Remember me
▼ Content

Proffessor Brian Cox vs Conspiracy theorist Australian Senator



Page 3 of 4<1234>
27-08-2016 20:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Surface Detail wrote:

You obviously don't understand the difference between noise and a trend. You'd best learn some basic statistical analysis before you make yourself look any more of an idiot.


Trend; the general line of a graph. A projection of the numbers so far.

Noise; The degree of varibility of the numbers which will fluctuate about the place and make idiots see things that are not there.

Ask yourself this question; There is a range of temperature which would be considered more than 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be below 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be considered more or less the same as 1998. What range would you give for this middle bit?

Not being able to answer this means that you cannot consider anything to do with any statistics at all as you need to have a sense of proportion.
27-08-2016 23:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

You obviously don't understand the difference between noise and a trend. You'd best learn some basic statistical analysis before you make yourself look any more of an idiot.


Trend; the general line of a graph. A projection of the numbers so far.

Noise; The degree of varibility of the numbers which will fluctuate about the place and make idiots see things that are not there.

Ask yourself this question; There is a range of temperature which would be considered more than 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be below 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be considered more or less the same as 1998. What range would you give for this middle bit?

Not being able to answer this means that you cannot consider anything to do with any statistics at all as you need to have a sense of proportion.

It's a stupid question. It makes no sense to pick one particular year and determine whether the temperature has risen or fallen since then. What we are interested in is the overall trend in temperature, which we determine by finding lines of best fit to long series of data. The series needs to be long enough for the trend to become obvious amid the year-to-year noise - in this case about 30 years or so. You cannot pick out turning points on scales shorter than this.
28-08-2016 00:41
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Tim the plumber wrote:

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is. [/color]


So from your reply I take it you are not concerned about a 1.5 – 2 C rise above pre-industrial temperatures. Would that be correct?
29-08-2016 13:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

You obviously don't understand the difference between noise and a trend. You'd best learn some basic statistical analysis before you make yourself look any more of an idiot.


Trend; the general line of a graph. A projection of the numbers so far.

Noise; The degree of varibility of the numbers which will fluctuate about the place and make idiots see things that are not there.

Ask yourself this question; There is a range of temperature which would be considered more than 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be below 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be considered more or less the same as 1998. What range would you give for this middle bit?

Not being able to answer this means that you cannot consider anything to do with any statistics at all as you need to have a sense of proportion.

It's a stupid question. It makes no sense to pick one particular year and determine whether the temperature has risen or fallen since then. What we are interested in is the overall trend in temperature, which we determine by finding lines of best fit to long series of data. The series needs to be long enough for the trend to become obvious amid the year-to-year noise - in this case about 30 years or so. You cannot pick out turning points on scales shorter than this.


To have any credability science wise you must have the ability to say when a result is or is not significant!!!!!

If you cannot do this you are not doing science!!!

There must be a range where the trend is so close to zero that you are foced to say it's not significant. It should be easy to do this!!
29-08-2016 18:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Hank wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is. [/color]


So from your reply I take it you are not concerned about a 1.5 – 2 C rise above pre-industrial temperatures. Would that be correct?


Yes.
30-08-2016 21:39
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.
Edited on 30-08-2016 21:43
31-08-2016 00:40
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is. [/color]


So from your reply I take it you are not concerned about a 1.5 – 2 C rise above pre-industrial temperatures. Would that be correct?


Yes.


The little ice age was a drop in temperature of 0.5 to 0.75 degrees and it wreaked havoc with Europe and North America. The ice ages were a drop of 5-7 degrees and the earth was an iceberg. So 1.5 degrees will be a disaster and 2 degrees will be catastrophic based on what we know about past temperature changes.
31-08-2016 15:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote: Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited.

False. The "confidence" one has in a number, i.e. the extent to which that number makes one feel all warm and tingly, is completely irrelevant.

"Margin of Error" is the main figure of importance surrounding data, and you avoid it like the plague.

All warmizombies and climate lemmings avoid "Margin of Error" because it forces them to abandon their claims of "science" for their WACKY religion.


.


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
31-08-2016 15:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Hank wrote: The little ice age was a drop in temperature of 0.5 to 0.75 degrees

It was a drop of less than one degree where?

[please, please, please, please, please, please, pretty-pretty please tell me that it was a drop in "average global temperature"]

In case you aren't able to pick up on it, we're about to conclude that your assertion is utter bullshit in three more moves.


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
31-08-2016 16:33
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
False. The "confidence" one has in a number, i.e. the extent to which that number makes one feel all warm and tingly, is completely irrelevant.


Uh, no. You clearly don't know anything about statistics. I don't even have a layman's understanding and I still know about p-values and how they are calculated.

"Margin of Error" is the main figure of importance surrounding data, and you avoid it like the plague.


Uh, no, again. In fact, I've used margin of error before here when presenting facts and had people completely misunderstand it.

More to the point, margin of error is but one part of the calculation for defining the p-value of a particular dataset.

All warmizombies and climate lemmings avoid "Margin of Error" because it forces them to abandon their claims of "science" for their WACKY religion.


Which is why most scientific papers on AGW include margins of error in their statistical analysis. *shrug*

Your false accusations don't pass basic reasoning.
Edited on 31-08-2016 16:34
31-08-2016 18:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote: Uh, no. You clearly don't know anything about statistics.

I understand statistics perfectly well. You don't understand data.

If you are going to present a value for serious consideration then you need to provide the margin of error. It does not matter if your value came from a sensor (measurement), from a statistical computation or from any other source. You must provide the correct margin of error for scrutiny.

Claiming that your value was derived from statistics and that you are UBER-confident in your value and that you get a warm, tingly rush just from typing your value does not relieve you of your obligation to provide the margin of error.

Oh, and if you don't, your value can be rightfully dismissed outright.

That's data for you.

On that point, have you noticed how warmizombies ALWAYS declare everything to have been the warmest/hottest of the instrument record and NEVER provide their data and margin of error? Have you ever noticed that.

Have you noticed how the IPCC adheres strictly to declaring their "confidence levels" while EVADING "margin of error" at all costs? Have you noticed that?

Have you been able to figure out why IPCC "data" is essentially dismissed outright despite the IPCC being so orgasmically confident in it?

Leafsdude wrote: In fact, I've used margin of error before here when presenting facts and had people completely misunderstand it.

I don't remember that occurring but I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, what is your acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature?

Leafsdude wrote: Which is why most scientific papers on AGW include margins of error in their statistical analysis. *shrug*

There aren't any scientific papers on WACKY, unfalsifiable religious dogma.

Would you care to show me a "scientific" paper on AGW? I'll bet there isn't any science in it. Science violations possibly but science, no.


Leafsdude wrote:Your false accusations don't pass basic reasoning.

You simply cannot support your assertions.

Too funny.



.


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
31-08-2016 18:51
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
*Snip long, rambling, incoherent rant*


First off, again, AGW papers do cite margins of error regularly.

Secondly, again, the IPCC is a political policy maker, not a scientific authority. Their statements and language are not required to follow scientific procedure. Just because they don't cite margins of error doesn't mean no AGW authority does.

I don't remember that occurring but I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt.


I cited a paper with a margin of error for sea level rise in the "CO2 lags" thread (first page). The 0.7mm after the ± symbol in this paper is the quantified number.

So, what is your acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature?


Being that I'm not adept in statistical analysis even slightly, I don't have a margin of error. Based on analysis published in the scientific literature, though, the margin of error is normally cited at about 0.05-0.1*C.

There aren't any scientific papers on WACKY, unfalsifiable religious dogma.


Agreed. There are, however, scientific papers on AGW.

Would you care to show me a "scientific" paper on AGW? I'll bet there isn't any science in it. Science violations possibly but science, no.


I've shown many over the past month or two I've been posting here.

I'll show you some more, though:

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8n71j831
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00865514
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00209343
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0921818192900337

You simply cannot support your assertions.

Too funny.


I have.

You just can't accept my reasoning because it would mean accepting you're wrong.
31-08-2016 19:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:*Snip long, rambling, incoherent rant*

Incoherent? Is your English comprehension that poor? Have we inadvertently discovered the root of your problem?

I wish you would have mentioned your reading problems earlier. It would have explained a lot.

Leafsdude wrote: First off, again, AGW papers do cite margins of error regularly.

Margins of error are required for presented data, not for the predetermined conclusions.

I, too, have seen margins of error presented without any of the raw data. This alone discards any conclusions based on the missing data. Please remember that we are/were talking about data.

Leafsdude wrote: Secondly, again, the IPCC is a political policy maker, not a scientific authority. Their statements and language are not required to follow scientific procedure.

But they are still required to present, for scrutiny, the margin of error for all data they use, as well as to provide the data, if they don't want their conclusions to be summarily dismissed.

The IPCC does not meet this requirement.

IPCC conclusions are summarily dismissed.

Leafsdude wrote: I cited a paper with a margin of error for sea level rise in the "CO2 lags" thread (first page). The 0.7mm after the ± symbol in this paper is the quantified number.

Did you provide the raw data and the margin of error for all the data so that people could check to see if they arrive at the same values you cited? ...or is everyone just supposed to take the conclusions without question/doubt?

Leafsdude wrote: Being that I'm not adept in statistical analysis even slightly, I don't have a margin of error.

We just went over this. You can use that excuse for not having a "confidence level" about which no one cares.

You do NOT get to avoid publicly declaring what YOU consider to be an acceptable margin of error. It forces you be consistent. You can't, on the one hand, claim that you want a small margin of error and then hold up data that does not support your own standard. Similarly you cannot accept a wide margin of error just to get your data accepted and then claim noise to be a "trend."

In other words, if you won't at least state publicly what YOU consider to be an acceptable margin of error then you are effectively telling the world to dismiss any conclusions coming from you.

So, I'll ask you again, for something like an average global temperature, what do you consider an acceptable margin of error? +/-1 degree Celsius? +/-0.5 degrees Celsius? What?


Leafsdude wrote:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8n71j831
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00865514
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00209343
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0921818192900337

Review: Global Climate Change: A Primer
This one-page document contains no science and no mention of AGW.

Notes on the temporal and spatial scales of climatic changes
This document requires a $40 fee. Send me a pm with just the science from this article.

Atmospheric water vapor flux, bifurcation of the thermohaline circulation, and climate change
This document requires a $40 fee. Send me a pm with just the science from this article.

Ground temperature histories in eastern and central Canada from geothermal measurements: evidence of climatic change
I don't have access. Send me a pm with just the science from this article.


.


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
31-08-2016 20:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
More incoherent rambling from IBdaMann, I see.

WTF, for example, is

Margins of error are required for presented data, not for the predetermined conclusions

supposed to mean? What are "predetermined" conclusions? Why would margins of error not be required for conclusions?
Edited on 31-08-2016 20:18
31-08-2016 22:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: WTF, for example, is

Margins of error are required for presented data, not for the predetermined conclusions

supposed to mean?

I am so glad you asked.

Are you familiar with Intelligent Design (ID)? It's a great example of assuming what one wishes to conclude, i.e. "Look around at all of creation" ergo "creation had to have a creator!"

Warmizombies are forever assuming the Global Warming they wish to conclude. Global Warming and "greenhouse effect" are not real, as basic science makes abundantly clear, but are always assumed by warmizombies. In any paper/study/report on any "Climate" dogma, the conclusions are always predetermined. Always.

Margins of error are required for all data. It is invalid to just simply tell people what you want them to unquestioningly believe (i.e. religious preaching/sermon) without the raw data because that is what is needed to question the validity of the conclusions.

Global Warming and "greenhouse effect" are themselves predetermined assumptions that are always "concluded" despite the absence of compelling data.

Surface Detail wrote:Why would margins of error not be required for conclusions?

That should read "not just for conclusions." If you go back and check the context the idea was that it is insufficient to only provide a margin of error for the conclusion without presenting data and the associated margins of error there for scrutiny so as to check the veracity of the conclusion(s).


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
31-08-2016 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
Surface Detail wrote:
More incoherent rambling from IBdaMann, I see.

WTF, for example, is

Margins of error are required for presented data, not for the predetermined conclusions

supposed to mean? What are "predetermined" conclusions? Why would margins of error not be required for conclusions?


Because a conclusion without a predicate is a circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2016 23:31
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Margins of error are not meant to be any specific number but are used to determine how reliable the results are. The IPCC does not calculate any margin of errors but they do use the research by scientists all over the world and those scientists do have margins of errors on their research which are then published in those papers and when the IPCC reproduces those papers and in their summarys. There is no predetermined conclusions, the researchers just get the data from the reporting stations and then calculate the resulting global temperature. The data is available for anyone to look at and do their own calculations if they don't like what they see. But so far no one that has done those calculations have found much difference between what has already been done. And as reporting stations become more reliable the adjustments to some of the temperatures become fewer and fewer.
31-08-2016 23:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
Hank wrote:
Margins of error are not meant to be any specific number but are used to determine how reliable the results are. The IPCC does not calculate any margin of errors but they do use the research by scientists all over the world and those scientists do have margins of errors on their research which are then published in those papers and when the IPCC reproduces those papers and in their summarys. There is no predetermined conclusions, the researchers just get the data from the reporting stations and then calculate the resulting global temperature. The data is available for anyone to look at and do their own calculations if they don't like what they see. But so far no one that has done those calculations have found much difference between what has already been done. And as reporting stations become more reliable the adjustments to some of the temperatures become fewer and fewer.


Margin of error is a VERY specific number. It is NOT used to determine how reliable the results are.

The IPCC makes shit up. They've been caught at it before.

Publishing summaries without publishing the data or the margin of error is VERY irresponsible.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-08-2016 23:40
01-09-2016 00:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.


I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.
01-09-2016 01:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.


I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.
01-09-2016 05:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Hank wrote:Margins of error are not meant to be any specific number but are used to determine how reliable the results are.

Nope margin of error is how accurate the data is on which the conclusions are based.

Hank wrote:The IPCC does not calculate any margin of errors...

Correct, and their conclusions are invalid.

Hank wrote:but they do use the research by scientists all over the world

Not from scientists but from political activists. The IPCC only use that which concludes Global Warming. The IPCC makes it clear up front that they only want regurgitated "Climate" dogma. Science need not apply.


.


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
01-09-2016 18:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.


I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.


Which is why I do not say that there has definately been zero warming. I say there may have been a slight warming but essentially it's too close to call.

I do state that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

Hopefully you will now get over the idea that the use of the word significant is wrong in this case.

If the temperature is to reach that predicted by the IPCC's higher levels then we would need to be warming at the rate of 0.32c per decade. Given that the temperatures of the last couple of years have been so close to the 1998 level that it's too close to call the hotest with any real confidence the rate of warming is slight to none.

Still not significantly different to zero.

Edited on 01-09-2016 19:00
01-09-2016 19:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.


I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.


Which is why I do not say that there has definately been zero warming. I say there may have been a slight warming but essentially it's too close to call.

I do state that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

Hopefully you will now get over the idea that the use of the word significant is wrong in this case.

If the temperature is to reach that predicted by the IPCC's higher levels then we would need to be warming at the rate of 0.32c per decade. Given that the temperatures of the last couple of years have been so close to the 1998 level that it's too close to call the hotest with any real confidence the rate of warming is slight to none.

Still not significantly different to zero.

You are talking complete crap, Tim, and you know it. Why the obsession with 1998? It is quite clear that the Earth's temperature has been rising at a rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade for the last 50 years or so, with spikes every now and then when we have an El Nino. There is no indication whatsoever that this trend has changed or is about to change. Why are you so reluctant to believe the evidence?

See, for example:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/to:2016
Edited on 01-09-2016 19:30
01-09-2016 20:36
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.


I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.


Which is why I do not say that there has definately been zero warming. I say there may have been a slight warming but essentially it's too close to call.

I do state that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

Hopefully you will now get over the idea that the use of the word significant is wrong in this case.

If the temperature is to reach that predicted by the IPCC's higher levels then we would need to be warming at the rate of 0.32c per decade. Given that the temperatures of the last couple of years have been so close to the 1998 level that it's too close to call the hotest with any real confidence the rate of warming is slight to none.

Still not significantly different to zero.

You are talking complete crap, Tim, and you know it. Why the obsession with 1998? It is quite clear that the Earth's temperature has been rising at a rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade for the last 50 years or so, with spikes every now and then when we have an El Nino. There is no indication whatsoever that this trend has changed or is about to change. Why are you so reluctant to believe the evidence?

See, for example:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/to:2016


So you have retreated from your accusation of lying????

1, If the rate of warming os 0.15c per decade what are you worried about?

2, What caused the 1950's warming? If it was CO2 then we should be in a situation of very rapid warming now with the comparitive massive amounts of CO2 produced.
01-09-2016 20:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.


I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.


Which is why I do not say that there has definately been zero warming. I say there may have been a slight warming but essentially it's too close to call.

I do state that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

Hopefully you will now get over the idea that the use of the word significant is wrong in this case.

If the temperature is to reach that predicted by the IPCC's higher levels then we would need to be warming at the rate of 0.32c per decade. Given that the temperatures of the last couple of years have been so close to the 1998 level that it's too close to call the hotest with any real confidence the rate of warming is slight to none.

Still not significantly different to zero.

You are talking complete crap, Tim, and you know it. Why the obsession with 1998? It is quite clear that the Earth's temperature has been rising at a rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade for the last 50 years or so, with spikes every now and then when we have an El Nino. There is no indication whatsoever that this trend has changed or is about to change. Why are you so reluctant to believe the evidence?

See, for example:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/to:2016


So you have retreated from your accusation of lying????

1, If the rate of warming os 0.15c per decade what are you worried about?

2, What caused the 1950's warming? If it was CO2 then we should be in a situation of very rapid warming now with the comparitive massive amounts of CO2 produced.

The problem is, Tim, that you are not even wrong (google it). There has indeed been a significant rise in temperature since 1998, but that fact isn't significant. Why should it be? Why pick on 1998?

1. The problem, Tim, is that the Earth's temperature has been stable to within about 1 C for the last 10,000 years. A changing temperature of 0.15 C per decade is absolutely unprecedented since prehistoric times. It means sea rising at rates comparable to the end of the ice age.

2. We are in a situation of very rapid warming. The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature isn't linear, and there is a delay as seas take time to warm and ice melts. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 completely, the Earth would continue to warm until it reaches a new equilibrium.
01-09-2016 22:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: The problem is, Tim, that you are not even wrong (google it).

Your bulverism hasn't diminished.

Surface Detail wrote: There has indeed been a significant rise in temperature since 1998,

We still have no way to measure the earth's global average temperature to any useful accuracy, so on what basis do you assert that the earth's temperature has risen? ...significantly no less?

As far as you know, the earth COULD HAVE COOLED over that time period. You have only your WACKY religious dogma on which to base your assertions.

You're not even wrong (look it up).

Surface Detail wrote:1. The problem, Tim, is that the Earth's temperature has been stable to within about 1 C for the last 10,000 years.

How did you get your hand in that deep in order to pull that one out?

Surface Detail wrote: A changing temperature of 0.15 C per decade is absolutely unprecedented since prehistoric times.

No one knows that that is happening and no one knows that it never happened before.

You would have us believe that faith in your WACKY religion somehow bestows divine knowledge that is unavailable to the rest of humanity.

You are not even wrong (Google it).

Surface Detail wrote: It means sea rising at rates comparable to the end of the ice age.

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

Surface Detail wrote: 2. We are in a situation of very rapid warming.

You're not even wrong (look it up).


.


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
02-09-2016 01:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Let me counter IBdaMann's bone-headed denial with some actual science reporting:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

TL;DR: The global temperature had been stable to within about 1°C over the last 10,000 years or so, until about 150 years ago. It is now rising at a rate of about 1°C per 60 years and shows no sign of slowing down!
02-09-2016 03:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Let me counter IBdaMann's bone-headed denial with some actual science reporting:

There was no science.

Oh wait, you don't know what science is.

Too bad.


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
02-09-2016 03:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Let me counter IBdaMann's bone-headed denial with some actual science reporting:

There was no science.

Oh wait, you don't know what science is.

Too bad.

Lame, IBdaMann, lame. Your employers are paying you to do better than this.
02-09-2016 10:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Let me counter IBdaMann's bone-headed denial with some actual science reporting:

There was no science.

Oh wait, you don't know what science is.

Too bad.

Lame, IBdaMann, lame. Your employers are paying you to do better than this.


Who is paying you?

Have you ever come across and job offer for people to get paid for arguing for or against AGW anywhere?

What would you do if you found such a job? Would you publicise it? Even if it was for promoting the idea that AGW is bad? Would you trust that others would not or would you expect that to be a very public talking point very quickly?

Given that if you think about these questions you will automatically know that nobody is being paid you should think about why you said it. Is it because you actually thought that some were being paid or is it that you have a need to justify others having different ideas to your one true faith?
02-09-2016 17:05
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.



So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?
02-09-2016 18:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.



So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?


What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?
02-09-2016 19:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.



So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?


What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm. By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

See: http://sealevel.colorado.edu

We can indeed measure time to a very high precision and, if sea level were the only factor affecting the Earth's rotation speed, we could possibly use this information to determine the change in sea level. However, this isn't the case. Changes in the Earth's rotation speed are primarily due to tidal effects and changes in the structure of the Earth resulting from such things as earthquakes, continental drift and post glacial rebound. These effects completely swamp the effect of the change in sea level.
02-09-2016 20:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm.

A non-gullible, science-minded individual would immediately question that value. Did you?

The vertical accuracy of high-quality GPS SPS receivers is ~3.2 meters.

You're going to have to explain how the Jason-2 is somehow more than an order of magnitude more accurate than GPS (its sole purpose for existing)despite Jason-2 not being able to bring an entire fleet of satellites to bear like GPS.

Any thoughts?

Surface Detail wrote: By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

Of course, if the accuracy is actually in the "meters" range then the only valid conclusion is that we're measuring noise and that sea levels could actually be lowering as far as we know.

Would this explain why the claimed uber-accuracy of Jason-2 is quietly mentioned but not explained before quickly moving on to other topics? Do you realize that pilots cannot land aircraft based on GPS due to its vertical accuracy limitations? Yet you would have me believe that there is a satellite in orbit that is so vertically accurate that pilots could use it to land aircraft, but that it is being wasted on just telling us the sea level?

I'm having a little trouble with this.


.


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
02-09-2016 22:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm.

A non-gullible, science-minded individual would immediately question that value. Did you?

The vertical accuracy of high-quality GPS SPS receivers is ~3.2 meters.

You're going to have to explain how the Jason-2 is somehow more than an order of magnitude more accurate than GPS (its sole purpose for existing)despite Jason-2 not being able to bring an entire fleet of satellites to bear like GPS.

Any thoughts?

Surface Detail wrote: By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

Of course, if the accuracy is actually in the "meters" range then the only valid conclusion is that we're measuring noise and that sea levels could actually be lowering as far as we know.

Would this explain why the claimed uber-accuracy of Jason-2 is quietly mentioned but not explained before quickly moving on to other topics? Do you realize that pilots cannot land aircraft based on GPS due to its vertical accuracy limitations? Yet you would have me believe that there is a satellite in orbit that is so vertically accurate that pilots could use it to land aircraft, but that it is being wasted on just telling us the sea level?

I'm having a little trouble with this.


.

If you were really sceptical, then you'd find out for yourself. Never mind though, I'll explain briefly here.

It doesn't make sense to compare the accuracy with which the Jason-2 satellite can measure the surface of the ocean with the accuracy with which a GPS device can determine its own location. These are two different functions.

The Jason-2 satellite uses a system of ground stations to accurately determine its own position. It then uses microwave radar specifically designed to accurately measure the distance to the surface of the ocean directly below it.

The GPS satellites also determine their own position from ground stations, but then simply broadcast that position together with a time signal. They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals. This is obviously less accurate than direct measurement.

TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position.
02-09-2016 22:24
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.



So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?


What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?


Surveying equipment can measure within a few inches depending on the quality of the receiver. And satellites use much more sophisticated equipment. When you are using atomic clocks to measure how long it takes for a signal to travel at the speed of light you can get pretty damn accurate.
03-09-2016 01:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

GPS satellites send out timing information.


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
03-09-2016 02:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

GPS satellites send out timing information.

What do you mean, you don't buy my story? What story? I've just given a basic outline of the way in which satellite altimetry works and how this differs from GPS location. What don't you understand?
03-09-2016 02:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

GPS satellites send out timing information.

What do you mean, you don't buy my story? What story? I've just given a basic outline of the way in which satellite altimetry works and how this differs from GPS location. What don't you understand?


I think it's pretty obvious. He doesn't buy your story of how these satellite systems work. I don't buy your story either.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2016 02:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

GPS satellites send out timing information.

What do you mean, you don't buy my story? What story? I've just given a basic outline of the way in which satellite altimetry works and how this differs from GPS location. What don't you understand?


I think it's pretty obvious. He doesn't buy your story of how these satellite systems work. I don't buy your story either.

How do you think they work, then?
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Proffessor Brian Cox vs Conspiracy theorist Australian Senator:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Radio Ecoshock - John Mashey lays out the conspiracy, and names names - Feb 20122816-12-2017 03:28
No AGW Conspiracy?122-09-2017 09:16
So how exactly does this Evil Liberal Governmental Science Conspiracy do... anything?8030-11-2016 20:04
▲ 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