Grains Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 Lessee here: I am pretty sure I found something where you've been wrong in every post you've made. Fancy that. Sure, you can show a trend anywhere. That doesn't negate the fact that you are arbitrarily choosing your time period to show the outcome you want. Like I said, 1998 was one of the warmest years on record, so saying that there has been a slight negative trend since then hardly indicates that the overall upward trend which we've been experiencing for centuries as a result of human activity is false or won't continue. Quote:Originally Posted by Grains The black line represents the trend line and the green line represents resistance. The only thing wrong with this was I said resistance instead of support which I already corrected myself on the next post on. Minor typo. Quote:Originally Posted by Grains my graph does not indicate and increasing trend it indicates quite the opposite....it broke support (actually I would like to correct myself it was late last night i should have written support as opposed to resistance) which highly indicates a downward trend is upon us. nothing wrong Quote:Originally Posted by Grains I guess I differ because I try to concentrate on what I believe are real environmental issues that I believe could hurt our future...The problem to me is that real environmental issues get ignored because of the theory of global warming...which I believe is false. nothing wrong Quote:Originally Posted by Grains i haven't arbitrarily chosen start and end dates for this particular graph I have not chosen start and end points for this particular graph....the graph already set them for me...1988-2008 Quote:Originally Posted by Grains You don't necesarrily need raw data for trendlines... you don't...trendlines dont test the correctness of the data I listed a lot of other comments in some of my most latest post that need response from you and you didn't touch one of them.. instead you go back and come up with this trying to not answer them...whats up with that????? You were wrong on my trendlines being wrong.....end of story....they can't be wrong
InfiniteNow Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 A trendline can't be wrong, eh? Awesome. Then the trendline I added to your graph below is also correct. You're blatantly missing my point, and continuing this trendline thing unecessarily. What benefit to our knowledge of the human impact on global climate does choosing a start date of 1998 provide?
Grains Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 A trendline can't be wrong, eh? Awesome. Then the trendline I added to your graph below is also correct. [ATTACH]2380[/ATTACH] You're blatantly missing my point, and continuing this trendline thing unecessarily. What benefit to our knowledge of the human impact on global climate does choosing a start date of 1998 provide? Well....I had a feeling you were going to post something like that.... the definition of a trend line connects 2 or more points in a similar direction....you have simply drawn a line through the chart...this is not a trend line....it is simply a line...but i do like how your line is indicating a downward movement so we are on the right track...:hihi: Also I had to continue the trendline discussion because it was the thesis my first comment which got us into discussion so it was a pretty important point. My trendline that starts from 1998 simply shows that their has been a decrease in temperature trend and that it has broken support. It is just one tool I am using to base my assumption that temperatures are going to continue to decline on average for the next I would say....10 years. This graph shows a very recent pool of data so we can see how temperatures have been reacting in short term. My recent graph that I posted that goes back 600 million years also indicates a decrease in temperature and after looking at more of a short term chart and seeing it fail recent support I do not see it making in major breakaway anytime soon and on a long term chart we will see no major changes for a long while. Other than charting I agree with Mr. Easterbrook...Global Warming Hoax: Content / No Consensus / Manuscript by Don J. Easterbrook, PHD We need to be more focused on water pollution, resource depletion, toxins, farming, conservation, etc. Lets get to the real issues... This Global cooling...i mean global warming....i mean global lukewarm has been distracting us for to long.... Turtle 1
modest Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 10 year global temperatures with error bars and logarithmic trend line. Data (including uncertainty for error bars) is from link INow gave. The excel file with the data and chart are attached below. ~modest
InfiniteNow Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 Thank you, Modest. I appreciate your showing everyone clearly my point. I suppose my socratic method sometimes fails. ;) My recent graph that I posted that goes back 600 million years also indicates a decrease in temperature and after looking at more of a short term chart and seeing it fail recent support I do not see it making in major breakaway anytime soon and on a long term chart we will see no major changes for a long while.And during how many of those 600 million years were humans digging carbon deposits out of the ground and burning them, hence releasing them back into the atmosphere? If you actually answer this question, I'd like you to also show the concentrations. However, seeing as you're a mere "obfuscator" or "GW troll," aka "denialist," I'll follow Modest's lead and show the data myself: Global Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions - Graphics Let's go back a little bit further though, shall we? Historical trends in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This Global cooling...i mean global warming....i mean global lukewarm has been distracting us for to long.... You're clearly more interested in lies than science. I agree that there are other things we need to improve upon, other things we need to fix, but not at the expense of lying to everyone about climate change or misrepresenting its importance.
Moontanman Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 I have some problems with global warming but mine have nothing to do with whether or not human activity is contributing to global worming. I think that it's pretty obvious that human activity has contributed to global warming or at least sped it up significantly. My problem lies with the assumption that a cooler earth is the natural set point for the earth. I think the earth is recovering from several recent (past several tens of millions of years) glacial events brought about by reasons we can only speculate about. Over the past 250 million years there is reason the think that during much if not all of this time the earth was much warmer than it is now. Near the end of the Cretaceous period the earth had no ice caps and the poles held a thriving sub tropical ecosystem. I think the over all trend for the earth since the last series of ice ages has been naturally warmer. Now we have to ask has man sped this up by his activities? I would have to say yes. Is this a bad thing? Depends on your point of view. For human civilization it will be a test of our staying power to say the least. Is it a bad thing for all other creatures on the Earth? I would have to say yes for all the animals and plants that have adapted to the cold of the past tens of million of years it will mean doom but as we have seen the earth was populated when it was warm and will be again. Life adapts, it is incredibly arrogant of us to think we can or even need to "save" the animals that have adapted to the current conditions over the animals that will come to be when the current conditions change. Now, should we maintain the current temps to save our selves? I would have to say yes. To what ever extent we can I say lets try to stabilize the planets temps but I seriously doubt we will be able to do that. If we could magically bring CO2 levels back to where they were before humans had a significant impact we could possibly start a new ice age. Personally I think we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. The best we can do is minimalize our impact and see where the trend naturally goes and if we have to modify our actions we should do so but I wouldn't want to say we are saving the planet. This would imply a hubris I don't think we need to have.
modest Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 Thank you, Modest. I appreciate your showing everyone clearly my point. No prob. Pictures don't lie. Or, is it data that doesn't lie?... I guess it doesn't matter - we got them both :cup: I'd also add that even if temps dropped over the next five or ten years, we'd still have a longterm increasing trend. As far as a trend is concerned, the next decade isn't as important as the last five. Which brings up - why would a person put a trend on the last ten years of data when we have good data on the last 100? Odd. Especially considering the trend slants less than the error bars - that's not a good sign for representing the trend. ~modest
Zythryn Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 This just in!Yesterday from 7pm to 4am the temperature dropped many degrees!! Watch out, an ice age is upon us!Grains, just because the average global temperature dropped below the running average over a year or a few years even means little in and of itself.As was already said by many, look at long term trends. I do applaud you for making falsifiable predictions about the next number of years. I suspect you are wrong with the possible exception of this year. But that is at least a claim which can be tested. The basics is this, A. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs heat (long wavelength energy).B. Mankind is pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the earth's natural systems can absorb, leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.C. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat. That is really the basic foundation. The climate is incredibly complicated and many things affect it, of which the 'greenhouse' gases are only one.If you disagree with any of the above issue, please let us know which one. Otherwise if you agree with each, it appears you agree mankind is contributing to GW.
Grains Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 This just in!Yesterday from 7pm to 4am the temperature dropped many degrees!! Watch out, an ice age is upon us!Grains, just because the average global temperature dropped below the running average over a year or a few years even means little in and of itself.As was already said by many, look at long term trends. I do applaud you for making falsifiable predictions about the next number of years. I suspect you are wrong with the possible exception of this year. But that is at least a claim which can be tested. The most recent graph I posted was over 600 million years so the fact that you said "Grains, just because the average global temperature dropped below the running average over a year or a few years even means little in and of itself." I am going to assume you were being sarcastic.....i hope.... You said you applaud me for making falsifiable predictions?????? First off a prediction is a prediction and one cannot be false until time has spoken or it can proved wrong....as i have forecasted thie prediction for the future you will not be able to tell me its false until 10 years is up from now because that was my predicition...I have formed the basis of my predictions that temps have been going down for a longgg time. again refer to 600million year graph.
Zythryn Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Grains, you are fast approaching the level of Troll.The few years I was mentioning refers to the last couple of years in your first 10 year graph which you seem to think scew the entire trend into a downward trend even though if you actually plot it, it is still a positive trend.Second, I didn't say it was falsifiable NOW, I said it was falsifiable. As you stated, it will take time to test it. Since you made predictions for the next 10 years, it will be tested by that very passage of time.
Grains Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 10 year global temperatures with error bars and logarithmic trend line. Data (including uncertainty for error bars) is from link INow gave. The excel file with the data and chart are attached below. ~modest i cant see this chart to well but I think the blue line is the logarithmic trendline correct? which is trending down correct?
Grains Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 However, seeing as you're a mere "obfuscator" or "GW troll," aka "denialist," I'll follow Modest's lead and show the data myself: whatever....i have seen that you do like to name call when someone opposes your position...childish Global Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions - Graphics They used estimations... Let's go back a little bit further though, shall we? Historical trends in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal[ATTACH]2382[/ATTACH]not that long of a time period...i see you are enjoying the cherry picking now :shrug: You're clearly more interested in lies than science. I agree that there are other things we need to improve upon, other things we need to fix, but not at the expense of lying to everyone about climate change or misrepresenting its importance. Just because someone opposes your opinion does not make it lies...
Grains Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Grains, you are fast approaching the level of Troll.The few years I was mentioning refers to the last couple of years in your first 10 year graph which you seem to think scew the entire trend into a downward trend even though if you actually plot it, it is still a positive trend.Second, I didn't say it was falsifiable NOW, I said it was falsifiable. As you stated, it will take time to test it. Since you made predictions for the next 10 years, it will be tested by that very passage of time. I don't understand how you can be called a Troll for having an opposing opinion from the norm. The first graph I posted is in a downward trend....no matter how i look at it or how i plot it it is in a downward... in response to the falsifiable I am sorry if I interpreted your meaning wrong. Thats the problem with internet writing/typing the lines of communication can broken very easy without certain words...my bad
Overdog Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 I'm kind of jumping into this in the middle, but my understanding is that global warming peaked in 1998, and the earth has been cooling ever since. Modest's post seems to support this. One of the problems I have with the whole "Global Warming" thing is that the earth is no hotter now than it has been in the past. I;m not worried about Global Warming, anyway. I hope it is true. I am aware the earth is recovering from the little ice age... Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But I see no reason to be alarmed. Yes. C02 IS a greenhouse gas. So What?So is H2O. I pray that we can pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to prevent the next Glacial cycle from occuring anytime soon.
Grains Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 No prob. Pictures don't lie. Or, is it data that doesn't lie?... I guess it doesn't matter - we got them both :hihi: I'd also add that even if temps dropped over the next five or ten years, we'd still have a longterm increasing trend. As far as a trend is concerned, the next decade isn't as important as the last five. Which brings up - why would a person put a trend on the last ten years of data when we have good data on the last 100? Odd. Especially considering the trend slants less than the error bars - that's not a good sign for representing the trend. ~modest I agree with this. More data is better and yes there is a positive trend over the last 100. But we have charts that go back even farther than that which show a decreasing trend. I never have said my 10 year chart was the best chart out there. I simply stated in that 10 year period it is in a downward trend..
Grains Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 No prob. Pictures don't lie. Or, is it data that doesn't lie?... I guess it doesn't matter - we got them both :hihi: ~modest unless i am missing something (the blue line is your logarithmic trend line) your chart has downward trend written all over it...even you logarithmic trend line indicates this.... you and infinate now were praising this chart and now i am really confused because this is what I have been saying the whole time...since my first post...and you posted a chart that supports that???? :hihi::confused::confused:
Overdog Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 The problem is that the whole Global Warming Apocalypse thing is based on computer models. Climate is a chaotic system. The Computer models we have simply do not have all the initial conditions. You can't trust them. It's just that simple. Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Chaos TheoryAn early pioneer of the theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961.[14] Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time. To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before. Lorenz tracked this down to the computer printout. The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, so a value like 0.506127 was printed as 0.506. This difference is tiny and the consensus at the time would have been that it should have had practically no effect. However Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome.[15] Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period (at most).
Recommended Posts