Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Crick]

Incorrect. Temperature and co2 doesn't work like that. Doubling co2 doesn't double the temperature.

Can you not read?

Crick said:

Doubling CO2 will raise temperatures ~3C. That IS what the logarithmic relationship tells us.

 

[jc456]

Incorrect. Temperature and co2 doesn't work like that. Doubling co2 doesn't double the temperature.

He doesn’t understand there’s no correlation

 

[jc456]

Can you not read?

Crick said:

Doubling CO2 will raise temperatures ~3C. That IS what the logarithmic relationship tells us.

Prove it , we’re still waiting. Now five years

 

[ReinyDays]

He doesn’t understand there’s no correlation

She doesn't understand temperature ...

 

[Crick]

He doesn’t understand there’s no correlation

Are you suggesting there is nor correlation between CO2 and temperature?

 

[jc456]

Are you suggesting there is nor correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Correct. Why don’t you prove co2 causes a change in temperature!! Five years bubba, bubkist

 

[ReinyDays]

Are you suggesting there is nor correlation between CO2 and temperature?

How are you defining correlation? ... for the simple up-or-down we only have a 58% correlation, where coin flipping gives a 50% correlation ... we have 100% correlation with human population growth and CO2 emissions ... more humans, more energy, more by-products of energy; so theoretically sound ...

You were told there was a correlation ... but you can't explain why CO2 and temperature are correlated ... not without understanding temperature ... or correlation ...

 

[mamooth]

How are you defining correlation? ... for the simple up-or-down we only have a 58% correlation,

That's not how correlation is stated. Where do you get this stuff?

From 1980 on, we see a correlation there that I'd eyeball as being around +0.7. ("0" is no correlation, "+1.0" is perfect correlation, "-1.0" is perfect negative correlation.) That is, it's a strong and obvious correlation.

You were told there was a correlation ...

No, we can look at a graph and instantly see the strong correlation.

but you can't explain why CO2 and temperature are correlated ...

Sure we can. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Where have you been the past few decades?

 

[Crick]

How are you defining correlation? ... for the simple up-or-down we only have a 58% correlation, where coin flipping gives a 50% correlation ... we have 100% correlation with human population growth and CO2 emissions ... more humans, more energy, more by-products of energy; so theoretically sound ...

You were told there was a correlation ... but you can't explain why CO2 and temperature are correlated ... not without understanding temperature ... or correlation ...

My god you are stupid.

Correlation​

What is correlation?​

Correlation is a statistical measure that expresses the extent to which two variables are linearly related (meaning they change together at a constant rate). It’s a common tool for describing simple relationships without making a statement about cause and effect.

How is correlation measured?​

The sample correlation coefficient, r, quantifies the strength of the relationship. Correlations are also tested for statistical significance.

What are some limitations of correlation analysis?​

Correlation can’t look at the presence or effect of other variables outside of the two being explored. Importantly, correlation doesn’t tell us about cause and effect. Correlation also cannot accurately describe curvilinear relationships.

Correlation

Correlation is a statistical measure that expresses the extent to which two variables change together at a constant rate.

www.jmp.com

If you want to see the formulae available for calculating correlation coefficients, go to the link

There is a correlation between temperature and CO2 due to the greenhouse effect and the temperature dependence of gas solubility in water. You knew that and you knew that I knew that. So, once again, you've chosen to willfully lie. You may well be the most frequent liar on this forum.

 

[jc456]

That's not how correlation is stated. Where do you get this stuff?

From 1980 on, we see a correlation there that I'd eyeball as being around +0.7. ("0" is no correlation, "+1.0" is perfect correlation, "-1.0" is perfect negative correlation.) That is, it's a strong and obvious correlation.

explain how that is correlation?

 

[Crick]

explain how that is correlation?

Correlation

Correlation is a statistical measure that expresses the extent to which two variables change together at a constant rate.

www.jmp.com

 

[ReinyDays]

"Correlation can’t look at the presence or effect of other variables outside of the two being explored. Importantly, correlation doesn’t tell us about cause and effect. Correlation also cannot accurately describe curvilinear relationships."

Here's Chick's and Mammory's mistake ... they don't allow water vapor to be a greenhouse gas ... we need a third axis for humidity, a fourth axis for pressure, and fifth axis for wind speed etc etc etc ...

Stupid shits don't know what "curvilinear" means ...

=====

That's not how correlation is stated. Where do you get this stuff?

From 1980 on, we see a correlation there that I'd eyeball as being around +0.7. ("0" is no correlation, "+1.0" is perfect correlation, "-1.0" is perfect negative correlation.) That is, it's a strong and obvious correlation.

No, we can look at a graph and instantly see the strong correlation.


Sure we can. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Where have you been the past few decades?

Did you pull 0.7 out of your ass or something? ... where'd yo get this number, let's see your math ...

Here's Chick's definition from his link: "1] A positive result if both values increase together and 2] a negative result if one value increases while the other decreases ... you know, exactly like I specified in my claim, a simple up or down ... the difference is the link scales correlation from -1 to +1 (such that coin flipping is 0 correlation), whereas I have been as scaling from 0 to +1 (as I stated, coin flipping would be 0.5) ... so sue me ...

I can cherry-pick too ... 1940-1980 shows a negative correlation ... as it was a period of global cooling, in spite increasing carbon dioxide levels you had Donald Trump draw in the chart with his Sharpie ... the Keeling data starts in 1958 dear heart ...

Yes ... carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas ... and it's important to know why it behaves the way it does ... something your Middle School definition of "hotness" and "coldness" will not provide ...

You posted this twice "Correlation can’t look at the presence or effect of other variables outside of the two being explored. Importantly, correlation doesn’t tell us about cause and effect. Correlation also cannot accurately describe curvilinear relationships." ... humidity, pressure, winds and precipitation are all critically important ...

Once again ... you've posted a link that confirms my claims ... carbon dioxide only has a trivial effect on temperature, which in turn only has a trivial effect on climate ... you don't have the balls to condemn Hamas, or the Oil Money that funds their terror ..

 

[Crick]

"Correlation can’t look at the presence or effect of other variables outside of the two being explored. Importantly, correlation doesn’t tell us about cause and effect. Correlation also cannot accurately describe curvilinear relationships."

Here's Chick's and Mammory's mistake ... they don't allow water vapor to be a greenhouse gas ... we need a third axis for humidity, a fourth axis for pressure, and fifth axis for wind speed etc etc etc ...

Stupid shits don't know what "curvilinear" means ...

=====


Did you pull 0.7 out of your ass or something? ... where'd yo get this number, let's see your math ...

Here's Chick's definition from his link: "1] A positive result if both values increase together and 2] a negative result if one value increases while the other decreases ... you know, exactly like I specified in my claim, a simple up or down ... the difference is the link scales correlation from -1 to +1 (such that coin flipping is 0 correlation), whereas I have been as scaling from 0 to +1 (as I stated, coin flipping would be 0.5) ... so sue me ...

I can cherry-pick too ... 1940-1980 shows a negative correlation ... as it was a period of global cooling, in spite increasing carbon dioxide levels you had Donald Trump draw in the chart with his Sharpie ... the Keeling data starts in 1958 dear heart ...

Yes ... carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas ... and it's important to know why it behaves the way it does ... something your Middle School definition of "hotness" and "coldness" will not provide ...

You posted this twice "Correlation can’t look at the presence or effect of other variables outside of the two being explored. Importantly, correlation doesn’t tell us about cause and effect. Correlation also cannot accurately describe curvilinear relationships." ... humidity, pressure, winds and precipitation are all critically important ...

Once again ... you've posted a link that confirms my claims ... carbon dioxide only has a trivial effect on temperature, which in turn only has a trivial effect on climate ... you don't have the balls to condemn Hamas, or the Oil Money that funds their terror ..

Interesting how nuanced has become your understanding after one article.

 

[ding]

Interesting how nuanced has become your understanding after one article.

Your response to his understanding is more interesting.

 

[ReinyDays]

Interesting how nuanced has become your understanding after one article.

That's the nature of formal education ... correlation is a well-worn path in science ... anyone familiar to the natural sciences are well informed about such statistical gyrations ...

The surprise to me was your article claims there is no "correlation" between human population growth and CO2 concentrations, as this gives a correlation coefficient of +1.0 ... which is an error ... since this is, in fact, cause-and-effect ...

And it still remains, for the CAUSE of enormous amounts of carbon dioxide emissions, we have the EFFECT of trivial temperature increase ... as is calculated from SB ... and that 2ºC is indeed a trivial temperature increase, which is all that the IPCC's RPC4.5 scenario predicts by Year 2120 ... 3ºC by Year 2420 ...

[yawn] ... better to keep Oil Money from buying Hamas more rockets ... your little girl skirt clutching act is wearing thin ...

 

[Crick]

And it still remains, for the CAUSE of enormous amounts of carbon dioxide emissions, we have the EFFECT of trivial temperature increase ... as is calculated from SB ... and that 2ºC is indeed a trivial temperature increase, which is all that the IPCC's RPC4.5 scenario predicts by Year 2120 ... 3ºC by Year 2420 ...

The problem here is the person choosing the term "trivial".

Regards your fixation on SB, are you familiar with the term "One Trick Pony"?

 

[ReinyDays]

The problem here is the person choosing the term "trivial".

Regards your fixation on SB, are you familiar with the term "One Trick Pony"?

Oh ... then how else do you model surface temperature ... I 'm afraid your middle school definition of temperature doesn't fit adult understanding of the science involved ...

We shine a light on an opaque surface and the surface warms up ... that's as far as your understanding goes ... this is the "warmness" in your definition of temperature ... that's all children need to know ... "the stove burner is HOT, don't touch" ...

We use SB to quantify this system ... HOW MUCH does the surface warm up? ... and that's why we use the kinetic energy definition of temperature

Stupid ... you don't know what light is? ...

You think Physics 101 is a one trick pony because you never passed that class ... all you saw was F = m dv/dt and ran away crying ...

ETA: Triviality is judged first by existing error ... we measure global temperatures to the nearest degree Celsius ... thus a degree Celsius temperature rise is the bare minimum that can be truthfully said ... if you show up 287 seconds early, and your date is 1 second late ... is that a deal breaker? ... I say no, he's on time ... a single second, or a single degree, is trivial ...

 

[jc456]

Correlation

Correlation is a statistical measure that expresses the extent to which two variables change together at a constant rate.

www.jmp.com

But they don’t. Post a graph that shows every change is the same. You can’t

 

[ReinyDays]

But they don’t. Post a graph that shows every change is the same. You can’t

That link to correlation clearly states we don't use this when there's cause-and-effect ... we can twist the data into any kind of statistical statement we want ... easy ... explaining the physics in science's concern ... and without felony violations of the laws of physics ...

Energy causes hurricanes ... very very funny ...

 

[jc456]

That link to correlation clearly states we don't use this when there's cause-and-effect ... we can twist the data into any kind of statistical statement we want ... easy ... explaining the physics in science's concern ... and without felony violations of the laws of physics ...

Energy causes hurricanes ... very very funny ...

visually, there isn't one graph that both items go together. No where.