• 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

rjay said:
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.

One thing science is not is 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.
Click to expand...

Please understand, not attacking you at all, just making an observation about what is commonly left out since it is a KEY predictor for the AGW conjecture.

In 1990 they PREDICTED that it warm on average of .30C per decade, and be 1C warmer by 2025. (not even close)

In 2001 they projected that it WILL warm at least .30C per decade.

Both times it has been warming about HALF that rate, but actually LESS when you consider that the emission rates ended up being much higher than projected.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually you do not understand how wrong you are!
I cannot reference an un sourced graphic, with any confidence I have for the same graphic you posted.
Only you can cite the exact origin of the graph.
 
longview said:
Actually you do not understand how wrong you are!
I cannot reference an un sourced graphic, with any confidence I have for the same graphic you posted.
Only you can cite the exact origin of the graph.
Click to expand...

Since it is obvious that NONE the sources listed on the paper created that hybrid chart, it is worthless.

Just a warmist wet dream is all it is.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Since it is obvious that NONE the sources listed on the paper created that hybrid chart, it is worthless.

Just a warmist wet dream is all it is.
Click to expand...
I know, I just want him to admit that it came from a blog.
I suspect he cannot cite it, because the blog realized how bad it was, and pulled it.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Please understand, not attacking you at all, just making an observation about what is commonly left out since it is a KEY predictor for the AGW conjecture.

In 1990 they PREDICTED that it warm on average of .30C per decade, and be 1C warmer by 2025. (not even close)

In 2001 they projected that it WILL warm at least .30C per decade.

Both times it has been warming about HALF that rate, but actually LESS when you consider that the emission rates ended up being much higher than projected.
Click to expand...

I guess lying is just a thing these days with deniers.


Since 1970, warning has occurred at a rate of 0.17 degrees per decade. That number is rising as it was projected to rise in the IPCC.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

That projection is almost EXACTLY what IPCC projected and is projecting: 0.2 degrees per decade. In the future, this will rise, because that’s what the models tell us. Hence the upward curvature of the projections in the middle to end of the 21st century.


https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

From IPCC 2007:

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}
Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century. {9.4, 10.3, 10.5, 11.2–11.7, Figure TS.29}
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
I know, I just want him to admit that it came from a blog.
Click to expand...

He never will since he is on record in denigrating blogs.

:lol:

Have you read on why the Shakun et al paper is bad science research?
 
longview said:
I know, I just want him to admit that it came from a blog.
I suspect he cannot cite it, because the blog realized how bad it was, and pulled it.
Click to expand...

This the guy who claims that his job is reading science papers, but manage to fail seeing the obvious resolution problems with his unsourced chart. When I saw it, immediately knew it was junk, but he failed to see that it was junk.

:lamo
 
Sunsettommy said:
He never will since he is on record in denigrating blogs.

:lol:

Have you read on why the Shakun et al paper is bad science research?
Click to expand...

I only looked at Shakun to see if they were claiming better resolution, they were not.
Shakun's claimed resolution is an average of 200 years.
My main concern for the whole AGW concept, is the stink it may leave on reputable science.
 
longview said:
I only looked at Shakun to see if they were claiming better resolution, they were not.
Shakun's claimed resolution is an average of 200 years.
My main concern for the whole AGW concept, is the stink it may leave on reputable science.
Click to expand...

I looked at it for the temperature following CO2 changes claims made. It was not since he played statistical games to create a false result.
 
Sunsettommy said:
I looked at it for the temperature following CO2 changes claims made. It was not since he played statistical games to create a false result.
Click to expand...
I for one, have to wonder why trees in the past were good thermometers, but since about 1900, they are not.
 
longview said:
I for one, have to wonder why trees in the past were good thermometers, but since about 1900, they are not.
Click to expand...

Often wonder why they think tree rings are good proxy for temperature when it is actually better proxy for CO2 effect on tree growth.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Often wonder why they think tree rings are good proxy for temperature when it is actually better proxy for CO2 effect on tree growth.
Click to expand...
There are many factors, temperature, water, sunlight, CO2, nutrients, ect any of which can limit or add to annual growth.
It also does not help, when they exclude some trees that do not fit their desired outcome.
I am fairly sure we have warmed some in the last century, but not because of thermometer readings,
but rather because the plant hardiness zones have moved.
Unfortunately the graduations on the plant hardiness zones are more difficult to read,
but there is more citrus growing in my area than a half century ago.
 
longview said:
I only looked at Shakun to see if they were claiming better resolution, they were not.
Shakun's claimed resolution is an average of 200 years.
My main concern for the whole AGW concept, is the stink it may leave on reputable science.
Click to expand...

All this whining about resolution, but no actual reasons why!
 
Sunsettommy said:
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.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

The first chart is FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE OP. Which you obviously didn't read.

The second is from Wikipedia (and I identified it as such), and all of the sources for the data are in the chart itself.


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.
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? The modern thermometer was invented in 1714 by Gabriel Fahrenheit.

It is also downright routine and normal throughout climate science to use 1880 as a start date for global temperature records. How can you not know this?

The idea that any of what you're saying qualifies as any sort of criticism of the science is just absurd.
 
Threegoofs said:
All this whining about resolution, but no actual reasons why!
Click to expand...
If you do not understand why placing data point with 120 year resolution on the same graph with daily resolution data points,
is a bad idea, then you are beyond my being able to describe to you why it is wrong.
 
longview said:
I for one, have to wonder why trees in the past were good thermometers, but since about 1900, they are not.
Click to expand...
Please... please... tell us that's an attempt at a joke.

Pretty please.
 
longview said:
If you do not understand why placing data point with 120 year resolution on the same graph with daily resolution data points,
is a bad idea, then you are beyond my being able to describe to you why it is wrong.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Whining about resolutions...but can’t explain why.

Your first explanation..that better resolutions will always result in vertical lines, was absurd, so I guess you ran out of other excuses.

I guess I’ll go back to the pharmacokinetic paper I need to read. Maybe on my critique I’ll cite you and say it was inappropriate because the sampling time for the drug was done every minute after it was administered, but decreased steadily to every 24 hours. Apparently, this extremely basic scientific technique is now completely wrong, for reasons you just can’t be bothered to go into.
 
The first chart is FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE OP. Which you obviously didn't read.
Click to expand...

You are still supposed to follow forum rules of providing a source, since you posted the chart without attribution to the source.

From forum rules list:

9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

If a source is not available online, is not free to the public (Lexis/Nexis, books, academic papers, etc), or requires registration to be accessed, then a comprehensive citation will suffice. Keep in mind that your position may be weakened if the original source is not easily accessible.


No link posted for Wikipedia either..... a no no.

you replied to my correct complaint since the late 1800's baseline YOU apparently like, didn't cover 3/4 of the world including the ocean surface in the late 1800's

I wrote,

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.
Click to expand...

You irrationally write:

"Uh, hello? The modern thermometer was invented in 1714 by Gabriel Fahrenheit."

Ha ha ha, but NO thermometers for Africa, Canada, America, Antarctica, Greenland, Russia, most of Europe, the oceans (71% by surface area) for the next 150 years.

"It is also downright routine and normal throughout climate science to use 1880 as a start date for global temperature records. How can you not know this?"

But the first chart doesn't say that, it says this: Annual Global Surface Temperature RELATIVE TO 19th CENTURY AVERAGE :lol:

In 1900 there were still NO temperature data stations in over 85% of the planets surface. Gosh you didn't know that?

you finish this with more stupidity since you FAIL TO REALIZE THAT OVER 90% OF THE WORLDS SURFACE HAD NO TEMPRATURE REPORTING STATIONS IN THE LATE 1800's.

" The idea that any of what you're saying qualifies as any sort of criticism of the science is just absurd."

You are really pathetic as you made a fool of yourself here by ignoring the obvious on how little of the worlds surface was being monitored by thermometers back in the 1800's. Most station temperature data rarely go back 100 years.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I have never seen anything at all that I would consider threatening.

At least not anything that has at all stood up to the slightest scrutiny.

What do you think is the worst aspect of climate change that will happen, or is likely to happen, that is bad?
Click to expand...

Of course you haven't...because you've already decided that there's nothing threatening for you to see, and you've also decided that you know better than the vast majority of the world's scientists. No one will ever be able to change your mind except for you, and then only when you're forced to do so by personal experience (which, btw, is how I learned how wrong racism and xenophobia are). What's sad is, by the time that personal experience does force you to learn that the scientists were right all along, much of the damage will already be done.
 
Sunsettommy said:
You are still supposed to follow forum rules of providing a source, since you posted the chart without attribution to the source.

From forum rules list:

9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

If a source is not available online, is not free to the public (Lexis/Nexis, books, academic papers, etc), or requires registration to be accessed, then a comprehensive citation will suffice. Keep in mind that your position may be weakened if the original source is not easily accessible.


No link posted for Wikipedia either..... a no no.

you replied to my correct complaint since the late 1800's baseline YOU apparently like, didn't cover 3/4 of the world including the ocean surface in the late 1800's

I wrote,



You irrationally write:

"Uh, hello? The modern thermometer was invented in 1714 by Gabriel Fahrenheit."

Ha ha ha, but NO thermometers for Africa, Canada, America, Antarctica, Greenland, Russia, most of Europe, the oceans (71% by surface area) for the next 150 years.

"It is also downright routine and normal throughout climate science to use 1880 as a start date for global temperature records. How can you not know this?"

But the first chart doesn't say that, it says this: Annual Global Surface Temperature RELATIVE TO 19th CENTURY AVERAGE :lol:

In 1900 there were still NO temperature data stations in over 85% of the planets surface. Gosh you didn't know that?

you finish this with more stupidity since you FAIL TO REALIZE THAT OVER 90% OF THE WORLDS SURFACE HAD NO TEMPRATURE REPORTING STATIONS IN THE LATE 1800's.

" The idea that any of what you're saying qualifies as any sort of criticism of the science is just absurd."

You are really pathetic as you made a fool of yourself here by ignoring the obvious on how little of the worlds surface was being monitored by thermometers back in the 1800's. Most station temperature data rarely go back 100 years.
Click to expand...

There’s also a DBAJ rule.

You might want to reflect on that.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Whining about resolutions...but can’t explain why.

Your first explanation..that better resolutions will always result in vertical lines, was absurd, so I guess you ran out of other excuses.

I guess I’ll go back to the pharmacokinetic paper I need to read. Maybe on my critique I’ll cite you and say it was inappropriate because the sampling time for the drug was done every minute after it was administered, but decreased steadily to every 24 hours. Apparently, this extremely basic scientific technique is now completely wrong, for reasons you just can’t be bothered to go into.
Click to expand...

Still refusing to cite the source of your unscientific graph.
Please answer me one question, how many data points with a 120 year resolution, can you get out of the Hadcrut record?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Of course you haven't...because you've already decided that there's nothing threatening for you to see, and you've also decided that you know better than the vast majority of the world's scientists. No one will ever be able to change your mind except for you, and then only when you're forced to do so by personal experience (which, btw, is how I learned how wrong racism and xenophobia are). What's sad is, by the time that personal experience does force you to learn that the scientists were right all along, much of the damage will already be done.
Click to expand...

Tell me something that you consider bad about a slightly warmer world.

Do you have anything at all????
 
Jack Hays said:
Funny you should say that. Please see my #8. Seems the AGW advocates are saying it was a skeptic myth that climate scientists predicted surface warming. They are tying themselves in knots trying to position themselves to explain away the cooling now under way.
Click to expand...

Nice try. Like others with their armchair perspective, you also ignore every mainstream scientific organization - the National Academy of Science, NASA, IPCC, the Royal Academy of science, etc., etc.

Not one mainstream scientific organization supports your stance. Not one!!!
 
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...

The Sun is approaching Minimum.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Of course you haven't...because you've already decided that there's nothing threatening for you to see, and you've also decided that you know better than the vast majority of the world's scientists.
Click to expand...

He probably pulls his car over at a bridge construction project, and tells the Engineers they have it all wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom