dlague
Active member
And don't get confused with a GW person.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Scientists say more snow will be the norm.... for a while
- Thread starter VTKilarney
- Start date
And don't get confused with a GW person.
Puck it
Well-known member
As in George W. or Global Warming.
dlague
Active member
Glob, globa, global warming - there I said it!
Puck it
Well-known member
dlague
Active member
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
First off, while we're getting crazy with the hyperbole, it's probably a good time to point out that there aren't "thousands" of "climate scientists" on the entire planet.
And it's the politicians and the IPCC who are pulling the strings, not individual scientists. Frankly, whatever 99% of them "say" (however many there are) is completely irrelevant. There is a relatively small cadre of KOLs that have most of the power, influence, and citations, and whether it's 2, 22, 222, or 2222, none of that changes the fact that their models have failed miserably for the better part of 2 decades now, nor the fact that CO2 has risen even more than they predicted (i.e. they were wrong about that too) and the earth has not warmed as much as it should have given that fact.
ENTER: The oceans are absorbing much more heat than we thought! Because god knows, the hypothesis cannot possibly be wrong.
And "Big Oil", and "Fox News" and "the 1%" with "Big Business", dont forget the other far-left Boogey Men.
That new Koch Brothers boogey-man, however, is instructive of just how easily you can make lemmings of people with a targeted propaganda campaign. A relatively frew months ago practically nobody knew who the Koch Brothers were, but DNC talking points instructed politcal operatives to talk about them as much as they can to "create an adversary" to harness anger against, and VOILA - enemy created. That, and a few millions of dollars (literally) in funding to create said boogey-man of course. You cant go but a day or two without a new Huffington Post piece "informing" their readers about them. lol. Psychologically, I find it somewhat fascinating, though a bit scary.
St. Bear
New member
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
And to the people who in the past here have said politicians don't use Global Warming for money or carve-outs to political friends and donors etc.... This example just happened this week.
Obama diverts $1 BILLION in Hurricane Sandy relief fund to fund Global Warming preparedness
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/sandy_resliency_competition.html#incart_river_default
Obama diverts $1 BILLION in Hurricane Sandy relief fund to fund Global Warming preparedness
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/sandy_resliency_competition.html#incart_river_default
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
OMG, It SNOWED.......in JUNE!!!!!!
That's an "extreme" weather event, thus it's surely due to Climate Change (a.k.a. Global Warming re-branded).
moresnow
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 477
- Points
- 16
Yep.
witch hobble
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 774
- Points
- 18
Benny, if your posts didn't possess a glint of humor, they could be dismissed as knee jerk reactionary drivel, composed by talking point spouting conservobots.
But seriously here, anybody with even a minor interest in the flow of money into politics, and how it all works in our post Citizens United, "Tea Party" candidate world has known about the Koch bros since at least the 2010 election cycle. Freedomworks.....Americans for Prosperity.....etc. Give people a little more credit dude.
I'd say 2010 is way too recent for most people paying attention.
The Koch brothers have been the conservative buying political influence boogeymen to liberals for pretty much my entire voting life.
I definitely remember the controversy in 2004 in Oregon with them pushing to get Nader on the ballot in Oregon to take votes away from Kerry and I know I heard/read about them well before that.
Puck it
Well-known member
Pow Day at Alta
Puck it
Well-known member
For all of you talking about the Koch Brothers and their political agenda for the right. The left has even a smarier one.
George Soros.
He should be the poster child for all of what the liberals hate. But he is the backer of pretty much everything liberal.
George Soros.
He should be the poster child for all of what the liberals hate. But he is the backer of pretty much everything liberal.
The slanted ruler marketing measurements of a ski resort like Killington are hardly something to depend on for trends.
If you want to do some real analysis, use actual records. There is an upward trend at Burlington of 0.27 inches per year with a very, very significant p-value of 1.97e-05. The correlation coefficient is not important and should be system with variability.
http://www.weather.gov/btv/climo_snowfall
Copy that table into Excel and save as a CSV, then using R:
> s <- read.csv('BTV_snow.csv')
> reg <- lm(s$Season ~ I(1:nrow(s)))
> summary(reg)
Call:
lm(formula = s$Season ~ I(1:nrow(s)))
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-50.967 -13.764 1.241 10.812 67.760
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 60.15987 3.77799 15.924 < 2e-16 ***
I(1:nrow(s)) 0.26893 0.06017 4.469 1.97e-05 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 19.49 on 106 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.1586, Adjusted R-squared: 0.1506
F-statistic: 19.98 on 1 and 106 DF, p-value: 1.972e-05
If you want to do some real analysis, use actual records. There is an upward trend at Burlington of 0.27 inches per year with a very, very significant p-value of 1.97e-05. The correlation coefficient is not important and should be system with variability.
http://www.weather.gov/btv/climo_snowfall
Copy that table into Excel and save as a CSV, then using R:
> s <- read.csv('BTV_snow.csv')
> reg <- lm(s$Season ~ I(1:nrow(s)))
> summary(reg)
Call:
lm(formula = s$Season ~ I(1:nrow(s)))
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-50.967 -13.764 1.241 10.812 67.760
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 60.15987 3.77799 15.924 < 2e-16 ***
I(1:nrow(s)) 0.26893 0.06017 4.469 1.97e-05 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 19.49 on 106 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.1586, Adjusted R-squared: 0.1506
F-statistic: 19.98 on 1 and 106 DF, p-value: 1.972e-05
Puck it
Well-known member
There is a positive slope to the data but a R^2 of 0.15 is not a strong correlation.
steamboat1
New member
Lets just have a look shall we?
This is taken directly from forbes top 15 richest in America.
DEMOCRATS
D-Bill Gates 56 Billion
D- Warren Buffett $50.0 billion:
D- Lawrence Ellison $39.5 billion
D- Jim Walton 20.1 billion
D- Alice Walton 20 billion
D- S. Robson Walton 20 billion
I- Michael Bloomberg 18 billion (was a D for 20 yrs then became a RINO and is now an I):
D- Larry Page – Google – 15 billion
D- Sergey Brin – Google – 15 million
D to R – Sheldon Adelson – 14.7 billion is now 23 billion
D- George”Spooky Dude” Soros – Crime Inc,.14.2 billion
D- Mark Zuckerberg $13.5 billion
D- Dustin Moskovitz $2.7 billion
D- Sean Parker $1.6 billion
D- Peter Thiel $1.6 billion
D- Yuri Milner $1 billion
D- Eduardo Saverin $1.6 billion
REPUBLICAN
R- Michael Dell 14 billion
R- Charles Koch 21.5 billion
R- David Koch 21.5 bllion
What? You mean there are far more uber wealthy democrats than Republicans? NO Say it isn't so.
Examine this as well: 7of the top ten richest people in congress are ...... you guessed it. Democrats.
I think you're missing the point. Let's frame this in terms of the physical interpretation:
The correlation is a measure of the percentage of the variance that is explained by the trend. What that R^2 means is that 15% of the total variance is explained by the upward trend. That does not mean the trend is not real.
The p-value says that there is a 0.002% chance that the trend is from random chance.
This is illustrated using the idealized case below with a trend plus some variability.
> x <- 1:100
> y <- x/100 + sin(x)
> reg <- lm(y~x)
> summary(reg)
Call:
lm(formula = y ~ x)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-1.04535 -0.69689 0.00216 0.73422 1.03857
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.058347 0.144154 0.405 0.686542
x 0.008819 0.002478 3.559 0.000576 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.7154 on 98 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.1144, Adjusted R-squared: 0.1054
F-statistic: 12.66 on 1 and 98 DF, p-value: 0.0005764
Puck it
Well-known member
dlague
Active member
Actually that data is very encouraging! Of the top ten snowiest years 4 of them are within the past 20 years. In fact of the top 25 snowiest years about half are in the past 21 years. The second highest snowfall amount was 2010-2011 (also the peak for the most skier/snowboarder visits) and the second lowest snow fall year was 2011-2012 (which we regrettably remember) . Interestingly the data ranges prior to the sixties were actually pretty consistent/boring then the data range widened up a lot. Eighties were boring as well!
Similar threads
