Remember me
▼ Content

Help with math


Help with math26-05-2014 20:55
Windy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
My background in math is through differential equations, and I have used statistics over much of my life and I have a math question I need help with.

There is a correlation between C02 and world Temperature. What is it? For instance, 100 ppm of C02 = 3 Degrees Celsius


What is the correlation coefficient for the correlation? (.7 and up is considered a good correlation)

How was causation established?

Your help would be appreciated.
27-05-2014 15:32
Windy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
If this correlation is the basis for all climate science, why doesn't anybody help me understand it?
27-11-2014 13:55
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Probably because the phrasing of your question indicates an unfamiliarity with the topic.

What you seem to be looking for is "climate sensitivity" which is normally expressed as the expected temperature increase from a doubling of the amount of a given greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It has a few variations. If we were to double CO2 overnight, it would take some time (decades) for the Earth's climate to reach a new thermal equilibrium. Thus we have both a transient response and an equilibrium climate sensitivity. When climatologists discuss these parameters, the include or take into account as many of the positive and negative feedbacks the climate provides: increased water vapor from heating, methane from melting tundra, cloud cover, ocean carbonate solubility, etc. Deniers will often argue that the actual sensitivity is only what CO2 provides and that the rest of these "magic multipliers" don't exist.

There are numerous sources on the topic. Obviously, one of the best is the IPCC's Assessment Report. Their latest is AR5 and may be seen at www.ipcc.ch. For a complete discussion of climate sensitivity, how it is determined and the range of current estimates, see Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. For instance http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html.
Edited on 27-11-2014 13:56
17-10-2015 22:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
The general way it is described is that a doubling of CO2 will have x increase in temperature.

This is called the sensitivity level.

It is what all the argument is about.

The IPCC has an upper level of about 3 degrees c (I think 3.2 springs to mind..) but this was in 1998. Since then the lower level of 0.8 degrees is looking much more likely and even that is probably too high.
Edited on 17-10-2015 22:50
17-10-2015 23:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The general way it is described is that a doubling of CO2 will have x increase in temperature.

This is called the sensitivity level.

Of course this presumes that CO2 has some mystical, magical superpowers to defy the laws of physics and to perform weather miracles.

There is no such thing as "the sensitivity level" in science. CO2 has no such superpowers.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 23:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the Plumber - I'm only gonna say this once. After that, you're on your own.

Don't!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 00:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the Plumber - I'm only gonna say this once. After that, you're on your own.

Don't!


Care to explain what it is you are talking about?
18-10-2015 00:18
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The general way it is described is that a doubling of CO2 will have x increase in temperature.

This is called the sensitivity level.

Of course this presumes that CO2 has some mystical, magical superpowers to defy the laws of physics and to perform weather miracles.

There is no such thing as "the sensitivity level" in science. CO2 has no such superpowers.


Well, my science is not up to the whole IR absorption/re-emission thing so I'm just saying what my betters tell me. Royal society etc.

They normally talk about the climate sensitivity to CO2 is.... either as a watts oer square meter or a temperature rise.
18-10-2015 02:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
Windy wrote:There is a correlation between C02 and world Temperature. What is it? For instance, 100 ppm of C02 = 3 Degrees Celsius


There is no correlation coefficient K because there is no correlation whatsoever in the first place.

1. CO2 has no magical superpowers to violate the laws of physics, thus you won't find any relationship in science that expresses delta(CO2) = K*delta(temperature).

2. Ask Into the Night about how he has shown the lack of correlation of atmospheric CO2 (as measured from the Mauna Loa sensor station) and 1) California drought, 2) Atlantic hurricane frequency/strength and 3) Arctic ice extent (both minimum and maximum). I will testify to this.

Atmospheric composition is not a factor in planetary surface temperature, only a) distance from the sun, b) the strength of the solar output, c) the amount of atmosphere (atmospheric pressure) and d) the atmosphere's transparency across the solar EM spectrum. This means that there are no such things as magical "greenhouse gases" nor is there any sort of "greenhouse effect." This would explain why Into the Night can show a lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and anything Global Warming is supposed to be doing.

"Climate" is not defined anywhere in the body of science. Anyone using the term must define it her/himself...which s/he won't.*

*trafn is working on it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 02:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the Plumber - too late! Do enjoy. I'm outta here!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 05:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
There's a helpful blog for non-physicists to go learn about (and ask questions and discuss) the physics step by step, including the equations.

For example:

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/26/do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics/

He links to textbooks and published papers for reference.



Edited on 18-10-2015 05:20
18-10-2015 05:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
Ceist wrote:
There's a helpful blog for laypeople to go learn about (and discuss) the physics step by step, including the equations.

For example:

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

Awesome! What a moron! Let me catch my breath.

Can anyone guess why Creist didn't just copy from the crap he posted and paste into this thread the part where it explains where heat is magically created by the "greenhouse effect"?

Guesses? Anyone?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 05:27
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - oh, me! Oh, me! Pick me, please!

Okay, okay. So, uhhh, let's see. Cause it has to do with the Dark Under Lord returning to bring salvation to those who believe?

No, no wait, that's not it. Let's see. It has to do with Donald Trump, who everyone knows is actually Jimmy Hoffa in real life, coming back to revitalize the unions in the guise of an overbearing capitalist who then ends up seizing the White House before revealing himself as an ultra-socialist.

No, no, I know, that's not it either. So maybe it has to do with...
18-10-2015 05:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
trafn wrote:No, no wait, that's not it. Let's see. It has to do with Donald Trump, who everyone knows is actually Jimmy Hoffa in real life, coming back to revitalize the unions in the guise of an overbearing capitalist who then ends up seizing the White House before revealing himself as an ultra-socialist.


There's a "Creep Show" manuscript in there somewhere.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 05:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Of course, some lay people are so confused that they actually believe that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the laws of thermodynamics. They are even delusional enough to believe that all the physics in textbooks is wrong and they are 'right' even though they are unable to demonstrate that they know the difference between a heat transfer equation and a Greek laundry list. Sad, I know.

For those people, they might need to start at a much simpler 'kiddies' level before they can attempt to comprehend the basic physics involved:

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

Or maybe ask a physicist to give them a hug.

Or seek therapy.



Edited on 18-10-2015 06:04
18-10-2015 05:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
Ceist wrote:
Of course, some adults are so confused, they might need to start at a much simpler level before they can attempt to comprehend the physics:


Of course with others, the best form of support is to just offer encouragement and hope.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 05:45
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - okay, okay, I get it, but enough with the Special Olympics. My brother participates in that.

How about the Hitler Youth instead?
18-10-2015 06:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - okay, okay, I get it, but enough with the Special Olympics. My brother participates in that.

So do I. I have been an event coordinator.

The same things are important amongst warmazombies and special olympians. Results are not what is important, but in sharing the encouragement, in supporting the effort and permitting participation, it's in allowing one to feel good imagining that his/her performance is the real deal, and in liberally distributing congratulations/kudos/awards.

Listening to posters like Creist remind me that the warmazombie crowd is, in fact, a cognitive special olympics and that I should be offering encouragement rather than expecting regular adult-level of debate, and certainly not expecting any science, math or logic to come into play.

I will make a concerted effort to be more "liberally awarding" with him in the future.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 06:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Windy wrote:
My background in math is through differential equations, and I have used statistics over much of my life and I have a math question I need help with.

There is a correlation between C02 and world Temperature. What is it? For instance, 100 ppm of C02 = 3 Degrees Celsius


What is the correlation coefficient for the correlation? (.7 and up is considered a good correlation)

How was causation established?

Your help would be appreciated.


Not sure if this poster is coming back, but it also helps to do some groundwork study in atmospheric physics and chemistry. Some engineering/economics/statistician types make some very basic embarrassing mistakes going outside their own fields without at least a basic grounding in climate sciences, especially atmospheric science. A good first year text will cover the basics.

http://www.cambridge.org/au/search?iFeelLucky=false&site=&query=atmospheric+physics&searchSubmitProducts=Search&currentTheme=Academic_v1

This textbook is very comprehensive:

http://www.cambridge.org/au/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/climatology-and-climate-change/principles-planetary-climate?format=HB



Edited on 18-10-2015 07:25
18-10-2015 17:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann & Ceist - believe me, I know how rewarding and fun it can be to blow off some steam once and in awhile (what, me?), but regardless of which side of the fence (or atmosphere) you're on, we can still share some great ideas.

Walt Disney used this to great effect in creating some of his earliest and best movies. He put together 3 groups of people who he called the visionaries, the critics and the realists. The visionaries were the idea people who weren't restrained by reality. The critics were the people who always found the weak spots in everyone elses ideas. The realists were the people who could take others' ideas and translate them into practical applications (animated movie story lines in this case). So, first he'd go to the visionaries for an idea, which he would then take to the critics to find the weakness in those ideas, and finally he'd take both groups opinions to the realist to see what they could make of it. He'd repeat this process - visionary, to critic, to realist, then back to visionary again - over and over until he'd finally come out with an astounding movie.* The trick to all this was that he never alllowed the visionaries or critics or realists to meet or work with one another. He kept them totally isolated from each other because he knew if he didn't that they'd influence and diminish each others work.

We're kind of like that here, with visionaries, critics and realists, and I think we get much better results when we allow each other to maintain our separate points of view and still contribute to the conversation.

Enough said.

* - in some versions of this story he went from visionary to realist to critic to realist and then back to visionary again.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 17:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann & Ceist - believe me, I know how rewarding and fun it can be to blow off some steam once and in awhile (what, me?), but regardless of which side of the fence (or atmosphere) you're on, we can still share some great ideas.

Walt Disney used this to great effect in creating some of his earliest and best movies. He put together 3 groups of people who he called the visionaries, the critics and the realists. The visionaries were the idea people who weren't restrained by reality. The critics were the people who always found the weak spots in everyone elses ideas. The realists were the people who could take others' ideas and translate them into practical applications (animated movie story lines in this case). So, first he'd go to the visionaries for an idea, which he would then take to the critics to find the weakness in those ideas, and finally he'd take both groups opinions to the realist to see what they could make of it. He'd repeat this process - visionary, to critic, to realist, then back to visionary again - over and over until he'd finally come out with an astounding movie.* The trick to all this was that he never alllowed the visionaries or critics or realists to meet or work with one another. He kept them totally isolated from each other because he knew if he didn't that they'd influence and diminish each others work.

We're kind of like that here, with visionaries, critics and realists, and I think we get much better results when we allow each other to maintain our separate points of view and still contribute to the conversation.

Enough said.

* - in some versions of this story he went from visionary to realist to critic to realist and then back to visionary again.


If anybody can translate that into somethingI might have a chance of understanding I would appreciate it. That is something to do with the maths involved in climate science.

Otherwise I will have to put it in the meaningless sermon catagory. That is where a rambling story unfolds with an expected punch line of meaning but never gets there. The purpose of it is to put your mind in an open state ready for the next batch of hypnosis. That and to distract you from the lack of any input actully coming out.
18-10-2015 18:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
trafn wrote: regardless of which side of the fence (or atmosphere) you're on, we can still share some great ideas.

I have an idea that I posted on Topix that I'd like to bounce off Creist, Climate Scientist and yourself. Please let me know what you think.

I think that one of the effects of climate change is that the sky is a bit bluer than it would otherwise be, which I think is a good thing that doesn't get the same kind of attention it deserves because people are too focused on the "bad" parts of climate change. Anyway, it seems pretty clear that the climate is changing away from us, causing a blue shift in the atmosphere. Doppler recognized this over a century and a half ago and it is pretty much settled science.

Climate change ensures we have blue skies, yes?

But I did want to let you all know, as I posted on Topix, that I looked into all the things you were saying and there is some merit to your assertions, at least from my initial observations. Yesterday I went outside and I noticed the climate change! I mean the climate had totally changed. It was like an entirely different climate! I almost didn't even recognize it. It turns out that the climate change had accelerated (away from us). Climate changes in mysterious ways.

trafn wrote: We're kind of like that here, with visionaries, critics and realists, and I think we get much better results when we allow each other to maintain our separate points of view and still contribute to the conversation.

I love it! Those are completely loaded terms. I, of course am the realist in the group, yes? Oh, wait, no...you mean that I'm the critic, right? Let me guess, you're the visionary, yes? Enough said.

You showed class, however, by not specifying and leaving everyone to imagine for themselves which they are. Rock on.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 19:08
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann (and ignoring Tim the Dumber) - a change in color (becoming "bluer") may not be the same thing as a blue shift.

From my days when I was a textile dye chemist at Tompkins Fabrics in Syracuse, NY, I recall that color is the result of many things, including pigment density. In a sense, you can consider the gases in the atmosphere as a kind of pigment which affect the overall color or the sky. A "bluer" sky might indeed be the result of greater concentrations (increased density) of certain GHG's in the atmosphere (i.e. - water).

On the other hand, a "blue shift" is a phrase implying that something is moving toward you, as opposed to away from you (i.e. - red shift).

I would suggest that your "bluer" sky is likely the result of the former (density based) rather than the latter (movement based).

PS - a note of interest. According to my thesis which defines M2C2 as producing an expanding and ultimately bursting atmosphere, one would expect to see a red shift as water vapor moves higher up and farther away. There are some related and interesting studies on this such as:

Rising Height of Atmospheric Boundary Points to Human Impact on Climate


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 19:13
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@no one in particular - Oh My God! This is sad. After writing the above post, I found this old 2012 article on the internet:

Demolition of Tompkins Fabric building begins in Franklin Square

My office, where I used to do spectral analysis of fabric samples using a DEC mini-computer which had a dual-cartridge memory drive, was about 20 feet inside from that green bordered window in the video still.


The DEC minicomputer had 2 memory drives just like this one:



One day, I actually acted on faulty judgement and pulled one of the cartridges out while it was still running - bad idea!
Edited on 18-10-2015 19:22
18-10-2015 19:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
trafn wrote:On the other hand, a "blue shift" is a phrase implying that something is moving toward you, as opposed to away from you (i.e. - red shift).

My apologies on the editing. I made this error on Topix and just copied it over here. I had originally written a longer paragraph that included the indication that climate changing towards us, producing bluer skies, was proof of Global Warming and that we'd know if there were Global Cooling by seeing an atmospheric red shift...but then I took that part out and didn't straighten the directions.

Beer during Global Warming:

Beer during Global Cooling:


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 18-10-2015 19:28
18-10-2015 19:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - I'm not sure if I agree with you're conclusions, but I'll drink to that!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 17:46
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - in a recent post in this thread where you were replying to my anecdote about Walt Disney, you said I love it! Those are completely loaded terms. I, of course am the realist in the group, yes? Oh, wait, no...you mean that I'm the critic, right? Let me guess, you're the visionary, yes? Enough said.

Actually you can look at it that way, or:

1. I'm the critic as I criticize the validity of your point of view.

2. We're both critics as I criticize the validity of your point of view and you criticize the validity of my point of view.

3. We're both visionaries as I defend my vision of the Earth undergoing M2C2 while you defend your vision of an Earth without M2C2.

So there you have it. Pick any one of these four that you like (i.e. - your original one and the three I've added here).

I wonder which one history will finally choose?




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 19:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3686)
trafn wrote: I wonder which one history will finally choose?

Would you mean which one the future will decide?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-10-2015 23:58
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - no, I mean history, because:

History forgets everyone, especially those it remembers.


(a trafnism)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
02-12-2016 19:21
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Windy wrote:
My background in math is through differential equations, and I have used statistics over much of my life and I have a math question I need help with.

There is a correlation between C02 and world Temperature. What is it? For instance, 100 ppm of C02 = 3 Degrees Celsius


What is the correlation coefficient for the correlation? (.7 and up is considered a good correlation)

How was causation established?

Your help would be appreciated.


Causation was of course (and can never be) established. Misuse of statistics that is. The significance of a correlation coefficient depends on how many observations you have.




Join the debate Help with math:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
It's In The Math, It's Not But Should Be2708-06-2017 04:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact