Inflammatory, bickering, troll posts and replies removed. 

 

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You keep mentioning "deniers". What do you mean by that?

Exactly what are we denying?

Climate change- no, anyone with a brain cell knows climate changes. Always has, always will.

Global warming- didn't they change that to climate change because the world wasn't actually getting much warmer?

You think you're talking science when all you're doing is playing with semantics.

Yes. climate is always changing. But not this fast. and not this universally for at least the last 2000 years.

And no, they didn't change the name because it wasn't actually getting much warmer If you took the least bother to examine the data, the rate its getting warmer is actually accelerating. They changed the name because it's about more than just the atmosphere and oceans getting warmer.

Apart from these small corrections, your comments were perfect.

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You think you're talking science when all you're doing is playing with semantics.

Yes. climate is always changing. But not this fast. and not this universally for at least the last 2000 years.

And no, they didn't change the name because it wasn't actually getting much warmer If you took the least bother to examine the data, the rate its getting warmer is actually accelerating. They changed the name because it's about more than just the atmosphere and oceans getting warmer.

Apart from these small corrections, your comments were perfect.

But it did warm this fast from 1900 to 1940, exactly the same rate of warming, when most people still used horses to get around,

There is no correlation between CO2 and warming, There have been some parallels. But always led by warming. There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though.

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

But it did warm this fast from 1900 to 1940, exactly the same rate of warming, when most people still used horses to get around,

There is no correlation between CO2 and warming, There have been some parallels. But always led by warming. There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though.

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

6 hours ago, Skallywag said:

That is the reason of the real man-made climate change. Mainly deforestation and desertification due to forests and grazing lands converted to plots for the exploding population of humans and their food, often amplified by screwing up the ecosystems with hydroelectric dams in fish migration paths, etc. Extremely unpopular notion among politics so does not get talked about. They need more population to support their ponzi schemes and growing voter base.

 

https://populationmatters.org/

 

Another one is the stubborn objection of developing safer Gen IV nuclear reactors.

 

These are real problems that could be solved, but there's a hurdle that needs to be passed first: mankind must get rid of politicians and use technology for direct democracy.

25 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

That is the reason of the real man-made climate change. Mainly deforestation and desertification due to forests and grazing lands converted to plots for the exploding population of humans and their food, often amplified by screwing up the ecosystems with hydroelectric dams in fish migration paths, etc. Extremely unpopular notion among politics so does not get talked about. They need more population to support their ponzi schemes and growing voter base.

 

https://populationmatters.org/

 

Another one is the stubborn objection of developing safer Gen IV nuclear reactors.

 

These are real problems that could be solved, but there's a hurdle that needs to be passed first: mankind must get rid of politicians and use technology for direct democracy.

You really haven't been keeping up with the extraordinary progress made in renewables, have you?

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Really?

Really. As @canuckamuck points out, there hasn't been a statistically significant warming since 1998. The change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures (which is the data your graph visualises) was 0.43 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.88 degrees in 2018. Obviously, if the graph is designed specifically to display a dramatic increase, people with no ability to interpret the data behind headlines and colourful pictures will believe the increase is dramatic. The warming during the 20-year period 1998-2018 is 0.45 degrees Celsius. Obviously, there's no definition of "significant". This should be seen in comparison to the period 1912-1931 when it warmed 0.48 degrees Celsius (without any significant CO2-production).

 

In addition, the graph you copied from Wikipedia appears to be grossly incorrect. Here is a correct graph using the very data referred to on the Wikipedia page. The graph Wikipedia COULD show something else, I don't dispute that, but it doesn't show the Global Mean Surface Temperature, which is calculated by averaging the temperature at the surface of the sea and air temperature over land.

 

You can verify the authenticity of my data here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.csv

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by Forethat

I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years.

 

Nasa Climate site: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Data here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by Forethat

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Your graph shows exactly what I said.

50 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Really. As @canuckamuck points out, there hasn't been a statistically significant warming since 1998. The change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures (which is the data your graph visualises) was 0.43 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.88 degrees in 2018. Obviously, if the graph is designed specifically to display a dramatic increase, people with no ability to interpret the data behind headlines and colourful pictures will believe the increase is dramatic. The warming during the 20-year period 1998-2018 is 0.45 degrees Celsius. Obviously, there's no definition of "significant". This should be seen in comparison to the period 1912-1931 when it warmed 0.48 degrees Celsius (without any significant CO2-production).

 

In addition, the graph you copied from Wikipedia appears to be grossly incorrect. Here is a correct graph using the very data referred to on the Wikipedia page. The graph Wikipedia COULD show something else, I don't dispute that, but it doesn't show the Global Mean Surface Temperature, which is calculated by averaging the temperature at the surface of the sea and air temperature over land.

 

You can verify the authenticity of my data here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.csv

33 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years.

 

Nasa Climate site: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Data here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

There's so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. To begin with, what you offer in these graphs is a combined reading of sea water surface temperature and air temperature  above the surface of land. So what does this mean?

First off, water is a liquid and air is a gas. Water is much more dense than air and can absorb a lot more heat.. So it takes a lot more heat to raise the temperature of water.  So that's one reason why this figure trails purely atmospheric readings.

Second. I don't know about you, but back when I was in grade school I learned about something called specific heat. It's about how much heat it takes to raise the temperature of specific substances.

"The specific heat of water is 1 calorie/gram °C = 4.186 joule/gram °C which is higher than any other common substance. As a result, water plays a very important role in temperature regulation."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html

So not only is liquid water much denser but it actually takes more heat to raise the temperature of water per mole than it does for the mixture of gases in the atmosphere.

Third. The oceans cover about 70 percent of the globe. So over 2 thirds of the land-sea reading are made up of surface water readings.

All of which means that the rise in land sea readings will lag purely atmospheric readings.

Now I guess if you're Aquaman you can take some comfort in knowing that warming is occurring a lot more slowly at the sea's surface. But if you're like most human beings and do most of your living surrounded by atmosphere, that's not quite as pertinent to human lives as they are actually led.

 

 

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Your graph shows exactly what I said.

 

Really, here is the data from the graph from the 1997-98 el nino year to the present.

So you are asserting that this rather sharply sloped graph from the year 1998, shows that "There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though."? Maybe a visit to an ophthamologist is in order?

 

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

Really, here is the data from the graph from the 1997-98 el nino year to the present.

So you are asserting that this rather sharply sloped graph from the year 1998, shows that "There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though."? Maybe a visit to an ophthamologist is in order?

 

In my profession we take pride in understanding what we're dealing with rather than just look at pictures. Visualising data can be important, especially when you want to communicate and illustrate relationships between data. However, this method can sometimes be deceiving and do more damage than good when you deal with an individual who doesn't WANT to understand (as illustrated by yourself).

 

The graph YOU posted is based on the following data:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

 

That very data indicates that the Land-Ocean Temperature Index for 1998 shows an anomaly of 0.61 degrees Celsius and for 2018 the same number is 0.85 degrees. The warming between 1998 and 2018 is 0.24 degrees. That's according the the data YOU cited! And on top of everything, an hour later you claim that the data is incorrect. You argue against yourself!!! 

 

Here's the raw data:

1998	0.61
1999	0.39
2000	0.4
2001	0.54
2002	0.62
2003	0.62
2004	0.54
2005	0.68
2006	0.64
2007	0.66
2008	0.54
2009	0.66
2010	0.72
2011	0.61
2012	0.64
2013	0.68
2014	0.74
2015	0.9
2016	1.01
2017	0.92
2018	0.85

 

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by Forethat

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

Really, here is the data from the graph from the 1997-98 el nino year to the present.

 

So you are asserting that this rather sharply sloped graph from the year 1998, shows that "There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though."? Maybe a visit to an ophthamologist is in order?

 

Here is a page from "The Key Role of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in Minimum Temperature Over North America During Global Warming Slowdown" authored by American Geophysical Union.

It's a a big PDF, so I just did a screenshot of one page. They show quite a different story than you.

 

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years.

 

Nasa Climate site: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Data here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

Yes, you're right and I was wrong about the the graph. But your interpretation of the graphs is wrong. It's only by ignoring smoothing, and in effect cherry picking, that you can come up with the figures you do. As is widely known, 1997-98 was the year of a very powerful el nino. So naturally the temperature shot up. But on a Lowess smoothing basis it's about .43, not .60. In the final year on the chart on a smoothing basis the figure is  about .95 not about 8.2  That represents a difference of .52 between 1997-98 and 2018.  not your figure of .24. Science is not about cherry picking. 

This is all part of the denialist method of cherry picking. By arbitrarily starting with the year of a very powerful el nino, they make it look like global warming wasn't still going on at a rapid pace. But it was and is. Eventually, even without the benefit of an el nino, many years in the 21st century are warmer than that 1997-98 El Nino year.  It's useful to point out the 19 out of 20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the 20th century.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Yes, you're right and I was wrong about the the graph. But your interpretation of the graphs is wrong. It's only by ignoring smoothing, and in effect cherry picking, that you can come up with the figures you do. As is widely known, 1997-98 was the year of a very powerful el nino. So naturally the temperature shot up. But on a Lowess smoothing basis it's about .43, not .60. In the final year on the chart on a smoothing basis the figure is  about .95 not about 8.2  That represents a difference of .52 between 1997-98 and 2018.  not your figure of .24. Science is not about cherry picking. 

This is all part of the denialist method of cherry picking. By arbitrarily starting with the year of a very powerful el nino, they make it look like global warming wasn't still going on at a rapid pace. But it was and is. Eventually, even without the benefit of an el nino, many years in the 21st century are warmer than that 1997-98 El Nino year.  It's useful to point out the 19 out of 20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the 20th century.

Again, stop looking at pictures and try to gain a real understanding of the data. Here's a graph that shows the years 1998-2018. There is nothing significant about the warming. I am not cherry picking, I am just showing you the EXACT data.

 

Data here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

 

Just now, Forethat said:

Again, stop looking at pictures and try to gain a real understanding of the data. Here's a graph that shows the years 1998-2018. There is nothing significant about the warming. I am not cherry picking, I am just showing you the EXACT data.

 

Data here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

 

Are you a climate scientist?

 

I would be very interested to know what your academic qualifications actually are.

 

Please indulge me-and no gilding the lily now!

 

One what positively be shocked as to how many folks are gilding the lily on the internet,nu?????

 

10 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Again, stop looking at pictures and try to gain a real understanding of the data. Here's a graph that shows the years 1998-2018. There is nothing significant about the warming. I am not cherry picking, I am just showing you the EXACT data.

 

Data here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

 

Wow! Looks like I wasted my figurative breath explaining why it distorts the numbers to start with 1998, the year of a very powerful el nino. And a typical ploy of denialists.  And once again, you ignore the smoothing. What difference does the smoothing show? About .52, correct?

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You really haven't been keeping up with the extraordinary progress made in renewables, have you?

They are good for sod all when it's -35 DegC, dark all day and dead calm.

The thread is as dead as a doornail.

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Wow! Looks like I wasted my figurative breath explaining why it distorts the numbers to start with 1998, the year of a very powerful el nino. And a typical ploy of denialists.  And once again, you ignore the smoothing. What difference does the smoothing show? About .52, correct?

Lowess smoothing is not data. I appreciate that you might not know the difference, but for the sake of being kind - it isn't.

If you want to visualise data, data is what you should use, not a trend. So in essence, the weighted smoothing is irrelevant from a data perspective.

 

Hope this helps.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Now I guess if you're Aquaman you can take some comfort in knowing that warming is occurring a lot more slowly at the sea's surface. But if you're like most human beings and do most of your living surrounded by atmosphere, that's not quite as pertinent to human lives as they are actually led.

You might want to visit Tromsø in Norway some time. Without the gulf stream the place would be frozen over. 

 

Climate is a system and must be treated as such. 

4 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

The thread is as dead as a doornail.

I think it still needs a bit of hammering down.

6 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

I think it still needs a bit of hammering down.

Not from you my friend.One "doctor" doth not an "ER" Team make,eh?

 

Especially on the internet

 

A dead valley..once glorious and green in my youth.

 

32 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

The thread is as dead as a doornail.

Absolutely. As soon as someone provides hard facts and real arguments these debates tend to go mum...

Just now, Forethat said:

Absolutely. As soon as someone provides hard facts and real arguments these debates tend to go mum...

A bit of a problem "gilding the lilly" eh?

 

Well, never mind as you are in good company,na?

 

Would you like a photo of dying cattle,no forage..no water..?

 

All taken by a real person?

49 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

The thread is as dead as a doornail.

Perhaps you should say 97% again.

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Perhaps you should say 97% again.

Stagger on..

 

At least i think that I can say (evidence on other threads) that you are a real person which gains you some sort of credibility even tho' I cannot say that I agree with your views.

 

Tough,eh?

 

I am waiting for the proudly proclaimed academic qualifications of "doctors without brains" and "aforethought" to dazzle me with their new insights on this or any other question which vexes humankind..

 

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by Odysseus123

45 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Lowess smoothing is not data. I appreciate that you might not know the difference, but for the sake of being kind - it isn't.

If you want to visualise data, data is what you should use, not a trend. So in essence, the weighted smoothing is irrelevant from a data perspective.

 

Hope this helps.

You're confused about data. I can only surmise that you're confusing raw data with other kinds of data. Let me share with you the definition of data:

"factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation."

what's more the temperature information you cite isn't raw data at all but the product of a massive amount of statistical calculations. There ain't no modern science without statistics. So Lowess smoothing is data just as much as the temperatures you cite.

And do you think that the Lowess smoothing is just there for decoration? Something scientists do to make their work pretty?

 

 

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You're confused about data. I can only surmise that you're confusing raw data with other kinds of data. Let me share with you the definition of data:

"factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation."

what's more the temperature information you cite isn't raw data at all but the product of a massive amount of statistical calculations. There ain't no modern science without statistics. So Lowess smoothing is data just as much as the temperatures you cite.

And do you think that the Lowess smoothing is just there for decoration? Something scientists do to make their work pretty?

 

 

Here is the raw data collected in case you're interested in running your own analysis:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/SBBX1880.Ts.GHCNv4.1200.gz

 

Let me know if you plan to run something using the grid provided (both raster and vector included in the data set).

 

Please feel free to initiate a discussion regarding confusion once you've looked at the set and provided your input.

 

Happy to discuss.