• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Own Silly Thought

And yet oddly, you cannot name a single such dataset. So I ask again: on what evidence do you base your claim that the word has not warmed?

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Take your pick of graph to find some numbers which show the expected 0.2c increase in temperature that would be needed to hit the mid point of the IPCC's predictions.
 
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Take your pick of graph to find some numbers which show the expected 0.2c increase in temperature that would be needed to hit the mid point of the IPCC's predictions.

So to back up his claim that there has been "no warming", Tim the plumber shows us a graph that proves he's two nipples short of a pipe. Here's the same graph with the linear trend plotted. And guess what? It's warming. Hmmmm.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
 
Note that it's still going up!

Sheesh. Where's the "no warming" we were promised? Or is being just a little bit wrong completely acceptable in Denierstan?
What Tim Said in post #24 was.
All the data sets say that the world has not warmed to any significant degree,
that is more than the error range, since 1998.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him, as the different data sets have different error ranges,
but the line could still be going up, and his statement still be true.
 
Just scanning various material, I noted a letter in the journal called Nature I thought was laughable.

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO: 2: concentrations over the past 420[thinsp]million years : Abstract : Nature

Please note the number of footnotes:



This seems to be the normal. Papers get published all the time that disagree with consensus, then the portrayed consensus agrees with them.

Please note, the one paper, note 2, agrees, but it also disagrees, notes 1 to 5.

What is the real consensus?

There isn't an exact consensus on climate sensitivity. Not sure why you'd expect one.
 
There isn't an exact consensus on climate sensitivity. Not sure why you'd expect one.

Well, if there is disagreement with that wide range of temperature stated, what do you think it means?
 
What Tim Said in post #24 was.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him, as the different data sets have different error ranges,
but the line could still be going up, and his statement still be true.

No, it couldn't, because his statement was for "all the datasets" and wood-for-trees doesn't have all the datasets. Nor did his graph.

Tim hasn't even come close to demonstrating that his statement is within a thousand miles of the truth.
 
No, it couldn't, because his statement was for "all the datasets" and wood-for-trees doesn't have all the datasets. Nor did his graph.

Tim hasn't even come close to demonstrating that his statement is within a thousand miles of the truth.
Nor have you cited a dataset with it's error range that invalidates his statement.
If you think one of the data sets show an increase since 1998 outside the error range,
then you can cite it, short of that, all you have is rhetoric.
 
Well, if there is disagreement with that wide range of temperature stated, what do you think it means?

It means there's a wide range of possible temperature sensitivity.
 
Nor have you cited a dataset with it's error range that invalidates his statement.

Of course I have. I have done so before, in direct response to previous similar false statements by some guy named Tim the plumber. He knows this. He knows he's busted. You're the only one in the dark here.
 
Of course I have. I have done so before, in direct response to previous similar false statements by some guy named Tim the plumber. He knows this. He knows he's busted. You're the only one in the dark here.
Then it should be simple for you to post the thread #!
 
It means there's a wide range of possible temperature sensitivity.

Yes, and apparently there are some that think the correct answer is either less, or greater than that range.

Your answer had no deductive though behind it.

Why are you here?

Do you get your jollies by recklessly sabotaging honest debate?
 
Yes, and apparently there are some that think the correct answer is either less, or greater than that range.

Your answer had no deductive though behind it.

Why are you here?

Do you get your jollies by recklessly sabotaging honest debate?

Where was your deductive thought? What do you think is the significance of differing climate sensitivity estimates?
 
It should be simple for you to know thing 1 about climate. But then, I guess not.
See, was that so difficult! The problem is that the annual error rate, well is an annual error rate,
which over time will actually get better with a greater number of samples.
this applies only if the errors are random and unbiased.
Unfortunately, the errors introduced by temperature sampling methodology are not random,
and could accumulate.
 
See, was that so difficult! The problem is that the annual error rate, well is an annual error rate,
which over time will actually get better with a greater number of samples.
this applies only if the errors are random and unbiased.
Unfortunately, the errors introduced by temperature sampling methodology are not random,
and could accumulate.

What is your evidence for this?
 
What is your evidence for this?
There are additional papers on this, but here is one,
Sampling Biases in Datasets of Historical Mean Air Temperature over Land
The table 1, clearly shows a positive bias in the Max-Min temperature methodology.
PubMed Central, Table 1: Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 4637. Published online 2014 Apr 10. doi:  10.1038/srep04637
Note that when Td0 is integrated from the hourly values, is subtracted from
Td1 = (Tmax + Tmin)/2, the result in both cold and warm seasons is a positive number.
Any bias will cause error accumulation.
 
There are additional papers on this, but here is one,
Sampling Biases in Datasets of Historical Mean Air Temperature over Land
The table 1, clearly shows a positive bias in the Max-Min temperature methodology.
PubMed Central, Table 1: Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 4637. Published online 2014 Apr 10. doi:* 10.1038/srep04637
Note that when Td0 is integrated from the hourly values, is subtracted from
Td1 = (Tmax + Tmin)/2, the result in both cold and warm seasons is a positive number.
Any bias will cause error accumulation.

No it won't. In order to show that, you have to show that the error in 1998 was greater than the error in 2015; AND that the error in 1998 was more strongly positive than the error in 2015; AND that the magnitude of the difference in the errors between 1998 and 2015 was greater than the stated error of each dataset; AND that the magnitude of the difference between the errors was enough greater than the stated error of the dataset, that the error bars. And you haven't shown any of those things.

All you've done is shown that if you average the temperatures one way, it comes out consistently higher than if you average the temperatures in a different way. What you have NOT done is show that the errors themselves are any larger; nor have you shown that (even IF they are larger) the difference is enough to save Tim-the-plumber's false statement and make it true.

Back to school, longview.
 
Last edited:
No it won't. In order to show that, you have to show that the error in 1998 was greater than the error in 2015; AND that the error in 1998 was more strongly positive than the error in 2015; AND that the magnitude of the difference in the errors between 1998 and 2015 was greater than the stated error of each dataset; AND that the magnitude of the difference between the errors was enough greater than the stated error of the dataset, that the error bars.

All you've done is shown that if you measure average temp one way, it comes out higher than if you measure average temp in a different way. What you have NOT done is show that the errors themselves are any larger; nor have you shown that (even IF they are larger) the difference is enough to save Tim-the-plumber's false statement and make it true.

Back to school, longview.
I am sorry you do not understand the nature of errors, and how non random errors accumulate.
 
I am sorry you do not understand the nature of errors, and how non random errors accumulate.

Oh by all means, educate us. Explain how non-random errors accumulate. We're all ears.
 
Oh by all means, educate us. Explain how non-random errors accumulate. We're all ears.
Non random errors are called bias or systematic errors,
Random vs. Systematic Error
Years ago a coworker told me a story about counting paper money by weight.
It seemed that the treasury could count circulated paper money by weight, with some accuracy,
but not new money. His job was to find out why.
It turns out that with a stack of 50 bills, the error of too much or too little paper on the edge,
accumulates, and causes the error in the weight of a stack to be too large a range to count.
With circulated money, the edge widths are randomized.
I recall he said they decided not to use weight as a counting method for paper money.
 
Back
Top Bottom