Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

Time magazine is not a peer reviewed publication. In the peer reviewed science at the time the number of articles talking about GLOBAL WARMING outnumbered cooling by 6:1 (Peterson, 2008)



Actually the temperatures decrease in the mid-20th century was likely due to human caused sulfate pollution (sulfate aerosols). Read the scientific literature. (Wild et al, 2007)

And in addition, many of the scientists that were talking about cooling in the 70's were also discussing the new science of milankovich cycles which were found to relate to ice ages.



If you were more familiar with the actual literature you'd probably know that in the analyses of FORCINGS have found that in the last 60 years the natural forcings cannot explain the warming we've seen. And we know how these forcings work because of our study of forcings from long ago (before human activity could be a factor).

You shouldn't jump in the middle. I was countering Loudmouth's assertion that increases in CO2 correlate with increases in temps.

I showed three periods that equal roughly 75% of the time over the past century that was NOT the case, most notably the last 18 years.

 

[andypro7]

eclipsenow:

It's quite possible that you have broken the all-time internet record for number of words posted that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Congrats.

We get it, you don't like fossil fuels. But that's not the topic of discussion. However, you may have accidentally swerved into a very important point:

Some people like you don't like fossil fuels (but are fine using them, btw), and so in order to try and harm the industry and get rid of them, they follow fake global warming psuedo-science and pretend that fossil fuels are causing immense warming.

EVERYTHING you posted is just noise to me, because:
1. You could fill an entire library with the number of articles over the last 50 years or so about how we're running out of fossil fuels. They have a worse track record than the Jehovah's Witnesses
2. I'm pretty sure that way before they run out, there will be something else, most likely something we haven't even really thought of yet.

 

[eclipsenow]

eclipsenow:

It's quite possible that you have broken the all-time internet record for number of words posted that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Congrats.

We get it, you don't like fossil fuels. But that's not the topic of discussion. However, you may have accidentally swerved into a very important point:

Some people like you don't like fossil fuels (but are fine using them, btw), and so in order to try and harm the industry and get rid of them, they follow fake global warming psuedo-science and pretend that fossil fuels are causing immense warming.

EVERYTHING you posted is just noise to me, because:
1. You could fill an entire library with the number of articles over the last 50 years or so about how we're running out of fossil fuels. They have a worse track record than the Jehovah's Witnesses
2. I'm pretty sure that way before they run out, there will be something else, most likely something we haven't even really thought of yet.

• Nearly 3 million deaths a year is just 'noise' to you?
• Half a trillion dollars in government kick backs and subsidies is just 'noise' to you?
• 10% extra on most national health bills is just 'noise' to you?
• That we ALREADY have the technology to replace fossil fuels (fission in various forms) and should be deploying it is just 'noise' to you?
• National energy security forever is just 'noise' to you?
• That the French have already shown us how to run a clean grid decades ago is just 'noise' to you!? (75% nukes + some hydro).
• Dude, you need to check your hearing!

 

[andypro7]

• Nearly 3 million deaths a year is just 'noise' to you?
• Half a trillion dollars in government kick backs and subsidies is just 'noise' to you?
• 10% extra on most national health bills is just 'noise' to you?
• That we ALREADY have the technology to replace fossil fuels (fission in various forms) and should be deploying it is just 'noise' to you?
• National energy security forever is just 'noise' to you?
• That the French have already shown us how to run a clean grid decades ago is just 'noise' to you!? (75% nukes + some hydro).
• Dude, you need to check your hearing!

It's noise because it's laughably untrue. Half a trillion dollars???

Here's a tip that will help you because you've gone WAY off the deep end on this one. Whenever you see something you so desperately want to believe like 'half a trillion dollars in subsidies', you should do a few things:

1. Realize that 'half a trillion dollars' is a ridiculous number, and it makes you look like an utter nut job. I found a far left nut job website that hates big oil (but still uses it, btw), and they put the number at around 4 billion. In other words, even if I allow the 4 billion dollars in subsidies LIE, your 'half a trillion' was 125 TIMES more than even the other nut jobs claim.

2. Whenever you see a UTTERLY RIDICULOUS number like 'half a trillion dollars', even though you HATE what you mistakenly call 'subsidies', you should then google 'oil subsidies myth' and at least try to find out the other side. I'm not saying that you'll believe it, but at least you may not publicly post something that makes you look like a nut job.

3. Learn to do math. Even if we say that our tax dollars are just given away to greedy oil companies for fun, there is more math to do. For example, there are approximately 140 billion gallons of gas sold in the US each year, and federal and state taxes add up to approximately 50 cents per gallon. That means, that even if we give them FOUR billion dollars, the tax revenue alone just from gas is around 70 BILLION. I wouldn't call that a crime, I'd call that a great investment.

Now, I could do that for every one of your little 'facts', but I've neither the time nor the inclination. I've given you the blueprint, find out for yourself. Or, since you seem like such an anti-fossil fuels person, why don't you get off them altogether? You still have answered that question. YOU say there's a better way, why don't you show us by eliminating all fossil fuels from your life?

I'll tell you what, why don't you start a thread here called "I irrationally hate all fossil fuels, and I've decided to live my life without them". If you do that, and give daily updates, I promise I'll check in each and every day and read whatever you post on your journey.

Who knows, you may even change my mind. (it was hard to even type that with a straight face).

 

[eclipsenow]

1. Realize that 'half a trillion dollars' is a ridiculous number, and it makes you look like an utter nut job. I found a far left nut job website that hates big oil (but still uses it, btw), and they put the number at around 4 billion. In other words, even if I allow the 4 billion dollars in subsidies LIE, your 'half a trillion' was 125 TIMES more than even the other nut jobs claim.​

Not only does your emotional name calling come dangerously close to breaking forum rules, it exposes your woeful ignorance on this topic!

EG: Do you know what the International Energy Agency is, who set it up, and what it does? Here's a pretty picture to remind you.

Will you bother to listen to them and not just this 'nut job' on the internet?

The IEA, within the framework of the World Energy Outlook, has been measuring fossil-fuel subsidies in a systematic and regular fashion for more than a decade. Its analysis is aimed at demonstrating the impact of fossil-fuel subsidy removal for energy markets, climate change and government budgets. The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $548 billion in 2013, $25 billion down on the previous year, in part due to the drop in international energy prices, with subsidies to oil products representing over half of the total. Those subsidies were over four-times the value of subsidies to renewable energy and more than four times the amount invested globally in improving energy efficiency.​

IEA - Energy Subsidies

Impact of Fossil Fuel Subsidies on Renewable Energy

In 2013, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that consumer subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to US$548 billion, while subsidies for renewable energy amounted to US$121 billion. However, a simple comparison of subsidy expenditure does not reveal the extent to which renewable energy is disadvantaged. To understand the exact impact of this distorted playing field, it is necessary to explore how different kinds of subsidy can affect investment decisions in different ways in specific energy sectors.​

Impact of Fossil Fuel Subsidies on Renewable Energy | Global Subsidies Initiative

Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[2] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, we will not reach our climate targets.[3]​

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Data Highlights - 36: The Energy Game is Rigged: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Topped $620 Billion in 2011 | EPI

Time to change the game: fossil fuel subsidies and climate | Publication | Overseas Development Institute (ODI)

3. Learn to do math. Even if we say that our tax dollars are just given away to greedy oil companies for fun, there is more math to do. For example, there are approximately 140 billion gallons of gas sold in the US each year, and federal and state taxes add up to approximately 50 cents per gallon. That means, that even if we give them FOUR billion dollars, the tax revenue alone just from gas is around 70 BILLION. I wouldn't call that a crime, I'd call that a great investment.​

Dude, try again:

1. They already get kickbacks, discounts, subsidies, etc.
2. They then cost the society far more in health costs

Increased levels of fine particles in the air as a result of anthropogenic particulate air pollution "is consistently and independently related to the most serious effects, including lung cancer[5] and other cardiopulmonary mortality."[47] The large number of deaths[48] and other health problems associated with particulate pollution was first demonstrated in the early 1970s[49] and has been reproduced many times since. PM pollution is estimated to cause 22,000-52,000 deaths per year in the United States (from 2000)[50] contributed to ~370,000 premature deaths in Europe during 2005.[51] and 3.22 million deaths globally in 2010 per the global burden of disease collaboration.[52]
A 2002 study indicated that PM2.5 leads to high plaque deposits in arteries, causing vascular inflammation and atherosclerosis — a hardening of the arteries that reduces elasticity, which can lead to heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems.[53] A 2014 meta analysis reported that long term exposure to particulate matter is linked to coronary events. The study included 11 cohorts participating in the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE) with 100,166 participants, followed for an average of 11.5 years. An increase in estimated annual exposure to PM 2.5 of just 5 µg/m3 was linked with a 13% increased risk of heart attacks.[54]
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated in 2005 that "... fine particulate air pollution (PM(2.5)), causes about 3% of mortality from cardiopulmonary disease, about 5% of mortality from cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung, and about 1% of mortality from acute respiratory infections in children under 5 years, worldwide.".[55] Short-term exposure at elevated concentrations can significantly contribute to heart disease. A 2011 study concluded that traffic exhaust is the single most serious preventable cause of heart attack in the general public, the cause of 7.4% of all attacks.[56]​

Particulates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A French study of nearly a million citizens (in 1994) found even low particulate pollution can generate substantial costs: "The extrapolated annual estimates of the attributable cost of respiratory diseases for a population of 1 million range between 79 and 135 million French francs... Mortality was not considered in this study. Most of these costs occur at relatively low levels of air pollution (67% of the total annual costs are incurred during days with particle concentrations lower than 50 micrograms/m3). Such substantial figures are useful for assessing the social impacts of air pollution and for evaluating the cost efficiency of abatement policies."

I can't believe your attempt at the 'maths' above: unsubstantiated, unreviewed, absolute codswallop! Fossil fuels cost society far, far more than their retail electricity or pump price! Your replies to my previous few posts have been woefully inadequate: a junior high kid that bothered to do their homework could do better. Hint: do some reading of peer-reviewed journals and maybe stay away from FOX NEWS for once in your life!

 

[andypro7]

Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year – Mother Jones

Tax breaks average about 4 billion a year – NY Times

2013 – 3.2 Billion – Congressional Budget Office

Big Oil benefits from $4 billion in annual tax breaks – Climate Progress


I could go on with example after example, but you get the point. I specifically chose these quotes, because they are mostly left-wing fossil fuel haters. (How's that for staying away from Fox News?)


Now, let's go over that approximately 4 billion


1) 1 Billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which even the most liberal person should agree is currently a national interest
2) 1 Billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel - farm equipment gets the exemption from paying the fuel tax, because the tax is supposed to pay for roads, and the farm equipment isn't allowed to use the roads (seems fair, right)

3) Nearly 600 million for Low Income Energy Assistance Program

Which of these 'subsidies' do you want to cut?

But this just shows what you've done. You've taken a program like giving assistance to help low income families pay for their heating costs, and you've made it out to be 'evil oil' subsidies.



Look, every time you come up with one of your rants, I show you with actual facts that you are woefully wrong. This time, I've cited left-wing fossil fuel hating web sites, so don't bother me anymore with this, take it up with the NY Times and Climate Progress, etc. Since I found multiple other sources saying the same thing, I'm going to go with them until you prove them wrong.


And finally, once again I understand all your hatred of fossil fuels. You live in a left-wing la-la land that has you trolling on various wacko web sites so much so that you couldn't even accept what is obviously a widely spouted 4 billion/yr number. I don't have the time for this.



So, I expect your next babbling, incoherent rant to include a solemn promise to walk the walk and pledge to eliminate all fossil fuels from your life. Otherwise, you would be hypocritical.

 

[eclipsenow]

Comprehension is not your strong point, is it? $4 billion a year in subsidies to oil alone is one subject. Then there’s how much natural gas companies get, and how much coal gets. What is a subsidy? Is it a tax break, a kick-back, or a local railway built with Federal discounts?

Dude, I’m quoting international peer-reviewed sources about the GLOBAL cost of ALL FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES, and you’re cherrypicking out only American OIL subsidies in response to counter my claim? We haven’t even got into counting the cost of WARS fought on the behalf of that most hallowed of products: oil!
WMD's in Iraq anyone?

Oh, but go ahead and single out a few Federal oil subsidies! Cherrypick away. Meanwhile, I'll stick with peer-reviewed data about the GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL subsidies and kickbacks. Learn to pass a High School English comprehension test and answer the question that is actually being asked! Basically, grow up!

 

[fargonic]

You shouldn't jump in the middle. I was countering Loudmouth's assertion that increases in CO2 correlate with increases in temps.

CO2 is a known positive forcing. Global temperatures are affected by positive and negative forcings, both manmade and natural.

So, CO2 is known to correlate with increasing temperatures all other things held constant.

I showed three periods that equal roughly 75% of the time over the past century that was NOT the case, most notably the last 18 years.

You pointed out the Mid-Century cooling which, as I pointed out to you, was impacted by a larger negative, human-caused forcing.

Now as to your "last 18 years"...well that's just bad statistics on your part. In time series data, data with high autocorrelation, it is very dangerous to arbitrarily "window" the data down to very short periods. This decreases the statistical power (that's the technical term, 1-beta, for finding an effect from data).

The last 18 years is to short to draw any conclusions from. The best you will get is a statistical indicator of no slope, but that doesn't mean that you've found anything more than "noise" in the data. It may be that the last 18 years have been a "pause", but it wouldn't be the first such pause. The data is noisy and made up of multiple forcings, positive and negative.

If you knew the science a bit better you'd realize that positive and negative forcings have been quite thoroughly discussed for decades. In fact you can even find it in the IPCC reports. (I find that almost no "skeptics" on CF seem to have ever read the technical parts of the IPCC reports, let alone the actual peer reviewed literature).

 

[andypro7]

Now as to your "last 18 years"...well that's just bad statistics on your part. In time series data, data with high autocorrelation, it is very dangerous to arbitrarily "window" the data down to very short periods. This decreases the statistical power (that's the technical term, 1-beta, for finding an effect from data).

The last 18 years is to short to draw any conclusions from. The best you will get is a statistical indicator of no slope, but that doesn't mean that you've found anything more than "noise" in the data. It may be that the last 18 years have been a "pause", but it wouldn't be the first such pause. The data is noisy and made up of multiple forcings, positive and negative.

Interesting. So, let me get this straight, given that temperatures and climate are long term things, you're suggesting that a small 18 year window really tells us next to nothing about what's really going on and we'd be foolish to draw any conclusions.

Well, if that's what you're saying, I'm sure you'd then agree when I say that in time series data, data with high autocorrelation, it is very dangerous to arbitrarily "window" the data down to very short periods. This decreases the statistical power. The last 100 years is to short to draw any conclusions from. Particularly when right around the last 100 years we see the half dozen or so lowest temperatures of the last 200 years.

Look, I get it, it's been the same thing for decades now. When temps and CO2 go up at the same time, then CO2 is THE factor. When temps and CO2 do not correlate, then there are OTHER factors. Science.

 

[stevevw]

It seems The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists think the world is on the brink of doom with climate change and the threat of nuclear war. Never has the world faced so many global issues that are threatening our survival at the same time.

Press release: It is now 3 minutes to midnight
Warning that “the probability of global catastrophe is very high” unless quick action is taken, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board today cited unchecked climate change and global nuclear weapons modernization as the basis for their decision to move the hands of the historic Doomsday Clock forward two minutes. The shift of the Doomsday Clock hands to three minutes to midnight is the first such adjustment to be made in three years.

“Steps seen as bold in light of today’s extremely daunting political opposition to climate action do not even match the expectations of five years ago, to say nothing of the scientific necessity. The results are unsurprising. Global greenhouse gas emission rates are now 50% higher than they were in 1990. Emission rates have risen since 2000 by more than in the previous three decades combined. Investments have continued to pour into fossil fuel infrastructure at a rate that exceeds $1 trillion per year, with additional hundreds of billions of dollars in continued fossil fuel subsidies. We can and must turn this around.”
http://thebulletin.org/press-release/press-release-it-now-3-minutes-midnight7950

 

[andypro7]

Comprehension is not your strong point, is it? $4 billion a year in subsidies to oil alone is one subject. Then there’s how much natural gas companies get, and how much coal gets. What is a subsidy? Is it a tax break, a kick-back, or a local railway built with Federal discounts?

Dude, I’m quoting international peer-reviewed sources about the GLOBAL cost of ALL FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES, and you’re cherrypicking out only American OIL subsidies in response to counter my claim? We haven’t even got into counting the cost of WARS fought on the behalf of that most hallowed of products: oil!
WMD's in Iraq anyone?

Oh, but go ahead and single out a few Federal oil subsidies! Cherrypick away. Meanwhile, I'll stick with peer-reviewed data about the GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL subsidies and kickbacks. Learn to pass a High School English comprehension test and answer the question that is actually being asked! Basically, grow up!

Look, I've already shown that approximately 65% of the things you mistakenly call 'subsidies and kickbacks' in the United States are actually needed for national security, to help out the poor, etc. Another certain percentage I'm sure are just tax deductions that are part of the tax code for all Americans, etc.

Enough of your foolishness. I've already shown that you use the words 'subsidies and kickbacks' to mean virtually anything, so stop saying that there are half a trillion dollars in 'subsidies and kickbacks' and please list all those 'subsidies and kickbacks' so that you don't make the mistake of mislabeling them again, like you did last time.

 

[andypro7]

It seems The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists think the world is on the brink of doom with climate change and the threat of nuclear war. Never has the world faced so many global issues that are threatening our survival at the same time.

Press release: It is now 3 minutes to midnight
Warning that “the probability of global catastrophe is very high” unless quick action is taken, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board today cited unchecked climate change and global nuclear weapons modernization as the basis for their decision to move the hands of the historic Doomsday Clock forward two minutes. The shift of the Doomsday Clock hands to three minutes to midnight is the first such adjustment to be made in three years.

“Steps seen as bold in light of today’s extremely daunting political opposition to climate action do not even match the expectations of five years ago, to say nothing of the scientific necessity. The results are unsurprising. Global greenhouse gas emission rates are now 50% higher than they were in 1990. Emission rates have risen since 2000 by more than in the previous three decades combined. Investments have continued to pour into fossil fuel infrastructure at a rate that exceeds $1 trillion per year, with additional hundreds of billions of dollars in continued fossil fuel subsidies. We can and must turn this around.”
Press release: It is now 3 minutes to midnight | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Oh my gosh! Reading this has opened my eyes. I've never been so scared in my life! Run for the hills!

Actually, you know it's true because this is the very first time in history that some organization has come out and made a scary doomsday prediction.

 

[fargonic]

Interesting. So, let me get this straight, given that temperatures and climate are long term things, you're suggesting that a small 18 year window really tells us next to nothing about what's really going on and we'd be foolish to draw any conclusions.

No, the data tells you that. In any discussion of TRENDS in data you test against the null hypothesis that there is a "zero slope". In the case of an 18 year window in data the F-test on the regression will be too noisy to find out if there is actually a slope or not. You will likely FAIL to find a slope other than zero (in that you will be unable to reject the null hypothesis) but you will also likely have INSUFFICIENT STATISTICAL POWER to determine if there was a slope if it were present.

It is important to understand how science is actually done (not just one's gut feel for it).

Well, if that's what you're saying, I'm sure you'd then agree when I say that in time series data, data with high autocorrelation, it is very dangerous to arbitrarily "window" the data down to very short periods.

You are now going to try to tell us that 150 years or 60 years is too short versus a longer 4500 year time frame. But again:

1. If a 60 year window has sufficient statistical power to find a slope if it is present then it, by definition, will work.

2. The key is to understand the factors in the model. In the case of a 60 years window it is reasonable to look at the various natural forcings in play. And indeed if we look at those they fail to explain the increase in temperature by themselves. The ONLY explanatory variables that can explain the majority of the trend is HUMAN CAUSES (like greenhouse gas emissions and land use changes etc.)

3. A 4500 year trend will likely NOT be a simple model that can be explained solely through anthropogenic factors. It will, also, include natural factors which clearly made a difference over time.

The last 100 years is to short to draw any conclusions from

Incorrect. Over the past 100 years we have sufficient statistical power to identify a trend AND we have workable FACTORS WHICH EXPLAIN the various temperature changes.

We have a statistical fit and an explanatory set of variables.

Look, I get it,

I believe you will have to understand the science and statistics first.

it's been the same thing for decades now. When temps and CO2 go up at the same time, then CO2 is THE factor. When temps and CO2 do not correlate, then there are OTHER factors. Science.

See, it is clear you DON'T get it.

Let me try to explain this to you as someone who does science for a living.

In my job I work with multivariate statistical models. That means I have a number of FACTORS which affect the outcome of an experiment. I can control the various factors and I do so to generate a statistical explanation of the factors relationship to the result.

Factor A has a POSITIVE CORRELATION with result Y.

Factor B has a NEGATIVE CORRELATION with result Y

They are BOTH part of the SAME MODEL. And if the effect of A is STRONGER than the effect of B Y will likely be increasing. If B is stronger than A Y will likely decrease!

NOTE: A always positively correlates to Y and B always negatively correlates to Y. The difference is the COEFFICIENT...how BIG the effect is relative to the other effect.

Does this make sense? Increasing CO2 always results in increased temperature unless there is a bigger NEGATIVE forcing that overcomes the positive CO2.

Now, in reality it is more complex than that, but I'm trying to simplify it sufficiently to make it understandable for this forum.

 

[andypro7]

No, the data tells you that. In any discussion of TRENDS in data you test against the null hypothesis that there is a "zero slope". In the case of an 18 year window in data the F-test on the regression will be too noisy to find out if there is actually a slope or not. You will likely FAIL to find a slope other than zero (in that you will be unable to reject the null hypothesis) but you will also likely have INSUFFICIENT STATISTICAL POWER to determine if there was a slope if it were present.

It is important to understand how science is actually done (not just one's gut feel for it).



You are now going to try to tell us that 150 years or 60 years is too short versus a longer 4500 year time frame. But again:

1. If a 60 year window has sufficient statistical power to find a slope if it is present then it, by definition, will work.

2. The key is to understand the factors in the model. In the case of a 60 years window it is reasonable to look at the various natural forcings in play. And indeed if we look at those they fail to explain the increase in temperature by themselves. The ONLY explanatory variables that can explain the majority of the trend is HUMAN CAUSES (like greenhouse gas emissions and land use changes etc.)

3. A 4500 year trend will likely NOT be a simple model that can be explained solely through anthropogenic factors. It will, also, include natural factors which clearly made a difference over time.




Incorrect. Over the past 100 years we have sufficient statistical power to identify a trend AND we have workable FACTORS WHICH EXPLAIN the various temperature changes.

We have a statistical fit and an explanatory set of variables.



I believe you will have to understand the science and statistics first.



See, it is clear you DON'T get it.

Let me try to explain this to you as someone who does science for a living.

In my job I work with multivariate statistical models. That means I have a number of FACTORS which affect the outcome of an experiment. I can control the various factors and I do so to generate a statistical explanation of the factors relationship to the result.

Factor A has a POSITIVE CORRELATION with result Y.

Factor B has a NEGATIVE CORRELATION with result Y

They are BOTH part of the SAME MODEL. And if the effect of A is STRONGER than the effect of B Y will likely be increasing. If B is stronger than A Y will likely decrease!

NOTE: A always positively correlates to Y and B always negatively correlates to Y. The difference is the COEFFICIENT...how BIG the effect is relative to the other effect.

Does this make sense? Increasing CO2 always results in increased temperature unless there is a bigger NEGATIVE forcing that overcomes the positive CO2.

Now, in reality it is more complex than that, but I'm trying to simplify it sufficiently to make it understandable for this forum.

Although I do have a degree in math, I don't have the necessary background in statistics to fully comprehend all this. Eventually, I'll figure it out, I do read statisticians, and I grasp the concepts, but not the particulars in this case.

However, this struck me:
The ONLY explanatory variables that can explain the majority of the trend is HUMAN CAUSES

Ok, I'm not buying that, so do this for me since you have the education.

Take whatever period you deem appropriate, then compare and attempt to correlate temperatures to increases in CO2. THEN, take the exact same period, and attempt to correlate temperatures with solar activity.

Then, see which one best correlates.

 

[fargonic]

Although I do have a degree in math, I don't have the necessary background in statistics to fully comprehend all this. Eventually, I'll figure it out, I do read statisticians, and I grasp the concepts, but not the particulars in this case.

Excellent! As you learn more statistics make sure to actually read the peer reviewed science as it is written, not from some biased blogger

However, this struck me:
The ONLY explanatory variables that can explain the majority of the trend is HUMAN CAUSES

Ok, I'm not buying that, so do this for me since you have the education.

How about this as a concrete example:

Here's an example in which Hindcast data were used to check the validity of various forcings in a model to explain temperatures that already were recorded from history

SOURCE: IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

What this says is that if you want to explain the TEMPERATURE TRENDS over the past 150 years or so using only NATURAL FORCINGS (things like solar cycles etc.) the data does not fit. BUT, if you invoke HUMAN FACTORS (greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes, etc.) the data fits the model much better.

Remember: this is using data already collected.

The explanatory variables that provide the most explanation of variance in the data are the ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS.

Then, see which one best correlates.

DOne and done.

 

[andypro7]

Take whatever period you deem appropriate, then compare and attempt to correlate temperatures to increases in CO2. THEN, take the exact same period, and attempt to correlate temperatures with solar activity.

Then, see which one best correlates.

The above is what I asked you to do, you haven't done that. Please do that.

A few things about your graphs:

1. They conveniently stop at 2000, the precise time when models started diverging from reality. It's possible that the same correlation exists, but I doubt it. Since it's hindcasting, the data should exist

2. As I said, I'm a math guy. The first thing I noticed about these graphs was that the Y-axis is in 1/2 degree intervals. The vast majority of temp anomalies graphs I've seen are 1/10 degree or at least 1/5 degree intervals. I suspect that if you change the Y-axis to normally accepted intervals, you'd get a better picture.

But how hard is it to graph CO2 vs. temp, and then solar activity vs. temp, and then compare the two graphs and see which correlates better?

 

[fargonic]

Take whatever period you deem appropriate, then compare and attempt to correlate temperatures to increases in CO2. THEN, take the exact same period, and attempt to correlate temperatures with solar activity.

I'm sorry that I didn't do exactly what you wanted. I am also sorry that you really are not capable of understanding the entirety of the point. I attempted to explain it to you in terms that should have made sense to one with a math degree but apparently you were unable to understand it.

[

1. They conveniently stop at 2000, the precise time when models started diverging from reality. It's possible that the same correlation exists, but I doubt it. Since it's hindcasting, the data should exist

It is clear you completely missed the point. I'm sorry. I even gave you the link to the grida.no website so you could read them for yourself.

Again, please do some basic research and education on this topic.

2. As I said, I'm a math guy.

So far that is not apparent.

The first thing I noticed about these graphs was that the Y-axis is in 1/2 degree intervals. The vast majority of temp anomalies graphs I've seen are 1/10 degree or at least 1/5 degree intervals.

Really? You think the choice of tick marks on a graph makes a big difference?

You have a math degree?

But how hard is it to graph CO2 vs. temp, and then solar activity vs. temp, and then compare the two graphs and see which correlates better?[/B]

That has already been done for you and (if you were even marginally acquainted with even the BASICS of this science) you should have seen already in the form of CLIMATE SENSITIVITY ANALSYES.

Here's how the impact of various forcing mechanisms line up in terms of the W/m2 impact of the forcing:

Do people have to do EVERYTHING for you? Do you have a clue about how this science actually WORKS?

 

[andypro7]

Really? You think the choice of tick marks on a graph makes a big difference?

RUNAWAY GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE SINCE 1880

 

[fargonic]

RUNAWAY GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE SINCE 1880

Umm, not to put too fine a point on it, but you didn't say SCALE of the y-axis, you complained about the TICK marks. There is a difference.

I can use the exact same scale on two graphs but add in 0.1 tick marks vs 0.5 tick marks and the graph will be the same.

IN ADDITION, the graph I posted clearly spanned the scale quite effectively and hid nothing nor did it amplify anything.

 

[eclipsenow]

Look, I've already shown that approximately 65% of the things you mistakenly call 'subsidies and kickbacks' in the United States are actually needed for national security, to help out the poor, etc.

I don't remember that at all! Show me where you said that! If they are subsidies for the public good, then that's fine. But subsidising the public bad? Subsidising the end of our stable climate? That's just insane.

Another certain percentage I'm sure are just tax deductions that are part of the tax code for all Americans, etc.

Oh, you're certain of that are you? And your evidence for this certainty?

Enough of your foolishness.

Enough of yours, pal! How about some evidence for one? Even all those scientists over at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said:

"Investments have continued to pour into fossil fuel infrastructure at a rate that exceeds $1 trillion per year, with additional hundreds of billions of dollars in continued fossil fuel subsidies. We can and must turn this around."
Press release: It is now 3 minutes to midnight | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

America gives fossil fuel companies $5.2 billion dollars a year in subsidies just to EXPLORE for new fossil fuels, which I find incredibly perverted given we can't even burn 4/5ths of the stuff we have ALREADY found!

I can't help you if you won't accept data from reputable sources. You haven't once quoted data that shows the TOTAL American Federal and State subsidies to the TOTAL fossil fuel industry, including oil, gas, and coal; nor have you once had a stab at data that disproves the TOTAL GLOBAL SUBSIDY, REBATE, AND KICKBACKS TO FOSSIL FUELS WORLDWIDE.

Britain is "shooting itself in the foot" by subsidising its coal, oil and gas industries by $4.2bn (£2.6bn) a year even as government reviews the "green levies" on energy bills which support energy efficiency and renewable power, according to a report published on Thursday....

...Rich countries have committed to phase out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies but the ODI figures, drawn from the International energy agency, OECD and other sources, suggest global subsidies to fossil fuel producers totalled $523bn a year in 2011 – dwarfing subsidies to renewable energies. For every $1 spent to support renewable energy, another $6 were spent on fossil fuel subsidies, says the report.
...
"In effect, each of the 11.6bn tonnes of carbon emitted from the top 11 developed countries comes with an average subsidy of $7 a tonne – around $112 for every adult," she said.

Fossil fuel subsidies 'killing UK's low-carbon future' | Environment | The Guardian

Also, this is NOT welfare to lower classes...

"Just 8% of the $409bn spent on fossil-fuel subsidies in 2010 went to the poorest 20% of the population," Birol said. "It's clear that other direct forms of welfare support would cost much less." He added that the poorest people were being "punished twice", because the money used to make fossil fuels cheaper could instead be spent on schools, hospitals and other public services.

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies 'could provide half of global carbon target' | Environment | The Guardian

So, once again, in case you've forgotten the issues:
Fossil fuels get half a trillion in subsidies and kickbacks etc, so if you love the free market, we need to remove those.

HEALTH IMPACTS: There are about 8 million avoidable deaths per year, but if we adopt clean energy we'll have better health and cleaner cities and no smog. Even in first world nations fossil fuels kill tens of thousands of people a year and add about 10% to our health bill. In America, the nation with the most expensive health bill on the planet, that's pretty much equivalent to the price of coal fired electricity in the first place! Fast tracking clean nuclear power will SAVE YOU STACKS OF MONEY!

SECURITY: Oil wars & geopolitics & energy security & buying oil from countries that don't like you very much & basically funding terrorists.
Data has shown that we are FAR more likely to intervene in civil wars in nations with oil than without.

FINITE: fossil fuels will run out one day anyway.

Global warming is real, and already killing something like 300,000 people a year but is ramping up.