Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,402
#1,402
TennTradition said:
I'm not sure about that. Perhaps land temperature measurements globally are. That seems a bit odd at face value though. Seems a bit late to not be able to trust it but I don't know what their issues were.
Click to expand...

Now, its being measured everywhere all over the world. Pre-1970 it wasn't, was it?
 
#1,403
#1,403
Sandvol said:
Now, its being measured everywhere all over the world. Pre-1970 it wasn't, was it?
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to get at in saying maybe that's possible. But it just seems late to get temperature measurements, even in more remote locations.

But there are other means of estimating temperatures via proxies. Of course, proxies aren't as good as the real thing.
 
#1,404
#1,404
TennTradition said:
That's what I was trying to get at in saying maybe that's possible. But it just seems late to get temperature measurements, even in more remote locations.

But there are other means of estimating temperatures via proxies. Of course, proxies aren't as good as the real thing.
Click to expand...

So that's why I question your past 70 years comment. I don't think the data is accurate or reliable enough to make a correlation. Maybe in Chicago.
 
#1,405
#1,405
Persian Vol said:
A correlation
"a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things."

I'm sorry for using other words that mean the same thing. Lol your stubbornness is pathetic
Click to expand...

So WHAT is the correlation? You OBVIOUSLY DO NOT understand the meaning of the word. I don't deny that they tend to go up and down together, that is not a correlation. What is the relationship?


Hint: I am letting you make a fool of yourself here. Please note, this is literally taking advantage of your poor engrish skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,406
#1,406
Sandvol said:
So that's why I question your past 70 years comment. I don't think the data is accurate or reliable enough to make a correlation. Maybe in Chicago.
Click to expand...

I think data since WW-II is surely fairly reliable. But I don't know that. If you have a link I'll read it.

Use last ~50 years if you want. I picked 70 arbitrarily.
 
#1,407
#1,407
Persian Vol said:
So what? CO2 emission and Global temperatures have increased. I never said there was definitive proof, I was just saying that there is a correlation.
Click to expand...

What is the correlation? One goes up and the other goes up. That just means they both go up. What is the relationship (i.e. CORRELATION) that ties them together?
 
#1,409
#1,409
TennTradition said:
He could literally plot the two in excel and give you a correlation between the two. Is that what you want?
Click to expand...

Thanks for helping VN's socialist mouthpiece......but he needs help when he digs himself a hole he can't back out of.

And no, I doubt seriously that he can do that. I doubt seriously that you can do that......reference Algores' graph. The recent numbers that he presented basically show there is NO direct correlation. There may be an indirect correlation.

Now, call BS on that statement if you want. There is no basis behind it other than observing his chart. You also discussed the flip flop in the two variables. PV doesn't need any help with his blanket statements.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,410
#1,410
Pre about 1970 there were only about a half dozen or so scientists from all over the world like Stewart Callendar and Gilbert Plass who studied CO2 emissions. Now there are thousands.
 
#1,412
#1,412
Sandvol said:
Pre about 1970 there were only about a half dozen or so scientists from all over the world like Stewart Callendar and Gilbert Plass who studied CO2 emissions. Now there are thousands.
Click to expand...

Were you talking about accurate CO2 measurement or temperature measurement?
 
#1,418
#1,418
TennTradition said:
I've said as much I'm this thread and I think Persian even said it. Correlation isn't causation.

Modeling is a tool for addressing causation.
Click to expand...

No, PV didn't say it. He is using the word correlation to mean causation. He has repeatedly implied causation. If that is the case, then he needs to supply the causation associated with the correlation. He will have then solved the AGW issue by himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,419
#1,419
Sandvol said:
CO2 measurement.
Click to expand...

Oh. Well, CO2 has been measured on Mauna Loa since 1958. You don't really need a lot of CO2 measurement stations because CO2 mixes fairly quickly in the atmosphere - particularly within each hemisphere (N and S).

I'm not sure if there were other stations before that it if proxy data is used. I'd have to look it up.
 
#1,420
#1,420
82_VOL_83 said:
No, PV didn't say it. He is using the word correlation to mean causation. He has repeatedly implied causation. If that is the case, then he needs to supply the causation associated with the correlation. He will have then solved the AGW issue by himself.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misread....
 
#1,421
#1,421
Persian Vol said:
My man. A correlation is when two variables have a similar trend. As co2 emission has increased, global temperatures has increased as well. I then began to say corration does not prove causation in its basic form, but when attributing prior knowledge to the variables interaction with one another, it becomes easier for scientist to make an argument for causation.
Click to expand...

This basically says correlation doesn't equal causation and you have to use other tools/data to get there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,422
#1,422
TennTradition said:
This basically says correlation doesn't equal causation and you have to use other tools/data to get there.
Click to expand...

Read his blather on the greenhouse effect. He gets awfully technical in one post after spouting nonsense in the others. He thanks you for saving his bacon though....oh wait, ah, lamb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,423
#1,423
TennTradition said:
Oh. Well, CO2 has been measured on Mauna Loa since 1958. You don't really need a lot of CO2 measurement stations because CO2 mixes fairly quickly in the atmosphere - particularly within each hemisphere (N and S).

I'm not sure if there were other stations before that it if proxy data is used. I'd have to look it up.
Click to expand...

I think the Mona Loa station would be a pretty representative place. How accurate and reliable were their instruments and sampling methods in 1958 compared to today?

(No response required just a hypothetical.)
 
Last edited:
#1,424
#1,424
Sandvol said:
I think the Mona Loa station would be a pretty representative place. How accurate and reliable were their instruments and sampling methods in 1958 compared to today?
Click to expand...

That I don't know. Too bad IP Orange isn't around these days, he does proxy reconstruction. I'm sure he'd know.
 
#1,425
#1,425
Sandvol said:
I think the Mona Loa station would be a pretty representative place. How accurate and reliable were their instruments and sampling methods in 1958 compared to today?
Click to expand...

Quick reading suggests it was very accurate. Cryogenic sample collection and then IR quantification against a reference gas.

Questions are raised about the accuracy of CO2 data collection prior to 1958 when Keeling started doing this at Mauna Loa.

The IPCC uses results from ice core samples for data prior to 1958.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top