• 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!

Science deniers and the 10 hottest years

Perhaps we should resettle all the science deniers along the coast of the Persian Gulf (one of the hottest spots on the planet). Then everyone can be happy. :)
 
Threegoofs said:
The methodology that you’ve never seen...but you’re sure you’ll prove it wrong.

Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Show me the methodology, instead of a statement implying a methodology.
 
longview said:
It really does not matter if we can accurately measure the temperature of the earth,
What matters are the changes in the number claimed to the average temperature of the
Earth by those who would dictate to other how to live based on those numbers.
As long as the collection methodology is consistent (which it may not be) some number will result.
If that number is increasing, that is fine, as long the next sample is collected the same way.
It may or may not mean anything even if clean, with adjustments, it means even less.
Click to expand...

The number claimed by the Church of Global Warming, NOAA, NASA, or any other attempting to declare a global temperature, is purely made up numbers. There is no 'collection methodology' that will work here. There simply are nowhere near enough instruments to reduce the margin of error calculation to a reasonable value. There literally is no data at all.

This is a statistical math problem.

Now since you consider the blowhard numbers these twits use is itself the problem, there you have a point. Attempting to counter that by using a different set of made up numbers is not a valid way to counter their argument, however. That way lies madness.
 
Threegoofs said:
Generally, the people who study this for a living are the authorities.

I know that’s hard logic got you to follow.
Click to expand...

WRONG. A climate scientist is not a scientist. They do not use or create any theory of science. They deny science. They also deny math. Just because they are priests in the Church of Global Warming does NOT make them authoritative over science.
 
Cooling continues.


UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2018_v6-550x317.jpg
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. A climate scientist is not a scientist. They do not use or create any theory of science. They deny science. They also deny math. Just because they are priests in the Church of Global Warming does NOT make them authoritative over science.
Click to expand...

Sure. Whatever you say, sparky.
 
longview said:
It is looking like 2018 will come in about
.83 on the GISS, so the 5 year rate of
Warming would be less than .1C,
Which is still lower than the .3 C per
Decade some models predicted.
At the current rate temperatures have
Been falling, we could soon see a loss
Of all the warming since 1998.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

More very interesting analysis.

https://www.axios.com/us-sets-recor...nge-8d96892f-f33c-4a71-9335-4ebcde442a7e.html

The NOAA report also shows that the past 36 months, from June 2015 through May 2018, had a temperature anomaly of 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit above average, qualifying as the warmest 36-month period since reliable instrument records began in 1895.

The past 48 months, from June 2014 through May 2018, have also been the warmest such period on record.
The same is true for the past 60 months, dating back to June 2013.
 
Media_Truth said:
More very interesting analysis.

https://www.axios.com/us-sets-recor...nge-8d96892f-f33c-4a71-9335-4ebcde442a7e.html

The NOAA report also shows that the past 36 months, from June 2015 through May 2018, had a temperature anomaly of 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit above average, qualifying as the warmest 36-month period since reliable instrument records began in 1895.

The past 48 months, from June 2014 through May 2018, have also been the warmest such period on record.
The same is true for the past 60 months, dating back to June 2013.
Click to expand...

Do you notice the careful wording "warmest" in a warming climate there will always be "warmest" periods,
the question is not warmest, but is the warming continuing at the same rate?
In addition, with monthly anomaly temperature numbers, I am not sure a comparison
of May to June, means anything at all, May is a relational number, only to the other May readings,
and the same for June. You could compare the entire year averages, but not starting and stopping on different months.
 
longview said:
is the warming continuing at the same rate?
Click to expand...

According to the satellite data - since conspiracy theories about the surface temperatures are so entrenched - there's been a slight increase in trend over the second half of the record (Jan 1999 to Aug 2018) compared with the first half (Jan 1979 to Dec 1998).

(Edit: Also, while mere ten-year trends are very much subject to internal variability such as ENSO, that didn't exactly give deniers any Pause in their overblown rhetoric a few years ago - indeed both Jack Hays and now in a new low even Longview are trying to make a big deal of the two-year trend since the 2016 El Nino! - so it's also worth noting that the trend over the past ten years has been much higher than the ten years before that or either of the twenty-year periods.)

trend
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
According to the satellite data - since conspiracy theories about the surface temperatures are so entrenched - there's been a slight increase in trend over the second half of the record (Jan 1999 to Aug 2018) compared with the first half (Jan 1979 to Dec 1998).

trend
Click to expand...

And yet cooling continues.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]UAH: Globally, the coolest September in the last 10 years.[/h][FONT=&quot]From Dr. Roy Spencer: UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2018: +0.14 deg. C Globally, the coolest September in the last 10 years. The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14 deg. C, down a little from +0.19 deg. C in August: This was the coolest September in…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
And yet cooling continues.
Click to expand...

See my edit. Sadly, trying to make a big deal out of a two-year 'trend' since the peak of an unmatched El Nino event is not a new low for you... but for Longview it certainly was, or at least pretty close to some of the other lows he's been stooping to lately :(
 
Mithrae said:
See my edit. Sadly, trying to make a big deal out of a two-year 'trend' since the peak of an unmatched El Nino event is not a new low for you... but for Longview it certainly was, or at least pretty close to some of the other lows he's been stooping to lately :(
Click to expand...

Please see my #65. Coolest September in ten years. More to come as the Sun approaches minimum.
 
Mithrae said:
According to the satellite data - since conspiracy theories about the surface temperatures are so entrenched - there's been a slight increase in trend over the second half of the record (Jan 1999 to Aug 2018) compared with the first half (Jan 1979 to Dec 1998).

(Edit: Also, while mere ten-year trends are very much subject to internal variability such as ENSO, that didn't exactly give deniers any Pause in their overblown rhetoric a few years ago - indeed both Jack Hays and now in a new low even Longview are trying to make a big deal of the two-year trend since the 2016 El Nino! - so it's also worth noting that the trend over the past ten years has been much higher than the ten years before that or either of the twenty-year periods.)

trend
Click to expand...
Let's see what was your quote from NOAA in post#61? oh yea,
"The NOAA report also shows that the past 36 months, from June 2015 through May 2018,
had a temperature anomaly of 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit above average,"
yet the Wood For trees trend graph of that period for the rss temperature is negative, strange!
WFT_RSS.jpg
You see the problem with the NOAA statement is that they are reporting a DC offset from a baseline,
not weather temperatures are increasing or decreasing.
 
Mithrae said:
...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra... We stand in the truly remarkable position that the four hottest years on record are the four most recent years. Only two of those were El Nino years - the other two had moderate but distinctly negative ENSO conditions. And the way things are shaping up, it's looking quite probable that 2018 will also join in to make it five hottest years in a row despite even more strongly negative ENSO conditions.

Code: 
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures*
	Ann.	YTD (Aug.)	------------  ENSO index  ------------
2016	0.84	0.91						  1.83
2015	0.76	0.71				0.48
2017	0.74	0.79		   -0.27
2018		0.66		-0.44
2014	0.62	0.62		    -0.23
2010	0.60	0.66					0.83
2005	0.59	0.57				  0.54
2013	0.56	0.54			-0.03
2009	0.54	0.53		-0.44
1998	0.53	0.61						1.74
Click to expand...
So?

Mithrae said:
...deleted various arguments of the stone, ad hominems, and histories of your ad hominems of choice...
Click to expand...

"Deniers" have nothing to deny... you first need to tell "deniers" exactly what global warming is defined as, then show how it is even possible to warm the Earth with a colder [insert magic gas/vapor of your choice here]... If anyone is a "denier", it is "climate scientists" themselves because they deny the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.


Plus, you're just arbitrarily selecting numbers that happen to match your conclusion and "confirming" your conclusion with those numbers...
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
So?



"Deniers" have nothing to deny... you first need to tell "deniers" exactly what global warming is defined as, then show how it is even possible to warm the Earth with a colder [insert magic gas/vapor of your choice here]... If anyone is a "denier", it is "climate scientists" themselves because they deny the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.
Click to expand...

Your other account, Into the Night? Or your buddy's, or a fellow disciple of whatever cult you're in? Say what you like about the other regular 'sceptic' posters on the forum, at least they do (to some extent) think for themselves - indeed, seem to think quite a bit more of themselves and their internet-surfing knowledge than they probably should - and despite often expressing very similar rhetorical and conspiratorial concepts, generally do so in their own ways not obviously recognizable as directly-copied propaganda from some fringe blog (Jack Hays excluded).

In theory ItN could point you to the posts where even Lord of Planar showed him that he was wildly misunderstanding the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and I further showed that in fact atmospheric observations related to that misunderstanding are one of the more obvious lines of evidence that much of the warming is caused by GHGs rather than solar or the like. But I don't think that he will help you, because the dogma runs deep in that one :(
 
GLOBAL COOLING / UK MET OFFICE / UNCATEGORIZED
[h=1]September 2018 – The Very First Time It Was Hotter Than This Was 1749![/h]Posted on 03 Oct 18 by JAIME JESSOP • 3 Comments
Mean Central England Temperature for September 2018 turned out to to be 13.7C. This puts September 2018 in the entirely unremarkable middling territory between the coldest and hottest Septembers ever recorded, being 10.5C in 1674 and 16.8C in 2006. In point of fact, the very first time we had a warmer September (i.e. 13.8C) … Cont
 
gfm7175 said:
So?



"Deniers" have nothing to deny... you first need to tell "deniers" exactly what global warming is defined as, then show how it is even possible to warm the Earth with a colder [insert magic gas/vapor of your choice here]... If anyone is a "denier", it is "climate scientists" themselves because they deny the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.


Plus, you're just arbitrarily selecting numbers that happen to match your conclusion and "confirming" your conclusion with those numbers...
Click to expand...

Fallacy of the blubbering idiot.
 
Mithrae said:
...deleted various conspiracies and bulverism fallaces... deleted mantra about other 'skeptic' posters...
Click to expand...

Mithrae said:
In theory ItN could point you to the posts where even Lord of Planar showed him that he was wildly misunderstanding the Stefan-Boltzmann law,
Click to expand...
I am not ITN, nor am I familiar with the supposed correspondence of which you speak... ITN can defend himself concerning whatever claim you're making here about his correspondence with Planar...

Mithrae said:
and I further showed that in fact atmospheric observations related to that misunderstanding are one of the more obvious lines of evidence that much of the warming is caused by GHGs rather than solar or the like. But I don't think that he will help you, because the dogma runs deep in that one :(
Click to expand...
Evidence is not proof, and I don't have faith in the religion you are trying to sell me.
 
gfm7175 said:
I am not ITN
Click to expand...

Fair enough, just noting that the similarity in style and rhetoric is remarkable... far moreso than any other pair I've encountered. I don't think ItN does the whole "deleted xxx" thing, so there's that I suppose. I acknowledged that it could just be some particular blog or cult that the two of you have in common ;)

gfm7175 said:
Evidence is not proof, and I don't have faith in the religion you are trying to sell me.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not proof. Observations indicate a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere: That is a distinctive indication that GHGs are retaining energy lower in the atmosphere (whereas the sun for example would warm the stratosphere too), and it's also why the simplistic representation of the planet as a single monolithic body in order to invoke the Stefan-Bolzmann law is wildly fallacious. However due to uncertainties in both measurement and analysis, it is of course possible that the observations are incorrect. Evidently, you place your faith in that possibility, rather than in the strong probabilities represented by both theory and observation in this as in other areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom