lost 452 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, homersapien said: A single temperature reading taken at one location in two different years doesn't mean squat. That's the difference between "weather" and "climate". I suggest you spend some time doing a little reading on the subject. Here's a good site that has compiled a lot of information in one place: https://skepticalscience.com/ May i remind you that you said actual data. So we go to the coldest place on Earth and take actual data. And that data proves that temperatures have fluctuated back and forth through the last 2 centuries. It was way down in the last of the 20th, with a rise at the end. It is on the way down now according to Meteorologists. And despite your liberal slap at me-- i am an Amatuer meteorologist with years of study. I just do not have the degree. And i know what i am talking about ACTUAL DATA. Sea Ice and Temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, lost said: May i remind you that you said actual data. So we go to the coldest place "liberal slapon Earth and take actual data. And that data proves that temperatures have fluctuated back and forth through the last 2 centuries. It was way down in the last of the 20th, with a rise at the end. It is on the way down now according to Meteorologists. And despite your liberal slap at me-- i am an Amatuer meteorologist with years of study. I just do not have the degree. And i know what i am talking about ACTUAL DATA. Sea Ice and Temps. The word data is plural. A single reading is more accurately called a datum. A single reading is not data nor is it evidence of anything other than how cold it was that day. You have no idea what you are talking about. And suggesting you educate yourself is not a "slap", it's advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,164 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 24 minutes ago, lost said: May i remind you that you said actual data. So we go to the coldest place on Earth and take actual data. And that data proves that temperatures have fluctuated back and forth through the last 2 centuries. It was way down in the last of the 20th, with a rise at the end. It is on the way down now according to Meteorologists. And despite your liberal slap at me-- i am an Amatuer meteorologist with years of study. I just do not have the degree. And i know what i am talking about ACTUAL DATA. Sea Ice and Temps. Hell, even some professional TV meteorologists get it wrong. Spann, for instance, whom I respect tremendously and whose AlabamaWX blog I watch every morning when I wake up, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost 452 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 37 minutes ago, homersapien said: The word data is plural. A single reading is more accurately called a datum. A single reading is not data nor is it evidence of anything other than how cold it was that day. You have no idea what you are talking about. And suggesting you educate yourself is not a "slap", it's advice. And again data is the overall picture .. 2013 coldest, 2017 warmest 1950's till 1980's coldest- 2000 2017 warmest cycles . Look if you want to discuss. Discuss but stop the liberal hate. I do not have to agree with you to "KNOW" . You can be wrong sir. I have proof on DATA... And again i KNOW what i speak of since i have studied it for 30 plus years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, lost said: And again data is the overall picture .. 2013 coldest, 2017 warmest 1950's till 1980's coldest- 2000 2017 warmest cycles . Look if you want to discuss. Discuss but stop the liberal hate. I do not have to agree with you to "KNOW" . You can be wrong sir. I have proof on DATA... And again i KNOW what i speak of since i have studied it for 30 plus years. Cite your sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,164 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, homersapien said: Cite your sources. Oh, this should be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost 452 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, homersapien said: Cite your sources. If i show you the cycles in weather will you accept it?https://www.grainews.ca/2016/04/27/climate-and-weather-cycles/ As we look at the time since we broke the sod around 1900 and have built a thriving ag industry we see the following temperature trends (10 year averages). A gradual warming from ~1895 to 1940 and whip saw warming/ cooling trends through the 50s to 70s. From 1980 to ~1995 was a major warming. But the current warming trend ended about the turn of the century. There are many Meteorologists in this camp Bastardi, and many more.. Bastardi has chart after chart after chart explaining how cycles have been in the weather and how he generates his own forecasts from those cycles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 22 minutes ago, lost said: If i show you the cycles in weather will you accept it?https://www.grainews.ca/2016/04/27/climate-and-weather-cycles/ As we look at the time since we broke the sod around 1900 and have built a thriving ag industry we see the following temperature trends (10 year averages). A gradual warming from ~1895 to 1940 and whip saw warming/ cooling trends through the 50s to 70s. From 1980 to ~1995 was a major warming. But the current warming trend ended about the turn of the century. There are many Meteorologists in this camp Bastardi, and many more.. Bastardi has chart after chart after chart explaining how cycles have been in the weather and how he generates his own forecasts from those cycles... Let me ask you a question: Given there are natural cycles in climate, do you accept the possibility that a new factor external to those cycles - say the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - can overlay those natural cycles in such a way as to make them irrelevant regarding the overall trend in global temperature? If you are adamant about the preservation of these natural cycles, you can think of them as establishing higher baselines for the overall trend in temperature. A basic part of scientific research involves controlling for natural variation. In fact, one could say that is the primary purpose of statistics and experimental design. The science of global warming considers any natural sources of variation in determining temperature trends. In plain language, there is nothing about the existence of natural cycles in global temperature that would prevent the detection of an overall trend of rising temperatures caused by the increase of greenhouse gases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost 452 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 11 minutes ago, homersapien said: Let me ask you a question: Given there are natural cycles in climate, do you accept the possibility that a new factor external to those cycles - say the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - can overlay those natural cycles in such a way as to make them irrelevant regarding the overall trend in global temperature? If you are adamant about the preservation of these natural cycles, you can think of them as establishing higher baselines for the overall trend in temperature. A basic part of scientific research involves controlling for natural variation. In fact, one could say that is the primary purpose of statistics and experimental design. The science of global warming considers any natural sources of variation in determining temperature trends. In plain language, there is nothing about the existence of natural cycles in global temperature that would prevent the detection of an overall trend of rising temperatures caused by the increase of greenhouse gases. I believe that we may have "somewhat" of an effect, but nothing of the effect described by global scientists. One reason of course is the fact that we are seeing the colder temperatures again, and not the steady rise. The other is of course the part that makes this debate so heated. I believe in the Bible. I believe in a greater force . That seems to be the dividing point on almost every heated debate. But my comments here have been strictly because you mentioned data. Not because i came to get involved in the political part of the debate. War Eagle to you guys and i am through. No doubt climate will effect many throughout the coming years... God bless you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I forgot to answer you directly. The source you cited doesn't address global warming at all. Most - if not all - of the data used in the article is not even global, it's regional. Again, the site I posted provides responses to various denier claims regarding global warming being caused by natural cycles. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php See numbers 1, 2, 14, 29, 32, 47, 50, 51, 54, 58, 60, 89, 95, 102, 116, 123, 149, 163, 176, 185, 190, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, lost said: I believe that we may have "somewhat" of an effect, but nothing of the effect described by global scientists. One reason of course is the fact that we are seeing the colder temperatures again, and not the steady rise. The other is of course the part that makes this debate so heated. I believe in the Bible. I believe in a greater force . That seems to be the dividing point on almost every heated debate. But my comments here have been strictly because you mentioned data. Not because i came to get involved in the political part of the debate. War Eagle to you guys and i am through. No doubt climate will effect many throughout the coming years... God bless you! We are not seeing colder temperatures again. Where did you get such an idea? My advice for you is to stick with the Bible and quit trying to make scientific claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnphan 6,050 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I thought only people who don't understand the Bible but claim to be religious do not believe in global warming and those paid by the oil industry/etc. to say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, auburnphan said: I thought only people who don't understand the Bible but claim to be religious do not believe in global warming and those paid by the oil industry/etc. to say so. Sorry, but can you please restate this differently? I don't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnphan 6,050 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Just now, homersapien said: Sorry but can you restate this? I don't understand it. Sure. Only Oil industry scientists claim that there is no such thing as global warming. Those that use the Bible for reasoning to deny global warming do not understand their religion very well as it has always been clear that God has allowed man to do terrible things at their own expense. Like destroying the earth. I am amazed that this is even being discussed any more as it has been fact for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,164 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 FWIW, I made some graphs to debunk the notion that this warming is cyclical. 1880 thru 1950 with a linear trend every 10 years. 1950 through the present with a linear trend every 10 years. The complete surface temp record with a linear trend every 30 years. The complete surface temp record with a linear trend over the complete dataset. To debunk the notion that the warming has stopped, the data from 1990 to present with a linear trend every 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,253 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 24 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said: FWIW, I made some graphs to debunk the notion that this warming is cyclical. 1880 thru 1950 with a linear trend every 10 years. 1950 through the present with a linear trend every 10 years. The complete surface temp record with a linear trend every 30 years. The complete surface temp record with a linear trend over the complete dataset. To debunk the notion that the warming has stopped, the data from 1990 to present with a linear trend every 10 years. You got way to much time on your hands....................j/k ben j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,164 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, augolf1716 said: You got way to much time on your hands....................j/k ben j/k Nah. If I'd wanted it to be really time consuming, I'd have dumped the dataset into Excel and graphed from there. Better to just graph it out on Wood for Trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,253 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said: Nah. If I'd wanted it to be really time consuming, I'd have dumped the dataset into Excel and graphed from there. Better to just graph it out on Wood for Trees. I'm a old fart why is it called Wood for trees real question not trying to be a smart a..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,164 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Randal Monroe at xkcd has a nice cartoon to put the recent warming in perspective. https://xkcd.com/1732/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,164 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, augolf1716 said: I'm a old fart why is it called Wood for trees real question not trying to be a smart a..... It's a spin on the phrase "can't see the wood for the trees." A nice site for data analysis and graphing of climate datasets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,253 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said: It's a spin on the phrase "can't see the wood for the trees." A nice site for data analysis and graphing of climate datasets. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,840 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 27 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said: It's a spin on the phrase "can't see the wood for the trees." A nice site for data analysis and graphing of climate datasets. Good stuff Ben. just reading, you are ok. hope the little people are well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 4 hours ago, lost said: I believe that we may have "somewhat" of an effect, but nothing of the effect described by global scientists. One reason of course is the fact that we are seeing the colder temperatures again, and not the steady rise. The other is of course the part that makes this debate so heated. I believe in the Bible. I believe in a greater force . That seems to be the dividing point on almost every heated debate. But my comments here have been strictly because you mentioned data. Not because i came to get involved in the political part of the debate. War Eagle to you guys and i am through. No doubt climate will effect many throughout the coming years... God bless you! OK, let's explore that. How exactly is the Bible informing you on Anthropogenic Global Warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 hours ago, auburnphan said: Sure. Only Oil industry scientists claim that there is no such thing as global warming. Those that use the Bible for reasoning to deny global warming do not understand their religion very well as it has always been clear that God has allowed man to do terrible things at their own expense. Like destroying the earth. I am amazed that this is even being discussed any more as it has been fact for decades. OK, got it. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,423 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 53 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said: Randal Monroe at xkcd has a nice cartoon to put the recent warming in perspective. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That was great!! It reminds me of the timeline of the world that follows the spiraling pedestrian ramp at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Such visual presentations made to scale are very useful for providing perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.