Global Warming Test

Superfreak said:
"I really on information about climate change from the US National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, the Joint National Science Academies of the G-8 countries, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Adminstration. "

Sorry, but comments like the above are pretty much saying "consensus" without actually saying the word. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

LMAO, as you say....

Pathetic.
 
Superfreak said:
very good gumby... gold star for you....

Now note what else does the chart tell us?

That 2007 was the same as 1998.... thus the global tempertures on average have not increased in the past decade.... and that temps have declined from the 2005 peak. (according to Goddard, the peak was due to a weird el nino event)

edit.... so if man is indeed the primary cause.... are we doing that much better that we have negated our effect?
Click to expand...

Please tell me your not picking a couple of years off the graph to compare to each other, and draw sweeping generalizations.

It's clear you have never even had any science classes, or statistics. You're way, way out of your league here.

A year here, and a year there is insignificant background fluctuation. Random noise.

The trend is what scientists analyze, for global climate trends. 2005 was the hottest year, and the trend the last two decades, indeed the last century, has been warming.


In terms of data analysis, and trend regression analysis, who should I believe? You? Or NASA?
 
Onceler said:
It's boneheaded & stupid to keep implying that "temperature hasn't changed in a decade" using only 2007 & 1998, as you have, and ignoring all of the years in between.

If you tried to make that argument at a meeting of climatoligists, they'd chuckle, and then move onto a more comprehensive look at the last decade. It's embarassing.

And you didn't weasel out of your paranoid, delusional contention that a bunch of koolaid drinkers were chanting "consensus" on this thread. That was a complete fabrication; again, very embarassing.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it hadn't changed at all.... it has gone up and down in that time frame. But if global warming is occuring.... shouldn't the earth have gotten, WARMER over the past DECADE???
 
Superfreak said:
I didn't say it hadn't changed at all.... it has gone up and down in that time frame. But if global warming is occuring.... shouldn't the earth have gotten, WARMER over the past DECADE???
Click to expand...

Wow; you sound like a child, who has no idea how science in this area works, and how they measure trends, and factor in anomolies.

Seriously...you have no place in this discussion. The above statement - quite conclusively - proves it. You should stop posting on this topic.
 
Onceler said:
It's boneheaded & stupid to keep implying that "temperature hasn't changed in a decade" using only 2007 & 1998, as you have, and ignoring all of the years in between.

If you tried to make that argument at a meeting of climatoligists, they'd chuckle, and then move onto a more comprehensive look at the last decade. It's embarassing.

And you didn't weasel out of your paranoid, delusional contention that a bunch of koolaid drinkers were chanting "consensus" on this thread. That was a complete fabrication; again, very embarassing.
Click to expand...

Also... ok, this thread Gumby has refrained, but let us not pretend that you goofballs haven't done so on other threads on the topic.

Note, just look at the foolish way you try to spin your way out of the fact that the trend over the past decade is flat. That doesn't mean there isn't volatility.... it means that the TREND is flat.

Please tell me you guys are not dumb enough to lack an understanding of trends.
 
Onceler said:
Wow; you sound like a child, who has no idea how science in this area works, and how they measure trends, and factor in anomolies.

Seriously...you have no place in this discussion. The above statement - quite conclusively - proves it. You should stop posting on this topic.
Click to expand...

Please, enlighten me. How does the science of temperature change work?

Do you understand the meaning of anomolies? You understand that anomolies do not tend to effect long term trends. They effect shorter term volatility. That is why you look at longer periods for the trend. Please explain where I am wrong. I am more than willing to learn.... the question is... are you going to post anything substantial to correct me or are you just going to continue with your childish.... "wow, you don't know nuthing.... you should quit talking" types of talking points and expect that to suffice?
 
Fig.E.lrg.gif


Be honest, Lorax, the last deacade is flat. These observations are consistent with the cycle peaking. Go back to any point just before the climate cycle peaks and you will see exactly the same observations. Sun cycles are at a minimum and Svensmarks CR theory predicted this temp movement. Chinese and Russian scientists are predicting another 15/20 years of flat temps and then we will be entering another glacial period. Gore and friends knew it was now or never. It looks like they will get their carbon taxes, but the science will be exposed as a scam someday.
 
Superfreak said:
Please, enlighten me. How does the science of temperature change work?

Do you understand the meaning of anomolies? You understand that anomolies do not tend to effect long term trends. They effect shorter term volatility. That is why you look at longer periods for the trend. Please explain where I am wrong. I am more than willing to learn.... the question is... are you going to post anything substantial to correct me or are you just going to continue with your childish.... "wow, you don't know nuthing.... you should quit talking" types of talking points and expect that to suffice?
Click to expand...


The 14 warmest years ON RECORD have taken place since 1990.

I dunno...would you call that a trend, or an anomoly, with your vast expertise?

Or would you rather isolate 1998 & 2007?

What would a climatolagist do....oh, think...think....

Don't waste any more of my time tonight. You're in over your head; I actually haven't seen someone so clueless & simplistic on a topic since Dano.
 
Cypress said:
"Please tell me your not picking a couple of years off the graph to compare to each other, and draw sweeping generalizations. "

I am looking at a decade time frame. Yes, fluctuations up and down occured during that decade. But the trend gumby was flat. Do you argue that 1998 and 2007 were not the same? The decade long result..... was flat.

"It's clear you have never even had any science classes, or statistics. You're way, way out of your league here. "

You truly are a religious nutjob gumby. While my background in science is certainly not up to par with many on here, studying trends is exactly what I do. Which is why the longer term period that you look at the smoother the results will be as they will tend to smooth the anomolies/extremes.

"A year here, and a year there is insignificant background fluctuation. Random noise. "

Yes. That is true. Take the ten years gumby. Average out the results. You will find that if your starting point and ending point are the same.... the average will be what gumby? I am sorry, I assumed being the genius you are you would have been aware of the answer and thus not needed me to spell it out for you.

"The trend is what scientists analyze, for global climate trends. 2005 was the hottest year, and the trend the last two decades, indeed the last century, has been warming. "

ROFLMAO.... so taking a decade long trend is not good, but two is ok? Tell me Gumby.... why is it that looking at a decade long trend is "random years" but picking a two decade long trend is "what the scientists analyze". I'll let you in on another little secret. They look at short and long term trends. You just don't like the fact that over the past decade the average change over those ten years has been flat.

In terms of data analysis, and trend regression analysis, who should I believe? You? Or NASA?
Click to expand...

You crack me up Gumby. There is only one way to average the past ten years. Again, if starting point and ending point are identical.... all the fluctuations in between have to net to zero.
 
Onceler said:
The 14 warmest years ON RECORD have taken place since 1990.

I dunno...would you call that a trend, or an anomoly, with your vast expertise?

Or would you rather isolate 1998 & 2007?

What would a climatolagist do....oh, think...think....

Don't waste any more of my time tonight. You're in over your head; I actually haven't seen someone so clueless & simplistic on a topic since Dano.
Click to expand...

I am not disputing that we warmed up dramatically during the 80's and 90's Lorax. We did.

Now tell me.... In the past decade did we see rising temperatures on average, declining or flat?

As I mentioned to Gumby... and to which you apparently are also too ignorant to understand. I am NOT isolating 1998 and 2007. I am showing you a start point and an end point. Over that decade if that start point and end point are identical.... the average change HAS to be flat.

Is that concept too difficult for you to understand? If so, go to a climatologist and ask them to explain it to you. Or go to your local community college and ask an economic or finance professor to explain averages to you. If over time the start point and end point are the same, there can be no other result.

But please.... show us how intelligent you are again by acting superior, calling me a child and then refusing to learn what the data is telling you.
 
"Over that decade if that start point and end point are identical.... the average change HAS to be flat."

I told you not to waste any more of my time tonight. This is getting aggravating; Darla was right.

Think very hard about the statement above. Think as hard as you can.
 
Onceler said:
"Over that decade if that start point and end point are identical.... the average change HAS to be flat."

I told you not to waste any more of my time tonight. This is getting aggravating; Darla was right.

Think very hard about the statement above. Think as hard as you can.
Click to expand...

Come on genius... why don't you just explain to us all how that is incorrect. Are you suggesting that over the decade temperatures rose?

yes, thats it... act like a petulent child rather than try to answer. If you are so smart... surely you can explain it quite easily.

here is a hint.... if you want to see the decade long trend.... take a ruler and draw a straight line between the start point 1998 and the end point 2007. That will show you what the trend has been during that time frame. Note... since you seem to continue to be confused on this... that does not mean all data points will fall exactly on the trend line.
 
Onceler said:
"Over that decade if that start point and end point are identical.... the average change HAS to be flat."

I told you not to waste any more of my time tonight. This is getting aggravating; Darla was right.

Think very hard about the statement above. Think as hard as you can.
Click to expand...

Side note... the reason it is so aggrevating is because you refuse to either explain why you think I am wrong or admit that you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top