Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Global... I mean... US Warming

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 11:52:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://i43.tinypic.com...

So, in 2000, NASA reported that the temperature had been dropping since 1940, where it spiked at +1.5, and 2000 ended +0.9.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Now though, NASA shows that the temperature in 1940 spiked at +1.2, and 2000 ended +1.3.

http://i43.tinypic.com...

For fun, I overlayed the new graph(red) on the old one. Funny how things in the past change so much, isn't it?

If we go off the data from 2000, we haven't yet(in the US), surpassed any temperatures of the last 100 years.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 11:55:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting.

I don't believe in global warming personally but this only strengthens my resolve against it.

What ruined it for me was when it came out that the UN scientists had botched the numbers but upwards of 1000%...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:01:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 11:55:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Interesting.

I don't believe in global warming personally but this only strengthens my resolve against it.

What ruined it for me was when it came out that the UN scientists had botched the numbers but upwards of 1000%...

The biggest problem with the IPCC, is that 95% of the researchers don't have relevant degrees. I'm proud of whatshisname, Landsea for quitting the IPCC.

There is no way they can keep it up. They've faked the data so much, at such an alarming rate, that they have no choice but to start dropping their reported temperatures, or people will realize that they are lying as we start to make new lows for the next 10 years.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 8:31:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:01:57 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/6/2012 11:55:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Interesting.

I don't believe in global warming personally but this only strengthens my resolve against it.

What ruined it for me was when it came out that the UN scientists had botched the numbers but upwards of 1000%...

The biggest problem with the IPCC, is that 95% of the researchers don't have relevant degrees. I'm proud of whatshisname, Landsea for quitting the IPCC.

There is no way they can keep it up. They've faked the data so much, at such an alarming rate, that they have no choice but to start dropping their reported temperatures, or people will realize that they are lying as we start to make new lows for the next 10 years.

Science is hard. You (climate deniers -- I'm not picking on you personally) sound like the people in the '60s who insisted smoking didn't cause cancer.

What would you consider "relevant degree"?
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:19:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 8:31:44 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:01:57 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/6/2012 11:55:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Interesting.

I don't believe in global warming personally but this only strengthens my resolve against it.

What ruined it for me was when it came out that the UN scientists had botched the numbers but upwards of 1000%...

The biggest problem with the IPCC, is that 95% of the researchers don't have relevant degrees. I'm proud of whatshisname, Landsea for quitting the IPCC.

There is no way they can keep it up. They've faked the data so much, at such an alarming rate, that they have no choice but to start dropping their reported temperatures, or people will realize that they are lying as we start to make new lows for the next 10 years.

Science is hard. You (climate deniers -- I'm not picking on you personally) sound like the people in the '60s who insisted smoking didn't cause cancer.

What would you consider "relevant degree"?

Did you look at the OP, out of curiosity?

If you don't think climate change is political, rather than scientific, then explain to me why historic temperatures have been lowered, and recent temperatures raised?

In 2000, the 2000 temperatures hadn't set any records. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures did set records.

In 2000, we were in a 60-year cooling trend. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures were a record-breaking warming trend.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 11:19:33 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 8:31:44 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:01:57 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/6/2012 11:55:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Interesting.

I don't believe in global warming personally but this only strengthens my resolve against it.

What ruined it for me was when it came out that the UN scientists had botched the numbers but upwards of 1000%...

The biggest problem with the IPCC, is that 95% of the researchers don't have relevant degrees. I'm proud of whatshisname, Landsea for quitting the IPCC.

There is no way they can keep it up. They've faked the data so much, at such an alarming rate, that they have no choice but to start dropping their reported temperatures, or people will realize that they are lying as we start to make new lows for the next 10 years.

Science is hard. You (climate deniers -- I'm not picking on you personally) sound like the people in the '60s who insisted smoking didn't cause cancer.

What would you consider "relevant degree"?

Did you look at the OP, out of curiosity?

If you don't think climate change is political, rather than scientific, then explain to me why historic temperatures have been lowered, and recent temperatures raised?

In 2000, the 2000 temperatures hadn't set any records. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures did set records.

In 2000, we were in a 60-year cooling trend. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures were a record-breaking warming trend.

As for your first point, science can inform politics, but if there is dispute over data or interpretation, that is a scientific, not political, question.

The OP presented three graphs with no source for two of them. Also the red line in the two images he supposedly overlaid are clearly not the same. I'm not sure where this conspiracy theory comes from.

New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:43:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science is hard. You (climate deniers -- I'm not picking on you personally) sound like the people in the '60s who insisted smoking didn't cause cancer.:

Tell me why numerous climatologists have been caught red-handed manipulating data to support the assertion of anthropogenic global warming if the evidence alone was so compelling?

The Green movement is BIG business. Carbon credits is nothing more than a scam similar to tithing, only you're tithing for your sins against mother nature.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:46:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:43:49 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Science is hard. You (climate deniers -- I'm not picking on you personally) sound like the people in the '60s who insisted smoking didn't cause cancer.:

Tell me why numerous climatologists have been caught red-handed manipulating data to support the assertion of anthropogenic global warming if the evidence alone was so compelling?
Name one.
At 3/7/2012 12:43:49 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The Green movement is BIG business. Carbon credits is nothing more than a scam similar to tithing, only you're tithing for your sins against mother nature.
How is switching to energy that cost twice as less a scam? Is it because you care about oil companies more then America?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:47:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.:

Who honestly believes that weather patterns are static? Seriously, who? There are warming trends, cooling trends, and everything in between. Hell, there's tropical fauna found on Spitsbergen Island which is located well into the Arctic circle. Climate changes... naturally. That's been going on long before the Industrial Age.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:51:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Name one.:

I can think of two off the top of my head... ClimateGate and Hockeystick.

How is switching to energy that cost twice as less a scam? Is it because you care about oil companies more then America?:

The whole thing is hoisted on a perpetuated myth.. has f*ck all to do with oil for me.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:47:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.:

Who honestly believes that weather patterns are static? Seriously, who? There are warming trends, cooling trends, and everything in between. Hell, there's tropical fauna found on Spitsbergen Island which is located well into the Arctic circle. Climate changes... naturally. That's been going on long before the Industrial Age.
Yes there are trends and currently if you only included natural trends the earth should be cooling, however it is warming solely due to human activities
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:57:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:51:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Name one.:
I can think of two off the top of my head... ClimateGate
Only republicans think presenting data is Manipulating it.

At 3/7/2012 12:51:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
and Hockeystick.
Odd how you find reality to be a fraud, well not actually because you're a republican

At 3/7/2012 12:51:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
How is switching to energy that cost twice as less a scam? Is it because you care about oil companies more then America?:

The whole thing is hoisted on a perpetuated myth.. has f*ck all to do with oil for me.
Yes reality is a perpetuated myth
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 12:57:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:47:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.:

Who honestly believes that weather patterns are static? Seriously, who? There are warming trends, cooling trends, and everything in between. Hell, there's tropical fauna found on Spitsbergen Island which is located well into the Arctic circle. Climate changes... naturally. That's been going on long before the Industrial Age.

I was responding to someone who argued that there was no warming. Now you're saying, "OK but you haven't proven it's humans." I wasn't trying to.

About red-handedness: In every field there are people who will resort to unscrupulous behavior to get ahead. This does not mean that the thousands of other researchers in the field are being false as well.

Also, you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org... ? It's average summer high is 43F.

The reason this thread is in politics and not science is because there was never an intent to take a thorough look at all the evidence and form an opinion. This is more of a, global warming doesn't support my worldview so I'm going to try to find an inconsistency or attack its proponents.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The hockey stick graph was not a fraud. It was published in an article with the title Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. When the limitations proved to be great, Congressional Republicans launched an investigation into the personal lives of the scientists who wrote the report.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:08:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:38:44 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Did you look at the OP, out of curiosity?

If you don't think climate change is political, rather than scientific, then explain to me why historic temperatures have been lowered, and recent temperatures raised?

In 2000, the 2000 temperatures hadn't set any records. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures did set records.

In 2000, we were in a 60-year cooling trend. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures were a record-breaking warming trend.

As for your first point, science can inform politics, but if there is dispute over data or interpretation, that is a scientific, not political, question.

When the dispute is 'why did we change historic temperatures down?' then it is political. Without the change, there is no global warming crisis.

The OP presented three graphs with no source for two of them. Also the red line in the two images he supposedly overlaid are clearly not the same. I'm not sure where this conspiracy theory comes from.

The last image is a combination of the first two. I'm sorry for not sourcing the first image, it is from this report: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

The red line is absolutely the same. I cut it out of the second chart, and overlayed it on the first chart, scaling to match both +1/-1 degrees, and the time period.

New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.

Wait, new records in 1990?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Even the current graph doesn't show records in 1990, the temperature was still below the 1940 time period.

http://i43.tinypic.com...

According to the 2000 report, 1990's temperature was even further under the 1940 time period.

2000 didn't break any records either when it was reported in 2000. It wasn't until 2012 that 2000 suddenly became hotter than the 1940 period.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:09:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:54:08 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:47:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.:

Who honestly believes that weather patterns are static? Seriously, who? There are warming trends, cooling trends, and everything in between. Hell, there's tropical fauna found on Spitsbergen Island which is located well into the Arctic circle. Climate changes... naturally. That's been going on long before the Industrial Age.
Yes there are trends and currently if you only included natural trends the earth should be cooling, however it is warming solely due to human activities

Hey, starcraft, I dare you to reply to the thread I made about satellite data. You claim certain things, but you refuse to back it up. Come on, man up and respond.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:10:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 12:57:43 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:47:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.:

Who honestly believes that weather patterns are static? Seriously, who? There are warming trends, cooling trends, and everything in between. Hell, there's tropical fauna found on Spitsbergen Island which is located well into the Arctic circle. Climate changes... naturally. That's been going on long before the Industrial Age.

I was responding to someone who argued that there was no warming. Now you're saying, "OK but you haven't proven it's humans." I wasn't trying to.

About red-handedness: In every field there are people who will resort to unscrupulous behavior to get ahead. This does not mean that the thousands of other researchers in the field are being false as well.

Also, you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org... ? It's average summer high is 43F.

The reason this thread is in politics and not science is because there was never an intent to take a thorough look at all the evidence and form an opinion. This is more of a, global warming doesn't support my worldview so I'm going to try to find an inconsistency or attack its proponents.

This was put here because there is no scientific reason to lower historic temperatures and raise recent temperatures, unless you want to claim the earth is warming.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:24:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 1:09:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:54:08 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:47:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.:

Who honestly believes that weather patterns are static? Seriously, who? There are warming trends, cooling trends, and everything in between. Hell, there's tropical fauna found on Spitsbergen Island which is located well into the Arctic circle. Climate changes... naturally. That's been going on long before the Industrial Age.
Yes there are trends and currently if you only included natural trends the earth should be cooling, however it is warming solely due to human activities

Hey, starcraft, I dare you to reply to the thread I made about satellite data. You claim certain things, but you refuse to back it up. Come on, man up and respond.

You mean the thred were you doctered the data, yea that is really hoesnt
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:25:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 1:08:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:38:44 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Did you look at the OP, out of curiosity?

If you don't think climate change is political, rather than scientific, then explain to me why historic temperatures have been lowered, and recent temperatures raised?

In 2000, the 2000 temperatures hadn't set any records. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures did set records.

In 2000, we were in a 60-year cooling trend. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures were a record-breaking warming trend.

As for your first point, science can inform politics, but if there is dispute over data or interpretation, that is a scientific, not political, question.

When the dispute is 'why did we change historic temperatures down?' then it is political. Without the change, there is no global warming crisis.

The OP presented three graphs with no source for two of them. Also the red line in the two images he supposedly overlaid are clearly not the same. I'm not sure where this conspiracy theory comes from.

The last image is a combination of the first two. I'm sorry for not sourcing the first image, it is from this report: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

The red line is absolutely the same. I cut it out of the second chart, and overlayed it on the first chart, scaling to match both +1/-1 degrees, and the time period.

New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.

Wait, new records in 1990?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Even the current graph doesn't show records in 1990, the temperature was still below the 1940 time period.

http://i43.tinypic.com...

According to the 2000 report, 1990's temperature was even further under the 1940 time period.


2000 didn't break any records either when it was reported in 2000. It wasn't until 2012 that 2000 suddenly became hotter than the 1940 period.
Yep the ten hottest years on record occured after the year 2000, but do keep lying
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 1:26:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 1:24:21 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/7/2012 1:09:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:54:08 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:47:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.:

Who honestly believes that weather patterns are static? Seriously, who? There are warming trends, cooling trends, and everything in between. Hell, there's tropical fauna found on Spitsbergen Island which is located well into the Arctic circle. Climate changes... naturally. That's been going on long before the Industrial Age.
Yes there are trends and currently if you only included natural trends the earth should be cooling, however it is warming solely due to human activities

Hey, starcraft, I dare you to reply to the thread I made about satellite data. You claim certain things, but you refuse to back it up. Come on, man up and respond.

You mean the thred were you doctered the data, yea that is really hoesnt

http://www.debate.org...

This thread. It's new. I want to walk through the data with you, and you can verify the data yourself. You claim I doctored it, now be a man and show how I did so.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 2:26:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 1:08:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:38:44 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Did you look at the OP, out of curiosity?

If you don't think climate change is political, rather than scientific, then explain to me why historic temperatures have been lowered, and recent temperatures raised?

In 2000, the 2000 temperatures hadn't set any records. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures did set records.

In 2000, we were in a 60-year cooling trend. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures were a record-breaking warming trend.

As for your first point, science can inform politics, but if there is dispute over data or interpretation, that is a scientific, not political, question.

When the dispute is 'why did we change historic temperatures down?' then it is political. Without the change, there is no global warming crisis.

When the dispute is 'do the findings of these two research papers contradict each other, and if so why' it is absolutely a scientific question. Only once the answers to those questions are 'yes' and 'fraud for political reasons' does it become a political issue.

The OP presented three graphs with no source for two of them. Also the red line in the two images he supposedly overlaid are clearly not the same. I'm not sure where this conspiracy theory comes from.

The last image is a combination of the first two. I'm sorry for not sourcing the first image, it is from this report: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

The red line is absolutely the same. I cut it out of the second chart, and overlayed it on the first chart, scaling to match both +1/-1 degrees, and the time period.

One red line has a big spike at the right end and the other does not.

New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.

Wait, new records in 1990?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Even the current graph doesn't show records in 1990, the temperature was still below the 1940 time period.

I was using the global data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov... because you raised a concern about using U.S. only data.

According to the 2000 report, 1990's temperature was even further under the 1940 time period.


2000 didn't break any records either when it was reported in 2000. It wasn't until 2012 that 2000 suddenly became hotter than the 1940 period.

Same.

Here is the paper that has the two graphs overlaid on each other (figure 20).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

They go to great lengths to explain why and exactly how they updated the data sets. But, basically, they controlled for urbanization since some climate skeptics (a term I use differently than climate deniers) had suggested that the U.S. data showed warming as an artifact of urbanization.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 3:10:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 2:26:40 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 1:08:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/7/2012 12:38:44 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Did you look at the OP, out of curiosity?

If you don't think climate change is political, rather than scientific, then explain to me why historic temperatures have been lowered, and recent temperatures raised?

In 2000, the 2000 temperatures hadn't set any records. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures did set records.

In 2000, we were in a 60-year cooling trend. In 2012, the 2000 temperatures were a record-breaking warming trend.

As for your first point, science can inform politics, but if there is dispute over data or interpretation, that is a scientific, not political, question.

When the dispute is 'why did we change historic temperatures down?' then it is political. Without the change, there is no global warming crisis.

When the dispute is 'do the findings of these two research papers contradict each other, and if so why' it is absolutely a scientific question. Only once the answers to those questions are 'yes' and 'fraud for political reasons' does it become a political issue.

The OP presented three graphs with no source for two of them. Also the red line in the two images he supposedly overlaid are clearly not the same. I'm not sure where this conspiracy theory comes from.

The last image is a combination of the first two. I'm sorry for not sourcing the first image, it is from this report: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

The red line is absolutely the same. I cut it out of the second chart, and overlayed it on the first chart, scaling to match both +1/-1 degrees, and the time period.

One red line has a big spike at the right end and the other does not.

Ugh... Ok, the second link(without the spike) is a current chart that goes beyond 2000. I had to cut off the chart after 2000 to put it on the old chart.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

The 2000 spike goes up to 0.9 degrees.

http://i43.tinypic.com...

Can you see what I'm talking about? 2000 spike goes up to 0.9 degrees. I just couldn't put the rest of the red line on the 2000 chart.

New records were set in 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2005. So, yes there was only one record hot year from 2000 to 2010. What's your point? Since 2001 every year has been hotter than what the record was in 1997.

Wait, new records in 1990?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Even the current graph doesn't show records in 1990, the temperature was still below the 1940 time period.

I was using the global data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov... because you raised a concern about using U.S. only data.

I'm talking about US warming here. The global data requires using multiple groups of data, and allows for more problems and corruption.

Why would the temperature go up in the whole world, but not the US?

According to the 2000 report, 1990's temperature was even further under the 1940 time period.


2000 didn't break any records either when it was reported in 2000. It wasn't until 2012 that 2000 suddenly became hotter than the 1940 period.

Same.

Here is the paper that has the two graphs overlaid on each other (figure 20).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

They go to great lengths to explain why and exactly how they updated the data sets. But, basically, they controlled for urbanization since some climate skeptics (a term I use differently than climate deniers) had suggested that the U.S. data showed warming as an artifact of urbanization.

Yes, they go to great lengths to explain why, but I don't agree with them at all.

First, if NASA couldn't record the mean US temperature in 2000, what makes you think they got it right now? You're going to put your trust in scientists that, 12 years ago, couldn't tell you what the temperature was?

From everything I've seen, I think they ran into a problem where temps didn't go up as high as they needed them to, so they started changing things. You see emails about this in the climategate emails.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 3:14:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Have you attempted to view graphs of the trends for Earth's history as a whole? Obviously there is a climate cycle, but this is the only period in Earth's history in which it is warming against the trend, and it is due to increased CO2 emissions in the enviornment.

Humans are responsible for the dramatic increase in CO2 levels; we ought to be in a period of "global cooling" at the moment.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 3:29:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 3:14:52 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Have you attempted to view graphs of the trends for Earth's history as a whole? Obviously there is a climate cycle, but this is the only period in Earth's history in which it is warming against the trend, and it is due to increased CO2 emissions in the enviornment.

Humans are responsible for the dramatic increase in CO2 levels; we ought to be in a period of "global cooling" at the moment.

No, not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We *might* be approaching the top of the long-term warming trend, but there is no long-term cooling trend started yet.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 4:07:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All the old data (before 1950s) is based off of extrapolation, so it is subject to change.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 4:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 4:07:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
All the old data (before 1950s) is based off of extrapolation, so it is subject to change.

The instrument record goes back to the 1850s.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 4:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it's amazing that some aren't showing any interest in the fact that there was a 60 year global cooling trend in 2000, which is somehow now a 60 year global warming trend.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 4:27:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm going to crop a bit for readability.

I was using the global data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov... because you raised a concern about using U.S. only data.

I'm talking about US warming here. The global data requires using multiple groups of data, and allows for more problems and corruption.

Why would the temperature go up in the whole world, but not the US?

Global gives you more samples in the average and thus less noise. There's a ton of data that say the Earth's getting warmer. You want to focus on criticizing one data set? The global data still say it's getting warmer.

According to the 2000 report, 1990's temperature was even further under the 1940 time period.


2000 didn't break any records either when it was reported in 2000. It wasn't until 2012 that 2000 suddenly became hotter than the 1940 period.

Same.

Here is the paper that has the two graphs overlaid on each other (figure 20).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

They go to great lengths to explain why and exactly how they updated the data sets. But, basically, they controlled for urbanization since some climate skeptics (a term I use differently than climate deniers) had suggested that the U.S. data showed warming as an artifact of urbanization.

Yes, they go to great lengths to explain why, but I don't agree with them at all.

What do you disagree about?

First, if NASA couldn't record the mean US temperature in 2000, what makes you think they got it right now? You're going to put your trust in scientists that, 12 years ago, couldn't tell you what the temperature was?

They recomputed the averages after removing those stations who's distances to major cities changed -- an analysis that climate skeptics said was missing from the original data. Saying that 12 years ago they "couldn't tell you what the temperature was" is a gross misrepresentation.

From everything I've seen, I think they ran into a problem where temps didn't go up as high as they needed them to, so they started changing things. You see emails about this in the climategate emails.

Climategate emails were really taken out of context. At any rate they referred to four scientists who were completely unrelated to those at NASA. Equating any change in methodology at NASA to something nefarious borders on paranoid conspiracy theory stuff.

Let's take a step back and look scientifically. If you were a scientist and wanted to know if there was global warming, how would you go about finding out? How would you test the hypothesis that the Earth is getting warmer. I mean this seriously. Don't go find a study that supports you and say what they did. Really think about the problem.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 4:35:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 4:27:34 PM, Mimshot wrote:
I'm going to crop a bit for readability.

I was using the global data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov... because you raised a concern about using U.S. only data.

I'm talking about US warming here. The global data requires using multiple groups of data, and allows for more problems and corruption.

Why would the temperature go up in the whole world, but not the US?

Global gives you more samples in the average and thus less noise. There's a ton of data that say the Earth's getting warmer. You want to focus on criticizing one data set? The global data still say it's getting warmer.

I'm focusing on one set that 12 years ago said we were in a cooling trend, and now the same time period is a warming trend.

Nor does either group agree with the global record. I want to discuss the truth, instead of just dismissing it because 'it's just one data set' or 'it's just noise'.

According to the 2000 report, 1990's temperature was even further under the 1940 time period.


2000 didn't break any records either when it was reported in 2000. It wasn't until 2012 that 2000 suddenly became hotter than the 1940 period.

Same.

Here is the paper that has the two graphs overlaid on each other (figure 20).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

They go to great lengths to explain why and exactly how they updated the data sets. But, basically, they controlled for urbanization since some climate skeptics (a term I use differently than climate deniers) had suggested that the U.S. data showed warming as an artifact of urbanization.

Yes, they go to great lengths to explain why, but I don't agree with them at all.

What do you disagree about?

Urbanization wouldn't have them adjust recent temperatures up.

First, if NASA couldn't record the mean US temperature in 2000, what makes you think they got it right now? You're going to put your trust in scientists that, 12 years ago, couldn't tell you what the temperature was?

They recomputed the averages after removing those stations who's distances to major cities changed -- an analysis that climate skeptics said was missing from the original data. Saying that 12 years ago they "couldn't tell you what the temperature was" is a gross misrepresentation.

In 2000 they said the temperature was X. In 2012 they say the temperature in 2000 was X+Y. Do you see the problem? 12 years ago they apparently couldn't tell what the current temperature was.

And, if they were going to adjust the 1940 peak down, why was nothing since then adjusted down? Those sensors still would have been wrong. But, they only brought down the peak, nothing else.

You see the same thing in the climategate emails.

From everything I've seen, I think they ran into a problem where temps didn't go up as high as they needed them to, so they started changing things. You see emails about this in the climategate emails.

Climategate emails were really taken out of context. At any rate they referred to four scientists who were completely unrelated to those at NASA. Equating any change in methodology at NASA to something nefarious borders on paranoid conspiracy theory stuff.

It's not conspiracy, it's political agenda. The climategate emails spoke about adjusting the 1940s 'blip' down to make the message more clear. Why would NASA and the East Anglia whatever researchers both have to drop down historic temperatures? It's because they can't make the GW case without doing it.

Let's take a step back and look scientifically. If you were a scientist and wanted to know if there was global warming, how would you go about finding out? How would you test the hypothesis that the Earth is getting warmer. I mean this seriously. Don't go find a study that supports you and say what they did. Really think about the problem.

If I were a scientists, I would record temperatures around the globe, but I would place all sensors far from any significant civilization.

Also, I would look at more than just CO2 for possible causes.

The problem is, you can't look at it scientifically. You can't get grants unless you agree with man-made GW.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13