I’m asking everybody. In order to determine man-kind’s contribution to global warming, we must first establish what part of the total global warming is due to natural causes. Composition of the atmosphere is only one component to climate change, there’s a score of other components that need to be included, and we need to consider how all these components interact with each other.
Does increasing temperatures drive more CO[sub]2[/sub] into the air, or does more CO[sub]2[/sub] drive up temperatures … specifically 10,000 years ago when all this started.
Again, not acknowledging the mistakes you have made ITT and the other that is in GD only demonstrates to everyone else that no one should rely on your statements on this issue. Just a heads up.
:rolleyes:
Kimstu’s post and mine were ignored by you, let the record show that not accepting that you made a mistake (either because you do not pay attention or willful ignorance) is direct evidence of your claims not being reliable.
OK that is sort of a funny phrase, “an observation based on the facts” , and then there is “the climatological consensus”.
What does that mean? Because I tend to INCLUDE A LINK TO THE DATA when I point to some facts, I figure my observation isn’t the key thing. It’s yours.
And I didn’t know that the facts changed because of the climatological consensus. To me, if you can observe it, if it’s recorded, if it’s right there on the page, it’s not a matter of debate. If the GISS trend shows -.13 C
THEN THAT IS WHAT IT SHOWS
How else can you look at it? If my point is about a period of time, say the last 100 years, and I say, hey, look at this trend for the last 100 years, how the fuck is that “an observation” that is at odds with the climatological consensus? I mean, what the fuck?
And those remain a cherry pick, the experts at NASA and GISS still do not agree with your observation as it is missing a lot of context in order to find your preconceived notions.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact, there are. In this case, in the context of a discussion about global average temperature trends (that IS what we’re discussing, right?) we can identify the following two ways in particular:
(a) your way, into which you contrive to introduce a multiplicity of obfuscations: picking individual months rather than annual averages (which makes the thing entirely pointless with respect to annual trends), using a distribution map instead of a simple temperature graph (which makes the average trend hard to see), and using a plot of computed trends instead of anomalies (which is highly skewed by the selected starting point).
(b) the correct way: a simple trend line of global land-ocean average annual temperature. This is from the same GISS data, generated by the same source.
This is why you never link to line plots of global average temperature anomalies. They’re simple, they clearly show the trend of the annual global average temperature, and they are hard to spin into something they’re not.
Please define “cherry pick” … data is data, and most of the data is all over the place. It’s not hard to pick and choose which data you want to use and you can get that data to say anything you want (or anything you’re paid to say).
How much of this temperature data is affected by agricultural practices?
Yes, you can smooth your data however you want to, and the data will say whatever you want it too … that’s the nature of statistics. Is it then true that you’re “cherry picking” the data from just the last 150 years? If we want to discuss the science of climate change, don’t we have to look at the past several million years and how all the various factors that affect climate interact with one another.
Statistics can point us in the right direction, but in and of themselves, they are not evidence.
You cherry-picked your definition of cherry-picking … pretty funny …
I was thinking, you know, if the question is, “Has the global mean temperature cooled since 2002”, then looking at the data, to answer that question, was straight forward. You look at it, computers spit out numbers, we know the answer.
But with climate science, you can’t just go with the evidence, it’s how you feel that matters.
Are you still insisting that scientists have not looked at items like that? Basically the main reason why they look at far past is to gain evidence of how warm we can get when considering the natural forces, the problem now is that humans are dumping a lot of the CO2 that was sequestered at a faster rate than nature did before.
Duh, the thing is that the data is not based on imagination.
No, I think that you don’t know what you are talking about. Paleoclimate data has been pointed out by me many times in the past, the ignorance from you is to assume that humans were also in the deep past doing the same, the situation now is different.
Cite for that data creation? You need to be called for this, you need to stop accusing the scientists of faking this, otherwise you are using the same “logic” that creationists use when dealing with biology.
I only insist you don’t look these items. These natural forces have to be understood before we can assess man’s contribution. How exactly is the CO[sub]2[/sub] being sequestered by nature? The answer to that question may lead us to a more economical solution.
Without comment about Benjamin Disraeli, here’s the hard data: Hard Data
Can I see a straight line there, sure … I can see a sine wave if I choose. With only 150 years of data, it’s real easy to speculate. That’s a very short period of time, at least in terms of climate. But there is a plateau there in the past 10 years, strangely coincident with a global economic recession. An interesting thought …
For the years 1992 to 2013 for a reasonable perspective, but if anyone considers 2002 to be a magical year for some reason, that starts after the dashed line.
**GISS Surface Temperature Combined Land-Surface annual means. Units are °C x 10, anomalies relative to 1951-1980 base period.
**
19
20
28
43
33
45
61
40
40
52
61
60
52
65
59
62
49
59
66
55
57
60
P.S.- Given the facts, I consider the statement “it’s been cooling since 2002, no question about it” to be worthy of inclusion in my growing collection of “The definitive collection of FX humor”.
