What? All he did was post the link... I am much more comfortable with the 100% probability that we are all going to die in the future. Sheezz, 95%... that is absurd. Wonder what their margin of error is?
So I tried to fill the gap by giving my interpretation. The most absurd thing I recall a couple years back we were in wonderful Alaska doing the daily glacier cruise out of Seward, and they are receding and all, the ship captain said we are not sure the cause or if it is manmade. I mean dang I would not blame him for assuming manmade under the circumstances.
The 82% variance explained @#16 is certainly worth a look. Go down that WUWT page to see the formula. Here's what I think it means: 1. Sunspot number goes up and down on 11 year cycles, and the cosine (month number) term removes those, mostly. I can see that is essential (for the purpose here), but the mechanism eludes me. 2. The other summations have the effect of generally (though not monotonic) increases. This is needed because the target distribution (air T anomaly) also has general but not monotonic increases. This essentially claims sunspot # have more effect at the end than at the beginning. Taking this model forward implies that the effect of sunspots will increase. How would that work? 3. With six fitting parameters (a through f), you get a lot of variance explained. It strikes me as goal oriented and lacking mechanism(s) but others may have more charitable assessments. Would love to hear them. Another fun thing would be to use sunspot number records from a different century (we have the Zurich record since 1750) and see if an equally impressive fit can be made to this T anomaly time series. I'm betting on 'yes'. If I were to take some other monthly data series since 1880 (I do not know, price of wheat?), and had six fitting parameters, I reckon that a similarly impressive regression could be developed. But I would struggle to attach meaning to it. Climate models (the official ones) sometimes get bashed as curve-fitting exercises. Whether or not that is a fair criticism, it does not allow much room for Salvador's approach.
There have been quite a series of satellites dedicated to monitoring the sun's output. Here is one example: STEREO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The key organizations keeping track of the sun are NASA and NOAA since what the sun does affects ALL satellites and the earth. In fact "space weather" reports have a dedicated website: spaceweather.com. Now for Global Warming. Please keep the following three levels of knowledge clear. Level 1 - There has been a continuous and sustained rise in the global Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. This rise is 100% known to be from burning fossil fuels. Bottom line here is this increase is 100% manmade. Level 2 - It is also known that Carbon Dioxide, as well as many other gasses dumped into the atmosphere have greenhouse effects. Again, this is 100% pure physics. Level 3 - How does the earth's ecosystem react to all the CO2 additions? That is where all the shouting occurs. There are two extreme camps and a number of folks trying to figure out the real situation. (Extreme camp #1 states that all the CO2 additions have no effect on anything. Extreme camp #2 claims the end of civilization unless we completely reverse the trend now. The folks trying to figure out the real situation are often pressured to take up one side or the other.)
They advance and they recede on a pretty regular basis. In fact, one famous one does it so fast, it traps marine life like seals. Ah yes, it is the Hubbard. While amazing (receding), not necessary a doomsday sign.
Wow -- love to wake up and see all this activity. I posted this on the PiP forum because I knew most of us have an interest in the subject which probably played a relatively large part in the reason you purchased your vehicle.
Their temp predictions have been 100% WRONG for the past 17 years. As Earths temps have not risen ,while CO2 levels continue to rise. Their margin of error with this observation is likely 100% off as well . The graphs of temp I posted in #18 illustrate that there is no difference in global warming with or without added CO2 .
Carbon is being absorbed the whole time the vegetation is growing back. That includes the grasses, bushes, shrubs, and many smaller trees that precede the fewer large mature trees. Wildfires appear to have been a common part of many ecosystems until we started suppressing them early in the 20th Century.
Don't you watch tv or the movies. There are the undead - zombies and vampires and other things that will not die. 100% chance doesn't really exist for the future. A 95% confidence means that data is 2 standard deviations from the null hypothesis. It's a fairly standard scientific test for a hypothesis.
Don't believe in global warming? You must be a racist homophobe. Al Gore explains why he’s optimistic about stopping global warming 2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. — From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot
Wow This site has the full clip. Its about the water staying there, which it did not. Science 1 al gore 0. Watch Al Gore predict Manhattan flooding in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ | Death and Taxes Then again Or a politician. The sea levels are rising, the global temperatures are rising. As anyone will tell you, you need to look over years, not a single year, and even 10 is a small number. Cherry picking data by al gore or the climate depot is not good for anyone but the political.
Most people believe in global warming. The debate is what is causing it. Is it man-made or natural or both?
Just so we know where folks are coming from, let's look at our friend MassParanoia's source, "climate depot"... "ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."[1]". Source watch Looking into the funding is an interesting, albeit predictable, exercise. "Funding ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32]. Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, said the committee got a third of its money from other foundations. However, Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Marc Morano. Rucker did say that ExxonMobil did not contribute anything to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in 2008 [2]." Ibid So a connection to someone like Inhoff, who doesn't even really believe in gravity, much less, any esoteric science that actually requires some thought makes this source pretty sketchy. Sorry MP! Icarus
Sorry Icarus! Data is data, because its not from a liberal tree hugger website doesn't make it not true. 2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps HAMweather: Record Events for The Past 4 Weeks Nice try! Go back to sleep! MP
The same site's mid-term (next week) and long term (through October) outlooks show no reason to expect the continental (not global) cool snap of the past four weeks to continue beyond the next few days. Nice try! Let's see if iceagenow.info ever chains together a series of these 4-week maps to get continuous coverage over full years or more. I'm not holding my breath for more than a few carefully picked cherries.
I would agree data is data, and ad hominem attacks, such as that on climate depot do not refute the data. In fact the attack that Exxon funds climate depot is a little insidious. Exxon stopped funding the group that funds climate depot even before climate depot was created. When an attack line is completely false, it makes the attacker look really small and petty. The correct way to dispute the site is through science. a small number of record lows in a summer is not evidence of cooling, or even of the end of warming, its just weather variability. It is proof of nothing. The way to prove or disprove warming is to take the global temperature composite over a long number of years, not a single month. Yes, this is exactly correct, that the cool snap is not predicted to continue, and there isn't a viable hypothesis for these temperatures to be the end of global warming even from the web site.
Funny how those in the denial community like to argue the diffrence between weather end climate, until it come time when it is convienent to argue the opposite! Sorry MP, a months worth of weather data does not a climate trend make! Cherry picking is still...cherry picking. Let's just see wht the global average is this year, as well as the trend over the last couple of decades. Oh, and by the way, North America does not a world climate make either. We (most of us) tend to be pretty N. America centric when it comes to our experience and "data". A broader look might b helpful, Good day, Icarus
Here's a few decades worth of temperature data. MUST READ: John O'Sullivan: Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming Lies | Climate Realists Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns from Premier Society Over False Global Warming Claims Global warming is a sham, just another political smoke and mirrors show to keep the ignorant masses distracted while the powers that be continue to rob us blind. Good day! MP
I don't think we need to argue about GW. If GW is caused by nature, we can't really do anything about it. If GW is caused by man, we still can't do anything about it. You can't change human behavior as long as they have money to spend. No one wants to give up their cars because they have been brainwashed by car makers that cars symbolize freedom. How could they give up their freedom? Also, no one would want to give up their big houses. It's the American dream!! People hop on cruise ships to burn more fuel so that they could be happy for a week. So what if that ship used up few thousands gallons of diesel as long as they are happy.
