• 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!

2017 was the 2nd Warmest Year on Record

longview said:
So what is the source for your graph?
I was speaking to Marcott ve Hadcrut, Marcott says their study has an average resolution of 120 years.
As to the projections, your un sourced graph is 24,000 years wide, so the 112 years of the prediction from
1988 to 2100, would be less that .5 percentage of the width of the graph.
the period from 1988 to 2018 would only be .125% of the width of the graph.
Can you see why it might just be a problem to present such vastly different data resolutions?
Click to expand...

No. I don’t see the problem.

I can see why YOU see a problem. It looks bad for you, and you have no other argument against it.

The farther back you go, the greater the size of confidence intervals. This is pretty obvious for most.

The fact that recent day data occupies a tiny percentage of a graph and also is incredibly dramatic in terms of the increase IS THE WHOLE ****ING POINT OF THE GRAPH!
 
Threegoofs said:
023e20f5db59783f661cd48275b98bcd.jpg
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's what I was saying above about "lots of anomaly and average deviation graphs, but no thermometer readings." Every time actual thermometer temperature readings are offered the believers won't have any of it.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Notice that he make clear to us that is not trying to have a debate with anyone who doesn't agree with him.

You wrote this that he snottily responds to:

"I give you an ideal opportunity to discuss the bad things that are coming along, to set out your case, and you run away.

You know that there are no bad things that are at all significant or stand up to slight skepticism."

He doesn't realize that he did it again, run away on you.

:lol:
Click to expand...

I find it exactly the same as debating the existance of God with the religious; I am on the skeptic side of both debates.

They, both sets of people, will avoid looking at the plain simple questions. They seem to be on a journey where the more the precepts of the religion are shown to be wrong the more they feel part of a select identity and thus superiour. Denying the obvious is just a bonus push deeper into the cult.
 
expat_panama said:
Exactly, it's what I was saying above about "lots of anomaly and average deviation graphs, but no thermometer readings." Every time actual thermometer temperature readings are offered the believers won't have any of it.
Click to expand...

Marcott's original paper didn't have that thermometer data on it.

The resolution differences between Shakun (junk paper) Marcott (decent paper) and recent thermometer data are all very different from each other.

Cheers
 
Threegoofs said:
No. I don’t see the problem.

I can see why YOU see a problem. It looks bad for you, and you have no other argument against it.

The farther back you go, the greater the size of confidence intervals. This is pretty obvious for most.

The fact that recent day data occupies a tiny percentage of a graph and also is incredibly dramatic in terms of the increase IS THE WHOLE ****ING POINT OF THE GRAPH!
Click to expand...
So you still refuse to source your graph I see!
FYI, mixing resolutions like that will always cause a nearly vertical line, which is what makes the graph meaningless.
 
longview said:
So you still refuse to source your graph I see!
FYI, mixing resolutions like that will always cause a nearly vertical line, which is what makes the graph meaningless.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall the source- it’s just a graphic I have on my phone. Probably from Gavin Schmidt, head of GISS.

And...no. Mixing resolutions do not cause vertical lines unless the data suggests you’ll get a vertical line. That’s a preposterous statement. If todays data reflected the temps we saw 100 years ago, it would be no lime.

That’s why you don’t like it. The data is pretty clear. Because the spike is exactly the freaking point.
 
faithful_servant said:
Those are averages spanning centuries comparing to annual temps... Try again, please.
Click to expand...

And?

It’s the best reflection we have of what you asked for.

Now you’re going to complain we don’t have daily worldwide readings for the last 20,000 years?
 
Threegoofs said:
I don’t recall the source- it’s just a graphic I have on my phone. Probably from Gavin Schmidt, head of GISS.

And...no. Mixing resolutions do not cause vertical lines unless the data suggests you’ll get a vertical line. That’s a preposterous statement. If todays data reflected the temps we saw 100 years ago, it would be no lime.

That’s why you don’t like it. The data is pretty clear. Because the spike is exactly the freaking point.
Click to expand...
I think you made the graph up, since you refuse to cite it's source!
 
longview said:
I think you made the graph up, since you refuse to cite it's source!
Click to expand...

Dude... the source of the graph is pretty clearly noted on the actual graph itself. Four different data sources, all easily found and published.

But I guess when you have no
other criticism (or ability to do a ****ing reverse image search) you have to attack the source.

Pathetic. [emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
Dude... the source of the graph is pretty clearly noted on the actual graph itself. Four different data sources, all easily found and published.

But I guess when you have no
other criticism (or ability to do a ****ing reverse image search) you have to attack the source.

Pathetic. [emoji849]
Click to expand...
But those sources did not combine those vastly different resolution data sets into one graph, someone else did.
So again, what is the source of the graph?
 
longview said:
But those sources did not combine those vastly different resolution data sets into one graph, someone else did.
So again, what is the source of the graph?
Click to expand...

Only morons would drool over a contrived chart like that that has 4 radically different resolution values in it.
 
From the article, global temperatures since 1880 (start of records). El Nino years are grayed out, though still visible.

Screen Shot 2018-03-15 at 1.46.54 PM.jpg

The trend is clear. UP.

2017 is the hottest non-El Nino year on record. Not good.

I hate to resort to Wikipedia, but it seems we have little choice. (Sources are indicated on the graph itself.)

2080px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png


Note about the graph:
• The X scale shifts about halfway through
• Although not a perfect match, the baseline in the NYT and Wiki periods are pretty close
• We are nearly half of the peak in the Eemian period
• The dots on the far right are projections, not actual measurements.

As to the Eemian period: Sea levels were 6 to 9 meters higher than today. Not a problem in for humanity, at a time when human population was low, they lived in pre-agricultural band-level societies, and did not build houses on barrier islands.

It seems pretty obvious that attempts to deny what's happening is not "healthy skepticism." It's flat-out denial.
 
Visbek said:
From the article, global temperatures since 1880 (start of records). El Nino years are grayed out, though still visible.

View attachment 67230075

The trend is clear. UP.

2017 is the hottest non-El Nino year on record. Not good.

I hate to resort to Wikipedia, but it seems we have little choice. (Sources are indicated on the graph itself.)

2080px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png


Note about the graph:
• The X scale shifts about halfway through
• Although not a perfect match, the baseline in the NYT and Wiki periods are pretty close
• We are nearly half of the peak in the Eemian period
• The dots on the far right are projections, not actual measurements.

As to the Eemian period: Sea levels were 6 to 9 meters higher than today. Not a problem in for humanity, at a time when human population was low, they lived in pre-agricultural band-level societies, and did not build houses on barrier islands.

It seems pretty obvious that attempts to deny what's happening is not "healthy skepticism." It's flat-out denial.
Click to expand...

Hahaha,

your post has several serious problems in it and no links provided in it. The forum rules clearly says you MUST provide source links to anything offsite.

Your first chart uses invalid baseline average since it says relative to 19th century average which would be late 1800's, The 19th century was a century that began on January 1, 1801 and ended on December 31, 1900. It is well known that most of the world had no thermometers in it in the late 1800's.

I will stop here since the rest of the post is misleading and dishonest.
 
Jack Hays said:
Cooling has begun. 2017 was cooler than 2016, and 2018 will be significantly cooler than 2017. Because the Sun is approaching Minimum, this trend will most likely continue for years, perhaps decades.
Click to expand...


2017 - the second warmest year on record. As it happens the warmest year on record was the year previous

Conclusion: "Cooling has begun" Its a new trend - One that will most likely continue for years, perhaps decades.

:lamo



I don't know much about all the science behind AGW, but as a general rule do scientists normally use more than two years to detect a trend in climate direction?
 
rjay said:
2017 - the second warmest year on record. As it happens the warmest year on record was the year previous

Conclusion: "Cooling has begun" Its a new trend - One that will most likely continue for years, perhaps decades.

:lamo



I don't know much about all the science behind AGW, but as a general rule do scientists normally use more than two years to detect a trend in climate direction?
Click to expand...

What is really missing in all these misleading warmest year on record statements is how they keep ignoring the IPCC PER DECADE warming trend prediction/projections from 1990. Maybe because they are ignorant, dishonest or know that it is a failure?
 
longview said:
But those sources did not combine those vastly different resolution data sets into one graph, someone else did.
So again, what is the source of the graph?
Click to expand...

You could look it up.
Then you can attack the source, since you can’t attack the data.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Marcott's original paper didn't have that thermometer data on it. The resolution differences between Shakun (junk paper) Marcott (decent paper) and recent thermometer data are all very different from each other. Cheers
Click to expand...
You may have intended your comment in response to the post by longview which began...
longview said:
Besides the vastly different sample rates between Marcott and Hadcrut (average resolution of 120 years vs 1 day), your graph also includes an old model projection AB1, which is not in evidence. I have fixed it for you by excluding the AB1 predicted yet unverified data...
Click to expand...
My post referred to how ideologues will grab temperature readings and by adjusting, correcting, compiling, and contriving so-called "anomalies" they get paid handsomely to add a pseudo-scientific veneer for covering political rants. So many times folks have suggested a return to raw data sets like these and the ideologues want no part of it.
 
Threegoofs said:
You could look it up.
Then you can attack the source, since you can’t attack the data.
Click to expand...
Actually since you have not included a source, even if I found something that looked as distorted, I would have no
way of validating it came from the alarmist blog you likely found yours at.
If you want any credibility, you must cite a source when you cite a graph.
Also consider that Marcott had an average resolution of 120 years, how many data points
would that make in the HadCrut data set of 167 years?
 
longview said:
Actually since you have not included a source, even if I found something that looked as distorted, I would have no
way of validating it came from the alarmist blog you likely found yours at.
If you want any credibility, you must cite a source when you cite a graph.
Also consider that Marcott had an average resolution of 120 years, how many data points
would that make in the HadCrut data set of 167 years?
Click to expand...

Ouch.....

credibility.... really, he still has any left?

It is why I have him on ignore now.

:lol:
 
The Shakun et al paper is far worse as he omitted key CO2 data that would have quickly invalidated his paper, the temperature proxies don't add up well either.
 
Sunsettommy said:
What is really missing in all these misleading warmest year on record statements is how they keep ignoring the IPCC PER DECADE warming trend prediction/projections from 1990. Maybe because they are ignorant, dishonest or know that it is a failure?
Click to expand...

Did I mention I don't know much about the science behind AGW?

For instance I have know idea what IPCC is.

But I do know that if you were to look at all of the best predictions/projections from 1990, in any scientific discipline, you would find that newer more accurate projection/predictions have been made since then.

That is the beauty of science.
It makes adjustments as new knowledge is uncovered.
It makes adjustments as new and more accurate instruments become available.
It makes adjustments as new and better technology becomes available.

Science is not static. The best projections from 1990 do not hold a candle to the best projections from 2018. What a difference 28 years makes.

I cannot help but wonder if pointing to the "IPCC PER DECADE warming trend prediction/projections from 1990" is not the very definition of ignorant, dishonest and a failure.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Actually since you have not included a source, even if I found something that looked as distorted, I would have no
way of validating it came from the alarmist blog you likely found yours at.
If you want any credibility, you must cite a source when you cite a graph.
Also consider that Marcott had an average resolution of 120 years, how many data points
would that make in the HadCrut data set of 167 years?
Click to expand...

The sources are on the figure!

And the latter part of Marcott is mirrored by PAGES 2K, which has varying resolution but is annual the closer you get to present day.

Your argument is invalid.

As usual.
 
Sunsettommy said:
The Shakun et al paper is far worse as he omitted key CO2 data that would have quickly invalidated his paper, the temperature proxies don't add up well either.
Click to expand...

Please inform the editors of PNAS.

I’m sure they’ll accept your paper proving him incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom