Global warming is happening, whether conservatives like it or not

[Gill]

From the liar himself.
Right YOUR graph with "5 year averages" shows an upward trend - now you're refuting your own graph. Ho ho ho, infrared theory - funny, I wasn't aware there was such a theory. Keep on spinning gill - it's all you got left.
Perhaps you care to define how you get an average and what it means to general trends when the tangents keep getting steeper?

It was very obvious from your pathetic attempt at debating infrared that you weren't aware of the concepts of IR theory.

The rest of your post is nonsensical and you don't make clear exactly what your point is.

Try again.

 

[Dezaad]

Forgive me for butting in here, but you are terribly mistaken in this:

The rest of your post is nonsensical and you don't make clear exactly what your point is.

Try again.

He was explaining in geometric terms how to read a trend line. A tangent to a curve is a line that touches the curve at a single point. It describes the slope of the curve at that point.

So...

If the tangents to a curve are getting steeper, then the curve is showing an accelerating change (in the context of this thread and the graphs in question).

So...

The point he is making is quite clear: The graphs submitted thus far show an accelerating rate of temperature increases.

 

[Gill]

Forgive me for butting in here, but you are terribly mistaken in this:

A tangent to a curve is a line that touches the curve at a single point.

Not necessarily... a tangent can touch a curve at several points. YOU are the one that is terribly mistaken.

The point he is making is quite clear: The graphs submitted thus far show an accelerating rate of temperature increases.

Since the line is a five year average, of course it will be increasing until the next averaged point is calculated, but the overall trend is decreasing. That's why the trend line does not extend to the current date on the graph.

Understand now?

 

[saggyjones]

And the increase is 'decreasing' isn't it??

What?

Your assertions are very much in question by many reputable scientists.

Such as?

That is a five year average line. Your read of statistical graphs has an many shortcomings as your understanding of infrared theory.

I don't understand how this supports your argument.

 

[saggyjones]

How about posting some current information, i.e. graphs that don't stop SIX years ago.

That graph goes clean through 2005. Not just 2000. It is numbered every 5 years if you will notice.

LOL

And you debate like the old flat earth society. I believe there was a "consensus" among so-called reputable scientists regarding that theory also.

How are those two things comparable at all?

 

[saggyjones]

Ahh, so Wikipedia's graphs are the same as junkscience now? The graph from Wiki clearly shows a fall off of temps after 1998.

Here's a graph from the same page as yours:

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The temps used to develop your graph are merely educated guesses of the actual global temperatures, so I do not take it's conclusions seriously.

If that's true, then yours are also educated guesses, and you shouldn't take them seriously either.

Of course they aren't educated guesses and measured with instruments. Oh, but high-tech thermometers with samples from around the world also make educated guesses, right?

 

[saggyjones]

Temperatures would naturally rise following an ice age which ended about 1850, just as temperatures would be expected to rise in summer following winter.

Temperatures have fluctuated naturally over the last hundred years. They rose dramatically during the 1940's, then fell off again around 1965. This currrent warm period will also end just as the one in the 40's did. The warm year of 1998 might never be repeated again.

Can you explain this as natural:

^^^1. Massive melting

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Deep ice tells long climate story

Of these activities fossil fuel combustion for energy generation causes about 70-75% of the carbon dioxide emissions, being the main source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide output, caused by humans burning fossil fuels, have drastically raised in recent years, as shown by the graph and two quotes.

 

[saggyjones]

If you really think that temperatures can be determined several million years ago to a 1/10 degree accuracy, then I have a couple of bridges here in St. Louis to sell you.

Have you ever heard of ice cores?

The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in global temperature reconstruction.

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rather than attempt to refute facts I suggest you get some facts of your own.

 

[jfuh]

It was very obvious from your pathetic attempt at debating infrared that you weren't aware of the concepts of IR theory.

The rest of your post is nonsensical and you don't make clear exactly what your point is.

Try again.

Perhaps you could state the thesis of IR theory then? :lamo

Simple gill. your own graph of 5 year averages continues to show an upward trend, directly what was predicated by the very climate models you are dogging on.
There's no downward trend anywhere in your own graph. Try reading and get your head out of your as$.

 

[jfuh]

Forgive me for butting in here, but you are terribly mistaken in this:



He was explaining in geometric terms how to read a trend line. A tangent to a curve is a line that touches the curve at a single point. It describes the slope of the curve at that point.

So...

If the tangents to a curve are getting steeper, then the curve is showing an accelerating change (in the context of this thread and the graphs in question).

So...

The point he is making is quite clear: The graphs submitted thus far show an accelerating rate of temperature increases.

Thank you.

 

[saggyjones]

You have obviously never read how researchers determine these so-called million year old proxy temperatures. It is nothing more than educated guesses.

How are they educated guesses? Can you clarify?

And also.... temps in the 1900's were not the hottest in the past million years or even the past thousand years. Temperatures during the MWP were warmer than today.


http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/EnEpreprintFeb03.pdf

Isn't 5 years ago too long? According to you it is.

 

[jfuh]

Not necessarily... a tangent can touch a curve at several points. YOU are the one that is terribly mistaken.

Lol, yes gill and a there are many tangents in any curve. Yet, any point on your graph of the 5 year trend continues to go up. let me say that again, YOUR graph.

Since the line is a five year average, of course it will be increasing until the next averaged point is calculated, but the overall trend is decreasing. That's why the trend line does not extend to the current date on the graph.

Understand now?

Where is your overall trend that is decreasing? There is no such trend on your graph. Even when the early temps decrease the mean trend continues upwards. Additionally, even when we had "record highs" the 5 year trend line barely made a burp - yet there have been absolutely no decreases only continued increases that are consistent with model predictions.

So let me ask you this gill, just what in god's name would get you to admit the facts? It seems that nothing short of an apocalypse you would still not accept the fact that the earth is indeed warming.

 

[saggyjones]

***Excuse me for butting in here, but is this a case of two liberals disagreeing with one another?

I'm almost positive Gill is conservative.

Today's sun is the hottest its been in 1000 years. A thousand years ago the Vikings discovered the country of Greenland. Do you know why that country was named Greenland? Because it was covered with green grass and pastures due to the climate being as hot as it is today in the 21st century. And yes, they even had polar bears back then, and they seemed to have survived the nasty trick that mother nature had leveled on them. So a thousand years later and Greenland is covered with glacial rock and ice, and the human denizens there are coping very well...thank you very much, and they seem to be ready to adjust to the melting of their ice masses. The grizzly bears they had back in the 11th century had slowly turned into white polar bears, and now those same polar bears are turning back to color shades of brown. The eskimos and other indigenous peoples of Greenland are sending convoys down to the lower 48 states to find deals on lawn mowers. I understand all that melting ice makes for tall grass, and for people used to living in igloos--that can be very annoying.

Can you please explain this?

^^^1. Massive melting

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Deep ice tells long climate story

Of these activities fossil fuel combustion for energy generation causes about 70-75% of the carbon dioxide emissions, being the main source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide output, caused by humans burning fossil fuels, have drastically raised in recent years, as shown by the graph and two quotes.

 

[saggyjones]

Not necessarily... a tangent can touch a curve at several points. YOU are the one that is terribly mistaken.


Since the line is a five year average, of course it will be increasing until the next averaged point is calculated, but the overall trend is decreasing. That's why the trend line does not extend to the current date on the graph.

Understand now?

Here's the same graph as yours, even from the same source, but extending to the year 1000 AD:

Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dezaad]

Not necessarily... a tangent can touch a curve at several points. YOU are the one that is terribly mistaken.

Oh, please. You know perfectly well what I meant. I used a simplified definition that holds true any time the curve does not inflect. And if you understood this, then you knew that jfuh was making himself clear. So, why pretend that he wasn't?

Since the line is a five year average, of course it will be increasing until the next averaged point is calculated, but the overall trend is decreasing. That's why the trend line does not extend to the current date on the graph.

Now, you're the one who is not stating themselves clearly. The only part clear enough in this portion to be able to be countered is "the overall trend is decreasing". Where do you see this?

Understand now?

How to read graphs? Already did. Tangent line definitions? Already did. Whether the increase in greenhouse gasses correlates with increases in temperature? Already did. Understand your view? Nope.

 

[Gill]

Hmm, where to start....

You know perfectly well what I meant.

then...

Now, you're the one who is not stating themselves clearly.

So, I'm supposed to know what you "meant" rather than what you write?? Yep, that's stating clear thoughts.

Tangent line definitions? Already did.

And you 'already did' admit you were wrong.

 

[Dezaad]

So, I'm supposed to know what you "meant" rather than what you write??

Yep. If you understand geometry as well as you are portraying yourself to, then you would have understood from the context of the posts precisely what I meant. Anyone who does would have recognized that my definition left something out, but was an adequate definition for the issue at hand. You are simply pointing out a "problem" with my definition that is IRRELEVANT to the discussion.

If you did so while having a proper understanding of geometry, you were simply creating a distraction. If you did so without a proper understanding of geometry, you were simply displaying your ignorance. Those are the only two possibilities. Which is it?

And you 'already did' admit you were wrong.

No, I didn't. I said I used a simplified definition. Doing so was perfectly reasonable in the context of the discussion. Again, you are avoiding the points made in a futile attempt to distract from that discussion. I could bring a math professor into the discussion to vouch for the reasonableness of my position, but that would allow you to further derail the thread.

Answer the relevant points made, please.

 

[Gill]

Anyone who does would have recognized that my definition left something out,

Yep, you sure did.. a very basic something. Your knowledge of geometry is lacking. Just admit it.

 

[Dezaad]

Yep, you sure did.. a very basic something. Your knowledge of geometry is lacking. Just admit it.

Maybe I missed something here. I just keep looking and looking, but I don't see a subject line for this thread that states "Dezaad's understanding of Geometry, A Discussion".

Please answer the relevant questions pertaining to the subject of the thread as raised by the various posts, or admit that your understanding of global warming is lacking. :roll:

 

[Dezaad]

Source Overall, annual temperatures in the United States and around the world are one degree warmer than a century ago, and the rate of warming has accelerated threefold in recent decades. Eight of the past 10 years were the warmest on record worldwide.

Here is the NOAA graph depicting the global temperature increases over the past century +

Notice that the 2006 data is not yet included in the graph (1-10-2006).

Climate of 2006 Preliminary annual report During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.06°C/decade (0.11°F/decade) but this trend has increased to a rate approximately 0.18°C/decade (0.32°F/decade) during the past 25 to 30 years. There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976. Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next century with continued increases of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

 

[Conservationist]

The climate is in a warming cycle. Humans may also have contributed... which will make it much, much warmer and possibly doom us all.

Doom... I love the sound of that. Total death!

 

[jfuh]

Yep, you sure did.. a very basic something. Your knowledge of geometry is lacking. Just admit it.

Speaking of basic lacking in knowledge care to back up your own assertions now after derailing the thread so much?
1. what is the basic thesis of IR theory
2. you're own graph you posted shows an average trend that is increasing not decreasing - plz elaborate YOU own graph.

 

[saggyjones]

Gill you haven't responded to any of my posts, why don't you answer them, even at least one?

 

[Gill]

Speaking of basic lacking in knowledge care to back up your own assertions now after derailing the thread so much?
1. what is the basic thesis of IR theory
2. you're own graph you posted shows an average trend that is increasing not decreasing - plz elaborate YOU own graph.

Now who's derailing the thread??

But you can start with these two links to begin your education on the subject:

SPI / library / The infrared theory

Infrared Blackbody Theory

 

[Gill]

Gill you haven't responded to any of my posts, why don't you answer them, even at least one?

I've posted responses to the theories of the warmaholics many times in the past few years. I don't have time to repost them again every time another newbie comes along. Perhaps if I have a slow day, I'll have time to educate you.