Your Extinction.

[jc456]

Anyplace on planet Earth.

So no place. So you’re a scammer

 

[jc456]

There is no point in going round and round on this matter. The point of this thread is your extinction. 100% of our electricity could be coming from nuclear power plants. It wouldn't change anything. People themselves cause pollution. And there are too many of them. I also saw something interesting today. In population, China and India are Number 1 and Number 2. If each country lowered their population by 1 billion people, they would still be number 1 and number 2 when it came to ranking countries by their population levels.

Pollution?

 

[ding]

Well every kind of evidence shows that human caused global warming is a reality.

Incorrect. The empirical evidence from the geologic record shows the exact opposite.

 

[ding]

You don't need to "cross plot" anything. You just look at the graphs and see where they are heading. And in which time span.

Sure you do. The correlation between temperature and CO2 is broken. Cross plotting it proves it.

 

[Crick]

Sure you do. The correlation between temperature and CO2 is broken. Cross plotting it proves it.

Show us such a cross plot and explain how it proves there is no correlation. Then you might explain what it was that broke the laws of physics to accomplish what you claim has happened.

 

[ding]

Show us such a cross plot and explain how it proves there is no correlation. Then you might explain what it was that broke the laws of physics to accomplish what you claim has happened.

You can see it by inspection. Temperature did not follow CO2.

 

[Crick]

You really suck at technical communication. I presume (and PLEASE tell me if I've gotten this wrong) that you believe the correlation between CO2 and temperature has broken down because of the behavior of the two graphs at the very far right end, where we see an enormous jump in CO2 circled in red and only a small jump in temperatures. The problem here is that you don't understand correlation nor apparently the two functions which connect the two parameters. Temperature and CO2 are operating on different scales for one and the lead/lag relationship has reversed from most prior events. In the past, temperature rose from increased insolation due to the Milankovitch cycles. That increased CO2 due to decreased solubility. So CO2 lagged temperature. In the current regime, CO2 is driving temperature upwards via greenhouse warming and thus it leads temperature. Even in the past, after CO2 had increased due to increased temperature, the greenhouse effect would push temperatures even further - increased CO2 was a result of warming AND a positive feedback. They are still correlated but their relationship is more complicated then even deniers with a better understanding of correlation than you would prefer.

Perhaps this will help

CO2 and Temperature - Clintel

By Andy May I had a very interesting online discussion about CO2 and temperature with Tinus Pulles, a retired Dutch environmental scientist. To read the whole discussion, go to the comments at the end of this post. He presented me with a graphic from Dr. Robert Rohde from twitter that you can...

clintel.org

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND TEMPERATURE HAS NOT BROKEN DOWN

 

[ding]

Show us such a cross plot and explain how it proves there is no correlation. Then you might explain what it was that broke the laws of physics to accomplish what you claim has happened.

Here's a crossplot which shows that CO2 correlates to emissions. You will see the correlation between temperature and CO2 is broken by plotting temperature with CO2.

You really suck at technical communication. I presume (and PLEASE tell me if I've gotten this wrong) that you believe the correlation between CO2 and temperature has broken down because of the behavior of the two graphs at the very far right end, where we see an enormous jump in CO2 circled in red and only a small jump in temperatures. The problem here is that you don't understand correlation nor apparently the two functions which connect the two parameters. Temperature and CO2 are operating on different scales for one and the lead/lag relationship has reversed from most prior events. In the past, temperature rose from increased insolation due to the Milankovitch cycles. That increased CO2 due to decreased solubility. So CO2 lagged temperature. In the current regime, CO2 is driving temperature upwards via greenhouse warming and thus it leads temperature. Even in the past, after CO2 had increased due to increased temperature, the greenhouse effect would push temperatures even further - increased CO2 was a result of warming AND a positive feedback. They are still correlated but their relationship is more complicated then even deniers with a better understanding of correlation than you would prefer.

Perhaps this will help

CO2 and Temperature - Clintel

By Andy May I had a very interesting online discussion about CO2 and temperature with Tinus Pulles, a retired Dutch environmental scientist. To read the whole discussion, go to the comments at the end of this post. He presented me with a graphic from Dr. Robert Rohde from twitter that you can...

clintel.org

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND TEMPERATURE HAS NOT BROKEN DOWN

That’s not a cross plot. Do you know what a cross plot is?

 

[jc456]

Well every kind of evidence shows that human caused global warming is a reality.

What evidence is that

 

[skookerasbil]

Elsewhere, I have been seeing some crap about global warming. Global warming is a reality. And it is being caused by humans. It's hard to tell if those who deny it are stupid or evil. I have even heard the CEO of EXXON admit that global warming was a reality. Even the Pentagon recognizes it as a threat. And you would have to be pretty stupid or evil to go against what around 98% of the scientists say.

Also, CO2 has been measured to be on the increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Coincidence? I don't think so. Another point is that all the volcanoes on Earth release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. The activities of humans are responsible for around 32.3 BILLION tons of CO2 each year. Also, global warming is getting exponentially worse. Which means that the hotter things get, the faster they will get even hotter.

What all this means is that if you are planning on living past about the year 2050, make other plans. The chief cause of your fast approaching extinction isn't CO2. (Which is bad enough) It is methane. Methane is around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. And like CO2, the rate at which it is being released is also increasing. I will show you a graph showing the rate at which it is increasing. Incredibly, despite all the evaporating methane hydrate ice in the oceans or that being released from thawing tundra, about 60% of what is shown is being caused by human activities. I will also show you what other CO2 graphs that I have. For the deniers, continue to deny at your own peril.

View attachment 765482
View attachment 765483
View attachment 765484
View attachment 765488
View attachment 765490
View attachment 765492
View attachment 765493
View attachment 765494
View attachment 765495

You might care s0n but few others do.

Most people...by far btw...don't tend to the hysterical. Have real things to worry about.

Show us some evidence the public cares about extinction.
Links please....

Drrrrrrr

 

[Captain Caveman]

Don't worry guys, the chief alarmists practice what they preach......oh......hang on

 

[jc456]

Well every kind of evidence shows that human caused global warming is a reality.

Then why can’t you post any?

 

[Crick]

Here's a crossplot which shows that CO2 correlates to emissions. You will see the correlation between temperature and CO2 is broken by plotting temperature with CO2.

View attachment 780685

That’s not a cross plot. Do you know what a cross plot is?

I do know what it is and I don't give a shit about cross plots. I give a shit about DATA. The data I have presented to you has convinced me and ALL the world's scientists that there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Your claim to be smarter than all of them is absolutely laughable; both that you would believe such a thing AND that you think you could convince ANYONE else that you are. I'm no expert but I would think that such a thing borders on a severe mental illness. You tell us that a crossplot of temperature and CO2 would show the correlation (magically) broken but, for some reason, you fail to simply put up such a plot. Why?

 

[jc456]

I do know what it is and I don't give a shit about cross plots. I give a shit about DATA. The data I have presented to you has convinced me and ALL the world's scientists that there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Your claim to be smarter than all of them is absolutely laughable; both that you would believe such a thing AND that you think you could convince ANYONE else that you are. I'm no expert but I would think that such a thing borders on a severe mental illness. You tell us that a crossplot of temperature and CO2 would show the correlation (magically) broken but, for some reason, you fail to simply put up such a plot. Why?

Still waiting on how many scientists that is.
Over dramatize yourself boob.

Even My eighteen year old grandson knows weather begins over the equator and you don’t know that

 

[ding]

I do know what it is and I don't give a shit about cross plots. I give a shit about DATA. The data I have presented to you has convinced me and ALL the world's scientists that there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Your claim to be smarter than all of them is absolutely laughable; both that you would believe such a thing AND that you think you could convince ANYONE else that you are. I'm no expert but I would think that such a thing borders on a severe mental illness. You tell us that a crossplot of temperature and CO2 would show the correlation (magically) broken but, for some reason, you fail to simply put up such a plot. Why?

Because the only way you can prove a correlation is by cross plotting the data.

 

[Crick]

Because the only way you can prove a correlation is by cross plotting the data.

Really? By plotting? Wow...

Correlation Coefficients: Positive, Negative, and Zero

Correlation coefficients can mean a positive, negative, or no relationship between two variables. Use correlation coefficients to help pick securities for your portfolio.

www.investopedia.com

Correlation

When two sets of data are strongly linked together we say they have a High Correlation

www.mathsisfun.com

 

[jc456]

Because the only way you can prove a correlation is by cross plotting the data.

Otherwise known as manipulating

 

[Crick]

Otherwise known as manipulating

No.

 

[jc456]

No.

Like Michael Mann

 

[ding]

Really? By plotting? Wow...

Correlation Coefficients: Positive, Negative, and Zero

Correlation coefficients can mean a positive, negative, or no relationship between two variables. Use correlation coefficients to help pick securities for your portfolio.

www.investopedia.com

Correlation

When two sets of data are strongly linked together we say they have a High Correlation

www.mathsisfun.com

Again... that's not a cross plot. I get that you are afraid of cross plotting atmospheric CO2 versus temperature. And you should be too.