What Do We Think About Climate Change

What Do We Think About Climate Change? it works just no ones worked out how to make money from it yet !!

 

UN Chief’s warning – the end of the world is nigh!

AGW is a ******** excuse to raise taxes and shift power to organisations like the UN
The responsibility of the chaos that will flow from an ETS and carbon price will fall squarely on those who pull the strings from dark corners and on those who follow blindly their siren call because of a chip on their shoulder or an agenda against other's success driven by their own failures. The present half hearted upraise of the greens will be followed by a dramatic crash of support when people realise what they have voted for.

The "alternative" life style supporters,who live on the government welfare dictate what others should do, whilst spitting venom against private education, normal married couple, Christian ethos, save the Wales and cultivate our ***... The swing against them will be monumental world wide. I can't wait.

 

Correlation Is Not Causation

Scatterbrained idiot:

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Even a 100% correlation match doesn't imply CO2 driving temperatures causation. Is this concept so difficult to grab for you?

As a matter of fact causation can be none or then all the contrary: Temperatures can be driving CO2 concentrations.

I had posted about this in post 8676 and asked for replication or falsification with a similar analysis, but nobody answered.

Attached graph compares CO2 concentration data from Mauna Loa (since 1958) and HC3v temperature anomalies data (if you run HC3 instead of HC3v, lag is indistinctly the same).

As per this, CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE IN AROUND 7 MONTHS for the short term temperature cycles.

Now do your home work and replicate or falsificate. Or then stop on insisting in showing the world your idiotice by repeatedly posting those your poor understanding and scatterbrained posts, please.

 

If it wasn't for the agw debate where would the g man post pretty graphs?

as for me I'll let the people that study it and know what they are talking about make the graphs, they are called climatologists

 

So wardd, are you saying statiscians, engineers, chemists, geologists, solar physicists, etc, etc, or even chemists, like Alan, are not entitled to perform statistical analysis on climate data.....? What is a climatologist? Climate science lacks of scientific discipline....

 

Scatterbrained idiot, idiotice...? Guillermo, you too have sunk into the lowly and rather primitive personal attacking and name-calling. There must be something about the trend that infects so many people, and mostly from the religious right.

By the way, your "CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION" statement is actually wrong. If you read Boston's post when your blood pressure subsides, you will notice that he did not say that either.

And that corelation means that the CAUSE has something to do with the two corelated bjects of dispute.
Like for example a suggestionfrom the original text, that the two substances do have a relationship in the atmosphere. Their fluctuations are connected (corelated).

If that is the case, then changes in concentration of one is likely causing the concentration in the other.

Which by default means that changes of one substance are causing the change of the other.

I think that you so desire to win the argument and be right, that your ire is clouding your, once less personal, conclusions. And that leads to some serious mistakes...

I suggest that we all tell Jeff to shut this useless thread down and give 524 negative points to everyone who had ever posted here.

Who agrees?

(come on, be real sailors for once in your fishing lives)

 

"Guillermo, you too have sunk into the lowly and rather primitive personal attacking and name-calling."

When you say "too" it's because youre taking yourself as a comparison, isn't it? (do you want me to quote here some posts of yours...? )

About correlation and causation see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)

With a decrease in the number of pirates, there has been an increase in global warming over the same period.
Therefore, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates.

Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply.
Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime.

Causation causes correlation, but not necessarily the converse.

Learn that.

Cheers.

 

so what you're saying g man is the climate isn't warming?

I'm a little confused about what you're saying

 

Those defending that the CO2-temperature correlation is a good enough prove of CO2 driving temperatures causation, are then of course ready to easily admit sunspots & PDO are even a better a causation. See attached graph (no CO2 at all there) from:

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TwentiethCenturyTemperatureCorrelationupdate.pdf

 

I'm beginning to think confusion is your usual state of mind.....

 

actually science does know that CO2 causes warming because CO2 is a green house gas

The effect is experimentally proven through well defined laboratory studies. It is a physical property of the CO2 molecule that has been known about for upwards of 200 years.

remember the chances of this rise in CO2 and temp being coincidental are one in 40000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

so predictable

 

Perfect idiotic posts again, clearly showing your total lack of reasoning. The thing is not if CO2 is a GHG causing warming or not, but what is the amount of warming it produces. And even Al Gore does not believe in that 76.4% of yours, but rather a 40% (which is not thruth either, but...)

I will repeat it for you till boringness: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Even with that 40000000000000000000000000000000000000000 idiotice of yours.

Perhaps some day you'll grab it. :

 

Now do your home work and replicate or falsify my assertion of CO2 LAGGING TEMPERATURE IN AROUND 7 MONTHS for the short term temperature cycles, instead of distracting off as always.

The thing is that YOU ARE SIMPLY NOT ABLE to do it, my dear imbecile.

 

Actually, a correlation that close does imply causation--particularly since no one has been able to come up with a plausible alternative explanation for such a close correlation.

Is that so difficult to grab for you?