Average temp

Discussion in 'Environment' started by RetiredGySgt, Oct 1, 2012.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,581
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,002
    If the average temp is x then the variance around it will be set by that average.

    If as has happened the average temp goes up a degree then ALL averages are going to be reflecting that 1 degree change. So citing that average temps are higher now then they were when the temp was lower mean nothing. That is common sense and reality.

    In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree. That is about what happened. Yet we are to run around with our heads lopped off because a 100 year old prediction came true.

    Our knowledge of climate and climate change is so poor we can only make guesses what will occur. Our knowledge of weather patterns and such are based entirely on OBSERVED data. We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like fort about 2 weeks.

    We base all our climate estimates for weather conditions like Hurricanes and such off OBSERVED data over time. We can not even get those estimates right on a monthly basis.

    Unless you can show a permanent spike in temps the fact that yearly averages are higher now then 10 or 20 years ago means absolutely nothing other then the fact our average temperature in fact went up about 1 and a half degrees.

    The only concern about that was the fact that about half a degree occurred in a 20 year period. And that stopped in 1998.

    And there still is no credible evidence that man caused that rise in temp.

    The claim made by some was that rising C)2 caused the temperature increase and that man was the reason for the CO2 increase. If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

    There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.
     
  2. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,720
    Thanks Received:
    2,453
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,682
    Huh? Who made this prediction?

    Confusing-climate-with-weather fallacy.

    Done. The last few years are all hot. The spike is permanent. Except for the getting hotter part. 2013 will probably break all the old records, with a solar peak and an El Nino building.

    The "warming stopped in 1998!" fallacy. You're hitting a lot of the standard denialist list of bad logic and fallacies.

    Sure there is. We could go over it, but you'd handwave it all away as a liberal conspiracy, so what's the point?

    Half a degree, no. It's been about 0.25C/decade, so a little less. But it's been what AGW theory predicted. That's why AGW theory has credibility, because it's been making successful predictions for decades.

    There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

    But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,936
    Thanks Received:
    8,100
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,463
    The data you posted has been "homogenized." That means it's doctored horseshit. Satellite data shows the Earth's temperature has been decreasing.

     
  4. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,720
    Thanks Received:
    2,453
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,682
    That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

    The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

    The satellite measurements disagreed.

    The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

    They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

    Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,601
    Thanks Received:
    5,426
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,400
    You realize how full of shit that you truly are?

    The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

    The evidence is right there from scientists, dating to 1858.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,601
    Thanks Received:
    5,426
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,400
    In other words, the data does not agree with you political views.

    Pattycake, reality is what it is, and has zero respect for your asinine political views. You can ignore reality all you please, but it will not ignore you. Reality is going to visit you and the rest of the world on the grocery shelves as the effects of the agricultural damage from the ongoing climate change impacts the price of food.
     
  7. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,270
    Thanks Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,259
    Again I say............how is it mattering? All this consensus science?


    Ive seen that CARBON DIOXIDE GREENHOUSE EFFECT link posted up in here at least 500 times in the past few years. To what end exactly?


    I fail to see how it is mattering in the least! Cap and Trade is totally in the crapper and everyone and their brother see the fauxness in public monies being used for the current gay green technology.

    Not one radical in here has been able to post up anything in here except more gay science links that nobody cares about except the internet OCD goofballs.


    [​IMG]
     
  8. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,936
    Thanks Received:
    8,100
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,463
    The claim has never been debunked, nimrod. Here is the latest chart from Dr Roy Spencer:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,936
    Thanks Received:
    8,100
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,463
    No, the data is fraudulent. In your mind, if it agrees with your political views, then it must be true. However, the evidence for deliberate tampering is massive. Climategate I and II are just a small part of it. All the major temperature data bases have been discredited.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,601
    Thanks Received:
    5,426
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,400
    Amazing thing about that graph. The very strong La Nina of 2010-2011, and the first few months of 2012 resulted in a running average low that was higher than any running average high point prior to 1998. And now we are in an ENSO neutral period, and higher than any high point, period, prior to 1998.

    What that graph shows is what every other indicator has been showing. That superimposed on the normal variation in weather is a rapidly increasing warming, one which is now changing the climate.
     

Share This Page