The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[PMZ]

I see. Your definition of a successful government is one that can destroy its citizenry at will. Good to know....

In today's world, any country that is to maintain it's place in the world must be strong enough militarily to prevent being taken over by others. Or so undesirable in location and wealth that nobody would benefit from taking them over.

Apparently your idea is that any country strong enough to survive will turn on itself and conquer it's own populace. Of course, that brings up the question of why?

Americans are fortunate to have the military strong enough to resist all outside threats, with a Constitution and democracy that makes the government a tool of the people rather than vice versa.

Not to say that there are no threats. The biggest one of course is represented by people like you. People whose minds have been bought by a minority of Americans, through media, in an attempt to compromise American democracy by allowing the few to obtain the votes of the many through the use of propaganda (or it's politically correct name, advertising).

Democracy has one protection against that, education, the informed electorate. Apparently, in the past, we've been only marginally effective at keeping education ahead of the threat.

Will we be able to improve that marginal performance to a level of robustness that keeps democracy safe?

Americans hope so. Those conspiring to turn our democracy into a plutocracy hope not.

We will see.

North Korea is incapable of providing enough food for its own people. NK is also incapable of fending off an attack from South Korea if they chose to attack so it fails that test of yours as well. Our REPUBLIC was turned into a plutocracy when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. It just takes time to subvert a Constitutional Republic. That was the intent of our Founding Fathers.

The Democratic Party is destroying this country at 100 MPH while the Republicans are doing it at 75 MPH. Not too much of a choice, but there still IS a choice. Under your rules the PEOPLE will have NO choice.

Which clearly is how you want it. So...how does your government differ from a plutocracy?

The founders designed a plutocracy of white wealthy Christian males. 150 years later we had followed their Constitutional process and ammended it to become a democracy by granting universal suffrage. A "Republic" is a government without a monarch. I personally don't see that aspect ever changing as long as we prevent people like you from being led by your cult to bring it about.

 

[PMZ]

"how does your government differ from a plutocracy?"

Democracy is government of, by, and for the people. All of the people.

Plutocracy is government of, by, and for some of the people. In the case of those creating your cult, the very wealthy.

 

[itfitzme]

The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.

 

[prepster]

The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.

^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread

 

[itfitzme]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

It's a bit better than that on the correlation and causality thing. Correlation and causation aren't mutually exclusive. If A causes B and B is correlated to A at an R^2 of 76.4% , then A is causing 76.4% of B. And as atmospheric CO2 does cause global temperature increase, as demonstrated by Beer-Lambert, then the correlation is causal. It then becomes a matter of figuring out what the rest is or, if the absorbtion physics indicatea it should be more, what's offsetting it.

It's like if my radiator is losing fluid and there is a leak in the hose, I know that the hose is causing the loss of fluid. If the fluid loss from the hose isn't sufficient to account for all the fluid loss from the radiator, there must be another leak.

So yeah, what you said. I'm just tightening up "we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. " It just seems to imply that the correlation doesn't prove the causality. It really is that it takes correlation and a mechanism together to prove causality.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

I'll buy most of that.. Makes you a "moderate" Neanderthal Climate Change denier..
You should have fun being so rational and open-minded here.. Good luck..

Welcome...

 

[prepster]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

It's a bit better than that on the correlation and causality thing. Correlation and causation aren't mutually exclusive. If A causes B and B is correlated to A at an R^2 of 76.4% , then A is causing 76.4% of B. And as atmospheric CO2 does cause global temperature increase, as demonstrated by Beer-Lambert, then the correlation is causal. It then becomes a matter of figuring out what the rest is or, if the absorbtion physics indicatea it should be more, what's offsetting it.

It's like if my radiator is losing fluid and there is a leak in the hose, I know that the hose is causing the loss of fluid. If the fluid loss from the hose isn't sufficient to account for all the fluid loss from the radiator, there must be another leak.

So yeah, what you said. I'm just tightening up "we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. " It just seems to imply that the correlation doesn't prove the causality. It really is that it takes correlation and a mechanism together to prove causality.

R^2 is the coefficient of determination. It is a measurement for the prediction of future outcomes or the testing of hypotheses. Scientifically speaking, we cannot definitively, as in one-hundred percent, prove that the dependence of two or more variables in a climate change model effect global warming. We can, however, get pretty damn close, so our R^2 value should be rather large and robust, but because anything outside of set mathematical models are imperfect, we must almost account for exogenous factors (lets use this term for things not known within the models rather than, say, not within the models in general), hence why our understanding of GW is true but incomplete.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

It's a bit better than that on the correlation and causality thing. Correlation and causation aren't mutually exclusive. If A causes B and B is correlated to A at an R^2 of 76.4% , then A is causing 76.4% of B. And as atmospheric CO2 does cause global temperature increase, as demonstrated by Beer-Lambert, then the correlation is causal. It then becomes a matter of figuring out what the rest is or, if the absorbtion physics indicatea it should be more, what's offsetting it.

It's like if my radiator is losing fluid and there is a leak in the hose, I know that the hose is causing the loss of fluid. If the fluid loss from the hose isn't sufficient to account for all the fluid loss from the radiator, there must be another leak.

So yeah, what you said. I'm just tightening up "we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. " It just seems to imply that the correlation doesn't prove the causality. It really is that it takes correlation and a mechanism together to prove causality.

Following a post like that is like being the marching band behind the Sheriff's Mounted Police Patrol.. Without the brooms and the shovels in between.. We're talking piles of horseshit... How's your acting career coming guy???

 

[prepster]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

I'll buy most of that.. Makes you a "moderate" Neanderthal Climate Change denier..
You should have fun being so rational and open-minded here.. Good luck..

Welcome...

I accept the current report of the IPCC. I just know that recent models that have come out are showing new developments and are uncovering new factors that we do not fully comprehend just yet, but we will as more robust studies are carried out.

 

[itfitzme]

The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.

^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

 

[prepster]

The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.

^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. Just saying. As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history. I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.

 

[flacaltenn]

The single greatest threat to democracy is an erosion of access to voting.

^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

It's not happening Clyde.. Not working at all....

WHAT did you correlate? Where is the data?

What is the error on your linear fit to that scattergram of CO2 v Temp? Rsq variance? Did you try higher order fits?

Give it up -- it ain't even amusing anymore...

 

[itfitzme]

^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. *We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. *It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. *The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. *Just saying.

That's cool. It's a) a general audience forum b) it is personally worth the repitition.

With so much involve in AWG, and not being a climatologist, finding something definative and as simple as possible has been tricky. *Are the temp and CO2 measures accurate and precise enough? *Does the correlation demonstrate causality? *Do all the other issues raised have merit? *How good is that regression fit in predicting future outcome?

Beyond that, I just see the IPCC as a black box. *Data goes in and out pops a prediction model. *It is interesting seeing how good their fit is.

The rest is just so much noise. (i.e. Hansen is.... Gore is ....)

 

[prepster]

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. *We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. *It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. *The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. *Just saying.

That's cool. It's a) a general audience forum b) it is personally worth the repitition.

With so much involve in AWG, and not being a climatologist, finding something definative and as simple as possible has been tricky. *Are the temp and CO2 measures accurate and precise enough? *Does the correlation demonstrate causality? *Do all the other issues raised have merit? *How good is that regression fit in predicting future outcome?

Beyond that, I just see the IPCC as a black box. *Data goes in and out pops a prediction model. *It is interesting seeing how good their fit is.

The rest is just so much noise. (i.e. Hansen is.... Gore is ....)

I agree and understand. Personally, I absolutely hate the talking heads attempting to simplify but also sensationalize the global warming/climate change discussion and debate. I do not need a shock and awe campaign to conclude that global warming/climate change is something that must be mitigated. That is why Al Gore, in my opinion, has no authority analyzing models and making prognostications from them, and that is why he suffered utter pwnage when he was forced to rescind some of the predictions he made. Leave the science to the scientists, and the activism to the activists. If you are a skeptic on the science behind something, research it for yourself, but do so through rigorous study, not unintelligent say so and heuristic-like deductive reasoning.

 

[itfitzme]

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. *Just saying.

That's cool. It's a) a general audience forum b) it is personally worth the repitition.

With so much involve in AWG, and not being a climatologist, finding something definative and as simple as possible has been tricky. *Are the temp and CO2 measures accurate and precise enough? *Does the correlation demonstrate causality? *Do all the other issues raised have merit? *How good is that regression fit in predicting future outcome?

Beyond that, I just see the IPCC as a black box. *Data goes in and out pops a prediction model. *It is interesting seeing how good their fit is.

The rest is just so much noise. (i.e. Hansen is.... Gore is ....)

I agree and understand. Personally, I absolutely hate the talking heads attempting to simplify but also sensationalize the global warming/climate change discussion and debate. I do not need a shock and awe campaign to conclude that global warming/climate change is something that must be mitigated. That is why Al Gore, in my opinion, has no authority analyzing models and making prognostications from them, and that is why he suffered utter pwnage when he was forced to rescind some of the predictions he made. Leave the science to the scientists, and the activism to the activists. If you are a skeptic on the science behind something, research it for yourself, but do so through rigorous study, not unintelligent say so and heuristic-like deductive reasoning.

Someone has to do the promotion. Division of labor. Most product/manufacturing companies seperate design and marketing. It lets the design guys focus on the engineering while the marketing guy focuses on the customer. Inevitably, the marketing guy will make some
promise the designers can't keep. It all works out in the end.

 

[westwall]

I see the quad trolls have grown a fifth! Pretty pathetic.

 

[itfitzme]

^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. Just saying. As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history. I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.

Yeah, the physics isn't well presented. But knowing the stats and what it means when CO2 correlates to temp anom to 76% is a big deal. You know that the connection cannot be denied. And you can regress on solar cycles, methane, whatever you can come up with, to see what you get. CO2 is the big one.

There is good history of AWG on the The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources website.

Beyond that, it's the Beer-Lambert Law that is the underlying basic physics. Shine light through a gas and see how much gets absorbed. It all energy conservation after that. Light energy, IR in particular, turns into heat, molecular vibrations. The details of the physics, as presented on Wiki, are mind numbing.

Then comes the final question, so it's warming, is that so bad?

That isn't a physics issue, it's a biology issue. One question is if agriculture can handle climate change. Our food basket was developed over thousands of years. There was big progress in the early 1900's. And the more we look into it, our food basket is integrated into a tunes ecosystem. AWG is likely to be a costly issue, at the least.

The whole of the science is a bit to much for one person to understand at the scientific level we would like. At some point, you just have to decide who to trust. If you don't trust anyone, your screwed.

 

[itfitzme]

jared diamond- Guns, germs and steel.

 

[gslack]

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

Another "new" guy... How expected...

How are you, gslack?

I'm fine how about you sock number ??? What are we up to now? You guys need a life..

 

[PMZ]

^This, now back to the topic of the thread.

GW is for real (or more bluntly, the sh*t).

/thread

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. Just saying. As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history. I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.

Very few people understand completely the science behind AGW. That's equally true of so many topics in today's uber specialized world. What's strange is how most of those topics are fully accepted by the lay world as things to be left to the experts.

The difference with AGW? It's been made political by those with agendas that they believe trump the importance of dealing with what's real.

Science can't be sold to those who aren't sufficiently educated in it. Politics can be.

So AGW, for the huge majority of us, is rejected or accepted based on "faith", either in politics for the denialists or in science for the realists.