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.
So go on in your lie, after all people like you are closer to religious fanatics than the terrorists so it's useless to try to ARGUE with you with things like logic.
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 27. (Read 636443 times)
.....
I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.
Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200
So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.
I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.
Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200
So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.
No, you did not "show any correlation." You've now been forced to grapple with proving your argument from the actual data, haven't you?
I've given you links towards multiple and precise studies showing a clear correlation between Co2 rise and temperature rise from 1958 and you never answered to that. You just claimed that it was not enough for you and wanted to challenge me on other things.
Quote
Well, here is your chart with your scaling factor, but with the temperature series extended its full and proper length. Now you see the slight temperature increases occurring LONG, LONG before your "alarming increase in Co2." An honest researcher at this point would say something like "Maybe the difference in the slope of the lines is Co2. But not you. You want to claim the entirety of a trend.
Lol, I take the time to try to understand and work with your dataset without you giving me the slightest explanation on where they're from or what do they represent or how they were recorded, I give you my vision of the work that should be done and rather than explaining me why or where my work is mistaken you accuse me of bad faith? If you want to make a perticular point then make it! Don't make me look for it in the middle of more than 25 different datasets and then accuse me of chosing "the wrong one"!Quote
Also, you claim it's right to just scale the data and offset it anyway you would like. How about we scale it somewhat differently? How about this? Instead of scaling (LYING) use the function "Normalize."
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/normalise/trend/plot/rss/normalise/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/normalise/trend/plot/rss/normalise/trend
Yes. That's the idea of correlation. In the correlation calculation you can scale and offset your data as much as you want... That's the main point of showing correlation... Not my fault if you have no knowledge about mathematical methodologies...
Correlation is to show a relation between variations of 2 datasets. Thus, offset and scaling processes have NO INFLUENCE on the result!
Whereas Normalization is a non-linear application which means that it can't be used. If you normalise the different trend that means you destroy the variations! Do you even know what correlation means? By normalizing what you're trying to do is showing there is no LINEAR CORRELATION between the sets of data, and of course there is none! who claimed anything like this?
So please, check the definition of correlation, what is a linear application and why you can't use non-linear applications in correlation calculation.
.....
I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.
Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200
So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.
I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.
Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200
So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.
No, you did not "show any correlation." You've now been forced to grapple with proving your argument from the actual data, haven't you?
Well, here is your chart with your scaling factor, but with the temperature series extended its full and proper length. Now you see the slight temperature increases occurring LONG, LONG before your "alarming increase in Co2." An honest researcher at this point would say something like "Maybe the difference in the slope of the lines is Co2. But not you. You want to claim the entirety of a trend.
Also, you claim it's right to just scale the data and offset it anyway you would like. How about we scale it somewhat differently? How about this? Instead of scaling (LYING) use the function "Normalize."
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/normalise/trend/plot/rss/normalise/trend
hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?
I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.
Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.
Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958. I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart. A correlation coef can be done from this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300
ahahahahaahahahahah xD
Ok ok ok...
Wtf is this temperature recording?
Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2?
And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give.
If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim:
There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958.
If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective.
Here we go with satellite temperatures.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/rss
Yes I can show Co2 datasets prior to 1958. But your Warmeristas do not like those because they don't support your religion. As an example.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.
Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200
So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.
Anyway, check out this link.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-a-real-debate-looks-like-in-climate-science/512444/
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-a-real-debate-looks-like-in-climate-science/512444/
I do not know how anyone, but in my country this year the cold winter. We had no anomalies in summer. It seems to me that the story about global warming is a fiction to fool people and earn money for studies.
In America, professors who study this stuff could typically get more money doing other things. If profs were after money they'd just go get a private industry job. This is such a rubbish angle to attempt to discredit global warming.
BTW, nice pointless post to get free ad for whatever ark is.
I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers
So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?
1900 on will do.
Let's hear it.
hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
Spendolus lives in his own world. I once posted a paper that basically picked apart how all the skeptics have a huge anti-government cognitive bias. Well.... we're on a cryptocurrency forum, so you put 2+2 together.
So the paper I put here.. Spendolus insisted up and down that it was behind a paywall. I checked it from multiple browsers and had no issue. He would rather go that route than even admit the paper exists.
I don't remember the details, I can go look it back up .. but the "oh it is behind a paywall" is another variation on "the science is wrong" which is what these people use to maintain their delusions to themselves.
I long for the day when all social media and the big sites people are using are decentralized platforms where the puppet masters can't push their agenda as they see fit. I think global warming is a real issue but I don't agree with the censorship.
hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?
I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.
Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.
Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958. I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart. A correlation coef can be done from this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300
ahahahahaahahahahah xD
Ok ok ok...
Wtf is this temperature recording?
Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2?
And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give.
If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim:
There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958.
If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective.
Here we go with satellite temperatures.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/rss
Yes I can show Co2 datasets prior to 1958. But your Warmeristas do not like those because they don't support your religion. As an example.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?
I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.
Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.
Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958. I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart. A correlation coef can be done from this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300
ahahahahaahahahahah xD
Ok ok ok...
Wtf is this temperature recording?
Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2?
And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give.
If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim:
There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958.
If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective.
I do not know how anyone, but in my country this year the cold winter. We had no anomalies in summer. It seems to me that the story about global warming is a fiction to fool people and earn money for studies.
I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers
So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?
1900 on will do.
Let's hear it.
hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?
I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.
Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.
Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958. I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart. A correlation coef can be done from this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300
...
Well my problem here is that as interesting as you links can be, I don't see difference of quality with the sources I can provide.
So please stop just saying that "this source is shit" or prove it. It doesn't help any kind of debate in any way! If you have legitimate doubts on sources I'm providing feel free to expose and explain thos doubts but just saying that what I'm saying is shit because the data I have come from a website which is plain shit isn't exactly what I would call a constructive argument.
I've described as best I can how I have come to think on this issue. This so that others could contemplate my strategies and adopt some of them if they like or if they make sense.
To me, the 'climate change' thing, when viewed from a variety of angles and reasonably well studied, is one of the most obvious scams I've come across yet. It's also probably the most well funded so it is not surpriseing to see it persists. I have not qualms about calling out 'shit sources' in street lingo.
My thesis is that 'climate change' is being used as a Swiss army knife for any project and any other scammers wish. All it takes is for some (not "97%") scientists to bend their ethics under the justification that it's "for a good cause." Upon this foundation the establishment media can build a spectacular looking stage show for the masses. And they have.
For fun: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/
And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION. Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least. Now I've asked for the correlation. Those who made the claim need to support the claim.And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made. As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it. As if you've been caught in a lie.
Stop the silliness please. I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim. Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science.
In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple.
Q. What is "A"?
A. Oh, of course. "A" is 123.45%.
Q. Thank you. That is <
Don't act like I did nothing to prove my claim or I brought no proof of any kind.
Maybe my proofs weren't "precise enough" for you but I gave you links to article talking about correlation establishment not about correlation consequences.
And as you're talking about science and engineering you should know that science isn't about being perfectly true but about agreeing on a level of precision. So if you request proofs (which you're in right to do of course as I was making a claim) you have to tell me which level of precision you require because I brought you proofs from the beginning!
I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers
So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?
1900 on will do.
Let's hear it.
hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/
Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf
A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D
If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/
And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION. Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least. Now I've asked for the correlation. Those who made the claim need to support the claim.And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made. As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it. As if you've been caught in a lie.
Stop the silliness please. I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim. Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science.
In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple.
Q. What is "A"?
A. Oh, of course. "A" is 123.45%.
Q. Thank you. That is <
Someone gave you links to show you the correlation. You just choose to ignore them from your trait that seems to be bordering on mental illness.
If you want someone to calculate the correlation coefficients you need to give them the datasets. Otherwise you'll have infinite outs. Just like there is always something wrong with the data. (And to be fair, we should question the data.. but not in some weird way that just suits our own personalized biases) Almost all skeptic arguments are based around that.
It makes denial cognitively easy, because this data is very complicated with lots of nuances and places for people to screw up.
Wait, there isn't anything wrong with the data from the guy that all the skeptics cite just take him as the truth! The skeptics never question his motives or even his data. It is clearly you people just have huge cognitive biases.
If you are willing to give me the dataset, pay for my time, I can calculate a coefficient. That means you have to agree on the input. You won't even take that step, let alone pay for my time. So so silly.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/
And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION. Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least. Now I've asked for the correlation. Those who made the claim need to support the claim.And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made. As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it. As if you've been caught in a lie.
Stop the silliness please. I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim. Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science.
In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple.
Q. What is "A"?
A. Oh, of course. "A" is 123.45%.
Q. Thank you. That is <
http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/
And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.
Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.
...
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.
You didn't answer. I mean you maybe try to answer but you don't.
My questions were "what do you consider a reliable source information" and "where do you get your data from"
Your answer is "I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) "
So you read things. Great. And where does the data come from?
Because again all the climate change-skeptics I see here tell me that my sources aren't reliable. So where do you find your data??? What institution or media or newspaper or whatever do you consider as reliable?
Basically I don't often need datasets because I don't do original research. People who do think they need datasets are probably wrong and would not have the slightest idea of what they mean or what to do with them.
What I need to have a sense of whether a researcher is basing their work on appropriate datasets. For this, I basically rely on the researcher themselves as much as anything, and I choose to rely on a researcher's means and motives. If, say, Judith Curry publishes something on her blog I'll tend to take it seriously and study it more carefully. Also I tend to spend a good bit of time going through the discussion threads.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
After witnessing such obvious fraud and opacity prevalent in the climate change hoax, it is easy from the 'denier' side to write off all adjustments as scams. This oversimplifies the very legitimate need to do adjustments. As I've often stated here, the biggest sin that the Warmunistas have perpetrated is in making real scientific understanding vastly more complex and difficult than it was already. It is more and more obvious that it serves their political and professional interests to do just this because they are trying to base their higher goals on a scientific fraud.
Dr. Curry, like others, have achieved little but professional grief for their outside the party line positions as best I can tell in my research. On the contrary, researchers who tow the line are academically and financially rewarded. I suspect that ultimately the 'heretics' such as Curry will be remembered as the Galileo of their times, but in the mean time they get a lot of grief.
If you are interested, here is a site which is reputed to be a usable site for obtaining datasets: http://www.climate4you.com/
I've not used the resource much in part because I've not bitten off the task of turning data into a meaningful synthesis (which would benefit by the equiv of a graduate degree and several years of focused study.)
Let's just call them on it.
Show the correlation coefficient between 20th century temperatures and co2.
Go.
I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers
So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?
1900 on will do.
Let's hear it.
....
Pffft. skepticalscience.com is a joke. Even their name. Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'. I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.
Pffft. skepticalscience.com is a joke. Even their name. Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'. I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.
Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.
I'm curious...
Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?
Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke
Where do you get your data from then?
Since you ask...
I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) Most of this stuff cannot be fully understood using a narrow focus since it has a lot of overlap.
These topic run the gamut of politics, geo-politics, economics, sociology, science, history, etc, etc.
In addition to reading/watching what others put out, I also in my own mind play around with all of the things I've taken in. Or as many as my mental ability allows at least. Pretty standard hypothesis testing produces theories which are strong because most or all of the pieces from the broad ranging exploration fall into place.
There are some pretty basic tools from a well worn toolbox which can be applied to such efforts. Among them, 'null hypothesis testing', 'cui bono', 'means, motive, and opportunity'.
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.
That is a fancy way of dodging his answer. You come across as real smart too. You're pretty good with words, but it could be summed up as your "hunch". And your hunch is because of your extreme anti-government biases.
Global warming can not be addressed through normal market incentives. There is a tragedy of the commons type issue solving global warming in a market approach. It will require government intervention. That sucks, but it doesn't invalidate the science.
Jump to: