The snow cover trend also supports the data, that clearly shows the NH winters have been trending colder. Which, the data shows, is actually the reason for the global mean dropping. THE SUMMERS ARE STILL WARMING! Don’t ignore that part.
GIGO, or anyone else, will not find a counter to this on any blog, much less a way to deny it.
Because it is simply the data, reality, what is happening. there is no theory, no conclusions, nothing hidden.
Linking to the actual data, and letting anyone look for themselves, is actually the best counter to spin or bias.
Certainly some people want to tell you WHAT IT MEANS and what you should believe and why it matters or doesn’t matter. But those are different issues than seeing what is actually real.
Yep, make the ignorance you have more clear for all to see, the original escalator graph is based in real data, and I will only say that (it is easy to figure where the data came from if one checks the one who proposed the idea for the escalator graph). We will check how deep you continue digging.
Skepticalscience is like a parody of itself at times.
They complain about cherry picking data, by using a chart that starts at the coldest point in the recent temperature records, to try and show it’s all warming.
If you try and educate this sort of blind prophet of doom, by using data, facts, and reason and logic, it will not work.
And it is you who is not using logic, anyone (but you) can check the link to the escalator graph and click on the link from the Skeptical Science contributor:
And guess what data and source was used? The one FX is telling us that “it is simply the data, reality, what is happening. there is no theory, no conclusions, nothing hidden.”
What follows then is simple logic: FX will either throw woodfortrees.org under the bus, or claim that a longer view of the source he uses is a cherry pick or ignore this post.
What is clear is that since he does not care that the evidence used by Skeptical Science came from his source and from other skeptics, like the Berkeley BEST group, it is clear that one should not rely on his conclusions that have no support whatsoever; when even the ones that manages the sources he claims to use do not support what he claims.
Do you have a reference for this equation? The link is to Wikipedia and they don’t give one. Specifically, where did the scalar 5.35 come from?
Here’s the data from NOAA, using the formula:
(Average Global Temperature) = (The sum of all temperature readings) divided by (The total number of readings)
The data you posted says that average temps are up a full 4 ºC since 1993 from GISS, but NOAA is only reporting a 0.2 ºC increase in that same time frame. Care to elaborate?
Scientists include many components when considering climate change: biology, solar physics, orbital geometry, dynamics and many others. Are you saying these are all pseudosciences, do they have no effect on climate or are you saying these disciplines have to be ignored for you to grind your axe?
Amazing, you just claimed both man and nature are the dominant components in climate change … that’s no easy trick to flip-flop in just two sentences.
No, I’m saying and you are ignoring that pseudoscience is called that because it uses actual data and science but in a misleading way. In the whole tale of Andrew Wakefield and his pseudoscience about vaccines causing autism. He claimed for a long time (and he still does) that he had science on his side, but in the end it was found that he, besides cherry picking the data, he misrepresented and altered a lot of his research (here we have to point out that a lot of the “supporting” evidence from contrarians has been debunked and rejected by the vast majority of climate researchers).
No, what you show here is what I pointed many times before what was supposed to be a joke. But now we know it is more than just a joke or a theory: some people really have a huge blind spot regarding timelines (and they are mostly coming from the extreme right wing), you are ignoring the divisions in the timeline that keep in mind the “before and after” of when humans began to release all those gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Again, climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are **now **the dominant forcing.
He can’t get it. It’s some sort of blind spot. He believes, on the one hand, “now man is the dominate forcing”, causing global warming, right now. At the same time, “natural variations are masking the global warming right now”.
Or some say “the heat is going into the deep oceans right now,” , in any case, man is forcing the globe to warm. Except for when nature is preventing it.
Er … no … pseudoscience cannot be actual science, it’s either one or the other. I’m not sure what you mean about altering climate data to demonstrate that vaccines cause autism. Are you saying NOAA’s data is wrong? Are you saying I posted this data in bad faith? This is the average global temperatures for the last 150 years, how does this mislead?
That’s an extraordinary claim, and you defer to other people for evidence. Okay, I believe you think this. I’d like to know where you think this extra CO[sub]2[/sub] should go.
No, I have no belief, I know for a fact that you got caught cherry picking data and sources that do not support what you claim. And I was right, your choice is to ignore the post and the egg in your face.
Again, like the “scientific racists” out there, the pseudoscience comes from using real science articles, and sources but they typically omit the conclusions and a lot of context of the ones finding and curating the data, the result is here for all to see:
We then see failed conclusions from contrarians, conclusions that cherry picks are meaningful and that scientists are into a conspiracy for not agreeing with that pseudoscience.
It remains in the atmosphere and continues to warm the earth, as has been pointed may times before.
Once again, you only demonstrate ignorance by just following the lead of some that discourages you to check the most reliable sources and information regarding this issue.
Reading comprehension, those were examples regarding pseudoscience, you can’t figure out or are aware of how other pseudosciences behave. Astrology, for example, grabbed the planets discovered by science (astrology before science came along thought that the number of planets stopped at Saturn) for their own astrological purposes, you are really an ignorant of how they usually grab what science finds and abuse it.
And now, I expect that you will think that I accused you of being an astrologer…
BTW, before you continue look around on dictionaries of philosophy like the one from Standford University regarding what they also consider what is a pseudoscience.
What does pseudoscience have to do with trained profession meteorologists reading state-of-the-art calibrated thermometers?
Between 100,000 years BP and 10,000 years BP, CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations in the atmosphere went down, from around 300 ppm to about 100 ppm. So, CO[sub]2[/sub] does not remain in the atmosphere for very long … do you have any idea where it goes, and in what degree?
