Upload
Login or register

crimsonsapphire

Last status update:
-
Gender: female
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:2/10/2012
Stats
Comment Ranking:#15838
Highest Content Rank:#1642
Highest Comment Rank:#8638
Content Thumbs: 1922 total,  2092 ,  170
Comment Thumbs: 459 total,  562 ,  103
Content Level Progress: 27% (27/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 137 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 138 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Content Views:92302
Times Content Favorited:109 times
Total Comments Made:291
FJ Points:1999

  • Views: 26406
    Thumbs Up 878 Thumbs Down 42 Total: +836
    Comments: 15
    Favorites: 48
    Uploaded: 03/04/15
    Fixed It Fixed It
  • Views: 41692
    Thumbs Up 810 Thumbs Down 59 Total: +751
    Comments: 64
    Favorites: 47
    Uploaded: 10/15/13
    Favorite episode Favorite episode
  • Views: 12176
    Thumbs Up 285 Thumbs Down 26 Total: +259
    Comments: 20
    Favorites: 11
    Uploaded: 03/06/15
    They should have done it They should have done it
  • Views: 4599
    Thumbs Up 64 Thumbs Down 18 Total: +46
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/12/13
    Trying Trying
  • Views: 2274
    Thumbs Up 21 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +16
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 10/15/13
    Every Time Every Time
  • Views: 746
    Thumbs Up 5 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +3
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/15/13
    My work list: My work list:
First2[ 7 ]
  • Views: 728
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +1
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 09/18/13
    Never Do Drugs Never Do Drugs
First2[ 7 ]

latest user's comments

#26 - And if hillary gets in then revolution  [+] (2 replies) 09/29/2016 on Pundedrug Hidiaprevo +7
#55 - anon (09/29/2016) [-]
If Hillary gets in, I doubt she'll stay long. With her record, she'll be impeached within the first month. She'll be officially kicked out by about the 3 month mark. And that's only if she gets elected.
User avatar
#67 - lanfearandthecup (09/29/2016) [-]
nah, people always make predictions like this but it never happens.
#11 - Picture 09/29/2016 on chi chi 0
#373 - Based on everything I've read I've yet to really see anyth…  [+] (2 replies) 09/13/2016 on Evolution Of Stupidity 0
User avatar
#383 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
(CONT)

Now these methods are not incredibly accurate, no. But that's where the magic statistical analysis comes into play. Collect a bunch of data that falls within a decent margin of error and apply smoothing functions, toss out those that veer from standard deviations, etc. Now you compare this to the original values, previous values, future values, and the previous/future statistics models to verify validity and observe trends. And congratulations, you have reliable, accurate data points. And The largest uncertainty factor doesn't come from temperature, actually; it's the exact timing of their samples. However, these usually fall within error margins of 100 years or less, and because of the magic of statistics, other data points, gradiential changes, etc, you can actually refine the date ranges given by the raw data points to be even more accurate.

It's absolutely remarkable what humanity is capable of accomplishing these days, isn't it? We can literally look into the past and reconstruct the record of our planet based on fucking isotopes in sea shells, tree rings, ice samples, etc. We use the wind and sun to generate electricity to drive microchips with transistors that are merely a few dozen atoms wide, to communicate across the planet at the speed of light in a global network, while regularly launching satellites into orbit to give us phone service and GPS, and some to look into the stars and learn about not only stars that are so far away, moving so fast that they light we see is shifting in color spectrum, but to learn about the planets that we can't see based on wobbles in orbit fractions of the size of those planets, to learn about black holes we can't directly observe, to learn about dark matter which literally has no reaction with normal matter outside of gravitational! Everyday it blows my fucking mind what we achieve.

So, in short, climate change is real. The ONLY peer-reviewed, journal-accepted science on the matters in the past 2 decades agree, and any denying it is just a denial of flat out science. There is plenty of room for debate for things like how long we have, how to fix it, the finer details of how it influences the world; but it is a concrete, proven, tested scientific theory.
User avatar
#382 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
> I don't read thousands of academic white papers, but this blog and BREITBART say it's fake.

That XKCD comic alone has 4 sources:
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
Measurements from: crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
And reports from: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

And that's just the source for a silly little comic he made. There's a reason that climate change is accepted by virtually all peer-reviewed publications and experts. There is so much ample proof for it through whitepapers.

Your third source is just hilarious, he literally hand waves several scientific studies that prove him wrong. Hell, he actually quotes them telling him why he's wrong! He links to Karl 2015, which is a little analysis of the non-peer reviewed "study" that shows the hiatus, and if you read it it's incredibly clear that several flaws and biases existed by the original author. The study is invalid, because it contradicts the most accurate data we have, ARGO and satellites, their adjustements don't make sense, their start/stop dates fall upon conviently hot/cold years, and their error analysis is fucking looney. The hiatus doesn't exist, it's getting hotter, the oceans are getting more acidic (and therefore have reduced potential for future absorption, which increases the rate of climate change), etc, we KNOW this. That article is just a joke. P.S. Brietbart, every field of science makes adjustments based on statistic (error) analysis, it's required for your numbers to make sense and to take account for unknown factors or inaccurate measurements.

I would read your other articles, but they all redirect to a 404.

> I don't understand how scientists measure data, therefore their methods dont work.

They use a huge variety of methods. It's called proxy science, where direct observation is not available but a huge swath of indirect data exists. For instance, core samples from ice sheets, the rings of trees, forest densities, the remains of sea life in the sediment of the sea, calcium carbonate ^{18}O isotope analysis, the list goes on and freaking on. And it's not just temperature, oh no. Climate change is heavily pervasive and a couple percent extra greenhouse gas leads to major ecological changes. We see changes in the ocean's acidities as temperature changes, animals show shifts in migrations or living patterns, the habitation ranges of plants change even with the smallest changes in temperature, etc.

(CONT)
#113 - Saying is inaccurate without providing contradicting sources..…  [+] (5 replies) 09/13/2016 on Evolution Of Stupidity 0
User avatar
#139 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
Also, I appreciate your level-headed and respectful response! It's always nice to have a real discussion.
User avatar
#135 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
Your source was literally a Google search for when accurate record keeping started... It might as well be no source since it proves absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, the case for global warming is, without argument, virtually every single environmental scientist in the entire world.

I have watched their show, actually, as well as heard the arguments of Milo. But despite what they say, they're just celebrities. They aren't scientists and simply appeal to false authority. Further, bringing up that show is perfect! In that episode, they don't explore any real science or experts, instead referring to outdated rhetoric, a TV weatherman, and the president of some random think tank. And since then, Penn has gone on record saying that some of the things in those shows were wrong; that he has been shown new studies and information that changed his views. In fact, he has specifically fallen back on this very episode on climate change: twitter.com/pennjillette/status/448242297788825600
#373 - crimsonsapphire (09/13/2016) [-]
hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/new-paper-is-huge-blow-to-cagw-, www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/29/noaa-attempts-hide-pause-global-warming-disgraceful-cover-since-climategate/, www.thegwpf.com/why-karl-et-al-2015-doesnt-eliminate-the-hiatus/, www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/05/hide-the-hiatus-how-the-climate-alarmists-eliminated-the-inconvenient-pause-in-the-global-warming/. Based on everything I've read I've yet to really see anything substantial from scientists. They make claims but I've yet to see any of their work or so called proof and it seems I'm not the only one. As for the link I posted earlier, their was a link to NASA's page confirming that the data has only been accurate since around the 1880's. Everything before that is an estimate, and I'd like to know how scientists are able to accurately estimate the temperatures that far back in history when all of their other estimates and idea's for the past have always been measured in ranges and thoughts as opposed to hard data points that conveniently support their claims. I will yield on the penn and teller point though, been a while since I saw the episode and I was not aware he had changed his mind on climate control.
User avatar
#383 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
(CONT)

Now these methods are not incredibly accurate, no. But that's where the magic statistical analysis comes into play. Collect a bunch of data that falls within a decent margin of error and apply smoothing functions, toss out those that veer from standard deviations, etc. Now you compare this to the original values, previous values, future values, and the previous/future statistics models to verify validity and observe trends. And congratulations, you have reliable, accurate data points. And The largest uncertainty factor doesn't come from temperature, actually; it's the exact timing of their samples. However, these usually fall within error margins of 100 years or less, and because of the magic of statistics, other data points, gradiential changes, etc, you can actually refine the date ranges given by the raw data points to be even more accurate.

It's absolutely remarkable what humanity is capable of accomplishing these days, isn't it? We can literally look into the past and reconstruct the record of our planet based on fucking isotopes in sea shells, tree rings, ice samples, etc. We use the wind and sun to generate electricity to drive microchips with transistors that are merely a few dozen atoms wide, to communicate across the planet at the speed of light in a global network, while regularly launching satellites into orbit to give us phone service and GPS, and some to look into the stars and learn about not only stars that are so far away, moving so fast that they light we see is shifting in color spectrum, but to learn about the planets that we can't see based on wobbles in orbit fractions of the size of those planets, to learn about black holes we can't directly observe, to learn about dark matter which literally has no reaction with normal matter outside of gravitational! Everyday it blows my fucking mind what we achieve.

So, in short, climate change is real. The ONLY peer-reviewed, journal-accepted science on the matters in the past 2 decades agree, and any denying it is just a denial of flat out science. There is plenty of room for debate for things like how long we have, how to fix it, the finer details of how it influences the world; but it is a concrete, proven, tested scientific theory.
User avatar
#382 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
> I don't read thousands of academic white papers, but this blog and BREITBART say it's fake.

That XKCD comic alone has 4 sources:
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
Measurements from: crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
And reports from: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

And that's just the source for a silly little comic he made. There's a reason that climate change is accepted by virtually all peer-reviewed publications and experts. There is so much ample proof for it through whitepapers.

Your third source is just hilarious, he literally hand waves several scientific studies that prove him wrong. Hell, he actually quotes them telling him why he's wrong! He links to Karl 2015, which is a little analysis of the non-peer reviewed "study" that shows the hiatus, and if you read it it's incredibly clear that several flaws and biases existed by the original author. The study is invalid, because it contradicts the most accurate data we have, ARGO and satellites, their adjustements don't make sense, their start/stop dates fall upon conviently hot/cold years, and their error analysis is fucking looney. The hiatus doesn't exist, it's getting hotter, the oceans are getting more acidic (and therefore have reduced potential for future absorption, which increases the rate of climate change), etc, we KNOW this. That article is just a joke. P.S. Brietbart, every field of science makes adjustments based on statistic (error) analysis, it's required for your numbers to make sense and to take account for unknown factors or inaccurate measurements.

I would read your other articles, but they all redirect to a 404.

> I don't understand how scientists measure data, therefore their methods dont work.

They use a huge variety of methods. It's called proxy science, where direct observation is not available but a huge swath of indirect data exists. For instance, core samples from ice sheets, the rings of trees, forest densities, the remains of sea life in the sediment of the sea, calcium carbonate ^{18}O isotope analysis, the list goes on and freaking on. And it's not just temperature, oh no. Climate change is heavily pervasive and a couple percent extra greenhouse gas leads to major ecological changes. We see changes in the ocean's acidities as temperature changes, animals show shifts in migrations or living patterns, the habitation ranges of plants change even with the smallest changes in temperature, etc.

(CONT)
#90 - Funny how the graph makes a sharp turn close to the time we s…  [+] (7 replies) 09/12/2016 on Evolution Of Stupidity -1
User avatar
#110 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
That is incredibly inaccurate. While humans have only recently begun recording average world temperatures in that moment, we have enormous amounts of data and methods of observation for the data points in the past. We're extremely knowledgable about the history of Earth, especially the incredibly near history that the graph observes. Do you seriously think you know better than the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field because you found a single coincidence?

Further, why do you choose to use that to ignore common sense? The moment that sharp turn begins is the moment humans began burning enormous amounts of fuel en masse and marks the beginning of global industrialism. Then suddenly, transportation began burning these fuels. Then electricity started burning more. Then more countries came into the gray. Before that point, almost no greenhouse gases were being produced, then suddenly they were produced everywhere.

But no, you choose to believe that literally thousands of data points across thousands of studies with thousands of researchers in dozens of countries are all inaccurate to nearly a 100% margin of error? But despite such inaccuracies, they somehow manage to all agree with one another and come to identical conclusions? And that such a sudden explosion of greenhouse emission couldn't possibly have such an effect, despite all research pointing to it?

Man, you must be buff as shit with all those mental gymnastics.
#113 - crimsonsapphire (09/13/2016) [-]
Saying is inaccurate without providing contradicting sources... okay. Watch penn and teller bullshit about global warming, they debunk a lot of these arguments, and if you can find facts that prove them wrong, I'd love to discuss further. Also, Milo Yiannopoulos has spoken much on this subject as well. I would beg you familiarize yourself with their arguments and find evidence that proves both of them wrong if you really want to sell global warming. I haven't found any myself, and if you have I really would like to know because I love learning and the new knowledge would make me a better and more intelligent person. Thank you kindly and I apologize for not posting a link to the episode of penn and teller bullshit but I couldn't find one in my two minutes of searching and will admit that I am too lazy to try and dig up a free one.
User avatar
#139 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
Also, I appreciate your level-headed and respectful response! It's always nice to have a real discussion.
User avatar
#135 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
Your source was literally a Google search for when accurate record keeping started... It might as well be no source since it proves absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, the case for global warming is, without argument, virtually every single environmental scientist in the entire world.

I have watched their show, actually, as well as heard the arguments of Milo. But despite what they say, they're just celebrities. They aren't scientists and simply appeal to false authority. Further, bringing up that show is perfect! In that episode, they don't explore any real science or experts, instead referring to outdated rhetoric, a TV weatherman, and the president of some random think tank. And since then, Penn has gone on record saying that some of the things in those shows were wrong; that he has been shown new studies and information that changed his views. In fact, he has specifically fallen back on this very episode on climate change: twitter.com/pennjillette/status/448242297788825600
#373 - crimsonsapphire (09/13/2016) [-]
hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/new-paper-is-huge-blow-to-cagw-, www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/29/noaa-attempts-hide-pause-global-warming-disgraceful-cover-since-climategate/, www.thegwpf.com/why-karl-et-al-2015-doesnt-eliminate-the-hiatus/, www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/05/hide-the-hiatus-how-the-climate-alarmists-eliminated-the-inconvenient-pause-in-the-global-warming/. Based on everything I've read I've yet to really see anything substantial from scientists. They make claims but I've yet to see any of their work or so called proof and it seems I'm not the only one. As for the link I posted earlier, their was a link to NASA's page confirming that the data has only been accurate since around the 1880's. Everything before that is an estimate, and I'd like to know how scientists are able to accurately estimate the temperatures that far back in history when all of their other estimates and idea's for the past have always been measured in ranges and thoughts as opposed to hard data points that conveniently support their claims. I will yield on the penn and teller point though, been a while since I saw the episode and I was not aware he had changed his mind on climate control.
User avatar
#383 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
(CONT)

Now these methods are not incredibly accurate, no. But that's where the magic statistical analysis comes into play. Collect a bunch of data that falls within a decent margin of error and apply smoothing functions, toss out those that veer from standard deviations, etc. Now you compare this to the original values, previous values, future values, and the previous/future statistics models to verify validity and observe trends. And congratulations, you have reliable, accurate data points. And The largest uncertainty factor doesn't come from temperature, actually; it's the exact timing of their samples. However, these usually fall within error margins of 100 years or less, and because of the magic of statistics, other data points, gradiential changes, etc, you can actually refine the date ranges given by the raw data points to be even more accurate.

It's absolutely remarkable what humanity is capable of accomplishing these days, isn't it? We can literally look into the past and reconstruct the record of our planet based on fucking isotopes in sea shells, tree rings, ice samples, etc. We use the wind and sun to generate electricity to drive microchips with transistors that are merely a few dozen atoms wide, to communicate across the planet at the speed of light in a global network, while regularly launching satellites into orbit to give us phone service and GPS, and some to look into the stars and learn about not only stars that are so far away, moving so fast that they light we see is shifting in color spectrum, but to learn about the planets that we can't see based on wobbles in orbit fractions of the size of those planets, to learn about black holes we can't directly observe, to learn about dark matter which literally has no reaction with normal matter outside of gravitational! Everyday it blows my fucking mind what we achieve.

So, in short, climate change is real. The ONLY peer-reviewed, journal-accepted science on the matters in the past 2 decades agree, and any denying it is just a denial of flat out science. There is plenty of room for debate for things like how long we have, how to fix it, the finer details of how it influences the world; but it is a concrete, proven, tested scientific theory.
User avatar
#382 - Fgner (09/13/2016) [-]
> I don't read thousands of academic white papers, but this blog and BREITBART say it's fake.

That XKCD comic alone has 4 sources:
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
Measurements from: crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
And reports from: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

And that's just the source for a silly little comic he made. There's a reason that climate change is accepted by virtually all peer-reviewed publications and experts. There is so much ample proof for it through whitepapers.

Your third source is just hilarious, he literally hand waves several scientific studies that prove him wrong. Hell, he actually quotes them telling him why he's wrong! He links to Karl 2015, which is a little analysis of the non-peer reviewed "study" that shows the hiatus, and if you read it it's incredibly clear that several flaws and biases existed by the original author. The study is invalid, because it contradicts the most accurate data we have, ARGO and satellites, their adjustements don't make sense, their start/stop dates fall upon conviently hot/cold years, and their error analysis is fucking looney. The hiatus doesn't exist, it's getting hotter, the oceans are getting more acidic (and therefore have reduced potential for future absorption, which increases the rate of climate change), etc, we KNOW this. That article is just a joke. P.S. Brietbart, every field of science makes adjustments based on statistic (error) analysis, it's required for your numbers to make sense and to take account for unknown factors or inaccurate measurements.

I would read your other articles, but they all redirect to a 404.

> I don't understand how scientists measure data, therefore their methods dont work.

They use a huge variety of methods. It's called proxy science, where direct observation is not available but a huge swath of indirect data exists. For instance, core samples from ice sheets, the rings of trees, forest densities, the remains of sea life in the sediment of the sea, calcium carbonate ^{18}O isotope analysis, the list goes on and freaking on. And it's not just temperature, oh no. Climate change is heavily pervasive and a couple percent extra greenhouse gas leads to major ecological changes. We see changes in the ocean's acidities as temperature changes, animals show shifts in migrations or living patterns, the habitation ranges of plants change even with the smallest changes in temperature, etc.

(CONT)
#245 - I'm 25 and my husband is 28 and we love his video's. I don't g…  [+] (1 reply) 09/07/2016 on wino +1
#273 - anon (09/10/2016) [-]
Because you're retarded old people.