| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Excellent Graphic Demonstrating Climate Change Timeline | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 18 2016, 02:39 AM (854 Views) | |
| Stoned | Dec 18 2016, 04:32 AM Post #11 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As it is here in Minnesota but that doesn't mean much. Read the article. It is very interesting even if your change is not as great as ours. Just wait a bit. The change in humidity and rainfall is especially interesting. It has made Minnesota summers a whole different ballgame. "We've broken over 16,000 daily climate records on the Minnesota landscape in the last 10 years; we've also set over 140 all time state records," said Seely. "This is a phenomenal rate of change." http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/region/3875853-minnesota-second-most-affected-state-us-climate-change Edited by Stoned, Dec 18 2016, 04:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stoned | Dec 18 2016, 04:37 AM Post #12 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As for Missouri? I suggest you go to the google search below and read a bit. In the end I kno you don't give a schit if it does not effect you, personally, right now. How about your grandkids? Isn't it worth the few bucks and minor inconvenience to provide them a better future? Hell just the cleaner air and water would be worth it. https://www.google.com/#q=climate+change+in+missouri |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Dec 18 2016, 04:39 AM Post #13 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ZZZZZZZZ |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Dec 18 2016, 04:39 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, it's there. However, it requires a person to actually read it.
Here are the records from five different sources including lower troposphere temperature. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Dec 18 2016, 04:46 AM Post #15 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Turn out the lights, the scam is over. |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Dec 18 2016, 04:51 AM Post #16 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Dec 18 2016, 04:59 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here is 38 years of empirical data clearly showing a relationship between the satellite temperature and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory. Figure 1. Mauna Loa Observatory Figure 1 shows the monthly lower tropospheric satellite temperature for the Tropics-Land component in blue and the annual change in CO2 concentration in red. The obvious correlation between the two raises the possibility that there may be some common causal factor whereby the temperature drives the rate of change of CO2 concentration. It is not possible for the rate of change of CO2 to cause the temperature level as a time rate of change does not define a base. For example a rate of 2 ppm per annum could be from 0 to 2 ppm in 12 months, 456 to 458 ppm in 12 months or any other pair of numbers that differ by 2. Note that the satellite temperature data is supplied as a residual after removal of the estimated seasonal variation. This makes it comparable to the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration as taking the annual rate eliminates the seasonal variation. Calculation of the Ordinary Linear Regression between the two time series gave a correlation coefficient of 0.65 from the 448 monthly data pairs. Detrending of the time series in order to determine the statistical significance gave a correlation coefficient of 0.56 with 446 degrees of freedom. However the Durbin-Watson test of the time series gave a value of 1.08 indicating positive autocorrelation which means that Ordinary Linear Regression is inapplicable. The autocorrelation was estimated to be 0.53. When applied to the transformed time series, that is, applying a First Order Autoregressive Model, it resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.25 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 5.38, implying an infinitesimal probability that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test. Perhaps the added information will help in your understanding. |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Dec 18 2016, 05:49 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps I missed it but I don't believe that you have provided a link or the name or names of the Climate Scientists who produced these results. If you could provide that information, I'd appreciate it. |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Dec 18 2016, 05:54 AM Post #19 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Who cares? |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Dec 18 2016, 05:54 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here is 38 years of empirical data clearly showing a relationship between the satellite temperature and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory. Figure 1. Mauna Loa Observatory Figure 1 shows the monthly lower tropospheric satellite temperature for the Tropics-Land component in blue and the annual change in CO2 concentration in red. The obvious correlation between the two raises the possibility that there may be some common causal factor whereby the temperature drives the rate of change of CO2 concentration. It is not possible for the rate of change of CO2 to cause the temperature level as a time rate of change does not define a base. For example a rate of 2 ppm per annum could be from 0 to 2 ppm in 12 months, 456 to 458 ppm in 12 months or any other pair of numbers that differ by 2. Note that the satellite temperature data is supplied as a residual after removal of the estimated seasonal variation. This makes it comparable to the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration as taking the annual rate eliminates the seasonal variation. Calculation of the Ordinary Linear Regression between the two time series gave a correlation coefficient of 0.65 from the 448 monthly data pairs. Detrending of the time series in order to determine the statistical significance gave a correlation coefficient of 0.56 with 446 degrees of freedom. However the Durbin-Watson test of the time series gave a value of 1.08 indicating positive autocorrelation which means that Ordinary Linear Regression is inapplicable. The autocorrelation was estimated to be 0.53. When applied to the transformed time series, that is, applying a First Order Autoregressive Model, it resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.25 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 5.38, implying an infinitesimal probability that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test. Applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the Tropics-Ocean component of the satellite temperature compared to the annual change in CO2 concentration gave a correlation coefficient of 0.14 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 3.06, implying a probability of 0.2% that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test. It follows that this synthesis of empirical data conclusively reveals that CO2 has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years but that the rate of change in CO2 concentration may have been influenced to a statistically significant degree by the temperature level. Note that it is not possible for a rise in CO2 concentration to cause the temperature to increase and for the temperature level to control the rate of change of CO2 concentration as this would mean that there was a positive feedback loop causing both CO2 concentration and temperature to rise continuously and the oceans would have evaporated long ago. Still don't understand? That is the question, do you even understand what you are trying to discuss? Edited by Berton, Dec 18 2016, 06:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






4:41 PM Jul 11
