Sun Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is false.

[itfitzme]

PDO, AMO and ocean heat absorption

Of course, in a year that the ocean surface temperature is higher, it will absorb less heat then in a year that it is lower. Assuming all other things being equal, then there should be a positive correlation between air temp and ocean temp, a higher ocean temp resulting in a higher air temp.

This leads to the question as to if there is a lag between the two. The idea being that in the year following a higher ocean temp, there would be higher air temp as less heat was absorbed in the previous year. And, in fact, the correlation of PDO and AMO to global air temp is higher with a one year lag than with no lag or two years.




For PDO, the correlation is pretty stark, going from 89% to 96%





AMO, not so much, sitting at only 40 to 45%. Still, it gains 5 points compared to the PDO gain of 7%.

 

[itfitzme]

Climate Forcing Data

Climate Forcing - Obtaining and Contributing Data

The NOAA Paleoclimatology Program archives data on climate forcing in addition to its extensive paleoclimatic proxy data archives. A variety of data about factors potentially affecting climate are included, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, trace gasses and aerosols, and Milankovitch orbital variations.

 

[flacaltenn]

PDO, AMO and ocean heat absorption

Of course, in a year that the ocean surface temperature is higher, it will absorb less heat then in a year that it is lower. Assuming all other things being equal, then there should be a positive correlation between air temp and ocean temp, a higher ocean temp resulting in a higher air temp.

This leads to the question as to if there is a lag between the two. The idea being that in the year following a higher ocean temp, there would be higher air temp as less heat was absorbed in the previous year. And, in fact, the correlation of PDO and AMO to global air temp is higher with a one year lag than with no lag or two years.




For PDO, the correlation is pretty stark, going from 89% to 96%





AMO, not so much, sitting at only 40 to 45%. Still, it gains 5 points compared to the PDO gain of 7%.

Jeepers Mr Snowjob. When I said you were FOS before, I guess I mis-integrated your volumetric capacity.. Explained to u why your CO2 corr coefficient did not imply ANYTHING about the AMOUNT of causality.. By your totured understanding of math --- your now up to about 230% of the causes of temp rise..

Keep up the cooking lesson...... Fraud...

Dont get me wrong. You are not wasting your time learning the tools..
Thats commenable.. Should u decide to drop the act and LISTEN to advice, I could save u the public embarrassment of making all learning public.

 

[itfitzme]

PDO, AMO and ocean heat absorption

Of course, in a year that the ocean surface temperature is higher, it will absorb less heat then in a year that it is lower. Assuming all other things being equal, then there should be a positive correlation between air temp and ocean temp, a higher ocean temp resulting in a higher air temp.

This leads to the question as to if there is a lag between the two. The idea being that in the year following a higher ocean temp, there would be higher air temp as less heat was absorbed in the previous year. And, in fact, the correlation of PDO and AMO to global air temp is higher with a one year lag than with no lag or two years.



For PDO, the correlation is pretty stark, going from 89% to 96%



AMO, not so much, sitting at only 40 to 45%. Still, it gains 5 points compared to the PDO gain of 7%.

Jeepers Mr Snowjob. When I said you were FOS before, I guess I mis-integrated your volumetric capacity.. Explained to u why your CO2 corr coefficient did not imply ANYTHING about the AMOUNT of causality.. By your totured understanding of math --- your now up to about 230% of the causes of temp rise..

Keep up the cooking lesson...... Fraud...

Dont get me wrong. You are not wasting your time learning the tools..
Thats commenable.. Should u decide to drop the act and LISTEN to advice, I could save u the public embarrassment of making all learning public.

Still babbling with the mind numbing "correlation doesn't prove causality", eh.

Damn, we should just throw out 200 year of science seeing as all that correlation is meaningless.

Still after correlating sinusoids and cosines?

Oh, yeah, no similarities here.......



Must be some magical cosines and sines causing it.

 

[flacaltenn]

PDO, AMO and ocean heat absorption

Of course, in a year that the ocean surface temperature is higher, it will absorb less heat then in a year that it is lower. Assuming all other things being equal, then there should be a positive correlation between air temp and ocean temp, a higher ocean temp resulting in a higher air temp.

This leads to the question as to if there is a lag between the two. The idea being that in the year following a higher ocean temp, there would be higher air temp as less heat was absorbed in the previous year. And, in fact, the correlation of PDO and AMO to global air temp is higher with a one year lag than with no lag or two years.




For PDO, the correlation is pretty stark, going from 89% to 96%





AMO, not so much, sitting at only 40 to 45%. Still, it gains 5 points compared to the PDO gain of 7%.

Jeepers Mr Snowjob. When I said you were FOS before, I guess I mis-integrated your volumetric capacity.. Explained to u why your CO2 corr coefficient did not imply ANYTHING about the AMOUNT of causality.. By your totured understanding of math --- your now up to about 230% of the causes of temp rise..

Keep up the cooking lesson...... Fraud...

Dont get me wrong. You are not wasting your time learning the tools..
Thats commenable.. Should u decide to drop the act and LISTEN to advice, I could save u the public embarrassment of making all learning public.

Still babbling with the mind numbing "correlation doesn't prove causality", eh.

Damn, we should just throw out 200 year of science seeing as all that correlation is meaningless.

Still after correlating sinusoids and cosines?

Actually ur propably more like 280% of causality fot the temp curve. Thats highenough for me... Looks like you win some award for this souffle....

 

[itfitzme]

Jeepers Mr Snowjob. When I said you were FOS before, I guess I mis-integrated your volumetric capacity.. Explained to u why your CO2 corr coefficient did not imply ANYTHING about the AMOUNT of causality.. By your totured understanding of math --- your now up to about 230% of the causes of temp rise..

Keep up the cooking lesson...... Fraud...

Dont get me wrong. You are not wasting your time learning the tools..
Thats commenable.. Should u decide to drop the act and LISTEN to advice, I could save u the public embarrassment of making all learning public.

Still babbling with the mind numbing "correlation doesn't prove causality", eh.

Damn, we should just throw out 200 year of science seeing as all that correlation is meaningless.

Still after correlating sinusoids and cosines?

Actually ur propably more like 280% of causality fot the temp curve. Thats highenough for me... Looks like you win some award for this souffle....

Yeah, that's it, 280% causality. Sure... Whatever shit you want to make up. Because when it comes to actual facts, you have nothing on your side. Just magical sines and cosines.

Tell us again how the climate is driven by sines and cosines.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW I have several papers on ocean acoutics and image processing based on correlation and coherence functions... when used correctly, can do amazing things.

 

[itfitzme]

BTW I have several papers on ocean acoutics and image processing based on correlation and coherence functions... when used correctly, can do amazing things.

Yeah, sure, that's it. The global temperature increase is due to H.264 image compression. That's it. Or are you thinking it is due to the DCT transformation of TSI as it is absorbed by the oceans......

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, no. Your taxes pay for the military and farm subsidies. Mine pays for their careers.

That might be true if our 1040 form had a checkoff so we could choose the programs we wanted our taxes to fund. However, if that was the case, then "climate scientists" would probably get about 1% of what they are getting now. Social Security and Medicare would disappear. So would welfare.



Are you really going to tell us that when the government takes money out of my pocket that it doesn't affect my spending power? Seriously?

That's what it is about. And why you are scientifically illiterate. Because you're are trying to prove you would have a higher standard of living by nullifying AWG. Sciencific reasoning doesn't work that way.

Apparently what you call "scientific reasoning" is a form of brain damage. Economics does work that way. Any money the government takes out of my check is money I don't have to spend. I'd love to see you extrapolate on this theory that the government and I can both spend the same dollar. I think that's called the "having your cake and eating it too" theory of economics.

Here is an example of scientific reasoning.

MV=PQ

We can take P and Q as vectors.

Here is another



Your inability to grasp the meaning is your own problem.

What does your equation and your chart have to do with whether taxes reduce my standard of living?

I'm just dying to see your explanation.

 

[Abraham3]

Jeepers Mr Snowjob. When I said you were FOS before, I guess I mis-integrated your volumetric capacity.. Explained to u why your CO2 corr coefficient did not imply ANYTHING about the AMOUNT of causality.. By your totured understanding of math --- your now up to about 230% of the causes of temp rise..

Keep up the cooking lesson...... Fraud...

Dont get me wrong. You are not wasting your time learning the tools..
Thats commenable.. Should u decide to drop the act and LISTEN to advice, I could save u the public embarrassment of making all learning public.

Wow... I don't know what YOU think this has all looked like, but I can guarantee you that from the outside looking in, I'd say you have no doors left in whatever city you live in, that you have the cleanest clocks in all creation and that every smoke alarm within a 14 kilometer radius is waling.

 

[itfitzme]

That might be true if our 1040 form had a checkoff so we could choose the programs we wanted our taxes to fund. However, if that was the case, then "climate scientists" would probably get about 1% of what they are getting now. Social Security and Medicare would disappear. So would welfare.



Are you really going to tell us that when the government takes money out of my pocket that it doesn't affect my spending power? Seriously?



Apparently what you call "scientific reasoning" is a form of brain damage. Economics does work that way. Any money the government takes out of my check is money I don't have to spend. I'd love to see you extrapolate on this theory that the government and I can both spend the same dollar. I think that's called the "having your cake and eating it too" theory of economics.

Here is an example of scientific reasoning.

MV=PQ

We can take P and Q as vectors.

Here is another



Your inability to grasp the meaning is your own problem.

What does your equation and your chart have to do with whether taxes reduce my standard of living?

I'm just dying to see your explanation.

You will need one more thing, the history of tax rates.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

It should be easy for you to figure out, seeing as you're so smart.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is an example of scientific reasoning.

MV=PQ

We can take P and Q as vectors.

Here is another



Your inability to grasp the meaning is your own problem.

What does your equation and your chart have to do with whether taxes reduce my standard of living?

I'm just dying to see your explanation.

You will need one more thing, the history of tax rates.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

It should be easy for you to figure out, seeing as you're so smart.

In other words, you are afraid to explain it.

I understand why. You can imagine the snickering before you even post your explanation.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, no. Your taxes pay for the military and farm subsidies. Mine pays for their careers.

That might be true if our 1040 form had a checkoff so we could choose the programs we wanted our taxes to fund. However, if that was the case, then "climate scientists" would probably get about 1% of what they are getting now. Social Security and Medicare would disappear. So would welfare.



Are you really going to tell us that when the government takes money out of my pocket that it doesn't affect my spending power? Seriously?

That's what it is about. And why you are scientifically illiterate. Because you're are trying to prove you would have a higher standard of living by nullifying AWG. Sciencific reasoning doesn't work that way.

Apparently what you call "scientific reasoning" is a form of brain damage. Economics does work that way. Any money the government takes out of my check is money I don't have to spend. I'd love to see you extrapolate on this theory that the government and I can both spend the same dollar. I think that's called the "having your cake and eating it too" theory of economics.

Yes, dude, I am telling you that everything you have responded with is wrong.

I know you are. that's why we're all laughing.

I am telling you that those taxes were never in your pocket in the first place.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that income taxes are deducted from my pay before I receive my paycheck. That doesn't alter the fact that my check would be bigger if the tax rate was lower. Apparently you believe that changes in tax rates don't cause my paycheck to change.

I am telling, definitively, that they have nothing to do with your spending power.

ROFL! Yeah, I know. That's why I'm laughing. Now produce some kind of rational explanation why anyone should believe such shear lunacy.

And I can prove it to anyone with a brain that has the capaciry for logic, reason, and mathmatics. It is a macroeconomic effect that is the result of our common money supply.

So called "macro economic theory" is just a grab bag of rationalizations that toadies on the government payroll invented to justify bigger government. It's propaganda, not economics.

You are simply not capable because you are emotionally and intellectuqlly deficient.

That's the kind of argument you hear from 2nd graders on the play ground:

"I'm not going to tell you because you're too stupid to understand!"

Yeah, we're all impressed with your command of economics and logic.

 

[itfitzme]

What does your equation and your chart have to do with whether taxes reduce my standard of living?

I'm just dying to see your explanation.

You will need one more thing, the history of tax rates.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

It should be easy for you to figure out, seeing as you're so smart.

In other words, you are afraid to explain it.

I understand why. You can imagine the snickering before you even post your explanation.

No, I already have, numerous times. Your just not capable of grasping the concept. If you really want to know, I've given you all the tools you need to figure it out.

 

[bripat9643]

You will need one more thing, the history of tax rates.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

It should be easy for you to figure out, seeing as you're so smart.

In other words, you are afraid to explain it.

I understand why. You can imagine the snickering before you even post your explanation.

No, I already have, numerous times. Your just not capable of grasping the concept. If you really want to know, I've given you all the tools you need to figure it out.

I've ridiculed your explanations and shot them full of holes. You're too stupid to realize your argument is dead.

I grasp that you're a deluded statist who is incapable of committing logic. Your theory is that having less money is the same as having the same amount of money. You have failed to offer a single argument in favor of this idiocy. All you've done is stamp your feet and shout "is so!"

 

[itfitzme]

That might be true if our 1040 form had a checkoff so we could choose the programs we wanted our taxes to fund. However, if that was the case, then "climate scientists" would probably get about 1% of what they are getting now. Social Security and Medicare would disappear. So would welfare.



Are you really going to tell us that when the government takes money out of my pocket that it doesn't affect my spending power? Seriously?



Apparently what you call "scientific reasoning" is a form of brain damage. Economics does work that way. Any money the government takes out of my check is money I don't have to spend. I'd love to see you extrapolate on this theory that the government and I can both spend the same dollar. I think that's called the "having your cake and eating it too" theory of economics.

Yes, dude, I am telling you that everything you have responded with is wrong.

I know you are. that's why we're all laughing.



Thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that income taxes are deducted from my pay before I receive my paycheck. That doesn't alter the fact that my check would be bigger if the tax rate was lower. Apparently you believe that changes in tax rates don't cause my paycheck to change.



ROFL! Yeah, I know. That's why I'm laughing. Now produce some kind of rational explanation why anyone should believe such shear lunacy.

And I can prove it to anyone with a brain that has the capaciry for logic, reason, and mathmatics. It is a macroeconomic effect that is the result of our common money supply.

So called "macro economic theory" is just a grab bag of rationalizations that toadies on the government payroll invented to justify bigger government. It's propaganda, not economics.

You are simply not capable because you are emotionally and intellectuqlly deficient.

That's the kind of argument you hear from 2nd graders on the play ground:

"I'm not going to tell you because you're too stupid to understand!"

Yeah, we're all impressed with your command of economics and logic.

And everyones paycheck is bigger than paychecks were in 1920. It is called inflation. So you actually believe that just because a teacher made $1236 annually in 1919 and now makes about $64,000 that teachers now can buy 51x as much stuff? Really, you are that dumb?

You should go read about "real dollars" and "nominal dollars".

 

[itfitzme]

In other words, you are afraid to explain it.

I understand why. You can imagine the snickering before you even post your explanation.

No, I already have, numerous times. Your just not capable of grasping the concept. If you really want to know, I've given you all the tools you need to figure it out.

I've ridiculed your explanations and shot them full of holes. You're too stupid to realize your argument is dead.

I grasp that you're a deluded statist who is incapable of committing logic. Your theory is that having less money is the same as having the same amount of money. You have failed to offer a single argument in favor of this idiocy. All you've done is stamp your feet and shout "is so!"

No you haven't. All you've done is mentally jerked yourself off so you could feel good.

You haven't shot anything full of holes because you haven't said anything of substance, presented any data, or presented any deductive reasoning.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, dude, I am telling you that everything you have responded with is wrong.

I know you are. that's why we're all laughing.



Thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that income taxes are deducted from my pay before I receive my paycheck. That doesn't alter the fact that my check would be bigger if the tax rate was lower. Apparently you believe that changes in tax rates don't cause my paycheck to change.



ROFL! Yeah, I know. That's why I'm laughing. Now produce some kind of rational explanation why anyone should believe such shear lunacy.



So called "macro economic theory" is just a grab bag of rationalizations that toadies on the government payroll invented to justify bigger government. It's propaganda, not economics.

You are simply not capable because you are emotionally and intellectuqlly deficient.

That's the kind of argument you hear from 2nd graders on the play ground:

"I'm not going to tell you because you're too stupid to understand!"

Yeah, we're all impressed with your command of economics and logic.

And everyones paycheck is bigger than paychecks were in 1920. It is called inflation.

That's your explanation? Because inflation.cause everyone's paycheck to increase? You, as a self proclaimed expert on economics should be the first to understand that a nominal increase in your paycheck isn't the same as a real increase in your paycheck.

So you actually believe that just because a teacher made $1236 annually in 1919 and now makes about $64,000 that teachers now can buy 51x as much stuff? Really, you are that dumb?

What the fuck does inflation have to do with whether taxes reduce your paycheck or not?

Assuming you didn't get a raise, If you paid 35% of you gross pay to the government in 2009 and 39% of your gross pay to the government in 2010, you have less net pay. Not even a moron or a liberal would dispute it.

You should go read about "real dollars" and "nominal dollars".

Inflation has nothing to do with your theory that tax increases don't reduce your net pay. We all know things other than taxes affect your spending power. That's all you proved.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I already have, numerous times. Your just not capable of grasping the concept. If you really want to know, I've given you all the tools you need to figure it out.

I've ridiculed your explanations and shot them full of holes. You're too stupid to realize your argument is dead.

I grasp that you're a deluded statist who is incapable of committing logic. Your theory is that having less money is the same as having the same amount of money. You have failed to offer a single argument in favor of this idiocy. All you've done is stamp your feet and shout "is so!"

No you haven't. All you've done is mentally jerked yourself off so you could feel good.

You haven't shot anything full of holes because you haven't said anything of substance, presented any data, or presented any deductive reasoning.

In other words "Nyah nyah nyah!" I've had more intelligent conversations with 2nd graders.

I don't need to present data to prove your claim is horse manure. A smaller number on your paycheck is smaller than a bigger number. That's the result of basic logic. Please disprove it. We're all anxiously waiting to see this stunning argument you claim to have.

 

[itfitzme]

I've ridiculed your explanations and shot them full of holes. You're too stupid to realize your argument is dead.

I grasp that you're a deluded statist who is incapable of committing logic. Your theory is that having less money is the same as having the same amount of money. You have failed to offer a single argument in favor of this idiocy. All you've done is stamp your feet and shout "is so!"

No you haven't. All you've done is mentally jerked yourself off so you could feel good.

You haven't shot anything full of holes because you haven't said anything of substance, presented any data, or presented any deductive reasoning.

In other words "Nyah nyah nyah!" I've had more intelligent conversations with 2nd graders.

I don't need to present data to prove your claim is horse manure. A smaller number on your paycheck is smaller than a bigger number. That's the result of basic logic. Please disprove it. We're all anxiously waiting to see this stunning argument you claim to have.

So you don't understand the difference between nominal and real dollars? Or you do? Depends on if you like the answer or not? Hard to tell. Okay.

That explains why you find a conversation with a second grader as an intelligent conversation.

------

"Because inflation.cause everyone's paycheck to increase?"

Very good. You are getting warmer. Mull it over for a while (a couple of months, in your case). You might get it.