Then look at a graph of average global temperature over the past few thousand years. Surely that all inclusive graph isn't cherry picking.
It is a pretty bloody obvious graph that even a ten year old could interpret correctly...
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
It is a pretty bloody obvious graph that even a ten year old could interpret correctly...
LMFAO.
It may not be perfectly straight (on a chart that has amplified changes of one-tenth of a degree to a rather large scale) but the trend line is pretty consistent -- and it's nothing like the trend line for the '80s and the '90s.
It is what NASA -- the organization that created the chart -- describes as "flattening."
Everyone can see that. Even you.
You can't be serious about that claim, right?
Comparing the money available from the oil, coal and gas industries to the funding for the IPPC is ridiculous. We are talking about the billions and billions for fossil fuels vs government funding seriously?
The Koch bros spent $100 million on political activities, more then 20 times what the IPCC spends on research and scientific american reports that $558 million was spent over 10 years on denier activities. That's more then twice what the IPCC spends on research and papers, while the IPCC is mandated to spend nothing on advocacy or advertising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Climate_change
https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session30/doc3.pdf
More money is spent on fossil fuel industry misinformation then is spent on the research, and next to nothing is spent on climate change advocacy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Last edited:
2014 was the warmest year on record.
Your are spectacularly wrong.
Warming over the last decade or two decades is exactly as the IPCC predicted.
Nonsense.
2014 was no warmer than 2005 -- the points plotted on your graph are less than half the margin of error for the measurements.
Let's review this one last time.
Here's the prediction:
Here are the results.
The RSS readings:
NASA:
Now, for Pete's sake, get out and enjoy the nice weather.
You are back to cherry picking again, but now you are down to only two years that you can try your lame claims, 2005 and 1997.
Those are two years which were warmer then others, they are cherry picked years.
Your arguments are based on cheating the dates.
2014 was the warmest year on record.
14 of the 15 warmest years occurred.
Over the last decade global surface temperatures went up 0.16ºC, as predicted.
I checked the source of that chart.
It charts upper atmosphere temperature change as measured by satellites.
Its quite irrelevant to this discussion about surface temperature change, next thing you'll be posting about how the temperature in space hasn't changed at all, so there is no global warming....
Keep to the topic.
In any event, your claim is down to 2 cherry picked years and doesn't work anywhere else.
You have been shown to be spectacularly wrong on repeated occasions.
Last edited:
I can't be bothered to waste my time trying to address all of the nonsense in Frankfooter's post. No matter how many times things are explained to him, it seems nothing sinks in.
The plateau at the turn of the century that explains why most of the "warmest" years are in the 21st century has been explained numerous times. If he can't get it by now, I have to conclude he never will.
As for 2014 being the "warmest year on record," it's clear that Frank doesn't know what the words "margin of error" mean.
NASA has said there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperature over the past 15 years. Frank continues to ignore this point, much as he ignores what his own eyes are telling him when he looks at NASA's chart.
Clearly, we have unearthed the true "denier."
The plateau at the turn of the century that explains why most of the "warmest" years are in the 21st century has been explained numerous times. If he can't get it by now, I have to conclude he never will.
As for 2014 being the "warmest year on record," it's clear that Frank doesn't know what the words "margin of error" mean.
NASA has said there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperature over the past 15 years. Frank continues to ignore this point, much as he ignores what his own eyes are telling him when he looks at NASA's chart.
Clearly, we have unearthed the true "denier."
Plateau - cherry picking dates from one of two warmest years to a not as warm year. It only works from two possible years now, and in order to keep trying this claim he has to ignore the fact that 2014 was the warmest year on record.
margin of error - is applicable to every year, claiming its only important on one year is another form of cherry picking.
flattening - an argument based off using super El Nino year, 1997, as a starting point. The argument fails miserably using any other start date, proving its about cherry picking.
ignoring Nasa - 'The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.
The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.' - It is moviefan who is ignoring NASA.
Only someone who doesn't have the basics of science down can look at this chart and claim its a flat line.
Exactly!
That is why it is impossible to say if the warmest year was 2005, 2010 or 2014.
So you're accusing NASA of "cherry picking"?
I'm not ignoring anything.
In a subsequent interview, GISS director Gavin Schmidt admitted that 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010. In effect, he admitted that NASA was lying when it issued a news release making a declarative statement about 2014 being the warmest year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
I should note that the Daily Mail article had been previously posted in this thread. That means you are also guilty of lying when you accused me of "ignoring" what the news release said.
Only someone who doesn't have the basics of science down can look at this chart and claim its a flat line.
The word "flattening" -- not "flat" -- was used by NASA, not me.
You're evading the real point. The trend line is currently horizontal, rather than the upward trend line that was predicted.
Are you saying the trend line doesn't look horizontal to you?
No, the trend line is not horizontal.
That red line is not a horizontal line.
I'm saying that from about 1910 to the present that red 5 year trend line has gone up.
Do you disagree with the fact that the trend line is going up?
Your full argument is based around looking at one square on that graph and then claiming that one square represents the trend.
Its false, its wrong and its a lie.
You can't look at one square and say it tells us either how much the climate changed or how much its still changing.
Its an idiotic argument.
Only a complete ass tries to claim that this graph represents a flat line, a climate that is not changing.
The graph indeed shows the current trend is flat for at least 15 years.No, the trend line is not horizontal.
That red line is not a horizontal line.
I'm saying that from about 1910 to the present that red 5 year trend line has gone up.
Do you disagree with the fact that the trend line is going up?
Your full argument is based around looking at one square on that graph and then claiming that one square represents the trend.
Its false, its wrong and its a lie.
You can't look at one square and say it tells us either how much the climate changed or how much its still changing.
Its an idiotic argument.
Only a complete ass tries to claim that this graph represents a flat line, a climate that is not changing.
I know some of a particular political bent live in the past,...so explain why the temp increased from 1910 to 1950,...???
FAST
If you are looking at the last 15 years you should start from 2000.
In which case the line is not in the least bit flat.
Can you not read graphs either?
Indeed.
And as FAST has noted, the increase from 1910 to 1940 was primarily due to natural variants. Even the IPCC has claimed that human activity was only a primary factor after 1950.
Furthermore, the period from 1940 to the late 1970s shows there was a slight cooling in the Earth's temperature -- despite a huge increase in industrial growth during that period (you still haven't adequately explained how that happened, according to your hypothesis).
The only period where there is a correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and the Earth's temperature is for the 20-year period from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.
That's not enough to establish causation, particularly when it was followed by more than 15 years of "flattening" temperatures.
You are an idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about.
(which is why you will lose the bet and not even understand why)
97% of all scientists who study the climate say you are wrong, with a 95% certainty that man is changing the climate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Now, to your stupid uninformed claims.
1- CO2 and solar influences increased the global temperature 1910-1940, it was not just 'natural variability'.
From 1900 to 1940, atmospheric CO2 levels increased from approximately 295 to 310 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The equilibrium temperature change caused by this increase in CO2 is the climate sensitivity (λ) multiplied by the radiative forcing, which is approximately 5.35 times the natural log of the change in CO2 (Myhre 1998):
/4%20=%200.175%20\times%20\lambda%20\times%20\Delta%20(TSI))
The best estimate for the climate sensitivity parameter is 0.8 (Wm-2K-1). Thus at equilibrium, this CO2 change would be expected to cause a 0.22°C increase in the average global surface air temperature.
2- From 1940 - 1970 aerosols in the atmosphere slowed climate change, that is pollution and volcanoes, but only temporarily.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm
2. We can see the changes to the earths climate from 1910 on, as the effect becomes stronger and clearer and larger then any other effect on the system.
Here's a good chart that shows how the temperature increases are getting larger as time goes on and CO2 increases.
You really are claiming the red line in this graph is horizontal?
I don't think even school can help you.
He said since 2000 which is indeed correct. The anomaly has flattened since then - albeit at a higher rate than any other time in the past 130 years. That explains why the climate change alarmists contend that numerous years after 2000 are the warmest years on record.......which I am skeptical to believe because I don't trust the data.You really are claiming the red line in this graph is horizontal?
I don't think even school can help you.
1. The temperature anomaly is based on using the period 1951-1980 as the baseline. The questions that beg to be asked are a) why use that particular period b) is a 30 year timeline an adequate baseline and c) should we not be using a rolling timeline?
2. It has been contended from numerous sources that data has been manipulated by NASA/NOAA. They even admit to that using the argument that the adjustments are for accuracy purposes. Maybe so but it casts doubt on the data integrity
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
I'd suggest watching this video in it's entirety it really highlights the position of many climate change skeptics.
Jeezus.
Do you guys all go to the same denier site?
Can you at least find one that's up to date?
Because that claim is wrong, 2014 was the warmest fucking year on record on this planet.
And the change in the last 10 years or 20 years is exactly as the IPCC predicted.
Fucking unreal, how many times can you claim the same bullshit and very wrong answer.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Check the numbers from that chart.
2014 = 0.68ºC anomaly
2004 = 0.52ºC anomaly
That's a difference of 0.16ºC over the last decade.
And its a pattern.
2014 = 0.68ºC anomaly
1994 = 0.29ºC anomaly
