Nick Bain

Well there should not be any crimes tonight for winter is unleashing its fury of whiteness across the land, threatening anyone who lacks the skills to brave such brutal relentless precipitation.

RobertL

Nice graphic, but not science. It only tells half of the needed information. The global warming fraudsters do that all the time, they start their tend line in the mid 1970s. Why is that you ask? Because the mid 1970s were the end of four decades of well known and documented global cooling and starting the trend line there will show a big movement in warming. If they were to draw a line direct from the temps in 1934 to today's temps that line would be almost exactly flat. It's hard to sell massive new taxes and regulations when the temps are almost exactly the same as 1934.

roadwarrior

You forgot...photos of a rider on a bike asking people who have no clue if the fit is good. Or...my inseam is "x" what size frame should I buy?

AngrySaki

Of course it's not science. It's a picture that shows how the of the claims of some climate skeptics would look if you look at them in the long term.

I'm sure there are global warming fraudsters that manipulate the data to make it look worse than it is, but they have no bearing on the science .

Whoever told you that was lying to you. And it appears you didn't spend the 3 seconds required to google "earth temperature record".

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

AngrySaki

I find this baffling. You seem to be willing to accept parts of climate science (like the jetstream and how it affects weather patterns) and seem to use it in your own made up rationalization about how the weather works, but you don't accept other parts of climate science.

How do you draw the line?


And you know this how?
(unless you mean runaway like venus, then of course we're nowhere near that)

RobertL

I know keeping track of the global warmers' fraud is full time work, but you too should spend a few seconds searching.

What a coincidence, the entire NASA chart you linked to was shown to be changed and thus “incorrect”, to be polite, in one of the at least two forms it was released.

From:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/2...a-quality-act/

"A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.

“NASA’s entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA’s June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.”

“In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation.“


Angry Saki, We could go back and forth on this issue for years, but the global warmers are bringing scorn, ridicule and disbelief on themselves and their cause with their non scientific and just plain dishonest proclamations.

Reply if you want, I’m done with this.

AngrySaki

I don't see a refutation of the fact that temperatures have warmed since 1934 in there, just a bunch of conspiracy theories from biased blog. Just show me a scientifically credible temperature record that's flat from the 1930's to now, and you win.



It would be very easy for you to prove yourself right, but I guess the 3 seconds required to link the flat temperature record you mentioned is too hard, because i'm sure you've actually seen one, and wouldn't just be taking various climate blogs word for it...


I'm sure some do and deserve it. Do I? What non-scientific and dishonest proclamation have I made?

Nick Bain

It snowed like 6 inches last night and todays high was 36. Tonights low will be in the 20's and they claim tomorrow is going to crack 40 which they have been 50/50 on getting that right. Long story short, I am getting really skilled at winter riding.

RobertL

For the “Win”. Prove it to yourself. Get a chart program and chart the temperature difference shown in the linked graphic between 1934 and 2013. It looks like it claims about a .5C degree increase to my eye, over a 79 year period 1934 to 2013. Use one year time increments and very conservative and realistic world temperature variation increments ranging from -40C (the poles) to 50C (the deserts). Take the resulting chart and as I said draw a line directly from 1934 to 2013, it will be almost exactly flat, and exactly what I stated.

I did not accuse you personally of anything, but you did post, very possibly unknowingly, the graphic with the warming trend line starting in the mid 1970s, the end of four decades of global cooling. That is not a truthful or scientific representation of the climate.

You also tried to simply dismiss good information as “just a bunch of conspiracy theories from biased blog.” Funny thing about numbers, they don’t lie. This site tracks and highlights the many many changes to the NASA numbers in that NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis.
https://www.changedetection.com/log/.../glb2_log.html

I believe that the NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis was created by NASA’s James Hansen. If you want to talk about someone being biased, you can start with James Hansen.

Nick Bain

ugh stop ruining this thread with arguing about contrived data vs contrived data.

AngrySaki

I have: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...t4gl/from:1880

That is not flat.

Wait, let me get this right. You're saying that if plot the temperature on a graph ranging from -40C to 50C, it looks flat?
That is possibly the worst argument I've ever seen. You do realize you can make any graph look flat by plotting it on an axes that contain extreme values that have no business being on there?

The hypocrisy here is astounding, I mean truly truly astounding. You harp on using 1970 as a starting point because it gives a false trend, but to counter that you say to plot the trend between 1934, which is the highest (non-recent) peak in temperature. 1934 is the date I would choose if I wanted to trick someone into thinking that the temperature hasn't risen as much as it has.
Secondly, picking a random date and drawing a line between then and not how trends should be estimated. Things like linear regression exist for a reason.

And you're "correct", I unknowingly posted a graph starting in the 1970's because I was using it for no other purpose than to illustrate one of the problems in climate denier's logic. You could create the same graph if you started in your favorite year,

James Hansen may or may not be biased. But the scientific papers he has published which have gone through peer review are as about unbiased as you can get. (that's the whole point of peer review)