• 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!

Global warming: Fake news becomes no news

Please, what part of 'YES' do you not understand?

You're seeing something and I am not seeing it and I'm telling you that what I see is not what I want to look at. I want to look at what you are looking at. You say you have "...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records..." so please share one of the datasets here so we can plot the numbers and agree together.
Maybe you should first address the issues raised...
OK, we agree that my addressing issues is bad and when you see something it's good. You saw "...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records..." so please share them. Your caring about humanity's survival means you want to spread the word. Spread it. Tell me what data you're using.
 
Then the first thing we need to agree upon is that you're mixing incompatible datasets. The first dataset you're posting is for Greenland only, while the second dataset is global (and incomplete to boot). In order to compare contemporary global temperatures to paleo temperatures, you need a global paleo dataset. Something that includes the Greenland data you're so eager to post, but that also includes everywhere else in the world too. Fortunately, we have that data. Here it is:

32598197514_c3eb0bf6ee_b.jpg



Sources posted. Let me know if you have any questions.

Your data sets are also incompatible. The paleo stack has a resolution at which variation on the scale of a century or two would not be preserved. It's possible (albeit improbable) that modern temperatures have been exceeded even within the past 2000 years. Obviously based on Marcott et al's results that probability increases further back in time, but cannot be confirmed or refuted by their proxy stack: So the visual implication that 2016 is hotter even than the Holocene thermal maximum is misleading and unjustifiable from that data at best, and has a high probability of being untrue.
 
Last edited:
Then the first thing we need to agree upon is that you're mixing incompatible datasets. The first dataset you're posting is for Greenland only, while the second dataset is global (and incomplete to boot). In order to compare contemporary global temperatures to paleo temperatures, you need a global paleo dataset. Something that includes the Greenland data you're so eager to post, but that also includes everywhere else in the world too. Fortunately, we have that data. Here it is:

32598197514_c3eb0bf6ee_b.jpg




Sources posted. Let me know if you have any questions.

There is a certain about of irony with you posting that graph, and then discussing mixing incompatible datasets.
Consider this Marcott, et al 2013 has a median resolution of 120 years,
while Hadcrut is sampled at least several times a day.
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
The 73 globally distributed temperature re-
cords used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling
resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a
median resolution of 120 years (5).
So even if Hadcrut only sampled twice a day (High-Low), each
Marcott datum would represent 87,600 Hadcrut data points.
 
There is a certain about of irony with you posting that graph, and then discussing mixing incompatible datasets.
Consider this Marcott, et al 2013 has a median resolution of 120 years,
while Hadcrut is sampled at least several times a day.
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf

Sorry, but the median resolution of component datasets tells you nothing about the resolution of the combined dataset. Marcott's combined resolution is 20 years, and the HADCRUT data I used was de-resolved to an identical 20-year resolution. So your complaint is baseless.
 
Sorry, but the median resolution of component datasets tells you nothing about the resolution of the combined dataset. Marcott's combined resolution is 20 years, and the HADCRUT data I used was de-resolved to an identical 20-year resolution. So your complaint is baseless.
You need to cite where Marcott, et al says they have a combined resolution of 20 years.
Here is the paper, good luck!
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
 
We're 100% together on the idea that humanity's survival is important and that we need to be aware.

If you find out something really important like this you've a responsibility as a human being to pass it on, so please share a dataset from any of those you're seeing that shows an unprecedented severe warming trend. It's easy in this wonderful info age; like, there are hundreds of sets available at just this one maintained by NOAA. We should be able to plot the numbers together and agree...
Then the first thing we need to agree upon is that you're mixing incompatible datasets... ...we have that data. Here it is:
32598197514_c3eb0bf6ee_b.jpg

...
We may be talking about different things when we use the term "data set". Here's a standard definition:

da·ta set
noun Computing
noun: data set; plural noun: data sets; noun: dataset; plural noun: datasets


a collection of related sets of information that is composed of separate elements but can be manipulated as a unit by a computer.

When I gave an example of a "data set" I posted ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt and what followed after that was---
noaadatasets.png

---the data "manipulated as a unit by a computer" into a .png, at the bottom of which I also included a plot of second data set (cited w/ source) that had 50 years of readings that agreed, so it served as an extension to the present. Remember that what we need is data that show the globe is warming at a severe and unprecedented rate. Mithrae says there are "...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records..." that show this. I can't find it so I am not making any claims. If you are claiming that the globe is warming at a severe and unprecidented rate then please show data you accept and we can manipulate it together and agree.

You may have difficulty finding the data for the graphic you posted as iirc Marcott has since revised his numbers and his original PhD set was even more subdued:

6a010536b58035970c017d4293837d970c-pi
 
It's right there in the dataset itself. Which you apparently ignored.

Here is what Marcott himself said .......

The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/

Perhaps you should take your complaints up with him ?
 
We may be talking about different things when we use the term "data set". Here's a standard definition:

da·ta set
noun Computing
noun: data set; plural noun: data sets; noun: dataset; plural noun: datasets


a collection of related sets of information that is composed of separate elements but can be manipulated as a unit by a computer.

When I gave an example of a "data set" I posted ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt and what followed after that was---
...
---the data "manipulated as a unit by a computer" into a .png, at the bottom of which I also included a plot of second data set (cited w/ source) that had 50 years of readings that agreed, so it served as an extension to the present.

Hold up there one moment, pardner. "Agreed" with what? If I post one dataset of rainfall numbers for 1900-1950, and another dataset with GDP for 1950-1980, do they "agree" just because they cover the same single year? Or do those datasets also actually have to agree on the data they represent?

Sheesh. Please think before you post nonsense. Greenland temperatures are not global temperatures. They never have been, and they never will be.

Remember that what we need is data that show the globe is warming at a severe and unprecedented rate.
Right. The whole globe. Not just Greenland. Which means the dataset you posted is useless in context.

Mithrae says there are "...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records..." that show this. I can't find it so I am not making any claims. If you are claiming that the globe is warming at a severe and unprecidented rate then please show data you accept and we can manipulate it together and agree.

I just did that. Wanna see it again? Or are you just going to ignore it again?

You may have difficulty finding the data for the graphic you posted as iirc Marcott has since revised his numbers and his original PhD set was even more subdued:

...

ZOMG! Scientist corrects error! Stop the presses!

Seriously, is that all you've got?
 
Here is what Marcott himself said .......

The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/

Perhaps you should take your complaints up with him ?

Which is exactly why I didn't use Marcott's data in the 20th century.

Next time, read for content.
 
So given your history where did you source your graph ?

You seem to have lost your ability to read. Or your ability to understand what you read. Apparently you didn't even look at the graph you're complaining about. Where all sources are listed.
 
It's right there in the dataset, longview. Take a look. 20 year resolution.
This is what the paper says about the resolution.
"The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years,
with a median resolution of 120 years (5)."
If you want to say it says otherwise, you need to cite where!
 
You seem to have lost your ability to read. Or your ability to understand what you read. Apparently you didn't even look at the graph you're complaining about. Where all sources are listed.

No those are websites of homepages for their respective facilities

Please link where you got this graphic ? #2
 
This is what the paper says about the resolution.
"The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years,
with a median resolution of 120 years (5)."
If you want to say it says otherwise, you need to cite where!

I just did. Apparently you cannot read. Or do you imagine that the published dataset is not also part of the peer-reviewed paper, because it's in supplementary materials?
 
No those are websites of homepages for their respective facilities

Please link where you got this graphic ? #2

So now you don't want data, you want "facilities"?

Down the hallway and to the right. Look for the "MEN" sign.
 
So now you don't want data, you want "facilities"?

Down the hallway and to the right. Look for the "MEN" sign.

Link where you got this graph #3

Otherwise it can be assumed its another one of your own home grown efforts
 
I just did. Apparently you cannot read. Or do you imagine that the published dataset is not also part of the peer-reviewed paper, because it's in supplementary materials?
Just pointing to a collection of NOAA data, does not point out the area you are saying the Marcott has a combined resolution of 20 years.
Beside if that were the case, why would the Marcott, et al, 2013 paper specifically state that their
proxies have a median resolution of 120 years?
 
Link where you got this graph #3

Otherwise it can be assumed its another one of your own home grown efforts

It is. And every datapoint on it is correct, and properly sourced.

Don't blame me if the scientific data utterly destroys your position.
 
Just pointing to a collection of NOAA data, does not point out the area you are saying the Marcott has a combined resolution of 20 years.
Beside if that were the case, why would the Marcott, et al, 2013 paper specifically state that their
proxies have a median resolution of 120 years?

Because that's the median of the individual proxies. The combined dataset, using all proxies, has a resolution of 20 years. Which you would have seen right away, if you had taken the trouble to look at it.
 
It is. And every datapoint on it is correct, and properly sourced.

Don't blame me if the scientific data utterly destroys your position.

So link where you got this graph from so we can check its authenticity and if you have subsequently fiddled with it #4
 
Because that's the median of the individual proxies. The combined dataset, using all proxies, has a resolution of 20 years. Which you would have seen right away, if you had taken the trouble to look at it.
Still no citation I see!
 
Back
Top Bottom