Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
itfitzme said:;8407334Correlation of temp to CO2 is proof.
No it is not!
Yeah it is. Do you even know how to do a correlation? Tell me, what is the difference between the R^2 value and the coefficient of correlations? What does the R^2 value mean, exactly?
Yeah, it is proof.
12,000 peer reviewed studies? A lie, prove their are 12,000.
Hell, prove that there is one, not and abstract, press release, or an article about the mythical study that is peer reviewed, but actually produce one study. Should be easy with 12,000 of them out there.
go ahead, we all can not wait to see, produce one.
I did find this:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change | Science Codex
I guess this is called consensus these days when there is an agenda.
So that would be that, among the papers where the authors presented a position,
11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW = 3910.044
11 994 papers, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW = 83.958
11 994 papers, 0.3 per cent uncertain = 35.982
Total papers with an opinion. 3910.044 + 83.958+35.982 = 4029.984
Percent endorsing AWG, 3910.044/4029.984 = 97 %
That is a 97% of scientists that stated an opinion endores AWG.
The problem you have is you are imagining what the unstated opinion authors believe. We could simply count them as agreeing with AWG, just as well as you are counting them as disagreeing, and get
99% of scientiists do not disagree with AWG.
My question is why you count a non-statement from a paper on the mating habits of tree frogs as being a denial of AWG? It is, after all, simply a non-statement.
Oh, BTW, are everyone of those 11994 papers by 11994 different authors?
I got a question for that diatribe of irrelevant information about the climate some 10,000 years ago.
What is your position, that there is no global warming because a ship got stranded or that the global warming isn't anthropogenic.
Because your diatribe presents both.
"that global warming ship hull is being crushed by thick ice packs"
Then a long presentation of paleotological warming. I suppose to demonstrate that current warming is due to solar insulance not AWG.
"The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earths orbit around the sun"
Ah, here is the complete analysis
"In fact, not all scientists do agree that humans are causing global warming. As researchers under the guidance of John Cook at Skeptical Science discovered in a "citizen science" survey of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles, 1.6 percent of the authors expressing an opinion on the subject rejected or were uncertain about the consensus that the earth is undergoing anthropogenic (human-generated) global warming (AGW). And 97.1 percent of the nearly 4,000 articles in which the author(s) took a position endorsed the AGW consensus. (The survey was published May 15 in Environmental Research Letters as an open access article.)"
Daily Kos: Skeptical Science flattens deniers: 97% of peer-reviewed papers say humans causing climate change
Oh, shit. That's exactly what I got.
Yeah, sure you did....go back to your agenda dude.
You still can't back away from what the leaked emails were stating, all you can do is go to kos and try a lame attempt at damage control.
PS to get to your 97% you had to throw out nearly 8,000 papers to get your so called consensus.
I'm through with you.
You can't do simple arithmetic.
You clearly have an agenda. There was nothing in the "leaked emails" that meant anything except to people with an agenda, like yourself.
I just do the honest math.
Funny, though, how when it gets down to it, your only real basis is "you have and agenda", "they lied."
I got a question for that diatribe of irrelevant information about the climate some 10,000 years ago.
What is your position, that there is no global warming because a ship got stranded or that the global warming isn't anthropogenic.
Because your diatribe presents both.
"that global warming ship hull is being crushed by thick ice packs"
Then a long presentation of paleotological warming. I suppose to demonstrate that current warming is due to solar insulance not AWG.
"The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earths orbit around the sun"
You think 10,000 years ago was a long time ago, considering there is a 41,000 year cycle?
Are you aware the planet has been around for an estimated 4.5 billion years?
You still think 10,000 years ago was a long time ago?
Here is a question. Is every liberal as stupid as you?
Such hostility, all because you got caught making shit up. What are you, some sort of AGW scientist?
I am a parent. I don't know about you, but it creates in me a concern about the future. It leads me to view the opinions of people like FlaCalTenn and yourself as threats to my children.
And I made up nothing.
You make stuff up all of the time and I too am a parent and your willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking capability are dangerous to MY child.
It's on the website of the expedition itself, which I posted.
one can understand why the warmists would want to ditch the format of a global warming
expedition as quickly as they could
There are no "warmists" involved in this at all. I was defending the scientists aboard from the charge that they were responsible for getting the ship stuck in the ice.
I now concede that the ship was indeed chartered for an expedition. They were attempting to recreate the route of some famous explorer of the past. I did not, however, lie. I put down what I found in news reports and believed to be true.
Beyond that, I am done with this stupid topic. Being physically and chronologically localized, and the result of wind, the ship getting stuck in the ice has nothing to do with the climate. Besides, an increase in Antarctic ice has been forecast as a result of global warming for many years: increased temps->increased evaporation -> increased precipitation. And the breakup of the ice shelves off the coast has dramatically increased the glacial flow rate. So to suggest that climate scientists would be unaware there was significant ice where they were headed is idiotic and unsupportable.
What a joke... Turney is a grad of East Anglia and a devout warmist. He has fucked over the entire Antarctic scientific program for this year because in addition to being a warmist he is a fucking imbecile as well.
So, they are in agreement then?
The ice expanse enlarges due to THE GLOBAL WARMING in the Antarctic.
Glaciers however, thins out in other regions of the world due to THE GLOBAL WARMING.
Yep. As was correctly predicted 22 years ago.
But, that information contradicts the 'tard mantras of your liars' cult, so you ran from it. It's a talent denialists have, ignoring any information that contradicts their religious dogma.
Since you can be counted on to run whenever any actual data is presented, why should anyone pay attention to you? You add nothing to the discussion, and you're not crazy enough to be amusing.
Cowardly, boring and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
NCARs Wigley once complained to Mann, Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. What proof?
Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office warned Phil Jones, head of the CRU: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere, unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Suppressed critical knowledge: Phil Jones wrote, Ive been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get and has to be well hidden. Ive discussed this with the main funder [the U.S. Department of Energy] in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
The U.S. government was colluding with the hiders, who received tens of millions of dollars over the years.
Jones wrote to Mann, Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.
Climategate leaker: Our civilization is being killed by lying ?science? elitists
Please feel free to read more
That isn't proof. Thats just a bunch of bullshit. No, really, it is.
Yeah, people get grants to do science. Oh wow. Yeah, so Phil Jones said. So? So the troposphere doesn't show rising tems? Yeah, so? The troposphere isn't the globe. Yeah, so? So some dude named Wigly complained. So?
None of that is proof of anything, unless you discard 99.9% of evidence and pick some obscure details that completely contradict the body of evidence.
Temperature readings are proof. CO2 readings are proof. Absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is proof. Correlation of temp to CO2 is proof.
itfitzme said:;8407334Correlation of temp to CO2 is proof.
No it is not!
Yeah it is. Do you even know how to do a correlation? Tell me, what is the difference between the R^2 value and the coefficient of correlations? What does the R^2 value mean, exactly?
Yeah, it is proof.
itfitzme said:;8407334Correlation of temp to CO2 is proof.
No it is not!
Yeah it is. Do you even know how to do a correlation? Tell me, what is the difference between the R^2 value and the coefficient of correlations? What does the R^2 value mean, exactly?
Yeah, it is proof.
No it is not!
Yeah it is. Do you even know how to do a correlation? Tell me, what is the difference between the R^2 value and the coefficient of correlations? What does the R^2 value mean, exactly?
Yeah, it is proof.
leaves fall off the trees in the fall
children return to school in the fall
so by your standards
the children cause the leaves to fall off the trees in the fall
So the troposphere doesn't show rising tems? Yeah, so? The troposphere isn't the globe.
How about identifying the speaker there Meister?
Ahh.. Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
So the troposphere doesn't show rising tems? Yeah, so? The troposphere isn't the globe.
And, it turns out that Peter Thorne comment was quite dated. After some buoy and satellite calibration issues were sorted out, turns out the tropical troposphere is indeed warming as theory predicted.
From Wikipedia, Global Warming:
Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements.
From Wikipedia, Global Warming Controversy
Instrumental record of tropospheric temperature
General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. A 2006 report to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program noted that models and observations agreed on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled this discrepancy: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.[117] Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature", leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.[118]
Forest needed to cover carbon footprint of icy rescue - National - NZ Herald News
Forest needed to cover carbon footprint of icy rescue
The expedition had pledged to plant about 800 kauri trees in Northland to cover its carbon footprint. Environmentalists believe planting trees helps to offset the impact of burning fuels such as diesel.
But former Act Party leader and Herald on Sunday columnist Mr Hide said that would have to increase to about 5000 trees to make up for the fossil fuels burned in the rescue. Mr Hide said he had come to that figure using online carbon calculators, but admitted he'd had to make some assumptions.
Expedition leader Chris Turney said more trees would be needed than earlier estimated but he was yet to work out how many.
OK --- NOW!
