Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.skeptic    |    Skeptics discussing pseudo-science    |    95,770 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 95,686 of 95,770    |
|    Dawn Flood to Paul Aubrin    |
|    Re: IT'S SO HOT THAT IT'S COLD!!!!!    |
|    14 Feb 26 20:20:29    |
      XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism       From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com              On 2/14/2026 9:52 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:       > Le 14/02/2026 à 16:26, Dawn Flood a écrit :       >>> Data has no "null hypothesis". Your hypothesis is that each doubling       >>> of CO2 concentrations causes a temperature increase. So each annual       >>> increment of CO2 concentrations should cause a small but definite       >>> temperature increase. Thus, the dots in the plot between annual CO2       >>> increments and temperature increments should look like some cloud       >>> with a definite linear trend. It does not (R²~0.01).       >>>       >>> No (visible) correlation implies no (detectable) causation.       >>>       >>       >>       >> No way! No one thinks this way!!       >       > It's data, no hypothesis. Why can't you detect the temperature       > increments which should exist if logarithms of CO2 concentrations       > increments caused temperatures increments. The correlation, if it       > exists, is not detectable in annual data series.Show me the correlation       > between those two signals (log CO2 increments and temperature       > increments) and I will change my mind.       >       > CO2 increments follow ocean temperature increments.       > https://postimg.cc/JyPJbv6y       >       > Temperature annual increments have no detectable relation with annual       > fossil emissions.       >       > It's what data show, not an interpretation.       >              And, so, a person who weighs 500 lbs and consumes 5000 calories per day       is no different than a 150 lb person who consumes 1500 calories per       day?? Per your analysis, as long as caloric intake does not change,       such is orthogonal to an individual's weight?!              In addition, why in the world would you take logarithms?? Do you know       what a logarithm even is?? When one has two datasets (or more) that are       orders of magnitude different than each other, than logarithms begin to       make sense. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to plot such datasets.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca