Glad to see you have moved past the reality of AGW and are now talking about what we need to do to address it.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Glad to see you have moved past the reality of AGW and are now talking about what we need to do to address it.
address it?
I just turn on the AC,I don't know what fucking idiots like you do.
I also dig the bs about std dev's and all that. As if you had a real interest in the stats.
Here's a real real simple test you can run at home, since ALL of the data is free and publicly available. CFC's were banned in 1990. Now, if CFC's are greenhouse gasses on their own, and CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, then what you should find is that before 1990 the correlation between CO2's rise and temps rising is weaker than after 1990, because a piece of the pre-1990 rise would have been attributable to CFC's.
Here's the data, via the CORREL function in Excel. Even the numbnuts (ex futurecurrents) arguing here can figure out how to use it, I'm sure:
1959 to 1990: 75% correlation between CO2 and rising temps.
1991 to 2010: 81.5% correlation between CO2 and rising temps.
So there you have it. Now that CFC's are banned, the link between CO2 and rising temps has increased, proving both that CFCs were greenhouse gasses on their own and that CO2 is too.
Another test: the rate of increase in temps should have decreased since CFCs were banned as well. This wouldn't prove by itself that CO2 is also causing warming, but the evidence that banning CFCs caused the temperature rise to slow down should give pause to anyone believing the claptrap put out by the gulls who actually believe the Koch brothers.
Here's the data:
Rate of temp increase, 1959 to 1990: 12.7% compounded over a century.
Rate of temp increase, 1991 to 2010: 5.06% compounded over a century.
Ironically, it seems that the success we've had in slowing down that rate from banning CFC's (which these people would have opposed with the same arguments, and did at the time) has given the reactionaries an opening. More's the pity.
Here's a real real simple test you can run at home, since ALL of the data is free and publicly available. CFC's were banned in 1990. Now, if CFC's are greenhouse gasses on their own, and CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, then what you should find is that before 1990 the correlation between CO2's rise and temps rising is weaker than after 1990, because a piece of the pre-1990 rise would have been attributable to CFC's.
Here's the data, via the CORREL function in Excel. Even the numbnuts (ex futurecurrents) arguing here can figure out how to use it, I'm sure:
1959 to 1990: 75% correlation between CO2 and rising temps.
1991 to 2010: 81.5% correlation between CO2 and rising temps.
So there you have it. Now that CFC's are banned, the link between CO2 and rising temps has increased, proving both that CFCs were greenhouse gasses on their own and that CO2 is too.
Another test: the rate of increase in temps should have decreased since CFCs were banned as well. This wouldn't prove by itself that CO2 is also causing warming, but the evidence that banning CFCs caused the temperature rise to slow down should give pause to anyone believing the claptrap put out by the gulls who actually believe the Koch brothers.
Here's the data:
Rate of temp increase, 1959 to 1990: 12.7% compounded over a century.
Rate of temp increase, 1991 to 2010: 5.06% compounded over a century.
Ironically, it seems that the success we've had in slowing down that rate from banning CFC's (which these people would have opposed with the same arguments, and did at the time) has given the reactionaries an opening. More's the pity.
It all comes down to what data set the researcher selects to prove their point. The global warming promoters regularly filter out data that does not support their assertions. The most recent example of this is when global warming promoters attempted to provide 'evidence' that the Antarctic ice was melting by selecting data stations that accounted for 2% of the land mass, while stations on the other 98% of Antartica showed an increase in ice.
To be honest, I will say there are global warming skeptics that do the same thing with data sets. But most of the prevalent dishonesty involves academics who are paid to promote global warming; Professor Mann being an excellent example of data set fraud as demonstrated by the East Anglia email leaks.
Data From Leading IPCC Scientists Show Global Temps Have DROPPED Unprecendented 1°C Since 1990!
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/16/...ps-have-dropped-unprecendented-1c-since-1990/
I know you're not serious. I mean, sheesh.
What a load. All that shows is that the base used for calculating the anomaly may (big may 'cause I have no reason to trust that site) have changed. That's all.
I did all those calculations above myself, and all I did was think logically about what the data should show, and then calc it. Between the thought and the calculation it took me 15 minutes, including time to find the data. IF the data were faked, I should have found some inconsistency between what logic tells you the data should show and what it actually showed.
There was no inconsistency.
You presented your chart as if it supported your claim that man made CO2 caused global warming.
Now you are ask us to just guess.
Yet you have the balls to call those who wish to apply the scientific method to your claims... all sort of names.
When Orwell was writing 1984... you are the kind of govt drone... he was picturing.
I have never seen anyone argue in these threads that the banning of CFCs was not appropriate. There is strong enough statistical and scientific data that CFC caused both local environemental issues and could harm the ozone. The argument that CFCs were the cause of the hole in the ozone above the poles is still open to question because it has since become apparent that the earth has had ozone holes for periods of time before CFCs were invented.
Trying to tie CFCs (a man-made substance) to CO2 (a natural substance) in your discussion is absurd. Man-made CO2 accounts for a tiny fraction of the CO2 generated each year on earth with most of it coming from rotting vegetation and other natural sources.
If global-warming from CO2 is really an issue then man really better find a way of stopping the generation of CO2 from rotting plants, volcanoes, and everything else that puts it out naturally. Even eliminating CO2 output from a minor fraction of rotting plants would have a huge impact of CO2 overall generation. Eliminating man-made CO2 wouldn't even put a minor dent in the overall CO2 levels.
actually I posted that there was no statistical discernable warming after 1996.
I believe the data I posted showed a margin for error of .15 degree and warming of about one half of the margin for error.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2JaM0Txyg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook