|
valta4065
|
 |
January 08, 2017, 09:45:06 PM |
|
And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.
Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.
In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...
I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.
You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.
A study and a correlation from 1958 forward is not enough if the prior hundred years ALSO SHOWS A VERY SIMILAR WARMING PATTERN. Only by cutting that out can you produce the "Alarming Data" from 1958 forward. If you agree that the prior hundred years was a constant CO2, then we could do a proper correlation, by taking the beginning Hawaii data from 1958 and running it backwards. Agreed? I don't understand your sentence. You mean that before 1917 it was a constant CO2 level that's what you mean? Well the answer is obviously no because CO2 level changes constantly. But it was mainly a natural change if that's what you mean. And before 1850 it was only natural (or at least on a vast majority I suppose). But first thesis stating that CO2 could lead to global warming are back from 1870's if I remember well. So no or few human produced CO2 before 1850 I agree with that. |
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
January 08, 2017, 09:59:20 PM |
|
And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.
Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.
In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...
I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.
You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.
A study and a correlation from 1958 forward is not enough if the prior hundred years ALSO SHOWS A VERY SIMILAR WARMING PATTERN. Only by cutting that out can you produce the "Alarming Data" from 1958 forward. If you agree that the prior hundred years was a constant CO2, then we could do a proper correlation, by taking the beginning Hawaii data from 1958 and running it backwards. Agreed? I don't understand your sentence. You mean that before 1917 it was a constant CO2 level that's what you mean? Well the answer is obviously no because CO2 level changes constantly. But it was mainly a natural change if that's what you mean. And before 1850 it was only natural (or at least on a vast majority I suppose). But first thesis stating that CO2 could lead to global warming are back from 1870's if I remember well. So no or few human produced CO2 before 1850 I agree with that. I am saying you cannot pick the data and date ranges that only support your argument, if a longer series throws that into question. Look at the second chart in this article for historical CO2 patterns. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/Specifically my assertion is that we could, just for fun, use a nonvariant 280 ppm from 1880-1957, and then use the Hawaii data from then forward. That would allow taking a correlation between T and CO2 for that longer time series. Realize your correlation will go way, way down. And you just lost your argument. Look, this is not complicated so let's please not act like it is, and let's not act or behave like the average guy cannot understand it. |
|
|
|
|
|
valta4065
|
|
January 08, 2017, 10:07:57 PM |
|
I am saying you cannot pick the data and date ranges that only support your argument, if a longer series throws that into question. Look at the second chart in this article for historical CO2 patterns. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/Specifically my assertion is that we could, just for fun, use a nonvariant 280 ppm from 1880-1957, and then use the Hawaii data from then forward. That would allow taking a correlation between T and CO2 for that longer time series. Realize your correlation will go way, way down. Look, this is not complicated so let's please not act like it is, and let's not act or behave like the average guy cannot understand it. Sorry but English is not my native language so it WAS complicated to understand your grammar. Don't act all arrogant because we use a language you master better than me. I've got 2 problems with what you're saying. First: https://warmgloblog.blogspot.fr/2013/06/co2-and-temperature-changes-are.htmlFirst graph shows the correlation between CO2 and Temperature variations since 1850 as you asked. Clearly not a constant CO2 level. Second: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.htmlhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.htmlThe exact same graph as what you gave me but considering VARIATIONS and not absolute value. Clearly one of us is wrong. Either your graph or mine but one is complete bullshit. Or I missed something huge. Problem is that I can't check yours because the source of the graph is extracted from a book or a review (don't know) which I never heard of so... i can't tell if it's serious or not. |
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
January 08, 2017, 10:09:44 PM |
|
...
I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'. I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out? If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with.... Where do they get their funding? Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better? Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job? It is just nonsensical. This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits. You guys are so ass-backwards. See my last post. Most of the people calling this spade a spade within the scientific community and without are, like me, pretty much classical liberals. So it seems in my research at least..... Yes, bolded above. "We want to jack up the price of oil ( and, see here, chump - we'll just for your own good keep the money we get from jacking the price up)" Right out in the open. |
|
|
|
|
|
GMPoison
|
|
January 21, 2017, 10:12:19 AM |
|
 Most actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Not only that, but it's very easy to understand that the fossil fuel industry is the largest industry in the world. Of course they're going to get it in peoples minds that climate change is a hoax, it's how they make money. |
|
|
|
|
|
mainpmf
|
|
January 21, 2017, 11:13:33 AM |
|
Most actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Not only that, but it's very easy to understand that the fossil fuel industry is the largest industry in the world. Of course they're going to get it in peoples minds that climate change is a hoax, it's how they make money. NOOOOOOOOOOOO NO NO NO NO NO Don't do that! Don't bring facts here xD Facts don't matter, logic doesn't matter! The idea is that your facts are wrong and their facts (mostly coming from blog articles without sources) are right. That's all folks xD |
|
|
|
|
Karloff
|
|
January 21, 2017, 12:42:53 PM |
|
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mainpmf
|
|
January 21, 2017, 01:14:35 PM |
|
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.
No. It will lose its place in politics discussion. Because the orange man doesn't give a fuck about climate change. Why would he? You don't have to care about it when you're billionaire... But the topic will never lose its relevance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
craked5
|
|
January 21, 2017, 05:45:36 PM |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT"  |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
January 21, 2017, 05:47:31 PM |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" Sure. It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures. |
|
|
|
|
|
GMPoison
|
|
January 21, 2017, 05:56:19 PM |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" Sure. It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures. Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880. |
|
|
|
|
|
ovvidiy
|
|
January 21, 2017, 06:03:58 PM |
|
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.
No. It will lose its place in politics discussion. Because the orange man doesn't give a fuck about climate change. Why would he? You don't have to care about it when you're billionaire... But the topic will never lose its relevance. If Americans will no longer Fund these studies you may run into problems with the financing of research. Also may be jeopardized Kyoto Protocol. More of America could increase oil consumption. |
|
|
|
|
|
mainpmf
|
|
January 21, 2017, 06:42:41 PM |
|
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.
No. It will lose its place in politics discussion. Because the orange man doesn't give a fuck about climate change. Why would he? You don't have to care about it when you're billionaire... But the topic will never lose its relevance. If Americans will no longer Fund these studies you may run into problems with the financing of research. Also may be jeopardized Kyoto Protocol. More of America could increase oil consumption. How can it endanger Kyoto Protocol? USA never wanted to sign it... And happily enough USA isn't the only country funding science xD |
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
January 21, 2017, 07:26:53 PM |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" Sure. It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures. Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880. Satellite measurements don't go back to 1880. |
|
|
|
|
|
GMPoison
|
|
January 21, 2017, 07:37:26 PM
Last edit: January 21, 2017, 07:57:31 PM by GMPoison |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" Sure. It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures. Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880. Satellite measurements don't go back to 1880. Then simply go back to 1980 instead of 1996. Even though it's only a few years back, it still shows a more accurate representation of global warming than what you're portraying. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/trendEdit: I don't mean to sound like I know it all either, because I honestly don't. I just find it it hard to believe that anyone could deny climate change despite all of the data, despite a scientific consensus, and despite the fact that the largest industry in the world - the fossil fuel industry - has everything to lose by not denying it. |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
January 21, 2017, 10:58:19 PM |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" Sure. It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures. Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880. Satellite measurements don't go back to 1880. Then simply go back to 1980 instead of 1996. Even though it's only a few years back, it still shows a more accurate representation of global warming than what you're portraying. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/trendEdit: I don't mean to sound like I know it all either, because I honestly don't. I just find it it hard to believe that anyone could deny climate change despite all of the data, despite a scientific consensus, and despite the fact that the largest industry in the world - the fossil fuel industry - has everything to lose by not denying it. Is it the largest industry? That's interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
GMPoison
|
|
January 22, 2017, 12:52:18 AM |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" Sure. It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures. Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880. Satellite measurements don't go back to 1880. Then simply go back to 1980 instead of 1996. Even though it's only a few years back, it still shows a more accurate representation of global warming than what you're portraying. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/trendEdit: I don't mean to sound like I know it all either, because I honestly don't. I just find it it hard to believe that anyone could deny climate change despite all of the data, despite a scientific consensus, and despite the fact that the largest industry in the world - the fossil fuel industry - has everything to lose by not denying it. Is it the largest industry? That's interesting. Yup. Of the top ten largest companies by revenue oil and gas make up five of them, who combined take the number one spot for most profitable industry in the world with ease at over $1,000,000,000,000 annually. |
|
|
|
|
|
mainpmf
|
|
January 22, 2017, 01:38:35 AM |
|
Posting graph is good. Explaining them is better... "LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" Sure. It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures. Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880. Satellite measurements don't go back to 1880. Then simply go back to 1980 instead of 1996. Even though it's only a few years back, it still shows a more accurate representation of global warming than what you're portraying. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/trendEdit: I don't mean to sound like I know it all either, because I honestly don't. I just find it it hard to believe that anyone could deny climate change despite all of the data, despite a scientific consensus, and despite the fact that the largest industry in the world - the fossil fuel industry - has everything to lose by not denying it. Is it the largest industry? That's interesting. Yup. Of the top ten largest companies by revenue oil and gas make up five of them, who combined take the number one spot for most profitable industry in the world with ease at over $1,000,000,000,000 annually. You... You mean that those people make a lots of money? And that they might be funding huge lobbies to keep that? Especially as we know that in fact green energies are cheaper... It's just that oil is not only paid for but widely financed by taxes reduction... |
|
|
|
|
BTC-Joe
|
|
January 22, 2017, 01:42:46 AM |
|
Leftists love their fake news and their fake science. As others have said, "man-caused" climate change is nothing more than a ploy by globalist scumbags to impose a worldwide carbon tax to fund a corporate fascist "world govt. Trump's win put a sizable dent in that plan, hopefully people don't fall back asleep and let these globalist turds seize power again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
