That vegetarian wasn't without food. He just found the meal
in the room not sumptuous enough.
Europe's hypocrisy on fossil fuels
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
in the room not sumptuous enough.
As you can see from the very simple linear regression I ran on the USCRN data, the temperature went up a bit over 1 degree over the course of 17 years (actually 1.18 from the trend line equation), which is quite a bit more than the 0.54 you'd get from the 1981-> average.
Of course, a quick-and-dirty excel linear regression of temperature anomaly data isn't really how people are probably calculating this (and this data is only the US anyway).
If you don’t plan or invest… then no. But it can be done. Period.Costa Rica
Europe
it can not be done with green energy , period
Correct, but we must also bear in mind that nearly all the data and studies out there has not reflected the most current record breaking temperatures. We will see this in the new charts / studies etc., that will probably be released at the beginning of next year.
For sure August of this current year will set record heat and all sorts of climate change patterns, not experienced in decades or even centuries.
In theory it can be done by those who believe in climate change
and got the money. In reality climate activists will have to resort
to climate litigation to force people to get it done. So far they
have not been very successful.
Nope, it can not be done. period
not enough metals, not even close
odd how you did not plan that
Re make investments: you can bet your last dollar the price on these commodities will sky rocket , before this fools plan makes any progress
mining is extremely energy intensive
mining occurs in remote locations so the energy has to be FF based
govts are intentionally making FF energy more expensive
and this is all incremental to current industrial demand for these commodities
and that is just the metals,
I will let you digest this beforevwe discussing the impact of EVs on the grid & then the impact on food production
you live in a fantasy world
Last edited:
just like if you shut down fossil fuels, they will burn every stick of wood they can get their hands on
your trend line euation has a r squared value of 0.0206.
your independant variable (time) explains very little of your dependant variable (temp)
That is no trend for a time series plot
Time (independent variable) doesn't have to explain the temperature (dependent variable) at all. That is why it is called the "independent variable".....
There are bigger shifts going on already that are messing with global temps.
We are likely going through a third year of El Nina, which is very unusual.
The cold blob in the North Atlantic from Greenland and arctic melts is messing with the Thermohaline.
Changes in the jet stream that have given us continual polar vortexes with massive heat waves and cold regions next.
2022 will likely be in the top 6 warmest years, but not the top with all these influences.
If you want to pretend you are about the science, you should at least be able to fake knowing things people who are about the science know.
Yes.
Science involves data and assessing it.
I know you oppose that idea, but science doesn't care.
Explain basic stats to you?
Sorry.
Don't have the time nor the inclination.
Crack open a book.
There is insufficient statistical power in this series to say anything of value, and that's not even getting into that it is limited in geographical scale, making it ill-suited for use globally.
That you want to over-interpret it doesn't mean I have to pretend that's valid.
You should know how the data is gathered.
Haven't you cut and pasted whole sets of article snippets and memes about the inadequacy of the measurements?
LOL!!
OK, sure.
But yes. You may notice that the article/meme snippet you pasted complains that this data (USCRN) isn't referenced often and doesn't show the commonly referenced ClimDiv set.
Their argument (which you pasted in) was that the USCRN set doesn't show warming and is supposed to be more reliable than the ClimDiv set.
Only since the website posts both sets of data and you didn't bother to just filter to the USCRN data, you have successfully showed that the ClimDiv and USCRN data agree.
That apparently you didn't even notice this is amusing to me, but sure - claim it is because you wanted to undercut your own argument due to being excessively honest.
Oh my god, do you not even know what linear regression is or how to make a trend line!?
You should really know at least basic stats if you are going to pretend to care about the science.
You cite r-squared later, so why on earth would you try to pass that off like a real statement about the numbers?
You're quite right.
(Dr. Gobbles - artist's rendering)
But that would be ignorant and ill-informed.
That pop-culture understanding of statistics and trend lines and complex systems is as bad as yours isn't an argument against AGW.
Fine.
But you also tried to argue that laying a flat edge across a screen was an adequate analysis, so forgive me if I treat your opinions with even less seriousness than I did before.
1. It isn't.
2. It is too small and constrained a sample to make a meaningful statement about the trend using just this.
It's a very weak correlation, as you would expect with such a constrained and noisy sample.
That you want to pretend it is a meaningful rebuttal of AGW is just due to your ideological blinders.
I mean, think about it. You have the data to do the analysis yourself and you refuse to - instead saying it looks flat to you.
That's some impressive ideological blindness going on right there.
That is some "I won't look through the telescope and see Jupiter's moons because it might contradict my faith" shit right there.
I quite agree.
It's too small and constrained a sample size to have real descriptive value.
But I'm not the one who brought it into the discussion claiming it was meaningful.
That was you.
Then I showed that even under the terms you brought it in with, it contradicted you, and now you are complaining that the data isn't meaningful enough to engage with.
Sorry not sorry.
The site doesn't do stats analysis but it provides all the raw numbers that generate the graph.
You can run the numbers yourself if you want.
I know you prefer your "hold something against the screen and guess" method, but don't complain when people don't take you seriously.
So you do think people disagreeing with you is "cancelling".
I haven't once even put you on ignore.
I haven't tried to dox you.
I haven't once complained to get you banned or suspended.
Instead, I mock your ideas and insist that you aren't a serious person on this subject (and others).
I sometimes take the time to point out your errors directly as in this case.
I provide people links to the original articles you reference sometimes, as well as additional engagement with those articles from some in the science literature.
I also post that Johnny LaRue picture sometimes because it is funny.
So yeah, it is pretty clear "Not treating me and my ideas with the respect I feel I am due" = "cancelling".
And to be fair, that's the position of most of the "anti-cancel culture" people, so you are good and mainstream there, I guess.
Jupiter's moons, baby.
Oh absolutely.
We would normally expect to see a faster rise in a more recent time series than an earlier one.
That said, this is a pretty constrained data set in both time and geographic location, so comparing it to global averages should not be expected to line up.
That's not even getting into the fact that "time" is not causing the warming.
Hey, all you climate change defenders have a new hero now, Putin.
Hi is the first leader who is actually doing something about it and is going to force Western Europe to have 0 emissions by this winter and not by 2050.
Hi is the first leader who is actually doing something about it and is going to force Western Europe to have 0 emissions by this winter and not by 2050.
I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.
(Dr. Gobbles - artist's rendering)
Jupiter's moons, baby.
Would have totally destroyed my computer spitting it out.
Callisto takes about 17 years to orbit Jupiter once.....
COINCIDENCE?????
