Wolfrug 0 Posted April 2, 2009 Tsk. All you anti-earth hour people are basically "falling into the trap" exactly as intended. As someBoy there says, the point IS to raise awareness and to promote global cooperation in these matters. It's not quite as easy as you think to get half of Toronto's skyscrapers to turn off, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Sydney Opera House. And then people talk about it, since it's usually highly visible. And talking about it is exactly what Earth Hour is all about, capische? If you don't agree, well, you can do that any day of the year, but I guess you don't have reason to beat your drums about it unless there's some occasion. It sparks debate, raises awareness, gets people, the media, government, everyone involved. In other words, despite all the negative comments on this here thread, I believe Earth Hour was a rousing success Considering it's really "just" turning off some lights (and your computer...) for an hour, it's clearly made quite some impact. Here's to hoping it grows year by year and continually makes people think, and, hopefully, act! Regards, Wolfrug Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparks50 0 Posted April 2, 2009 Stopping global warming is very important, but I doubt Earth hour 2009 will have any say in it, in the same way that the poser mobile Prius wont have any say in it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted April 3, 2009 Hey Baff1, still waiting for a link to that wrongly created NASA model you talked about a few posts ago! You have already linked it yourself mate. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ Is that the one you wanted or the hockey stick curve? The one with a + or - 0.5 degree of reliability? On a scale with a total variance of 1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
someboy 0 Posted April 3, 2009 Hmmm yeah I was referring to the hockey graph with the 0.5 variance over a scale of 1 you mentioned. Is that the one you were referring to? I cannot find in it the 0.5 variance... Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted April 3, 2009 They gave the variance when they mentioned that the ten year period of global cooling we have just had was not necessarily an accurate reading but within their margins for error. According to NASA there might not have been any cooling at all. Their records simply aren't accurate enough to be sure. If they can't accurately record a difference of .5 degree's with any measure of certainty, that rather renders the entire scale of that graph useless. All points on the graph are within .5 of the median. They aren't even sure global warming has occoured. It's all been within their predicted margin for error. Between + and - 0.5 degree's of the median, you could draw any shaped graph you can imagine and it would be 100% as accurate as the hockeystick, or any other. (On that scale, my 6 year old niece could write her name and it would be a measurement of equal scientific precision). It's a joke graph, it would be more accurate to represent the data as a thick grey line 1 degree in width than it is to draw it as a hockeystick mapping changes of .1 degree, a level accuracy they are unable to reliably measure. It's bullshit. Even the guy who made it thinks so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IronPyramid 0 Posted April 3, 2009 I just wonder if maybe it was more detrimental to have to turn all those lights, and electric appliances back on in generally rapid succession. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr.g-c 6 Posted April 3, 2009 Stopping global warming is very important... It is not, as its not caused by humans....a bit more trust in out mother nature please! However as i hear that term here too and always whenever one says something which not came out of your "truth-box" called TV and its made up opinions, look at this. Now they admitted right in that box, that we so called "conspiracy theorists" (i love that term created by mass medias to titulate people dont believe everything they tell you via mass medias) were right with our suspicion about a planned "New world order" and "global currency", "global regulation", etc..... Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTcJbDg3HbE Who knows in what else areas we "conspiracy theorists" are right too, when the mass medias will announce it in future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
someboy 0 Posted April 4, 2009 They gave the variance when they mentioned that the ten year period of global cooling we have just had was not necessarily an accurate reading but within their margins for error.According to NASA there might not have been any cooling at all. Their records simply aren't accurate enough to be sure. If they can't accurately record a difference of .5 degree's with any measure of certainty, that rather renders the entire scale of that graph useless. All points on the graph are within .5 of the median. They aren't even sure global warming has occoured. It's all been within their predicted margin for error. Between + and - 0.5 degree's of the median, you could draw any shaped graph you can imagine and it would be 100% as accurate as the hockeystick, or any other. (On that scale, my 6 year old niece could write her name and it would be a measurement of equal scientific precision). It's a joke graph, it would be more accurate to represent the data as a thick grey line 1 degree in width than it is to draw it as a hockeystick mapping changes of .1 degree, a level accuracy they are unable to reliably measure. It's bullshit. Even the guy who made it thinks so. Nowhere in that document is stated that the variance of the measurements are 0.5C. I am wondering if you misread the part stating that the two standard deviation with 95% prob for comparing two values is 0.05C, and actually thought that they were talking about measurement errors. - Variance is not standard deviation. The first is the square value of the second. - It's the standard deviation for COMPARING two values, not the error of a single value. The error of a single value is simply 0.025C (comparisson is not but difference of values, and when you add or substract values with errors, the total error is the sum of the single values) You keep using the term "median" as if it was "mean", when they are totally different concepts. Regarding your statement about being more accurate to represent the data as one thick grey line... sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense. Data is data, they didn't make it up. Those values were recorded and they cannot just put different values in there (whatever the error in the measurement is). You can argue about the explanation that someone gives to the data, but not about the data itself. Nowhere in the article I could find the author stating that the depicted graph is "bullshit". Either you are making that up or you misread it. Hope this clarifies the issues you have with the graph. Regards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jahve 0 Posted April 6, 2009 I was not giving a toss, like the 40000 other households outside my window at the time. Infact, I put MORE light on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
