no global warming for 18 years and 2 months

[IM469]

Craig Loehle (originator of a graph) is another one of the mundane 'experts' that seek notoriety by bucking the flow of 97% of the scientific community and like his fellow 'experts' in Creationism, vaccinations, etc ... he gives the paranoid conspiracy theorists something to hang onto. Obscurity or lucrative book/speaking deals shoveling misinformation to the misinformed ? Since his first 2004 prediction of a century low by 2024 and a plethora of graphs that have been modified because of many errors pointed out by reputable scientists.

The one posted as fact here has been disputed as misguided since there is little proof or back behind the calculations of temperatures depicted.

I'll stick with the 97% including those at NASA which publish the following graph correlating three other independent studies from around the world.

I'm thinking of creating my own unsubstantiated studies how coffee was introduced to earth by aliens to enslave mankind. I want some of this conspiracy loot that is so readily available.

 

[FAST]

Craig Loehle (originator of a graph) is another one of the mundane 'experts' that seek notoriety by bucking the flow of 97% of the scientific community and like his fellow 'experts' in Creationism, vaccinations, etc ... he gives the paranoid conspiracy theorists something to hang onto. Obscurity or lucrative book/speaking deals shoveling misinformation to the misinformed ? Since his first 2004 prediction of a century low by 2024 and a plethora of graphs that have been modified because of many errors pointed out by reputable scientists.

The one posted as fact here has been disputed as misguided since there is little proof or back behind the calculations of temperatures depicted.

I'll stick with the 97% including those at NASA which publish the following graph correlating three other independent studies from around the world.

I'm thinking of creating my own unsubstantiated studies how coffee was introduced to earth by aliens to enslave mankind. I want some of this conspiracy loot that is so readily available.

Good graph,...confirms that the theory, stating the temperature change is caused by man,...is incorrect.

FAST

 

[twizz]

There's no point in arguing with these anti-science people, it just turns into a discussion about refuting baseless data from ring wingnuts. This same shit happens with other topics where facts are irrelevant to them.

 

[canada-man]

There's no point in arguing with these anti-science people, it just turns into a discussion about refuting baseless data from ring wingnuts. This same shit happens with other topics where facts are irrelevant to them.

where is the ant-science you talking about?

 

[twizz]

where is the ant-science you talking about?

The data you posted and the source.

 

[shakenbake]

It can't be sum of squares - it would be huge by just looking at the plot. These guys really have no idea what they're doing...

Not necessarily the sum of squares. It could be a measure of the sum of the squares of the differences. Somewhere in my early graduate days, there was a mathematical optimisation program that I used to find kinetic parameters to fit a reaction rate network model to experimental data that used the sum of the squares of the differences as a performance metric. In that case, it would be very small. However, we do not know what metric they are using to measure the goodness of fit of the model to the data.

 

[Carling]

http://mashable.com/2015/03/18/warmest-winter-record-world/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link

warmest winter recorded..jus sayin

 

[FAST]

There's no point in arguing with these anti-science people, it just turns into a discussion about refuting baseless data from ring wingnuts. This same shit happens with other topics where facts are irrelevant to them.

So how does the last graph prove that "global warming",...in it self is incorrect,...is man made ?

Waiting for the anti-logic, looney left to respond.

FAST

 

[Promo]

So how does the last graph prove that "global warming",...in it self is incorrect,...is man made ?

You missed his point. What I'm trying to decide is are you just trying to be difficult or are you a "ring wingnuts". Judging from your posting history, I'm thinking a little of both.

Good graph,...confirms that the theory, stating the temperature change is caused by man,...is incorrect. FAST

FAST, how did you draw this conclusion from IM649's graph?
The graph does NOT provide correlation against atmospheric CO2 concentrations (or any other greenhouse gas or particulates), deforestation, farming/animals, waste breakdown or any other claimed human-driven factor. Nor does it provide correlation against sunspot activity, solar radiation, strength of the magnetic field or any other natural occurrence that may be a factor. Lastly, it doesn't provide a useful measurement period - is this type of cycle perfectly normal when measured over 1000 or 10000 years? So ..... how did you come to your conclusion?

My point, the graph and info supplied doesn't prove/disprove ANYTHING. In itself, that graph is useless, just like Canada-Man's graph. We don't have a link to the original source therefore we don't have an opportunity to exam the data and the math involved (I did Google for it). How was the baseline calculated? What does "Temperature Abnormality" mean in this context? Is a +/- .5C variance meaningful in a 100 year window? Why didn't the 1910 -.5C variance lead to an ice-age if we think +.5C will lead to catastrophic warming?

Global warming discussions are a perfect example of: "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.". Most people here, including me, have no idea about what they are talking about. But certain Terbites certainly love to talk.

 

[Spacealien2]

Not necessarily the sum of squares. It could be a measure of the sum of the squares of the differences.

Yea that's what I meant. For that to be zero all the data must be on the straight line (which is not the case in the graph)

 

[Moviefan-2]

The data you posted and the source.

The United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change, NASA and the Met Office in the U.K. have all reported that there's been a "pause" in the Earth's temperature for at least the past 15 years.

- IPCC AR5, Summary for Policy Makers -- Page 15, the first two bullet points in section D1: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

- The Met Office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

Not to worry, though, the expected warming all went into the deep ocean. Or maybe not: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

The real issue isn't the fact that there has been a pause but that the computer-model predictions about how man-made CO2 emissions would affect the climate have been so spectacularly wrong.

 

[AK-47]

Global cooling, population bomb, famine, peak oil, ozone layer, global warming

Dont forget acid rain and bird flu

 

[K Douglas]

Climate change alarmists need to give their collective heads a shake. But that won't work anyway there's nothing of significance in them. The truth about climate is simple - we can't control it. Never have been able to, never will. Case closed.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Good graph,...confirms that the theory, stating the temperature change is caused by man,...is incorrect.

FAST

If the graph is correct, how does it refute the theory that GW is man-made? The graph seems to correlate with the period beginning with the industrial age and onward.

 

[twizz]

So how does the last graph prove that "global warming",...in it self is incorrect,...is man made ?

Waiting for the anti-logic, looney left to respond.

FAST

Promo pretty much said it better than I could but you don't seem to understand that ideologically driven data and opinions seem to dominate the climate change discussion rather than facts. The looney left has 97 percent of the world's scientists on their side and these ones don't work for big oil.

 

[twizz]

Climate change alarmists need to give their collective heads a shake. But that won't work anyway there's nothing of significance in them. The truth about climate is simple - we can't control it. Never have been able to, never will. Case closed.

You've admitted to being a fan of fox news, credibility out the window.

 

[twizz]

The United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change, NASA and the Met Office in the U.K. have all reported that there's been a "pause" in the Earth's temperature for at least the past 15 years.

- IPCC AR5, Summary for Policy Makers -- Page 15, the first two bullet points in section D1: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

- The Met Office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

Not to worry, though, the expected warming all went into the deep ocean. Or maybe not: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

The real issue isn't the fact that there has been a pause but that the computer-model predictions about how man-made CO2 emissions would affect the climate have been so spectacularly wrong.

According to NASA's website, 10 of the warmest years were within the last 12

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[FAST]

Promo pretty much said it better than I could but you don't seem to understand that ideologically driven data and opinions seem to dominate the climate change discussion rather than facts. The looney left has 97 percent of the world's scientists on their side and these ones don't work for big oil.

Promo said the graph proves nothing and is useless, at least he has an open mind,...re-read his post.
But I disagree,...because it does show that there is NO connection to man's influence on the planets warming.

And that the scientists who claim to have proof of man's effect on the earths temp,...I do understand that the this is ideologically driven, NOT scientific,....

When some one states that the graph seems to correlate with the beginning of industrialization, is a good example of wishful thinking on the part believers,...

So the world started to warm up in the 1800s because of an increase in pollution,...come on people,...think,...that is ridiculous.

FAST

 

[twizz]

Promo said the graph proves nothing and is useless, at least he has an open mind,...re-read his post.
But I disagree,...because it does show that there is NO connection to man's influence on the planets warming.

And that the scientists who claim to have proof of man's effect on the earths temp,...I do understand that the this is ideologically driven, NOT scientific,....

When some one states that the graph seems to correlate with the beginning of industrialization, is a good example of wishful thinking on the part believers,...

So the world started to warm up in the 1800s because of an increase in pollution,...come on people,...think,...that is ridiculous.

FAST

I know he said the graph was useless.
LOL @ these scienctists not being scientific in their claims, that is just laughable. It would be scientific if it fitted within your ideology I bet.
Also it would actually make sense that the temperature of the Earth got warmer during the start of industrialization since heat trapping gasses were being emitted more than ever.

Sorry but the evidence says you're wrong and the scientists know a lot more than you when it comes this stuff.

 

[FAST]

I know he said the graph was useless.
LOL @ these scienctists not being scientific in their claims, that is just laughable. It would be scientific if it fitted within your ideology I bet.
Also it would actually make sense that the temperature of the Earth got warmer during the start of industrialization since heat trapping gasses were being emitted more than ever.

Sorry but the evidence says you're wrong and the scientists know a lot more than you when it comes this stuff.

Are you saying that the upturn in the graph at about 1910 was a direct result of the start of industrialization,...???,...considering that the pollution generated then was miniscule,...!!!

And then level off in 1940,...and then had a slight decrease until 1980,... is scientifically attributed to pollution,...??

Makes absolutely no sense,...and only confirms that your scientists have no clue about what is causing the "apparent" rise in global temperatures compared to,...???.


FAST