• 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!

No Significant Trend Can Be Discerned from Global Tempature Data

Steve Case said:
Considering the fact that Climate Change policy is poised to suck $Trillions
out of the world's economy, I would say it's not a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Again, people see what they want to see
 
"No statistics are valid"

Climate Skeptics, 2016
 
Tim the plumber said:

You need to do better than that though.

What degree of randomness are you using and why is there that much? If you have good answers to these you have a point but otherwise not.
Click to expand...

Run enough random variations and you'll match the temperature history exactly.

Therefore there's no trend!!!!
 
KLATTU said:
Since earth temperatures are always going either up or down( statsis being impossible) it's easy to find a trend one way or the other. you just have to cherry pick endpoints.
Int thi case , the AGW conveniently choose 1880, while conveniently ignoring the trend prior to that. Of course we really have no way of knowing those temperatures, do we?View attachment 67210973

"bbbb bbb bbbut the proxies are accurate. "the scientists"' ( with the Clinton/Kaine bumper stickers ) all said so! "- AGW illuminati { snicker}
Click to expand...

They choose the start of the instrumental temperature record.

And no, they don't ignore data prior to that.
 
Deuce said:
"No statistics are valid"

Climate Skeptics, 2016
Click to expand...

What do you consider as "valid?"

You do know, that statistics do not make facts.

Right?
 
Visbek said:
You sure about that?

jan-aug-anomalies-noaa-2016.jpg




Which statisticians?

Where were they published?

How many is "multiple?" 2? 3?

Do you really expect us to believe that professional climatologists never studied statistics?



Here we go



Yes, on occasion scientists can fudge the data. Sometimes they even get away with it -- it's not always easy to reproduce an experiment.

However, this isn't actually how climatology works. What they're doing is taking the best data they can; they make climate models based on current data; they take more measurements; they adjust the models; and the cycle continues.

And then, they start observing things like glacial retreat, rising ocean levels, shrinking ice sheets, decreased snow cover etc -- all of which are hard data showing that yes, global temperatures are rising.

At this point, denying that climate change is real is sort of like denying that germs exist, or insisting that the moon is made of cheese. Yes, despite the deniers, the evidence is pretty solid. As is the evidence that humans are spewing out record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so forth.



WUWT?

Sigh.
Click to expand...

There was ice up to 2 miles thick across most of Canada and a lot of the the northern US just 25000 years ago. I have no doubt that all that ice melted due to human intervention and not natural climate change. We needed that land for the unicorns to graze and play.
 
Deuce said:
Run enough random variations and you'll match the temperature history exactly.

Therefore there's no trend!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that one crossed my mind too.

There's been a warm-up since 1850 and what are the odds that it's going to continue?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
There was ice up to 2 miles thick across most of Canada and a lot of the the northern US just 25000 years ago. I have no doubt that all that ice melted due to human intervention and not natural climate change. We needed that land for the unicorns to graze and play.
Click to expand...

Why do so many conservatives get this weird idea that there's only one variable in the earth's climate?
 
Deuce said:
Why do so many conservatives get this weird idea that there's only one variable in the earth's climate?
Click to expand...

Who said that, or are you making things up again?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Who said that, or are you making things up again?
Click to expand...

The post I quoted only makes sense if you think it has to be one or the other, human or natural. "hurf durf dinosaurs driving SUVs" is a wisecrack that only makes any sense if you think the argument is "human activity is the only thing that affects climate."

Do you think that's the argument?
 
Deuce said:
The post I quoted only makes sense if you think it has to be one or the other, human or natural. "hurf durf dinosaurs driving SUVs" is a wisecrack that only makes any sense if you think the argument is "human activity is the only thing that affects climate."

Do you think that's the argument?
Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot.

You are limited to binary thinking.

Sorry...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I forgot.

You are limited to binary thinking.

Sorry...
Click to expand...

Unable to provide any defense of posts like that, you go back to your usual personal attacks. Shocking.
 
Deuce said:
Run enough random variations and you'll match the temperature history exactly.

Therefore there's no trend!!!!
Click to expand...

Well yes. That's the trouble.

The difficulty of predicting something out of the ordinary is half knowing what the ordinary is to begin with.

Given that the current world temperature is well within the bounds of noraml variability since the last ice age how do we know that the temperature data says anything unusual?
 
Deuce said:
Why do so many conservatives get this weird idea that there's only one variable in the earth's climate?
Click to expand...

That's the alarmist message.

Us skeptics or Skeptics think there may well be more to it than that.
 
Deuce said:
Why do so many conservatives get this weird idea that there's only one variable in the earth's climate?
Click to expand...

I think it is the liberals who will not acknowledge that there has been climate change for 4 billion years before man came into the picture and that there are more factors than we even know of that are causing it. The assumption that we are the cause to this period of global warming that started 100's of thousands if not millions of years before man even was a species is beyond a stretch. Are we a factor? Of course. Along with millions if not billions of other factors. The current know it all believe that they already know all the factors as if there is nothing left to learn. They were also sure Trump couldn't beat Hillary in the last election. Surprise the world isn't flat.
 
Tim the plumber said:

That's the alarmist message.

Us skeptics or Skeptics think there may well be more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Never once have I seen any AGW proponent suggest there's only one variable affecting climate. You'll have to substantiate this absurd claim.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I think it is the liberals who will not acknowledge that there has been climate change for 4 billion years before man came into the picture and that there are more factors than we even know of that are causing it.
Click to expand...
Really? Because I can show you literally hundreds of research papers discussing past climate and the things that affected it.

The assumption that we are the cause to this period of global warming that started 100's of thousands if not millions of years before man even was a species is beyond a stretch. Are we a factor? Of course. Along with millions if not billions of other factors. The current know it all believe that they already know all the factors as if there is nothing left to learn. They were also sure Trump couldn't beat Hillary in the last election. Surprise the world isn't flat.
Click to expand...

Nothing left to learn? Weird how all that research keeps going on anyway.
 
Deuce said:
Really? Because I can show you literally hundreds of research papers discussing past climate and the things that affected it.
Click to expand...

My brother has written hundreds of research papers in his field and he admits most of what he has written in the past has been proven not to be accurate anymore. Research papers are opinions derived by evidence gathered by usually an individual. Even Einstein had to revise a lot of his research papers as more information become available. Go back and read some research papers from 100 or a 1000 years ago when they knew it all. You will find they more wrong than right and that will be the same today. They were even as arrogant back then as today's researchers are.

Deuce said:
Nothing left to learn? Weird how all that research keeps going on anyway.
Click to expand...

Man is the cause of global warming case closed according to most liberals I know. Talk about narrow minded and a singular view on the problem.

Most republicans I know believe that globing warming has been a part of our climate for billions of years and the factors involved are more numerous than we can even calculate.

You cannot even compare previous models with today's climate because too many factors have changed. The moon is further away from the earth. The earths rotation has slowed and our tilt has changed. Continents have moved and ocean currents have changed. The Atlantic Ocean has gotten bigger as the Pacific has gotten smaller. Just about all the factors that caused previous climate changes in the past are different today.

But that doesn't matter because man is the cause so say the liberals.

Past research will not tell you what will happen in the future because all the perimeters have changed. Past research will only tell you what happened in the past.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
My brother has written hundreds of research papers in his field and he admits most of what he has written in the past has been proven not to be accurate anymore. Research papers are opinions derived by evidence gathered by usually an individual. Even Einstein had to revise a lot of his research papers as more information become available. Go back and read some research papers from 100 or a 1000 years ago when they knew it all. You will find they more wrong than right and that will be the same today. They were even as arrogant back then as today's researchers are.
Click to expand...
Exactly what relevance do you think this has to your previous claim? You're just going to start talking about something completely different and hope I don't notice?

Man is the cause of global warming case closed according to most liberals I know. Talk about narrow minded and a singular view on the problem.
Click to expand...
No, narrow-minded is when someone says "humans are affecting climate" and you interpreting it as "humans are the only things that could possibly have ever affected climate."

Someone says we're making the world warmer doesn't imply everything else has stopped changing. I hope this helps your confusion in the future.
 
Last edited:
Climate News
[h=1]Ocean cycles, The Pause and Global Warming[/h]By Andy May h/t Joachim Seifert There is a new post by Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, translated by Pierre Gosselin, on the effect of ocean cycles on 20th century warming and the 21st century pause. They had previously written about this in their popular book The Neglected Sun, in English here. Marcia…
 
Here's a quote from an MIT professor, Carl Wunsch, who studies the climate that tends to support my thesis regarding improper calculation of uncertainty in climate data and why that happens. Emphasis mine:

...The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up.

A lot of this is somewhat like what goes on in the medical business: Small, poorly controlled studies are used to proclaim the efficacy of some new drug or treatment. How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?
Click to expand...

Yes, they must publish or their careers are dead, so they ignore the statistician's advice about uncertainty and publish anyway.
 
In other news, gravity has been reported to be a scam by the aviation industry.
 
Deuce said:
Never once have I seen any AGW proponent suggest there's only one variable affecting climate. You'll have to substantiate this absurd claim.
Click to expand...

Well, if the system is highly complex with many variables in play then there is no reason to consider CO2 to be all that significant a driver of climate then is there.

The entire basis of the AGW cult is that CO2 is this primary driver of the temperature changes we have seen. If it is not then there is nothing to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom