How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?


Methodology Data Collection Figure 1 of this indicator reports on the amount of heat stored in the ocean from sea level to a depth of 700 meters, which accounts for approximately 17.5 percent of the total global ocean volume (calculation from Catia Domingues, CSIRO). Figure 2 reports on the amount of heat stored to a depth of 2,000 meters, which accounts for approximately 48.5 percent of the total global ocean volume (calculation from Catia Domingues, CSIRO). Each of the studies used to develop this indicator uses several ocean temperature profile data sets to calculate an ocean heat content trend line. Several different devices are used to sample temperature profiles in the ocean. Primary methods used to collect data for this indicator include XBT; mechanical bathythermographs (MBT); Argo profiling floats; reversing thermometers; and conductivity, temperature, and depth sensors (CTD). These instruments produce temperature profile measurements of the ocean water column by recording data on temperature and depth. The exact methods used to record temperature and depth vary. For instance, XBTs use a fall rate equation to determine depth, whereas other devices measure depth directly.
And what are you trying to say here?
 
I already posted it once. Find my post or find the data yourself. It didn't take me 30 seconds.
No you didn’t, you wrote about heat content silly, not temperature. I called you for it, and you did your usual you’re too good post
 
No you didn’t, you wrote about heat content silly, not temperature. I called you for it, and you did your usual you’re too good post
It's not that I'm too good, it's that you're just too-o-o-o-o-o-o fucking stupid.
 
Same with most theories including the Big Bang and old universe theories. I call them “fuzzy words.” “If” “May” “Might Be” “Could Be”
The rest of the world understands why the natural sciences use those terms. You might try to catch up.
 
The rest of the world understands why the natural sciences use those terms. You might try to catch up.
Yes they do know how to pull the wool over the eyes of those easily fooled. Fuzzy Words are used to cover up the missing facts to settle science. Foolish Crick.
 
Crawfishing? No one else uses that term in this context.

How much scatter is there? What is its annualized SD? How much scatter do you think there should have been? But, I didn't collect it. NOAA did. If you have any questions, ask NOAA.
What is the correlation of fit?
 
What is the correlation of fit?
You have the data. If you want that parameter, calculate. I'm not here to make your case. Several experts sources indicate that the correlation coefficient between temperature and CO2 is on the order of 0.89. You've claimed there's no correlation at all. The cross plot you suggested I make certainly shows a strong correlation. Help yourself.
 
You have the data. If you want that parameter, calculate. I'm not here to make your case. Several experts sources indicate that the correlation coefficient between temperature and CO2 is on the order of 0.89. You've claimed there's no correlation at all. The cross plot you suggested I make certainly shows a strong correlation. Help yourself.
Just say you don't know.
 
I gave you a fucking value. YOU are the one that appears unable to calculate what you want. You've never had a single class in statistics, have you.
I never saw it. Most people readily provide the equation and the fit. Takes less than 10 seconds. I don't recall learning how to curve fit in statistics. I learned it in an engineering class. Maybe that's why you are incapable of providing any of it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top