Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[Loudmouth]

It wouldn't be a graph, it would be a data set. A data set that is plotted, and then graphed, and then a trend line is produced. Just like EVERY OTHER GRAPH, including every single one you've posted. This is just juvenile.

It is cherry picked data because you exclude the data that shows a long term increase in temperature.

 

[andypro7]

It was cherry picked data at best. We have gone over that. Even you admitted it was cherry picked when you said the other methods show warming.

It was not 'cherry picked' as you say. I've gone over that, but apparently you can't comprehend.

My assertion is that you so-called 'scientists' have been wrong in all their predictions.

The 'cherry picked' data, as you call it, includes all their predictions. Since they only started popping up in the late 80s, and really ramped up in the mid to late 90s, these are the ONLY predictions that exist.

I'm taking in ALL the prediction evidence and I'm comparing to the actual, non-warming data.

If the IPCC had been making wacky predictions in 1880, and then would have massively failed like their current ones, I would have graphed that. But, as I've said, (and please try to get this, so I don't have to explain again), The reason 18 years is chosen is that's when, give or take a few years, the bold, WRONG IPCC predictions started.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was not 'cherry picked' as you say.

Then why didn't you include the data from before 1997?

 

[andypro7]

And I accept scientific evidence

Ok, if that's true, then you and I are in agreement on two things (that is, if you accept science):

1. There has been no statistical temperature increase in 18 years
2. All the IPCC predictions massively over-predicted warming over that period, and thus were very, very wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, if that's true, then you and I are in agreement on two things (that is, if you accept science):

1. There has been no statistical temperature increase in 18 years

What about the last 100 years?

 

[andypro7]

What about the last 100 years?

Reading comprehension fail.

Again, I'm only concerned with the period of time where we have IPCC predictions, so that I can compare their predictions to the actual data.

When they invent time travel, and the IPCC goes back in time 100 years, and then makes global temp predictions (which, hysterically, they'll STILL get wrong), then I will graph THOSE failed predictions.

You'd better write this down, because it's the last time I'm explaining it. It's like trying to teach Calculus to 2nd graders.

And oh, by the way, why are you 'cherry picking' just the last 100+ years? Could it be that the end of the Little Ice Age was one of the coldest periods of the last 1000 years and any subsequent temps would look like massive warming in comparison? Again, if you're going to be consistent about what you call 'cherry picking', you'll have to admit you're doing the same thing

 

[Loudmouth]

Reading comprehension fail.

Again, I'm only concerned with the period of time where we have IPCC predictions, so that I can compare their predictions to the actual data.

I asked a very simple question.

Has temperature gone up over the last 100 years?

 

[andypro7]

I asked a very simple question.

Has temperature gone up over the last 100 years?

I will answer your question, and answer truthfully.

But first you have to answer my simple question:

Do you now believe it's true that there has been no global temperature increase for the last 18 years and 3 months?

 

[Loudmouth]

I will answer your question, and answer truthfully.

But first you have to answer my simple question:

Do you now believe it's true that there has been no global temperature increase for the last 18 years and 3 months?

It is my belief that temperatures over the last 18 years and 3 months are well elevated above what they were 100 years ago. Global warming has not paused. Temperatures are STILL elevated.

Now answer my question. Have temperatures gone up of the last 100 years?

 

[andypro7]

It is my belief that temperatures over the last 18 years and 3 months are well elevated above what they were 100 years ago. Global warming has not paused. Temperatures are STILL elevated.

Now answer my question. Have temperatures gone up of the last 100 years?

You are asking me a question that has a beginning point, and an end point.

The beginning point is 100 years ago, then end point is now. In order to do that, I have to graph the temp anomalies, and then draw a trend line. And I will do that, and I will draw that trend line, and then I will let you know what the data says.

Now, I am asking you to do the exact same thing. The starting point is 18 years 3 months ago, the end point is now. The only difference is you don't have to do the work, as it's already been supplied,

So, since you DID NOT answer my question, in typical warmist fashion, I'll ask again. Do you now believe that there has been no statistical warming for the last 18 years and 3 months.

One more thing: I asked you a simple yes or no, and you gave me a non-answer. I'm going to turn it around on you, and I want you to answer honestly about this:

If you asked me have the temperatures increased the last 100 years, and I replied to you like this:

"I believe there is a massive amount of evidence that suggests that both the Medieval Warming Period and Roman Warming Period were much warmer than today, and that our global temp record is littered with many times when the temps had been MUCH higher than today, despite the absence of human CO2 activity, and therefore any warming today is insignificant"

Now, be honest, if I answered your simple 'has it gottten warmer in the last 100 years' in that manner, as you did, wouldn't you call me out on it? Be honest.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are asking me a question that has a beginning point, and an end point.

The beginning point is 100 years ago, then end point is now. In order to do that, I have to graph the temp anomalies, and then draw a trend line. And I will do that, and I will draw that trend line, and then I will let you know what the data says.

Then go for it.

Now, I am asking you to do the exact same thing. The starting point is 18 years 3 months ago, the end point is now. The only difference is you don't have to do the work, as it's already been supplied,

That is cherry picked data. You are excluding the data that shows your conclusions to be wrong.

 

[andypro7]

Then go for it. That is cherry picked data. You are excluding the data that shows your conclusions to be wrong.

Oops, shouldn't have used the words 'cherry picked'. I warned you.

Since the question is global temperature data, and since you say I'm 'cherry picking' 18 years (won't explain again, as I said), then I'll accuse you of 'cherry picking' the last 100 years.

So now, your whole premise has been that 100 years is much better than 18 years, so, if you are consistent (never happen), you'd have to agree that 4500 years is MUCH better than 100.

Please stop 'cherry picking' the data and excluding data that shows your conclusions to be wrong. Thank you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oops, shouldn't have used the words 'cherry picked'. I warned you.

Since the question is global temperature data, and since you say I'm 'cherry picking' 18 years (won't explain again, as I said), then I'll accuse you of 'cherry picking' the last 100 years.

So now, your whole premise has been that 100 years is much better than 18 years, so, if you are consistent (never happen), you'd have to agree that 4500 years is MUCH better than 100.

Please stop 'cherry picking' the data and excluding data that shows your conclusions to be wrong. Thank you.

It seems that you don't understand how scientific hypotheses work, and what is and isn't cherry picking.

The hypothesis is that human produced carbon dioxide is causing an increase in temperatures. So what is the proper data set to look at? The temperature data during the time period where humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide. This would be the last 150 years or so.

You are trying to claim that increasing CO2 has not resulted in higher temps. In order to support your hypothesis, you need to show the entire data set for the time period where CO2 has been increasing. If you don't, then it is cherry picking.

 

[andypro7]

The hypothesis is that human produced carbon dioxide is causing an increase in temperatures. So what is the proper data set to look at? The temperature data during the time period where humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide. This would be the last 150 years or so.

Nope, if that is the premise, then the proper data set to look at is the graph I presented. Because then you have to answer these questions:

What caused the MUCH GREATER warming in 1100 BC?
What caused the MUCH GREATER warming in 1300 AD?

Your claim is that man-made CO2 is causing massive heating, but there's much greater heating in the temperature record that couldn't have been caused by man's activities.

I mean, heck, if it really is true that human produced CO2 is causing increases in temperatures (it isn't), then, when you look at this graph, the answer is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere.

Because the 4500 year graph shows a decidedly downward trend heading towards and ice age, and even if man's CO2s are causing warming (they aren't), they aren't even really making a dent in the downward trajectory.

Until that trend line starts going up, we need MORE WARMING, not less.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, if that is the premise, then the proper data set to look at is the graph I presented.

Humans weren't burning fossil fuels in any significant volume in 1100 BC or 1300 AD. Try again.

Your claim is that man-made CO2 is causing massive heating, but there's much greater heating in the temperature record that couldn't have been caused by man's activities.

Let's see how your logic works.

The hypothesis is that chronic smoking of cigarettes causes cancer.

When we look back through history, people were getting cancer before people smoked cigarettes.

Therefore, cigarettes do not cause cancer.

Do you see the hole in this logic?

I mean, heck, if it really is true that human produced CO2 is causing increases in temperatures (it isn't), then, when you look at this graph, the answer is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why is it that scientists have proposed a link between increased CO2 and increased temperatures? Why do you think this is?

 

[andypro7]

Humans weren't burning fossil fuels in any significant volume in 1100 BC or 1300 AD. Try again.

EXACTLY.

So, if runaway, unprecedented warming of the globe is CAUSED by human CO2 activity, how was it MUCH warmer during those periods???

 

[Loudmouth]

EXACTLY.

So, if runaway, unprecedented warming of the globe is CAUSED by human CO2 activity, how was it MUCH warmer during those periods???

Let's see how your logic works.

The hypothesis is that chronic smoking of cigarettes causes cancer.

When we look back through history, people were getting cancer before people smoked cigarettes.

Therefore, cigarettes do not cause cancer.

Do you see the hole in this logic?

 

[andypro7]

The hypothesis is that chronic smoking of cigarettes causes cancer.

When we look back through history, people were getting cancer before people smoked cigarettes.

Therefore, cigarettes do not cause cancer.

Do you see the hole in this logic?

That's YOUR logic, you see if you can see the hole.

The global warming position is, and has been, that man's CURRENT activity causes UNPRECEDENTED warmth. That's why Mann hockey-sticked out the MWP.

Again, you have to now admit, regardless of what is causing anything, that the current trend line in global temperatures is a downward slope, and thus anything that leads to turning that downward slope upward is a good thing. I mean, for Pete's sake, we're heading towards another ice age.

(just in case you missed it, which I'm sure you did, the reason that your cancer analogy fails is that no one claims that a person can get UNPRECEDENTED levels of cancer. It's a good try to deflect, but we still have that pesky long, long term downward trend)

 

[Loudmouth]

That's YOUR logic, you see if you can see the hole.

It is the logic you are using. Let me show you. Replace cancer with warming, and cigarettes with carbon dioxide.

The hypothesis is that increasing carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels causes warming.

When we look back through history, there was warming without the burning of fossil fuels.

Therefore, burning fossil fuels does not cause warming.

Same exact logic, and just as wrong.

Just because other natural processes caused warming in the past does not mean that carbon dioxide can not cause warming. More to the point, why do you think scientists are claiming that carbon dioxide can cause warming?

The global warming position is, and has been, that man's CURRENT activity causes UNPRECEDENTED warmth.

False. The current position is that carbon dioxide is trapping heat which results in warming.

 

[andypro7]

False. The current position is that carbon dioxide is trapping heat which results in warming.

Ok, let's just say for the sake of argument that that's true. (I'm not saying that, because that's a HUGE discussion, but rather what I'm saying is 'even if' it were true)

If that's true, and we look at the long-term downward trend, and historically much higher temperatures, my answer to this:

"The current position is that carbon dioxide is trapping heat which results in warming"

Is this:

"So?"


Historically, a warmer planet is much better than a colder planet for everyone involved. Clearly we are no where near past high temperatures, and a little bit warmer planet would be good for everyone.

SO, as in 'so why would we then need to spend trillions of dollars to stop it?'