resulting from population explosions resulting from deforestation.