 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Dear Lone Ranger
Dear Lone Ranger: Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? It's a simple question, Mr. Ranger. Why not address the question directly and in an intellectually honest manner with a simple yes/no and then support your argument with direct quotes. > Dear Lone Ranger: > > Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that > CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA!!!!! www.google.com >> Dear Lone Ranger: >> >> Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that >> CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? > > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA!!!!! The entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any other issue, Carbon Dioxide, that's it. > >> Dear Lone Ranger: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any > other issue, Carbon Dioxide, that's it. Boy oh boy, you've certainly skipped the reading assignment. On Jul 13, 6:48 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote: > "Server 13" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any > other issue, Carbon Dioxide, that's it. <Boy oh boy, you've certainly skipped the reading assignment. That's just the science aspect of it Roger. We already know the politics. > On Jul 13, 6:48 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote: >> "Server 13" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That's just the science aspect of it Roger. We already know the > politics. Simply a lie. > The entire global warming scientific case is based > on the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere > from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any > other issue, Carbon Dioxide, that's it. Imagine that. They have only one cause for the observed warming according to James. Astonishing. How could that be? MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN >>> Dear Lone Ranger: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any > other issue, Carbon Dioxide, that's it. Simply a lie. > Dear Lone Ranger: > > Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that > CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? There's tons of good solid peer-reviewed material. Try - the clasic study by Arrhenius, 1896, - the IPCC WG1 report bibliographies list dozens of papers, - try any of several textbooks, like Dr. David Archer's book, - go to a science citation index, like ISI Web or Google Schoolar. If my son found this material at age 14, you should be able to, Denky. Lastly, I've offered evidence for the CO2-temperature link on this forum. Remember this post? irectly observed data from the last half century give little reason to believe that sunspots alter global temperatures. Recent global mean surface temperatures have not tracked sunspot numbers at all, but those same temperatures track atmospheric CO2 concentrations very well. CO2 or Sunspots: Statistical Correlation Chooses Statistical correlation is a powerful technique with very many uses. It produces "R squared" a measure of whether two series of measures trend together. (Those who are new to statistical correlation and "R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed relationships.) When applied to a time series of global mean surface temperatures and data from prospective global warming causes covering the same time period, correlation can help locate the cause of the observed global warming. Low "R squared" values, those near zero, can, by themselves, totally rule out a prospective cause. High "R squared" values indicate that a prospective cause is very likely, but do not, by themselves, 'prove' something caused the warming. (Experimental science rarely 'proves' something like a mathematical proof does.) Below are directly observed data for global mean surface temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last 50 years. This is as long as the longest directly observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The R^2 value for the correlation of CO2 and planetary surface temperature is 0.78. The simple rising line showing heating for increasing CO2 explains a lot of the variance in the global mean temperature. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature is very strong and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing theory is well supported by these data. The R^2 value for sunspots and and planetary surface temperature is very near zero. These data clearly do not support any relationship between sunspot numbers and global mean surface temperature over the last 50 years. It is very unlikely that sunspots have anything to do with the current global warming. This test applies very easily to all other claims for global warming causes. It will quickly separate the wheat from the chaff. -.-. --.- Roger Coppock =-=-=-=-=-=-= The Data =-=-=-=-=-=-= The global mean surface "Temp"erature data are the GISS adjusted J-D yearly land and sea average, available from NASA at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt The "CO2" data are the yearly averages of the monthly data from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt "Sunspots" are the yearly averages of the monthly means in the NOAA NGDC "MONTHLY" file. They are available at the FTP site accessed through this web page: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html Year Temp CO2 Sunspots 1958 14.08 315.33 184.5917 1959 14.06 315.98 158.75 1960 13.99 316.91 112.275 1961 14.08 317.65 53.8833 1962 14.04 318.46 37.6 1963 14.08 318.99 27.8917 1964 13.79 319.20 10.2 1965 13.89 320.03 15.0583 1966 13.97 321.37 46.875 1967 14.00 322.18 93.6667 1968 13.96 323.05 105.8917 1969 14.08 324.62 105.5583 1970 14.03 325.68 104.6917 1971 13.90 326.32 66.65 1972 14.00 327.46 68.9333 1973 14.14 329.68 38.15 1974 13.92 330.17 34.4083 1975 13.95 331.14 15.4583 1976 13.84 332.06 12.55 1977 14.13 333.78 27.4833 1978 14.02 335.40 92.6583 1979 14.09 336.78 155.275 1980 14.18 338.70 154.65 1981 14.27 340.11 140.45 1982 14.05 340.98 116.2917 1983 14.26 342.84 66.6333 1984 14.09 344.20 45.85 1985 14.06 345.87 17.9417 1986 14.13 347.19 13.4 1987 14.27 348.98 29.225 1988 14.31 351.45 100 1989 14.19 352.89 157.7917 1990 14.38 354.16 142.2917 1991 14.35 355.48 145.775 1992 14.12 356.27 94.4833 1993 14.14 356.96 54.7333 1994 14.24 358.63 29.8667 1995 14.38 360.63 17.5 1996 14.30 362.37 8.625 1997 14.40 363.47 21.4833 1998 14.57 366.50 64.2083 1999 14.33 368.14 93.175 2000 14.33 369.41 119.5333 2001 14.48 371.07 110.925 2002 14.56 373.16 104.0917 2003 14.55 375.80 63.5667 2004 14.49 377.55 40.4417 2005 14.62 379.75 29.7833 2006 14.54 381.85 15.1833 2007 14.57 383.72 7.5417 =-=-=-=-=-=-= "R" Program Outputs =-=-=-=-=-=-= The following are outputs of the "R" statistical program: For information on "R," please see: http://www.r-project.org/ -------- Call: lm(formula = Temp ~ CO2, data = aframe) Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -0.2316612 -0.0805322 0.0185249 0.0763159 0.1798386 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 1.10008e+01 2.41721e-01 45.5103 < 2.22e-16 *** CO2 9.24797e-03 7.01018e-04 13.1922 < 2.22e-16 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 0.101321 on 48 degrees of freedom Multiple R-Squared: 0.783817, Adjusted R-squared: 0.779313 F-statistic: 174.034 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: < 2.220e-16 -------- Call: lm(formula = Temp ~ Sunspots, data = aframe) Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -0.3909495 -0.1523184 -0.0514594 0.1445919 0.4380756 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 1.41804e+01 5.39054e-02 263.06149 < 2e-16 *** Sunspots 4.97803e-05 6.18766e-04 0.08045 0.93621 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 0.217902 on 48 degrees of freedom Multiple R-Squared: 0.000134823, Adjusted R-squared: -0.0206957 F-statistic: 0.00647235 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: 0.936213 > > Dear Lone Ranger: > > [quoted text clipped - 195 lines] > Multiple R-Squared: 0.000134823, Adjusted R-squared: -0.0206957 > F-statistic: 0.00647235 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: 0.936213 Everybody is able to feign ignorance, but a natural born dumbass like Roger seems much more convincingly. >>> Dear Lone Ranger: >>> [quoted text clipped - 198 lines] > Everybody is able to feign ignorance, but a natural born dumbass like > Roger seems much more convincingly. As always, Peter Muehlbauer has nothing but lies. > On Jul 13, 1:09 pm, ClaudiusDenk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If my son found this material at age 14, You should get your son to help you and stop whining. you should be able to, > Denky. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > very many uses. It produces "R squared" a measure of > whether two series of measures trend together. Do you have anything that isn't obvious whackoism? > (Those who are new to statistical correlation and > "R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject here: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed > relationships.) Why are you telling us about this? What is your point? > When applied to a time series of global mean surface > temperatures and data from prospective global warming [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 50 years. This is as long as the longest directly > observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? Admit it, Roger. Everybody knows its true. Just admit it. You'll feel better. > The R^2 value for the correlation of CO2 and planetary > surface temperature is 0.78. The simple rising [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > radiative forcing theory is well supported by these > data. If this really was the case you wouldn't have to be assuring us of its validity you'd just show us the experimental evidence that supports this conclusion and that would be the end of the argument. > The R^2 value for sunspots and and planetary > surface temperature is very near zero. These data [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sunspots have anything to do with the current > global warming. There is no global warming you mental retard. > This test applies very easily to all other claims for > global warming causes. It will quickly separate the > wheat from the chaff.\ Test? You're a nutcase. > -.-. --.- Roger Coppock > [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > Multiple R-Squared: 0.000134823, Adjusted R-squared: -0.0206957 > F-statistic: 0.00647235 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: 0.936213 >> On Jul 13, 1:09 pm, ClaudiusDenk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You should get your son to help you and stop whining. You are the one playing stupid here, denky. >Dear Lone Ranger: > >Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that >CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? Are you sure you want to know the answer to that question? If you really, really, *really* want to find out, then please check out the following: Carbon Dioxide as the Key to Climate Change http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S3 >It's a simple question, Mr. Ranger. Yes, and I gave you a simple answer. >Why not address the question >directly and in an intellectually honest manner with a simple yes/no >and then support your argument with direct quotes. See above for numerous references. How about you? Are you really interested in the facts, or are you too afraid to find out? -- Hi-Yo, Silver! Away! -- The Curse of Tecumseh http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm On Jul 14, 5:48 pm, Lone Ranger > >Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that > >CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? > > Are you sure you want to know the answer to that question? It's unfortunate you whackos can't provide us a link to your imagination. > If you really, really, *really* want to find out, then please check > out the following: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > See above for numerous references. How about you? Are you really > interested in the facts, or are you too afraid to find out? Support your argument with direct quotes you mental retard. > -- > Hi-Yo, Silver! Away! > -- > > The Curse of Tecumsehhttp://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm > It's unfortunate you whackos can't provide us a link to your > imagination. No, but we have provided literally hundreds of references that answer your questions - along with direct answers - which you then ignore and insist were never provided. That makes you a LIAR Denkie. As well as a MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN On Jul 14, 5:48 pm, Lone Ranger > >Isn't it, in fact, true that there is no peer-reviewed evidence that > >CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? > > Are you sure you want to know the answer to that question? It's unfortunate you whackos can't provide us a link to your imagination. Already done in another thread. You lied about it and ran away. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.