So, if sea levels are rising....why is this happening?

[itfitzme]

While the correlation between atmospheric increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 -- The higher the rs value the greater the correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11 and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation.

You missed a decimal point in the r^2 for TSI.

The r^2 value is the pecentage of the dependent viable that is accounted for by the independent variable. There is no question that solar irradiance accounts for a larger percentage of the earths temperature. The PDO also has a marked effect on the the land ocean temperature.

Nobody has ever claimed that the earth temperature isn't substantially caused by then. You seem to be missing the point.

The correlation of TSI is not 100%. Nor does TSI and PDO account for all of it and none of the temperature rise.

The big problems with your r^2 values is

A) r, the coefficient of correlation, and the r^2 value are always between 0 and 1. An "r2=>70" is not possible.

B) When a multivariate regression is done, the sum of all the r^ values cannot add up to greater than 1. There more than 100% of something.

C). An r^ of 0.44 for CO2 would be that 44% of the variability in temperature is accounted for by CO2. 44% is, in no case, poor. 44% is damn near half.

And proof on how the AGW cult will manipulate data to prove their religion.

Almost all evidence for man-caused global warming originates with eight climate change models called global climate models or GCMs. These are very sophisticated models, so sophisticated that they have to be run on super computers. However, the modelers are not climate scientists and have to get all their information from climate scientists. The modelers also admit that although they use thousands of variables in their models, those variables make up less than half of all the variables that impact climate. Not only that, every one of these models is based on the premise that CO2 warming must occur physically in a certain way, a way that is now proven not to be what has actually happened. The earth did not warm in the twentieth century like these models said it must.

In other words, you really have no clue what you are talking about and the "r^2>70" wasn't a typo. You simply don't know what the coefficient of correlation and the r^2 values mean.

Basically, you're just a bullshitter. You're a buffoon without a clue.

Come back when you know what your talking about.

 

[itfitzme]

While the correlation between atmospheric increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 -- The higher the rs value the greater the correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11 and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation.

You missed a decimal point in the r^2 for TSI.

The r^2 value is the pecentage of the dependent viable that is accounted for by the independent variable. There is no question that solar irradiance accounts for a larger percentage of the earths temperature. The PDO also has a marked effect on the the land ocean temperature.

Nobody has ever claimed that the earth temperature isn't substantially caused by then. You seem to be missing the point.

The correlation of TSI is not 100%. Nor does TSI and PDO account for all of it and none of the temperature rise.

The big problems with your r^2 values is

A) r, the coefficient of correlation, and the r^2 value are always between 0 and 1. An "r2=>70" is not possible.

B) When a multivariate regression is done, the sum of all the r^ values cannot add up to greater than 1. There more than 100% of something.

C). An r^ of 0.44 for CO2 would be that 44% of the variability in temperature is accounted for by CO2. 44% is, in no case, poor. 44% is damn near half.

And proof on how the AGW cult will manipulate data to prove their religion.

Almost all evidence for man-caused global warming originates with eight climate change models called global climate models or GCMs. These are very sophisticated models, so sophisticated that they have to be run on super computers. However, the modelers are not climate scientists and have to get all their information from climate scientists. The modelers also admit that although they use thousands of variables in their models, those variables make up less than half of all the variables that impact climate. Not only that, every one of these models is based on the premise that CO2 warming must occur physically in a certain way, a way that is now proven not to be what has actually happened. The earth did not warm in the twentieth century like these models said it must.

No, dipshit. The evidence originates from the temperature of the earth.

Have you seen this graph?

Maybe I can put it in terms you understand. You know how when you don't feel good, your mommy sticks a thermometer in your but? She's taking your temperature so she can see can tell how you are. Well, the Earth's doctors work at NASA and they took the Earth's temperature and now know th Earth is sick.

See how the wiggly line goes up? That is called "warming".

You are pretty typical though, when your bullshit fails, you trot out even more bullshit.

 

[Crick]

The title of that wee graph is "A Sun-Greenland Coincidence", not sun- global temperatures.

 

[Kosh]

You missed a decimal point in the r^2 for TSI.

The r^2 value is the pecentage of the dependent viable that is accounted for by the independent variable. There is no question that solar irradiance accounts for a larger percentage of the earths temperature. The PDO also has a marked effect on the the land ocean temperature.

Nobody has ever claimed that the earth temperature isn't substantially caused by then. You seem to be missing the point.

The correlation of TSI is not 100%. Nor does TSI and PDO account for all of it and none of the temperature rise.

The big problems with your r^2 values is

A) r, the coefficient of correlation, and the r^2 value are always between 0 and 1. An "r2=>70" is not possible.

B) When a multivariate regression is done, the sum of all the r^ values cannot add up to greater than 1. There more than 100% of something.

C). An r^ of 0.44 for CO2 would be that 44% of the variability in temperature is accounted for by CO2. 44% is, in no case, poor. 44% is damn near half.

And proof on how the AGW cult will manipulate data to prove their religion.

Almost all evidence for man-caused global warming originates with eight climate change models called global climate models or GCMs. These are very sophisticated models, so sophisticated that they have to be run on super computers. However, the modelers are not climate scientists and have to get all their information from climate scientists. The modelers also admit that although they use thousands of variables in their models, those variables make up less than half of all the variables that impact climate. Not only that, every one of these models is based on the premise that CO2 warming must occur physically in a certain way, a way that is now proven not to be what has actually happened. The earth did not warm in the twentieth century like these models said it must.

No, dipshit. The evidence originates from the temperature of the earth.

Have you seen this graph?

Maybe I can put it in terms you understand. You know how when you don't feel good, your mommy sticks a thermometer in your but? She's taking your temperature so she can see can tell how you are. Well, the Earth's doctors work at NASA and they took the Earth's temperature and now know th Earth is sick.

See how the wiggly line goes up? That is called "warming".

You are pretty typical though, when your bullshit fails, you trot out even more bullshit.

The ironic comments from the AGW cult!

Have you seen this graph:

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

AGW cult trumped by real science once again, but I am sure the AGW cult will post more scripture.

 

[itfitzme]

And proof on how the AGW cult will manipulate Gdata to prove their religion.

Almost all evidence for man-caused global warming originates with eight climate change models called global climate models or GCMs. These are very sophisticated models, so sophisticated that they have to be run on super computers. However, the modelers are not climate scientists and have to get all their information from climate scientists. The modelers also admit that although they use thousands of variables in their models, those variables make up less than half of all the variables that impact climate. Not only that, every one of these models is based on the premise that CO2 warming must occur physically in a certain way, a way that is now proven not to be what has actually happened. The earth did not warm in the twentieth century like these models said it must.

No, dipshit. The evidence originates from the temperature of the earth.

Have you seen this graph?

Maybe I can put it in terms you understand. You know how when you don't feel good, your mommy sticks a thermometer in your but? She's taking your temperature so she can see can tell how you are. Well, the Earth's doctors work at NASA and they took the Earth's temperature and now know th Earth is sick.

See how the wiggly line goes up? That is called "warming".

You are pretty typical though, when your bullshit fails, you trot out even more bullshit.

The ironic comments from the AGW cult!

Have you seen this graph:

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

AGW cult trumped by real science once again, but I am sure the AGW cult will post more scripture.

Who gives a shit anymore. You've already proven that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Kosh]

No, dipshit. The evidence originates from the temperature of the earth.

Have you seen this graph?

Maybe I can put it in terms you understand. You know how when you don't feel good, your mommy sticks a thermometer in your but? She's taking your temperature so she can see can tell how you are. Well, the Earth's doctors work at NASA and they took the Earth's temperature and now know th Earth is sick.

See how the wiggly line goes up? That is called "warming".

You are pretty typical though, when your bullshit fails, you trot out even more bullshit.

The ironic comments from the AGW cult!

Have you seen this graph:

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

AGW cult trumped by real science once again, but I am sure the AGW cult will post more scripture.

Who gives a shit anymore. You've already proven that you don't know what you're talking about.

More ironic comments from the AGW cult!

You can not defend you religion with actual science that is not my problem.

Just to annoy the AGW cult

...snip...

Besides moving toward a more accurate temperature record, the best thing about all this hoopla over the USHCN data set is the Polifact story where we have all these experts lined up (including me as the token skeptic) that stated without a doubt that Goddard was wrong and rated the claim “pants of fire”.

They’ll all be eating some crow, as will I, but now that I have Gavin for dinner company, I don’t really mind at all.

When the scientific method is at work, eventually, everybody eats crow. The trick is to be able to eat it and tell people that you are honestly enjoying it, because crow is so popular, it is on the science menu daily

The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?

 

[mamooth]

Have you seen this graph?

Yes. Given it's one single spot on the earth, it means very little. Do we really need to explain to you what the word "global" means?

So, part one of your fallacy have been exposed.

Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

Incorrect. That could only be said for a single point at Vostok. "The earth" is something entirely different, and your kook website is really stupid for claiming that Vostok represents the whole earth.

What's more, we know the Holocene Optimum was warm. Thing is, natural cycles have been driving cooling ever since, and natural factors are still driving cooling now. It's only our unnatural emissions of greenhouse gases that have tipped the balance to fast warming.

(Kosh, this is where you fling an insult, squeal and run. Like you always do, so go on.)

(And again, unattributed cut-and-pastes are against board rules. You know this, but you still keep doing it.)

 

[itfitzme]

The ironic comments from the AGW cult!

Have you seen this graph:

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

AGW cult trumped by real science once again, but I am sure the AGW cult will post more scripture.

Who gives a shit anymore. You've already proven that you don't know what you're talking about.

More ironic comments from the AGW cult!

You can not defend you religion with actual science that is not my problem.

Just to annoy the AGW cult

...snip...

Besides moving toward a more accurate temperature record, the best thing about all this hoopla over the USHCN data set is the Polifact story where we have all these experts lined up (including me as the token skeptic) that stated without a doubt that Goddard was wrong and rated the claim “pants of fire”.

They’ll all be eating some crow, as will I, but now that I have Gavin for dinner company, I don’t really mind at all.

When the scientific method is at work, eventually, everybody eats crow. The trick is to be able to eat it and tell people that you are honestly enjoying it, because crow is so popular, it is on the science menu daily

The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?

Wow, you memorized some more sciency sounding stuff. Ohh, "temperature record", " scientific method". "data". Please tell us more about r^2 values greater than 1.

I gotnq talking parrot that uses the same words.

To bad you don't have a clue what they mean.

 

[Kosh]

Have you seen this graph?

Yes. Given it's one single spot on the earth, it means very little. Do we really need to explain to you what the word "global" means?

So, part one of your fallacy have been exposed.

Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

Incorrect. That could only be said for a single point at Vostok. "The earth" is something entirely different, and your kook website is really stupid for claiming that Vostok represents the whole earth.

What's more, we know the Holocene Optimum was warm. Thing is, natural cycles have been driving cooling ever since, and natural factors are still driving cooling now. It's only our unnatural emissions of greenhouse gases that have tipped the balance to fast warming.

(Kosh, this is where you fling an insult, squeal and run. Like you always do, so go on.)

(And again, unattributed cut-and-pastes are against board rules. You know this, but you still keep doing it.)

See the AGW cult proves that religion trumps science.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

This chart shows that the whole AGW religion is bunk!

(I have a thread where this information comes from I will keep it bumped so the AGW cult will be satisfied).

(Abe or what ever name he is using now, is violating board rules now, so why not get on him).

 

[Crick]

Studies of the Holocene by Shakun and Marcott, where they DID look at global proxies, found no period that exceeded current global temperatures. Your standard denier denial will be that his chronological resolution was inadequate. Unfortunately for you, that only applies if you can come up with some sort of natural phenomenon that would raise temperatures as they are currently raised and then take them back down, all in less than 300 years without showing on any of 73 different proxy records.

 

[asterism]

Studies of the Holocene by Shakun and Marcott, where they DID look at global proxies, found no period that exceeded current global temperatures. Your standard denier denial will be that his chronological resolution was inadequate. Unfortunately for you, that only applies if you can come up with some sort of natural phenomenon that would raise temperatures as they are currently raised and then take them back down, all in less than 300 years without showing on any of 73 different proxy records.

"It must be true because you can't find any proof that it isn't."

That sounds a lot like Galileo's critics before his Dialogue was properly digested and eventually proven to be correct.

That said, even brilliant Scientists make mistakes. Galileo was wrong when it came to tides.

NOVA | Galileo's Big Mistake


As I have said previously, I do not think that the highly intelligent Climatologists are part of some conspiracy. I just think that they are wrong, unqualified to analyze data objectively, and subject to groupthink. History is filled with brilliant Scientists that were wrong, but that doesn't discount their work nor their research.

It's time to put egos aside and figure out a sensible way to deal with pollution. Let's start with the carcinogens and put CO2 on the back burner for awhile. And while we're at it, let's subsidize desalinization instead of all this AGW nonsense. If the goal is to save lives and prosper as a species, tapping the oceans for drinking water should be a higher priority than than banning Camaros.

 

[Crick]

I think you've got things turned around. YOU (or the posters you're supporting) are contending that temperature patterns such as we are currently experiencing globally have occurred before based on a single, localized record (the Vostok ice core). I am presenting you two global studies covering the previous 22,000 years, that do NOT find evidence for such events. This DOES suggest that the balance of evidence supports the view that such events simply did not take place. When YOU have more evidence that they did, feel free to show it to us.

 

[Crick]

And as far as climate scientists go, conceding that they are not all amoral liars and cheats is more than a little meaningless given your alternative presumption that they are all incompetent. The problem isn't the specific characteristic you assign them, but that you assign a specific characteristic to all of them based on their membership in a group. It's exactly as biased as saying all Republicans are bigots, all bankers are thieves or all blacks are lazy. And exactly as incorrect.

 

[asterism]

And as far as climate scientists go, conceding that they are not all amoral liars and cheats is more than a little meaningless given your alternative presumption that they are all incompetent. The problem isn't the specific characteristic you assign them, but that you assign a specific characteristic to all of them based on their membership in a group. It's exactly as biased as saying all Republicans are bigots, all bankers are thieves or all blacks are lazy. And exactly as incorrect.

It would be interesting to see how many climatologists have actually viewed the raw temperature data from 1880 to 1979. I find it funny that you still think this is irrelevant.

 

[Kosh]

I think you've got things turned around. YOU (or the posters you're supporting) are contending that temperature patterns such as we are currently experiencing globally have occurred before based on a single, localized record (the Vostok ice core). I am presenting you two global studies covering the previous 22,000 years, that do NOT find evidence for such events. This DOES suggest that the balance of evidence supports the view that such events simply did not take place. When YOU have more evidence that they did, feel free to show it to us.

Yet you post a CO2 chart on another thread which is taken from that area with altered data by those that wanted more grant money and to increase their book sales and demand more at AGW conferences.

James Hansen charges $30,000 per 30 minutes.

 

[itfitzme]

Studies of the Holocene by Shakun and Marcott, where they DID look at global proxies, found no period that exceeded current global temperatures. Your standard denier denial will be that his chronological resolution was inadequate. Unfortunately for you, that only applies if you can come up with some sort of natural phenomenon that would raise temperatures as they are currently raised and then take them back down, all in less than 300 years without showing on any of 73 different proxy records.

"It must be true because you can't find any proof that it isn't."

That sounds a lot like Galileo's critics before his Dialogue was properly digested and eventually proven to be correct.

That said, even brilliant Scientists make mistakes. Galileo was wrong when it came to tides.

NOVA | Galileo's Big Mistake


As I have said previously, I do not think that the highly intelligent Climatologists are part of some conspiracy. I just think that they are wrong, unqualified to analyze data objectively, and subject to groupthink. History is filled with brilliant Scientists that were wrong, but that doesn't discount their work nor their research.

It's time to put egos aside and figure out a sensible way to deal with pollution. Let's start with the carcinogens and put CO2 on the back burner for awhile. And while we're at it, let's subsidize desalinization instead of all this AGW nonsense. If the goal is to save lives and prosper as a species, tapping the oceans for drinking water should be a higher priority than than banning Camaros.

And Einstein was exactly correct.