[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

The hole being that we have proof of global warming over the long term?

I showed you in the other thread how temperatures have actually been steadily declining for 2000 or so years. In other words you're cherry picking your evidence.

And again correlation does not equal causation no matter how hard people want it to. Furthermore we don't even have correlation anymore because the past 16 years have done the opposite of what every model claimed.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I showed you in the other thread how temperatures have actually been steadily declining for 2000 or so years. In other words you're cherry picking your evidence.

And again correlation does not equal causation no matter how hard people want it to. Furthermore we don't even have correlation anymore because the past 16 years have done the opposite of what every model claimed.

Every model? What about the actual data?



http://berkeleyearth.org/

[Swerve22]

Notice how the period of the most recognizable warming was only 16 years itself?

So is sixteen years enough to establish a trend or not?

[TheSilentAssassin]

1900-1960 seems like a pretty stead rise to me...

[AlphaNeo36]

Complains you're cherry picking evidence.

Cherry picks evidence.

The ole Swerve switch-a-roo.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

1900-1960 seems like a pretty stead rise to me...

Hardly even above the 1800 uncertainty level.

That whole chart is "cherry picked" as well in that it only starts at 1800.

You can't have a correlation = causation argument but ignore lack or correlation when it suits you.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Hardly even above the 1800 uncertainty level.

Are we looking at the same graph? 1880-1940 is the same AROC as 1960-1990. As a whole, the graph continually trends up, from 1880 to present. Pretending anything other than that is simply ignoring facts.

Originally Posted by Swerve22

That whole chart is "cherry picked" as well in that it only starts at 1800.

[AlphaNeo36]

lol

Stop cherry picking data! Look, the graph barely moves if you only look at the highest level of uncertainly!

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Hardly even above the 1800 uncertainty level.

lol did you really just say that?

Originally Posted by Swerve22

That whole chart is "cherry picked" as well in that it only starts at 1800.

You should just see yourself out, you're putting yourself in FE territory.

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Originally Posted by tmanbuckhunter

Cows farting makes the earth hotter; death to all cows. Mmmm steak.

Just wait till the next ice age. Then we can have beefcicles.

[Umami]

I can't believe I'm doing this, but here goes.

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Hardly even above the 1800 uncertainty level.

That's not a proper use of uncertainty. Of course if you knew how uncertainty was determined, you would already know this...

Originally Posted by Swerve22

You can't have a correlation = causation argument but ignore lack or correlation when it suits you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health....single. html

On a side note, a correlation between climate and greenhouse emissions does not mean there wont be other (and in this case apparently periodic) effects. In science most phenomena depend on more than one parameter.

I wish people in this thread were scientifically literate enough for us to talk about energy instead of temperature... oh well. Guess what happens to the temperature of a water bath as ice in the bath absorbs energy and melts?

[Swerve22]

The internet and some communities in general (Read: IPCC) are in love with making C=C arguments, thus the need for them to be called out on it.

Yes, most phenomena depend on more than one parameter which is why it's foolish to say that C02 is the main driver of warming given the limited amount of evidence we have available. Yet many repeat it around here over and over like it's a proven fact. Meanwhile we have not experience warming for 16 years, which runs contrary to the self perpetuating feedback loops we were told would occur. Why is it that you are assuming that the outside phenomena is causing the flatline, but not the warming?

I'm fine with AGW as a theory but don't sit here and tell me it's a proven fact, and that we need to do XYZ to save the planet from it.

EDIT: Let me clarify so we're all on the same page here Umami - you are admitting that there hasn't been warming for 16 years and saying it's likely due to outside phenomena? Or are you saying that there has been warming for the past 16 years and it's simply been miscalculated? Tuff is messaging me claiming that things have been getting warmer consistently with no pauses even for the last 16 years.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

The internet and some communities in general (Read: IPCC) are in love with making C=C arguments, thus the need for them to be called out on it.

Yes, most phenomena depend on more than one parameter which is why it's foolish to say that C02 is the main driver of warming given the limited amount of evidence we have available. Yet many repeat it around here over and over like it's a proven fact. Meanwhile we have not experience warming for 16 years, which runs contrary to the self perpetuating feedback loops we were told would occur. Why is it that you are assuming that the outside phenomena is causing the flatline, but not the warming?

I'm fine with AGW as a theory but don't sit here and tell me it's a proven fact, and that we need to do XYZ to save the planet from it.

It sounds more and more like you don't want to believe the data so you just ignore it and assume it's all a conspiracy. There's plenty of evidence that suggests human involvement contributes to global climate change and the trends suggest a significant impact. If you want to ignore it, that's fine, but at least read up on it so you can make a cogent argument instead of saying **** that would make a first year STEM major cringe.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

There's plenty of evidence that suggests human involvement contributes to global climate change and the trends suggest a significant impact.

I took out the assumptions made by you and this was the claim I was left with.

So let's see the evidence.

[AlphaNeo36]

Who has said CO2 is the main driver of global warming?

All I've heard is that CO2 contributes to increased global temperatures due to the greenhouse gas effect and we push a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Those are factual statements.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

The internet and some communities in general (Read: IPCC) are in love with making C=C arguments, thus the need for them to be called out on it.

You're "calling them out" too often and inappropriately.

As a non-scientist discussing a scientific topic, you should be aware of this phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Why is it that you are assuming that the outside phenomena is causing the flatline, but not the warming?

Because I know what a periodic function imposed on another curve looks like, and made the foolish assumption that you would recognize the warming periods are a combination of an uptrending periodic effect and the warming trend, just as the 'flatline' is a combination of downtrending periodic effects and the overall warming trend.

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I'm fine with AGW as a theory

Originally Posted by AAAS

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Great, you're on board!

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I took out the assumptions made by you and this was the claim I was left with.

So let's see the evidence.

Lol read the ****ing study I posted.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Umami

Because I know what a periodic function imposed on another curve looks like, and made the foolish assumption that you would recognize the warming periods are a combination of an uptrending periodic effect and the warming trend, just as the 'flatline' is a combination of downtrending periodic effects and the overall warming trend.

Period function, isn't that what tampons are for?



You're barking up the wrong tree.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Oh I know. I was making these arguments to this crowd long before you showed up. Tuff and I have a long and storied history.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Umami

Oh I know. I was making these arguments to this crowd long before you showed up. Tuff and I have a long and storied history.

I mean using your fancy mathematical language, stop trying to act like you're smarter than us.

I don't see how you've done it for so long. These guys must be amazing dodgeball players.

[Tuff]

I'm starting to become convince the only people who can debate this topic without spamming the same bull**** images and links over and over, is Umami and myself.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...res-tie-record

" World's hottest September: Global temperatures tie record

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday that September was 1.2 degrees above normal."

It's not hard to track temperature. It's gone up. You can observe this yourself if you pay attention to weather year in, year out. Temperatures have increased.

It's ****ing laughable that people are allowing Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore's views on this, to shape their entire view on the topic. "HUR HUR, RUSH HATES GLOBAL WARMING SO DO I...HUR HUR" "VP Al wouldn't lie to me, global warming will destroy us all!"

****ing idiots.