• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple climate change refutation challenge

mhaze said:
Nonsense. Just showing who support the ridiculous OP, a certain pathetic individual according to your remarks.
Click to expand...
So your argument goes:-
I think this is a ridiculous OP;
Al Gore is typical of people who support the OP;
I don't like Al Gore;
Therefore the OP is ridiculous.
?
It's so enlightening to see the denialist mind at work.
 
Diamond said:
There is no such thing as a global mean temperature that has physical meaning. The global mean temperature is an index rather like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it reduces all of the complexity of the real system down to a single number, but it has no fundamental basis in theory. There is no physical theory that gives any basis for something called "mean temperature" in a system which is not at or near equilibrium. In fact, my college physics books state that unless the system is at or near thermal equilibrium (and the Maxwell-Boltzmann relation holds) a temperature does not exist!
Click to expand...
Just one very simple question: if there's no "global mean temperature" why are some making such a fuss about it levelling off, or 1998 being the highest, or the MWP being as high as now?
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
How is it an unsupported assertion when its based on a physical property? Its like you are arguing about whether gold is shiny or copper conducts heat.
Click to expand...
We all (apart from some extreme denialists) know that CO2 is a GHG, but you haven't shown that it is the dominant factor in recent warming, only that there appears to be a strong correlation.

(In case you wonder whose side I'm on, read my HTBAGWS)
 
C02 is a greenhouse gas and....

TrueSceptic said:
....there appears to be a strong correlation.
Click to expand...

All I am saying is to consider both together when making the argument. This argument would be very hard to make if CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. In science its not only that there is a correlation between two variables. If there is a known mechanism linking them the argument is all the more powerful.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
As it is widely recognized that climate, and temperature, is the product of a very large non linear equation set, the OP is completely erroneous in asserting that it is a linear relationship between Cause "A" and Effect "B". Changing "A" does not make the equation right, it is still incorrect because of its form. Alric apparently refuses to accept this, and thus is in complete opposition to mainstream climate science.
​
Says who?
Click to expand...

Already answered.
 
TrueSceptic said:
We all (apart from some extreme denialists) know that CO2 is a GHG, but you haven't shown that it is the dominant factor in recent warming, only that there appears to be a strong correlation.

(In case you wonder whose side I'm on, read my HTBAGWS)
Click to expand...

I believe the time series Alric used should show a correlation in the range of 0.22-0.44. A weak correlation.
 
mhaze said:
I believe the time series Alric used should show a correlation in the range of 0.22-0.44. A weak correlation.
Click to expand...

In comparison to what? Can you show the work or references (not just the results) showing a better correlation with anything else?
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
In comparison to what? Can you show the work or references (not just the results) showing a better correlation with anything else?
Click to expand...

That's been done many times on JREF. By the way, what was your correlation? You have it right? You're not relying on some skeptic to calculate it for you?
 
Show me where! You can see the correlation with your own eyes! This is the kind that doesn't need stats..sort of like this one:

science.jpg
 
Last edited:
TrueSceptic said:
Could you show us how you calculated that correlation?
Click to expand...

A lot of people have looked at correlations between 20th century CO2 and 20th century temperature, here on JREF and elsewheres. Here, graphs have been posted for these time series with correlations of 0.22 - 0.44, one by David Rodale. These are generalities, but verifiable.

Ask Alric what his correlation actually is. I think he doesn't even know, judging from the latest scribble chart he posted and his prior comments.
 
Alric said:
Originally Posted by Alric
As it is widely recognized that climate, and temperature, is the product of a very large non linear equation set, the OP is completely erroneous in asserting that it is a linear relationship between Cause "A" and Effect "B". Changing "A" does not make the equation right, it is still incorrect because of its form. Alric apparently refuses to accept this, and thus is in complete opposition to mainstream climate science.
​
Says who?
​
Originally Posted by mhaze
Already answered.

No you haven't. You are quoting yourself dude.
Click to expand...

Yes, because what I said was correct.

You are a bit mathematically challenged, "dude"?
 
mhaze said:
A lot of people have looked at correlations between 20th century CO2 and 20th century temperature, here on JREF and elsewheres. Here, graphs have been posted for these time series with correlations of 0.22 - 0.44, one by David Rodale. These are generalities, but verifiable.

Ask Alric what his correlation actually is. I think he doesn't even know, judging from the latest scribble chart he posted and his prior comments.
Click to expand...
I will take either, but you quoted a numerical range so I assume you can point me to the origin. Can you do that or not?
 
TrueSceptic said:
I will take either, but you quoted a numerical range so I assume you can point me to the origin. Can you do that or not?
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem. But I am expect Alric to back up his wild blatter with some numbers first, or if he is challenged in that respect, then just to say so, and we can go on to actually discussing this stuff.
 
mhaze said:
Sure, no problem. But I am expect Alric to back up his wild blatter with some numbers first, or if he is challenged in that respect, then just to say so, and we can go on to actually discussing this stuff.
Click to expand...
Unless I missed it, Alric didn't give a value, just suggested that the correlation is visually obvious. As you have already given a figure, you first. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom