Rama Set

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #140 on: April 30, 2014, 07:30:05 PM »
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.
But yet you weren't interested in my 10,000 year ice core graph, because it shows how ridiculous global warming is as a theory. ::)

No he did not like it for all the reasons he outlined after you posted it. 

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #141 on: April 30, 2014, 08:43:39 PM »
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.
But yet you weren't interested in my 10,000 year ice core graph, because it shows how ridiculous global warming is as a theory. ::)

The graph you showed was the most convincing evidence for global warming I've seen in a long time. It clearly showed that temperatures are increasing at rates unprecedented in the last 10,000 years of Earth's history.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #142 on: May 02, 2014, 12:31:36 AM »
Erm, no. Its nothing like what happened 8300 years ago. do you know how to read a graph?

The tiny red bit on the far right is the bit you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It was 2 degrees warmer than it is now when the Romans wandered about. Animals didn't die, humans weren't made extinct, the ozone didn't fry anyone and the fish didn't all float to the top of the ocean.

But hey, if you want to pay someone tax because of that little red bit at the end, be my guest. Just don't expect me to.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #143 on: May 02, 2014, 02:05:17 AM »
Erm, no. Its nothing like what happened 8300 years ago. do you know how to read a graph?

The tiny red bit on the far right is the bit you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It was 2 degrees warmer than it is now when the Romans wandered about. Animals didn't die, humans weren't made extinct, the ozone didn't fry anyone and the fish didn't all float to the top of the ocean.

But hey, if you want to pay someone tax because of that little red bit at the end, be my guest. Just don't expect me to.

You don't seem to understand that this graph does NOT represent the average world temperatures of the past 100 years. This represents the temperatures of the LOCAL area. Local temperatures will have much more severe variations than the global average, as averages are often less volatile. When you start seeing global changes in average temperatures appear like variations in local areas, you know that there is a serious issue. Here Graph compiling 12 different records from 12 different areas on the planet into a single graph (and hence, an average).




NOTE how individual records vary much more than the average.
NOTE how individual records will OFTEN be warmer than current temperatures.
NOTE how the current temperature is significantly higher than it was at any point in the past 10,000 years.
And please, NOTE the difference between individual data in individual areas, and the averages of all of these data points, and how large changes in individual trends has a significantly different meaning than large changes in the average trends.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #144 on: May 02, 2014, 02:27:27 AM »
Global warming is the NWO's answer to an inevitable Ice Age. They are saving us, you should be happy.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #145 on: May 02, 2014, 06:34:58 PM »

Fine, we'll use your graph then. Please point out the global warming. If anything, the trend is cooling in the last 8,000 years.

Rama Set

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #146 on: May 02, 2014, 06:40:54 PM »
Look closer Thork.  See the arrow labelled 2004 and the blown up section of graph with the incredibly steep slope?  That is the one.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #147 on: May 02, 2014, 07:12:01 PM »
What incredibly steep slope? The slope that is still beneath the zero degree median?

Rama Set

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #148 on: May 02, 2014, 07:38:49 PM »
Look harder. See the arrow labelled 2004?  The one above the 0 line?

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #149 on: May 02, 2014, 07:41:26 PM »
I wouldn't mind seeing the gradient plot of that graph.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #150 on: May 02, 2014, 07:48:28 PM »
Look harder. See the arrow labelled 2004?  The one above the 0 line?
You can have a trend of 10,000 years and then pick out one warm one. That's ridiculous. The trend line is normalised so it doesn't bounce. And then you pick out a bounce. That's like picking out an individual point on a scatter graph.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #151 on: May 03, 2014, 05:28:44 AM »
Look harder. See the arrow labelled 2004?  The one above the 0 line?
You can have a trend of 10,000 years and then pick out one warm one. That's ridiculous. The trend line is normalised so it doesn't bounce. And then you pick out a bounce. That's like picking out an individual point on a scatter graph.

The issue is that the trend line is not supposed to bounce. It's supposed to be averaged out. The bounce at the end of the time period is highly uncharacteristic of any behaviors of the averages temperatures for the past 10,000 years. The only major temperature change that is comparable to the sudden change we see in contemporary times is at the end of the last glacial period. It's actually quite steeper.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #152 on: May 03, 2014, 09:38:33 AM »
The trend line doesn't bounce. The data bounces. And you have focused on a bounce at the end.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #153 on: May 03, 2014, 02:38:30 PM »
Thork, at some point it seems like you'd realize why me and Pizaaplanet no longer respond here, and that is that this guy is either trolling or really has no idea what he is talking about. Either way, he isn't going to understand anything you say.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #154 on: May 03, 2014, 07:47:33 PM »
I know. But its because there are so many idiots like that out there, that the climate scammers are able to get money out of everyone.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #155 on: May 04, 2014, 12:04:52 AM »
Thork, do you understand why the trend line is not as wild as the different data points?

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #156 on: May 05, 2014, 03:24:38 AM »
Ok, i'll walk everyone through with what this graph means, for any who do not understand it.

First of all, this graph was constructed by taking temperature records from 13 different proxies around the world. There's data collected from Greenland, Africa, Europe, Antarctica, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The records from these temperatures are then average together to form a trend line.

The trend line is important in that it not only represents a trend, but it is the Average heat energy the Earth is receiving at any given time. This means that from what we see on the graph, often it isn't the amount of energy that the Earth is absorbing that changes much, but the sequestration of the energy across the planet. Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so when a certain amount of energy enters a system, this will be all the energy that system has.

Therefore, changes in local temperatures, as shown on the graph, more the most part, do not represent a change in the total amount of energy absorbed by the planet.

So, to summarize, this means that the trend line is the relative amount of energy the Earth is receiving. With this information, we can better analyze the graph and the repercussions thereof.

This graph shows a massive increase in the amount of energy that the Earth is absorbing over the past 200 years. This rate of increase is so large that it cannot be represented accurately on the larger graph, which is why there is an arrow pointing to the current state of the world's average temperatures, and a smaller graph showing recent proxy information. There are no atmospheric forcings, besides greenhouse gasses, that can be credited with these recent massive increase.

Or maybe there are. Can you name some?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #157 on: May 05, 2014, 11:59:43 AM »
There are no atmospheric forcings, besides greenhouse gasses, that can be credited with these recent massive increase.

Or maybe there are. Can you name some?
That's not how proving things works. Just because you think there is only one possible cause of something in no way implies that it is the correct cause. You've basically weakened your argument to the level of "God dunnit because no one else could!"
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #158 on: May 05, 2014, 07:36:28 PM »
Let me start off with a quote made famous by Leanord Nimoy.

"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth."

Secondly, you've avoided the question.

Lastly, it fits the math. Climate models work because they've been tested by using past variables to gain accurate results of past temperatures.

In addendum, please be constructive and actually suggest what may forces could be causing a spike in the temperature record during the Anthropocene.

Also, if you'd rather argue with badly witted comparisons, so be it. You've basically weakened your argument to the level of "There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #159 on: May 05, 2014, 09:13:23 PM »
"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth."
This is only correct assuming you've exhausted all possibilities. You haven't.

Secondly, you've avoided the question.
I didn't "avoid" the question, I explained why the question is nonconstructive.

"There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."
Please substantiate the following statement: There's only one possibility.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume