The Negative Correlation Between Global Temperature Rise andCO2 Concentrations
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Australia Dust Storm ... WELL DESERVED DIVINE RETRIBUTION FOR WELL KNOWN COLLECTIVE CRIMES
Next: sonoluminescence: sonofusion explained
From: Marvin the Martian on 27 Sep 2009 11:32 On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:41:31 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: < snip Wormley's correlation proves causation fallacy, which he says he doesn't make because he does, and he wants his falsehood to be believed. > The entire IPCC argument is nothing more than one big "correlation proves causation" argument. Two problems: 1) Correlation proves causation is a well known fallacy in science, one no real scientist would make it. So anyone who makes this argument isn't a scientist; not about the subject they are making it in, anyway. 2) the correlation went negative in 1998, so the fallacy isn't even based on anything true! One is reminded of the fact that piracy is also correlated to global warming. The recent rise in piracy off the African coast correlates well with the recent cooling trend. Ergo, in Wormy science, we can stop global warming by producing more pirates. http://seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php What? That kind of thinking works for Wormley and the IPCC! You say there is no mechanism for pirates to produce global warming? Well, there is no mechanism for CO2 to cause warming, either. That's what all the failed "computer models" were about. Lets study what correlation REALLY means. Correlation between measurements A and B can mean: 1) A causes B. 2) B causes A. 3) C causes A and B. 4) Random chance caused the correlation. The Pirates to CO2 correlation falls under case 4. Now, what Wormley is ignoring, in his consistently half truth deceptive way, is: 1) that solar cycle is even more strongly correlated to global temperature than CO2 and 2) CO2 increases LAG temperature increases. The data was literally fudged to move increases CO2 back in time so it could cause the warming, since we still believe in causality and the prospect of finding tachyons is looking pretty grim. Now, if solar cycle is much more strongly correlated to global temperature than CO2, then there is NO WAY CO2 can be the major cause of the warming, as CO2 cannot cause the solar cycle. So, the man made Global warming non-hypothesis is once again debunked. (This non-hypothesis can be debunked by a couple of arguments, this is one of them.) A smart fellow named Svensmark noted the stronger correlation with solar cycle. He developed a theory that solar winds blew away cosmic rays that caused cloud cover in the lower atmosphere, much in the same way physicist use "cloud chambers" to study high energy sub atomic particle trajectories. Svensmark tested mechanism at CERN and verified it. Mind you, NO ONE has been able to show how CO2 caused the observed warming. Calculations and measurements show that cloud cover causes cooling. Svensmark came up with a complete theory of Global climate change. It not only predicted the last decade of non-warming, but is consistent with the last 4 billion years of climate data. Some additional factoids: 1) The IPCC and the global warming frauds fought like hell to keep Svensmark from being funded. They didn't want to be exposed as damned liars and a blot on the good name of science. 2) The computer models of the IPCC failed to predict the last ten years, yet they insist, for no good reason, that they can predict the next ten years. Perhaps using Svensmark's theory, they can! 3) The solar cycle correlation was shown back in the 1990s. The "rebuttal" was the fabrication of the "hockey stick" global temperature increase. They argument was that solar cycle and global temperature were correlated up until the late 1990s, but this correlation was broken with the rise in CO2. This increase was fabricated using urbanized data points. It was false. Once these data points were thrown out, the strong correlation was again shown to predict. This "error" could have been due to gross and utter stupidity, but more likely it was out and out fraud. Either way, idiots or frauds, do you want to believe them?
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 14:28 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:41:31 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > < snip Wormley's correlation proves causation fallacy, which he says he > doesn't make because he does, and he wants his falsehood to be believed. > > > The entire IPCC argument is nothing more than one big "correlation proves > causation" argument. Two problems: 1) Correlation proves causation is a > well known fallacy in science, one no real scientist would make it. So > anyone who makes this argument isn't a scientist; not about the subject > they are making it in, anyway. 2) the correlation went negative in 1998, > so the fallacy isn't even based on anything true! > > One is reminded of the fact that piracy is also correlated to global > warming. The recent rise in piracy off the African coast correlates well > with the recent cooling trend. Ergo, in Wormy science, we can stop global > warming by producing more pirates. > > http://seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php > > What? That kind of thinking works for Wormley and the IPCC! You say there > is no mechanism for pirates to produce global warming? Well, there is no > mechanism for CO2 to cause warming, either. That's what all the failed > "computer models" were about. > > Lets study what correlation REALLY means. > > Correlation between measurements A and B can mean: > 1) A causes B. > 2) B causes A. > 3) C causes A and B. > 4) Random chance caused the correlation. > > The Pirates to CO2 correlation falls under case 4. > > Now, what Wormley is ignoring, in his consistently half truth deceptive > way, is: 1) that solar cycle is even more strongly correlated to global > temperature than CO2 and 2) CO2 increases LAG temperature increases. The > data was literally fudged to move increases CO2 back in time so it could > cause the warming, since we still believe in causality and the prospect > of finding tachyons is looking pretty grim. > > Now, if solar cycle is much more strongly correlated to global > temperature than CO2, then there is NO WAY CO2 can be the major cause of > the warming, as CO2 cannot cause the solar cycle. > > So, the man made Global warming non-hypothesis is once again debunked. > (This non-hypothesis can be debunked by a couple of arguments, this is > one of them.) > > A smart fellow named Svensmark noted the stronger correlation with solar > cycle. He developed a theory that solar winds blew away cosmic rays that > caused cloud cover in the lower atmosphere, much in the same way > physicist use "cloud chambers" to study high energy sub atomic particle > trajectories. > > Svensmark tested mechanism at CERN and verified it. Mind you, NO ONE has > been able to show how CO2 caused the observed warming. Calculations and > measurements show that cloud cover causes cooling. Svensmark came up with > a complete theory of Global climate change. It not only predicted the > last decade of non-warming, but is consistent with the last 4 billion > years of climate data. > > Some additional factoids: > 1) The IPCC and the global warming frauds fought like hell to keep > Svensmark from being funded. They didn't want to be exposed as damned > liars and a blot on the good name of science. > > 2) The computer models of the IPCC failed to predict the last ten years, > yet they insist, for no good reason, that they can predict the next ten > years. Perhaps using Svensmark's theory, they can! > > 3) The solar cycle correlation was shown back in the 1990s. The > "rebuttal" was the fabrication of the "hockey stick" global temperature > increase. They argument was that solar cycle and global temperature were > correlated up until the late 1990s, but this correlation was broken with > the rise in CO2. This increase was fabricated using urbanized data > points. It was false. Once these data points were thrown out, the strong > correlation was again shown to predict. This "error" could have been due > to gross and utter stupidity, but more likely it was out and out fraud. > Either way, idiots or frauds, do you want to believe them? > I don't thing you made on credible point, Marvin. You routinely confuse weather and climate and are very short sighted.
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 17:14 leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Leonard, you appear to be having a problem accepting that the earth is >> currently experiencing a warming trend as evidenced by melting ice >> world-wide. > BTW there is NO warming trend evidenced by melting ice world-wide. It is a massive hoax > Massive hoax? Who's coordinating?
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 21:50 leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 27, 7:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>> choose anecdotal data, and then twist that, to fit your conclusion. >> Marvin, I'll bet you really get steamed up watching this NOVA >> Program, titled, "Extreme Ice". >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/program.html >> >> "Scientists agree that in the next 50 to 100 years, mountain glaciers >> almost everywhere will disappear. Their abrupt collapse raises >> disturbing questions about the Earth's biggest tracts of ice, the >> polar ice domes of Greenland and Antarctica, as James Balog sees >> firsthand in Greenland". >> >> "Over 100 million people live within three feet of sea levelthe >> very amount that experts expect seas to rise by 2100. Cities will >> spend trillions on coastal defenses, low-lying regions such as >> Florida and Bangladesh will be devastated, and many island nations >> will cease to exist. Overall, the consequences will test our ability >> to adapt like never before". > > And it is all IPCC bullshit Why do you think it has anything to do with the IPCC and why do you think it is bullshit, Leonard?
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 21:51
leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > The globe has been cooling for at least 10 years. > Better catch up on your reading. > Are you saying the overall warming trend of the last century is incorrect or over? What evidence can you cite? |