Global warming

[J. J.]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

[J. J.]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

Remember our temperature/CO2 arguments? We never did figure out the exact correlation, but you seem to think that you can't have statistical significance at the 95% confidence level with a correlation below 95%. You had 5 months to figure out that you were wrong. For simple linear regression, a correlation of 94% will be statistically significant even for 5 data points.

The correlation is below 95%, but it's definitely statistically significant, which doesn't prove causation, but labrotory experiments have shown that.

We actually did deterime that it was less than 85%.

Would you cite the "labrotory experiments," that demonstrate this.

[J. J.]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

Remember our temperature/CO2 arguments? We never did figure out the exact correlation, but you seem to think that you can't have statistical significance at the 95% confidence level with a correlation below 95%. You had 5 months to figure out that you were wrong. For simple linear regression, a correlation of 94% will be statistically significant even for 5 data points.

The correlation is below 95%, but it's definitely statistically significant, which doesn't prove causation, but labrotory experiments have shown that.

We actually did deterime that it was less than 85%.

Would you cite the "labrotory experiments," that demonstrate this.

We never determined for sure that it was less than 85%. However, it'd still be statistically significant far below there.  You are WRONG if you still think that a correlation of 85% can never be statistically significant.


Visible light comes in and is not reflected back into outer space by a greenhouse gas. It then hits the earth, and lis reflected back as infrared light. Some of this infrared light is refelected back to earth by the greenhouse gas.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/greenhou.html

Here's an experiment.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Once again, the site you quote doesn't support what you say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll not that they are referring to a number of gases, not just CO2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here it again shows that they are not getting numbers that they would expect if CO2 was the factor.  Basically, if we'd cut CO2, there is no evidence that it would prevent global warming.

The experiment, however, is not designed to take into account what happens when CO2 increases; plant growth increases and more CO2 is removed due to that.

We did, in fact determine that there was less than an 85% correlation between CO2 changes and temperature.  Likewise, in theory, if increases in CO2 was either the cause or effect of warning, we should see a theoretical 100% relationship.  We don't.  Even using a low statistical standard (95% confidence level), we should be seeing something well above the 85% (or less) level.

[J. J.]

[LOL, you're always desperate to try to insinuate that I'm wrong, even though I'm not. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And what they said applies to all greenhouse gases, including CO2. Do you have a g point?

You flip flopped from CO2 to "greenhouse gasses."  CO2 may not be cause or effect of this.  There may be something else out there entirely that does.  It's a better idea to identify specifically if there is something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Well the historial doesn't support it; neither does the more current evidence.  It does that warming is not behaving as the theory that CO2 is the "cause" does not explain a temerature increase.

2.  If this is limited to just Antartica, the we couldn't call it "global."

3.  No body has been able to explain the "positive feedback.

You've just explained why we should not by the theory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No we're seeing how CO2 behaves in an atmosphere without any natural way to remove it.  If we are talking about global climate change, we better take in account the nature of the planent it is happening on.  While you may think this is Mars, with no plant life, the rest of us think we are on Earth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You posted it as "proof," I merely counted the amout of times it didn't happen as it should.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you missed the words, "in theory."  I readily concede that 100% is well to high and that other factors should come into play, but we cannot claim with 95% certainty that there is a relationship between temperature increases and CO2 that would cause these increases.  We can claim that it's less than 85% certain and just doesn't cut it at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One day you'll realize that coin tosses do not equate with statistical analysis.  Until then, the gentle reader can read these threads, assuming that that continue to have any doubt of you being unable to comprehend statistics:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

It is becoming exceptionally easy to exaluate your statistical argumements.

[J. J.]

[1. So the theory that CO2 and temperature are related must be wrong because the data shows that temperature depends on CO2 even more than we expect? Only in J.J. land.
2. The data they talk about is. Again you're being some combination of stupid or stubborn. O
3. Why should one have to prove it? All we're looking for is a statistically significant correlation, which we have found.
How did I explain anything? Obviously they're related, what the f**ck are you trying to argue? You are the most  stubborn person on the planet.

The key Phrase is "a greenhouse gas."  The site isn't saying, there is a relationship between just this greenhouse gas and global warming.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's irrelevant, you're seeing the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to temperature. At our current record high CO2 levels, I doubt increasing CO2 has much affect on plants. Any negative feedback here would be extremely weak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "cherry picked" time period was half a millon years.  If we were really looking to "cherry pick" a time frame, we could look at the last century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Confidence level is not the same as confidence level.  You are confusing apples and oranges.

I am not claiming that we should reject the theory unless it works 100% of the time.  There are clearly other factors.  if the theory is correct, we should see it approach 100%  It should be less than 95% oof the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, I'm in the habit of reading the garbage you post, and the links you cite.  I post quotes from those.  They are not saying the same things you are claiming.

This isn't a coin toss and the math won't be the same; maybe some day you'll relize that.[/quote]

[J. J.]

In J.J land:
"Well you got a 94% on this test, which is supposed to be an A, but it's not statistically significant".

I love how you tell other people what you think the yare saying.

Now let me try it:

From JFRAUD Land otherwise known as the People's Republic of the Loony Left":

"We don't have any solid evidence that something works, but because it fits my ideology, we should do it.  And we should believe because I'm JFRAUD and I believe it."

[J. J.]

Wow, you never responded to my point that an R^2 of 100% might be statistically insignificant, and an R^2 of 90% might be statistically significant, depending on the sample size. You are a stubborn intellectually dishonest fraud. You lose.

You statistical claims have been responded to here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15


Your lack of credibilitiy on statistics is so great, that no futher response is needed.  If any poster is interested, the can look at the arguments you've made, I've made, and read the comments of other posters.

If they so desire, they can even guess about your desire to raise issue again and again, and your claims that everybody hates you, and draw their own conclusions.

[J. J.]

It is very unlikely that we can significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels in the near future. If global warming is real maybe we should be looking at ways to counteract it, like making our atmosphere more reflective, or growing plants that can consume more CO2 from the air. We should have some strategies in our back pocket in the event that we start seeing undesireable consequences of warming.

Also the amount of heat radiated from the planet goes up with the 4th power of the absolute temperature so warming a few degrees will increase the heat loss significantly. Having the planet somewhat warmer may not be all bad. Crops could be grown in places  that are too cold now.

We look at the planet as it has been during our lifetime and say thats the way it should always be. But if you look at the history over a much longer time span it seems the one thing it does not do is stay the same.

The points are valid.

We do know some things, however.

From about 800 (possibly earlier) until about 1450, the earth was warmer, possibly warmer that the 1980-2004 period on average.  There is evidence that this occured in Europe, North and South America.  We know some things about that period as well.

1.  Life didn't end, and humans actually did well during this period.

2.  We do not know the cause, but we can rule some things out.

A.  Volcanic activity (there would be evidence).

B.  Industrialization, as there wasn't any on a global level.

We also know that around 1450, the temperatures cooled.  Some Canadian glaciers continued to advance until 1890 (and I've known relatives that were alive when they were still advancing).  Now, industrialization was in full swing when this happened, so it's possible that it's related.

Now, we don't understand the mechanizms that cause these shifts, but we do know that, after industrialization, the cooling trend ceased.  Is the cooling trend a "good thing." 

I would note that,as David S. notes, that extreme global cooling is not a good thing, unless your overjoyed with glaciers on Broadway (that's not the new Webber musical).

We better understand the concequences of both global warming or the lack of it, before we start massive programs to change it.

[J. J.]

J.J., do you still claim that the critical value for statistical significance at the 95% confidence level is an R^2 correlation of 95%?

Too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty to actually read my arguments before you claim I'm wrong. You are scum.

Asked and answered here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

I'll let your own words damn you.  Basically, you've demonstrated that you cannot understand the statistical argument.  Since it's been exlpained and most other posters are capable of understanding it. I can only enourage you to see someone in person that is famililiar with statistics and perhaps they can explain it to you. 

[J. J.]

Are you incapable of answering YES or NO questions?

 

Since you've proven repeatedly that you cannot understand statiistics, as can be seen here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

there is little point of expanding on it further.  You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting, repeatedly.  Listening to you rant on more only displays more of your ignorance.

This is the statement that that I stand behind.  If X causes a change in global temperature, we should be able to see this occuring 95% of the time, to have a confidence level of 95% that X causes global warming.  We do not have that with CO2.

(Now, we might with other greenhouse gasses or with a combination of other factors, but we don't with just CO2 levels.)

[J. J.]

Are you incapable of answering YES or NO questions?

 

Since you've proven repeatedly that you cannot understand statiistics, as can be seen here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

there is little point of expanding on it further.  You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting, repeatedly.  Listening to you rant on more only displays more of your ignorance.

This is the statement that that I stand behind.  If X causes a change in global temperature, we should be able to see this occuring 95% of the time, to have a confidence level of 95% that X causes global warming.  We do not have that with CO2.

(Now, we might with other greenhouse gasses or with a combination of other factors, but we don't with just CO2 levels.)

Still no answer.

Can I assume that you think that the critical value (with 95% confidence) of a R^2 linear correlation is 95%?

I has been answered; you are just too stupid to realize it.

Are you claiming that, with a 95% likelihood of being correct, that an increase of CO2 will lead to an increase in global temperature?

[J. J.]

I has been answered; you are just too stupid to realize it.

Are you claiming that, with a 95% likelihood of being correct, that an increase of CO2 will lead to an increase in global temperature?

I know it has, but I wanted to make sure you still think that.

No, that's not what a statistically significant correlation means.

Wrong again!  We do, historically, know that an increase in CO2 corresponds to a temperature increase less than 95% of the time.  So, again, you've gotten it wrong.  For more example of JFRaud getting it wrong, go here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15


It looks like I'll have add this one to the list.  Perhaps I'll start ones where he doesn't understand the meaning of words in English and where he thinks July comes before March!

[J. J.]

If you're incapable of answering a simple YES or NO question, I win.

The subject is, can we state with 95% certainty that global temperature increases when CO2 increase?  The answer is no.

You just really do not understand that this is the question.

[J. J.]

If you're incapable of answering a simple YES or NO question, I win.

The subject is, can we state with 95% certainty that global temperature increases when CO2 increase?  The answer is no.

You just really do not understand that this is the question.

I guess you are incapable of answering the question. I never claimed that. The question was:
"Do the critical values of linear correlation depend on sample size?"

I didn't ask for you to change the g question. Pick one.
1. Yes
2. No
3. I J.J., am incapable of answering Yes or No questions because it's so hard to pick an answer.

I'm saying that your question is not relevant.  The relevant question is,
"Can we state with 95% certainty that global temperature increases when CO2 increase?"

If the answer yes, that leads to one set of actions.  If the answer is no, that leads to another set of actions.  That is what it comes down to.

So, are you claiming that the answer to that question is yes?  The "proof" you've previously hasn't supported that claim.

Gabu, just a note, I have not[/b been the one raising the question. Guess how has been the one.   Be careful when you answer, or someone will call you a "DINO" or tell everyone that you "hate" him.  :-P

[J. J.]

Something I still don't understand however, where do they get this "the Earth will freeze over" stuff from if they're complaining about global warming.  Explain it to me.

Well, I explained the theory earlier. Basically, warming causes the ice caps to melt sufficiently, and the fresh water(ice never contains salt) flows into the ocean and decreases the salinity of the ocean. This changes the thermohaline cycle, which is driven by the salinity of the ocean and basically moves air around - warm air is delivered northward, and the cycle being powered down would result in cooler temperatures up north, or in other words an ice age.

Well, in theory it works.  The question, okay, if this is what causes ice ages, why isn't there evidence of this happening during previous ice ages.

We know that, even in historic times, the earth was hotter and colder than it is currently, but don't know why that is.

[J. J.]

There is some evidence, actually. I forget the exact details, but it has to do with the ratio of a certain type of molecule to another type that is similar to it in the oceans - you can tell by measuring it in the ice in the ice caps or something.

That would be very interesting.  I've wondered if this is a combination of things.  The situation might be that it might be several factors.