Global warming

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Arnold says global warming is real, but that doesn't stop Bush from having aides altering government reports.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/8/5110/14262

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Global warming exists and is happening but it is probably due to the natural changing of the Earth's temperature than any man-made factor. I believe this current warming trend is a normal warming period much like the Earth has had in the past. In the early 1400's, before the climatological event known as the Little Ice Age, ships were able to sail around Greenland, which is impossible today, and the maximum extent of pack ice in the Southern Ocean was much less than it is today. By the late 1400's though a period of global cooling occured which dropped world temperatures between .5-1 degree centigrade. This caused the pack ice around both poles to expand and for harsh winters in Europe, Asia and North America. Ever since the 1500's we have slowly been getting warmer as the temperatures tried to normalize with pre-Little Ice Age temperatures. Even before this event we can see small changes in the Earth's temperature before, this often explains the cycle of droughts and wet periods in the equitorial regions. My final thought on Global Warming is to say that it is definitely happening but it is more likely, in my mind, that it is caused by natural enviromental factors than my man-made/artificial factors.

Do you know about "The Year without a summer" in the early 1800s?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsb.html

No I didn't. Very interesting though. Shows you how much mother nature can shift the weather patterns in just a single year.

Yes, it had some major temporary effects.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

Key phrases:
"than would be expected"
"amplify" (implies correlation)
Yeah, they're getting more effect than they thought they would. That hardly disproves that CO2 and temperature are correlated, genious. Obviously one of the following is true
1. Their estimates are off, it should be higher (like it is)
2. This data is only for Antartica, perhaps conditions elsewhere effected this.
3. There may be some sort of positive feedback going on. Positive feedback is something like where every $1 spent on the UC system increases the economy by $4

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.

How did "we" determermine that there was less than 85% correlation? Eyeballing the graph, and saying "I J.J. who suck at statistics think that it's less than 85% correlation" hardly proves anything.

No one ever claimed that there should be a 100% relationship. Volcanoes, sunspots, butterflies flapping their wings, the earth's tilt changing, continential drift, and various other things all effect temperature. Temperature is a chaotic system. It would be insane to say that if we have 0.1% CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature must be 68 degrees. 

WRONG AGAIN. For the last time: If you have thousands of data points, a correlation of 85% is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. I know you suck at statistics, but you'd think you'd have learned this after 5 months of statistics discussion all from this.

The statistical significance of correlation depends on both the correlation and the sample size. Suppose we do linear regression with  n points and get a correlation of R^2, and we use 95% statistical confidence
n=2 R^2=100% is not statistically significant
n=1000 R^2=50% is statistically significant

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[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.

If you had any intellectual honesty, which you obviously don't, you'd admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so obviously that applies.

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.

[/quote]
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  are you trying to argue? You are the most  stubborn person on the planet.

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.
[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it matters not what sort of feedback there is directly on CO2. What matters is that the levels of atmospheric CO2 are increasing, and that is positively correlated to temperature.

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.
[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does times it didn't happen as it should? Even when you cherry-picked a time period (which is useless for a statistical analysis of all of the available data), it was still found to correlate very highly.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15214.msg339258#msg339258

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.
[/quote]

Anyone intelligent claiming anything about climate change is not going to demand that one thing explain 100% of the temperatures. Assuimg that you're right and the R^2 correlation is 80%  (even though you have given no good evidence for why it's not higher), that means that 80% of the change in temperature is predicted by change in CO2 levels. That's pretty damn high. This data had many many points, so the 95% confidence interval on an R^2 of 80% will be pretty narrow, and won't go anywhere near 0%.

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.
[/quote]
You ing idiot. Did you read a single ing thing I said? If you can not accept that a linear correlation of R^2=100% for 2 data points is not statistically significant (since you always get that, no matter what the points), or a linear correlation of R^2=50% for 1000 data points is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, then you are a very stubborn man that theres no point in ever arguing with. Are you stubborn or not? Because 5 months later here, you still haven't learned a ing thing about statistics.

As for coin tosses, I was talking about similar statistics with coin tosses to try to educate you, but that didn't work. You do not need 95% heads or a correlation of 95% to determine statistical significance. I've explained this many many times. You are a ing stubborn brick wall.  you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

it's a load of crap. 

Quoting my manager Bill:  I go outside and it's really hot, my girlfriend says it's global warming.  I go outside and it's really cold, my girlfriend says it's global warming. No, it's weather.

Seriously, where do the environmentalists come up with this crap?  There's global warming because it's colder outside.  That's about the stupidest crap I've ever heard.

If global warming existed, I'd go outside on a freezing day "honey, it's too cold out, hand me some of those aerosol cans, <rattle, pssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh>"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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. 

Are you incapable of answering YES or NO questions?

 Answer clear, do you believe that the critical value is always 95%?
If not, tell me how the critical value depends on correlation and sample size.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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%?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

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

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see if you can answer this one YES or NO question.

"Do the critical values of linear correlation depend on sample size?"

If your answer is YES, you have to explain how, and why you changed your mind.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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!

Will you quit changing the subject to other things you're stupid at and and answer the g YES or NO question I've been asking for several posts now?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Lets see if the forum picks the right answer.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23571.0