InfiniteNow Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Again, I was not trying to skew its just a chart..nothing more. I thought I would draw a trendline just to a show a decline in recent years. <...> ....at this point it has nothing to do with global warming, but charting. I am not saying global warming does not exist because of this chart. I was simply pointing out a downward trend. Nothing more. <...> Again!!! I am not saying the chart's trend lines is the end all be all and global warming does not exist. I am simply stating that this chart is in a downward trend. just the fact that the chart is in a downward trend which others had acknowledged. IT DOES NOT MEAN GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST!!!! JUST A TRENDLINE! What was this about a trend? This is the most accurate linear trend line that can be put on the last 10 years of data: The reason this trend is flat and Grains' trends down is because, quite frankly, his is less accurate. Oh yeah, that. :) I've been challenging you so fiercely due to your comment: "A downward trend is clearly upon us!" It's not. Welcome to science, where you get hammered harshly and only survive if you are correct.
Grains Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Infinatenow I presented two challenges to you after weak attempts to call me out. You answered none. I will use one of your famous words-Troll! Don't come at me talking about science when you can't even see a trendline, read post, or interact with continuos conversation.
InfiniteNow Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Listen kid. Maybe I was a bit hard on you. Sorry about that. It's nothing personal. I get the sense that you've come away from these exchanges better educated, and more knowledgable about the topic. That's one of the best things any of us can offer one another. I just have to say, it runs counter to every fiber in my being when I read comments like this: ...if you dont like the fact that I don't believe in global warming fine beat me up all day... You see, nature cares not about what you do or do not believe. Climate change as a result of human actions is happening, our climate has been warming, and I've shared data confirming this. If you have questions about the data, or there is something you are struggling to understand, then please ask. However, simply asserting that you "don't believe in" global warming is disheartening, disconcerting, and is not a reasonable way to approach this thing we call our existence. Like I said, if you have questions, then ask them. That's how we learn. If you disagree with some portion of the data, then be specific and maybe we can all learn something together. But, please... I beg of you... do not just assert "I don't believe in it" and call it a day. It's disrespectful to the decades of work and research that has been done in this field, it's disrespectful to the honest exploration of our world and universe, and worse, it's disrespectful to you and your personal integrity as a human being. I welcome questions and challenges, and I encourage honest academic pursuits, but I will strike down with biting words and stark criticism people who think that their personal beliefs have any worth or merit whatsoever in a conversation about the nature of our universe. If you don't believe in global warming, then perhaps you will share why this is so, and we can start from there. In the spirit of kindness, and with a sincere hope of moving this dialog forward, iNow :)
Grains Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Listen kid. Maybe I was a bit hard on you. Sorry about that. It's nothing personal. I get the sense that you've come away from these exchanges better educated, and more knowledgable about the topic. That's one of the best things any of us can offer one another. I never thought you have been hard on me you just can't follow a dialog and for 2 days we have been going back and forth and you cant just admit that the 10 year chart is in a downtrend. Look I have put it on the table a thousand times. IT DOES NOT MEAN IF IT IS IN A DOWN TREND GLOBAL WARMING DOSNT EXIST....IF I DO THE SAME CHARTING ON 100 YEAR CHART ITS IN AN UPTREND...Ive made this statement a thousand times to show that I am not talking about GLOBAL WARMING just CHARTING!!!THATS ALL!!!! In the spirit of kindness, and with a sincere hope of moving this dialog forward,I would love to move forward and I can begin to substantiate my argument but I am a little worried about getting into it because you (and others) can't even understand I have been talking about charting and trying to correct a discrepancy for 2 days and you keep rambling on about global warming! I have seen some of these post where everybody writes about stuff thats just incredible. Quantum physics...black holes...just amazing stuff....but nobody can even follow my thread...go figure
InfiniteNow Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 I never thought you have been hard on me you just can't follow a dialog and for 2 days we have been going back and forth and you cant just admit that the 10 year chart is in a downtrend. Look I have put it on the table a thousand times. IT DOES NOT MEAN IF IT IS IN A DOWN TREND GLOBAL WARMING DOSNT EXIST....IF I DO THE SAME CHARTING ON 100 YEAR CHART ITS IN AN UPTREND...Ive made this statement a thousand times to show that I am not talking about GLOBAL WARMING just CHARTING!!!THATS ALL!!!! I would love to move forward and I can begin to substantiate my argument but I am a little worried about getting into it because you (and others) can't even understand I have been talking about charting and trying to correct a discrepancy for 2 days and you keep rambling on about global warming! Oh well. I tried. :)
InfiniteNow Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 I find myself constantly amazed at how people pick and choose when science deserves credibility. "Hey, science is great for everything, except Evolution. I don't believe in that so science has it all wrong on that one." "No. Science is right on the money with Evolution. It's the Big Bang that's all wrong." "No, no, you fools. Evolution and the Big Bang are excellent theories, but Quantum Mechanics?.....Forget about it." "No, no, no, you guys are all wrong. Science has developed some solid, well supported theories with all of those topics. But when it comes to Global Climate Change, this science is just a big hoax." I think it's worthwhile for each of us to try and understand why we pick and choose what scientific research we find legitimate. I'm not saying that we should blindly follow science, or that we should never challenge an accepted theory. I just find it interesting how people will resist certain areas of scientific research, even in the face of some pretty overwhelming evidence. In these instances, I tend to think that the method is not the problem. Well said, sir. :)
Grains Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Infinatenow....... I would love to play a game...its called what happened... Please put an x to the following that you don't think happened. 1. I posted a chart from 1988-20082. You said pop a trend line on it3. I popped a trendline on it4. You said trend was wrong5. Others and myself have acknowledged it is trending down. Please add an x to the following that did not happen. I assume you won't because you called me a liar earlier and said I had posted false information and I asked you to show me where and you did not. If you choose not to respond to these 5 then I will assume you are conceding that the trend line is correct....Good luck
InfiniteNow Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 The only thing I concede is that I'm no longer willing to continue this conversation with you. You can read into that anything you'd like. I've articulated my position quite clearly already (and I never once called you a liar, so please don't strawman what I've said). Take it easy.
Grains Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 The only thing I concede is that I'm no longer willing to continue this conversation with you. You can read into that anything you'd like. I've articulated my position quite clearly already (and I never once called you a liar, so please don't strawman what I've said). Take it easy. I love playing what happened!!! :):):):lightning And you did call me a liar....."saying someone lied about information is calling them a liar"(by the way you never posted links for that one either....;-) c ya!!!
REASON Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Grains, Ok, let's consider that over the past decade since the recent peak of average warmth in 1998, the average has been in decline somewhat, but over a longer period of time, say the last century, the overall trend has been an increasingly sharp trend upwards. What do you think may be the primary cause of this significant increase in mean global temperatures over this time period? What has changed?
Grains Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Grains, Ok, let's consider that over the past decade since the recent peak of average warmth in 1998, the average has been in decline somewhat, but over a longer period of time, say the last century, the overall trend has been an increasingly sharp trend upwards. What do you think may be the primary cause of this significant increase in mean global temperatures over this time period? What has changed? You are correct the trend over the longer period has substantially been going up. I personally believe it is just the natural cycle of the earth and all that is around it. I personally like the solar activity argument... RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming
REASON Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 You are correct the trend over the longer period has substantially been going up. I personally believe it is just the natural cycle of the earth and all that is around it. I personally like the solar activity argument... RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming Why do you like the solar activity argument? I'm a bit concerned by the sound of this response that you're not actually considering the information objectively. While I acknowledge that I may be reading it wrong, it almost sounds like your interest lies in trying to show that climate change science is wrong rather than trying to understand what is actually happening. I don't think just saying that it's "just the natural cycle of the Earth" is sufficient, do you? There is something, or things, specifically causing it that we should be able to identify. You suggested solar activity. Over the course of this thread, the solar activity argument has been brought up several times, and, it has been demonstrated pretty effectively that solar activity has not been a major contributor, particularly compared to the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere combined with the rapid reduction of natural carbon sinks such as the rain forests. I recommend that you go back and reveiw that information. There is a lot of good data that has been provided on the subject. But generally, considering that you "personally like the solar activity argument," can we at this point agree that the mean global temperature has been increasing at a significant rate over the last century? If so, than all we have to do from here is try and figure out why. What are the contributing factors? If you are serious about understanding what's happening, then you are open to whatever the evidence suggests about these contributing factors. Agreed?
modest Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Modest...you made a comment after this talking about your chart being more accurate but your trend line cannot be straight... Being a chartist, you should know a straight line is not necessarily a flat line. Your trend line is straight. If you mean to claim that a trend line cannot be level (which is what I assume you mean) then please show a source backing up this claim. again it is your average...i have reviewed your excel sheet and chart data and confirmed it. The easiest way for you to confirm this is to put a proper trend line on the data using excel and post the document in an attachment. If you are unable to do this or some similar method of backing up what you're saying here then I expect you to retract your claim. I've used the exact same method of placing a trend to get the level line as I did with the last 50 years to get a not-level line which you not only did not object to, you agreed with it. Your claim here is false - back it up or retract it. The chart is still in a downtrend. Others have confirmed. Your method of drawing a trend produces a downward trend. My method has a nearly flat trend. Both methods are acceptable and mine is more accurate. Neither of us has done anything wrong, but my method is more accurate. This is the truth of the situation which I'm ready to support. Also, before replying please consider I have not mentioned global warming in this discussion nor given you cause to feel attacked. Temperatures are running high, but take a breath because none of that was between us, ok? ~modest
Grains Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Why do you like the solar activity argument? I'm a bit concerned by the sound of this response that your not actually considering the information objectively. While I acknowledge that I may be reading it wrong, it almost sounds like your interest lies in trying to show that climate change science is wrong rather than trying to understand what is actually happening. I don't think just saying that it's natural cycles is sufficient, do you? There is something, or things, specifically causing it that we should be able to identify. You suggested solar activity. Over the course of this thread, the solar activity argument has been brought up several times, and, it has been demonstrated pretty effectively that solar activity has not been a major contributor, particularly compared to the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere combined with the rapid reduction of natural carbon sinks such as the rain forests. I recommend that you go back and reveiw that information. There is a lot of good data that has been provided on the subject. But generally, considering that you "personally like the solar activity argument," can we at this point agree that the mean global temperature has been increasing at a significant rate over the last century? If so, than all we have to do from here is try and figure out why. What are the contributing factors? If you are serious about understanding what's happening, then you are open to whatever the evidence suggests about these contributing factors. Agreed? Please show me a post of mine where I have said the mean global temperature has not been increasing at a significant rate over the last century. In fact you will find that I supported it. (DO PEOPLE READ POST OR JUST HIT THE REPLY BUTTON AND FORGET ABOUT IT????) You say can we at this point agree that the mean global temperature has been increasing....I have posted charts to support that so don't ask me can we agree because I never have disagreed with that and I have even supported it. I don't mean to be blunt but I think I have covered this topic already.... Solar activity has been a contributor. Choosing to ignore it is not proving it wrong. Please post references if I could be enlightened on how it is not. i will go back and review previous posts that discussed this to learn more about the opposing opinion...
Grains Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Being a chartist, you should know a straight line is not necessarily a flat line. Your trend line is straight. If you mean to claim that a trend line cannot be level (which is what I assume you mean) then please show a source backing up this claim. The easiest way for you to confirm this is to put a proper trend line on the data using excel and post the document in an attachment. If you are unable to do this or some similar method of backing up what you're saying here then I expect you to retract your claim. I've used the exact same method of placing a trend to get the level line as I did with the last 50 years to get a not-level line which you not only did not object to, you agreed with it. Your claim here is false - back it up or retract it. Your method of drawing a trend produces a downward trend. My method has a nearly flat trend. Both methods are acceptable and mine is more accurate. Neither of us has done anything wrong, but my method is more accurate. This is the truth of the situation which I'm ready to support. Also, before replying please consider I have not mentioned global warming in this discussion nor given you cause to feel attacked. Temperatures are running high, but take a breath because none of that was between us, ok? ~modest modest... i dont know what to tell you but your trendline is wrong...others in this forum have confirmed....not that it needs confirmation.... the trend is down and we have moved past this at this point.... there is different methods of drawing trendlines but according to the data you posted in the excel sheet according to your data it would be impossible to have a flat trend line ......end or story....your average is more accurate...again your AVERAGE is more accurate Trendlines and averages are different.....
modest Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 modest... i dont know what to tell you but your trendline is wrong...others in this forum have confirmed....not that it needs confirmation.... the trend is down and we have moved past this at this point.... there is different methods of drawing trendlines but according to the data you posted in the excel sheet according to your data it would be impossible to have a flat trend line ......end or story....your average is more accurate...again your AVERAGE is more accurate Trendlines and averages are different..... Excel - Add a Trendline to an Excel Chart to Forecast Results This is the method I used as confirmed by the document I posted. Please provide support that this is an average. Before replying please consider it is a site rule to back up your claims. If you are unwilling or unable to do this you may receive infractions leading to the suspension of your posting privileges. I strongly suggest you look at the site rules before replying. If you continue to make this claim you will need to back it up [stern look] ~modest
REASON Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Please show me a post of mine where I have said the mean global temperature has not been increasing at a significant rate over the last century. In fact you will find that I supported it. (DO PEOPLE READ POST OR JUST HIT THE REPLY BUTTON AND FORGET ABOUT IT????) You say can we at this point agree that the mean global temperature has been increasing....I have posted charts to support that so don't ask me can we agree because I never have disagreed with that and I have even supported it. I don't mean to be blunt but I think I have covered this topic already.... This tone of yours was not necessary with me. I'm attempting to find clarity with you. I have not accused you of anything, and I have read each of your posts. Solar activity has been a contributor. Choosing to ignore it is not proving it wrong. Please post references if I could be enlightened on how it is not. I'm not choosing to ignore it. What makes you think I have? I told you it has already been discussed thoroughly on this and other threads on this subject. I will go back and find the information for you if you are unable, but does it seem fair that those of us who have been participating in this thread from the very beginning should have to keep reiterating information for everyone who happens to decide to jump in without reviewing the information that has already been discussed? Particularly those with an attitude. :phones: This isn't very good forum etiquette. Here is post #290. INow provided some good infromation here about solar activity. There is more. I recommend that you conduct some of your own research.
Recommended Posts