The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

Who has the most affect on global warming?


  • Total voters
    19

Doer

Well-Known Member
So, as I said. You look you see, you gain interest, more people look, more people design experiments and expensive space launches happen. That is the science.

The Politics is already a vicious Lifeboat drill. Goodby to the People of Dirt, planning.

We look from Space and we track from Earth. Each Winter in the North Hemi, the CO2 shoots up, the plants are sleeping. Sure, they wake up get busy but, each winter there is more and more CO2. It is becoming bad for health. Seasonal Allergy is way up and I have never been so histamine sick as I was last week.

 
Last edited:

Doer

Well-Known Member
If you get enough data from around the world you can map it visually for all to see.

Two sides to the graph. Left is the latitude, stations and yearly rise and fall.
On the right, is the station map and the global average. Direct measurement of CO2 worldwide over many years. OK?

 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
If you get enough data from around the world you can map it visually for all to see.

Two sides to the graph. Left is the latitude, stations and yearly rise and fall.
On the right, is the station map and the global average. Direct measurement of CO2 worldwide over many years. OK?


What does that mean?? It is pretty clear that CO2 and temperature are somehow correlated although which leads and which follows is still in question.

Also, the earth has had demonstrably higher CO2 levels than currently.

IF I make a graph of the temperature rise in Phoenix today from 1 am till 3 PM we can assume that by midnight everyone will be dead of heat exhaustion because the temperature will keep going up and be over 140 degrees!!! FUCK!!!
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Huh? You mean taking measurements near Kilauea is not an accurate world wide indicator?
Come on, bonehead. At least watch the data vids.

The measurements are worldwide, and compelling as data sets on CO2.

You are bullshitting yourself and others.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
What does that mean?? It is pretty clear that CO2 and temperature are somehow correlated although which leads and which follows is still in question.

Also, the earth has had demonstrably higher CO2 levels than currently.

IF I make a graph of the temperature rise in Phoenix today from 1 am till 3 PM we can assume that by midnight everyone will be dead of heat exhaustion because the temperature will keep going up and be over 140 degrees!!! FUCK!!!

I believe the correlation between CO2 and temps will be settled in the next decade, hopefully. The chicken or egg thing will remain a mystery.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
People are not even afraid to admit they dont like him anymore.... Wonder when the emperor will realize he is naked....
Just watch the data sets, then take your punk meter, out in the winter. Then take measurement out your window in Summer is not IT.

Measure year round, and average year over year, SDSTFU.
 
Last edited:

Doer

Well-Known Member
I believe the correlation between CO2 and temps will be settled in the next decade, hopefully. The chicken or egg thing will remain a mystery.

Why do you think that? And, sorry, how is that compelling....what you think about the carbon?
 

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
Come on, bonehead. At least watch the data vids.

The measurements are worldwide, and compelling as data sets on CO2.

You are bullshitting yourself and others.
I just don't get all worked up about it except in a few situations - rampant burning down of rain forests in central America and China's unleashed abuse of coal such that they can't breathe in 90% of the country without masks. Don't worry though, they'll be no world oil the way things are going with groups like ISIS, Taliban, Al Queda, Hezbollah and other terror muslim hate groups taking control while Obama stands there with his thumb up his ass waiting for another 9/11. Oh, but he does snoop on everyone, so his dogs must have the terrorists pinned, eh. Speaking of that, if you didn't watch Snowden's interview with NBC, you need to watch it. It is a real mind opener. Snowden is brilliant, is not a traitor as the Obama propaganda machine would have it, and articulates such scary stuff as how the NSA can turn on YOUR smart phone remotely and run it without you knowing it...collecting data including photos.

Phony feel good liberals mandating a carbon tax pushed by the likes of money grabbing attention ho's like Al Gore won't solve anything, only lead to less disposal income for the masses.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I just don't get all worked up about it except in a few situations - rampant burning down of rain forests in central America and China's unleashed abuse of coal such that they can't breathe in 90% of the country without masks. Don't worry though, they'll be no world oil the way things are going with groups like ISIS, Taliban, Al Queda, Hezbollah and other terror muslim hate groups taking control while Obama stands there with his thumb up his ass waiting for another 9/11. Oh, but he does snoop on everyone, so his dogs must have the terrorists pinned, eh. Speaking of that, if you didn't watch Snowden's interview with NBC, you need to watch it. It is a real mind opener. Snowden is brilliant, is not a traitor as the Obama propaganda machine would have it, and articulates such scary stuff as how the NSA can turn on YOUR smart phone remotely and run it without you knowing it...collecting data including photos.

Phony feel good liberals mandating a carbon tax pushed by the likes of money grabbing attention ho's like Al Gore won't solve anything, only lead to less disposal income for the masses.
You have missed it all together. I'm not worked up. Politics is shrill, and Nation Security is Secret. Science produces data.

Those are three interlocked systems but only Science is public for all to see.

Bitching about 2 of them, does not change the Science.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
What does that mean?? It is pretty clear that CO2 and temperature are somehow correlated although which leads and which follows is still in question.

Also, the earth has had demonstrably higher CO2 levels than currently.

IF I make a graph of the temperature rise in Phoenix today from 1 am till 3 PM we can assume that by midnight everyone will be dead of heat exhaustion because the temperature will keep going up and be over 140 degrees!!! FUCK!!!
If you watch the data set, we have never had CO2 at the human heath impact level.

We'd all be dead. Oh, even snakes know to seek shade.

Only Mad Dogs and those in Arizona will go out in the noon day sun.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Seems the Liar-in-Chief is winning in the hot air arena.

Too bad his ratings have sank like a rock. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. ;)
second only to the gop majority held congress at it current lowest approval rating of all time since record keeping at

remember eric "$5M campaign" cantor?

stick to topping your plants in that shitbowl you call a state.

President Obama’s approval rating is stuck in the low 40s. That’s as low — if not lower — than it was four years ago, when Democrats sustained massive midterm losses. Republicans have a good chance to take the Senate and are very likely to keep control of the House, but they’re not running away with the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats remain even among likely voters on the generic congressional ballot, a key measure of the national political environment.

How is that possible? Well, Republicans control the House of Representatives, and Congress is super unpopular.

On Monday, Gallup reported that Congress’s approval rating is just 16 percent. That matches other polling data, and if that level of support holds through November, it would be the lowest heading into any midterm on record. What we’re left with is two unpopular entities — Obama and Congress — somewhat offsetting each other, leading to a national environment (as measured by the generic congressional ballot) in which neither party has that great of an edge.

To see this effect, I examined congressional and presidential approval ratings since 1974 (the first year Gallup asked about congressional approval ratings). I only looked at those years in which the House was controlled by one party and the White House by another, as is the case this year. I’ve also controlled for whether the election is taking place in a midterm year; past research by political scientists shows the president’s party does worse in midterm elections than in the same national environment during a presidential year.

Given this data, here’s what the model indicates best explains prior elections based on average congressional approval and average presidential approval in the second quarter (April, May and June) of an election year.



Not surprisingly, the midterm penalty and presidential approval rating variables are most important in predicting the swing in the House vote compared to the prior election. Both are statistically significant (see the p-value (“P>t”), less than 0.05 is good) and substantively significant (see the coefficient for “president” and “midterm”; further away from zero means there’s more of a relationship). The party in charge of the House does far better in midterms than it would do in a presidential election. The party in charge of the House also does worse when the president’s approval rating is higher.

Congressional approval ratings in the second quarter (see the variable “Congress”) are not statistically significant as defined above, but they are substantively significant. The lack of statistical significance is partly caused by the small number of observations we have in our data set, just 13 elections. Also, the president’s approval ratings effect is greater than that of Congress’s approval rating.

Still, a congressional approval rating that matched the average of our data set, 34.7 percentage points, would predict a Republican victory of 6.1 points in the national House vote, which is 3 points higher than the actual prediction given a 16 percent congressional approval rating. Note that both of these estimates are greater than the current Republican lead on the generic ballot. This matches my earlier finding that the national environment tends to move against the president’s party as the midterm election year proceeds.

We can perform the same test on approval ratings just before the election. (For this set, I took an average of the final pre-election approval ratings for Gerald Ford and Richard M. Nixon in 1974, because they probably both had an impact on the midterms).



Here, the relationship between congressional approval ratings and the election result is stronger. If Congress’s approval rating this year matched the average of our data set, we’d expect Republicans to win the national popular vote by their 2010 margin (given Obama’s current approval rating). It would be a horrible national environment for Democrats.


A 16 percent congressional approval rating, on the other hand, yields a prediction of a Republican win of just over 2 percentage points in the national House vote. That’s not good news for Democrats, but it’s far better than 2010. It also matches generally what we are seeing on the generic congressional ballot. I wouldn’t, however, take any of these exact estimates too literally; we’re only dealing with 13 data points.

Yet the effect of Congress’s approval rating seems very real. Republicans look like they could be hurt by that low approval rating. This flies in the face of the idea that this or any election with split control is solely a referenda on the president.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/congresss-low-approval-rating-is-hurting-republicans/
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
What does that mean?? It is pretty clear that CO2 and temperature are somehow correlated although which leads and which follows is still in question.

Also, the earth has had demonstrably higher CO2 levels than currently.

IF I make a graph of the temperature rise in Phoenix today from 1 am till 3 PM we can assume that by midnight everyone will be dead of heat exhaustion because the temperature will keep going up and be over 140 degrees!!! FUCK!!!



We can only go back 80,000 years in the direct measurement.

So, I have no idea how you even think the Earth had higher CO2 than now.
 
Top