Is climate change a "contentious" issue ? Really ?

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
Notice you ignored my well sourced chart with links to the data available, but you ignore it to post a frenzy of out of scale unsourced charts.
The sources in your chart don't back up your claims ... and so you make nonsense claims ... at least Crick's charts are common in the scientific literature ...

Oh right, the HC4 folks are crazy irrational Alarmists ... can't even interpret their own research ... ultra right wing extremists have the truth, right ...
You are making a fool of yourself now on this, you have yet to show any evidence to support your claim the chart is false, the conclusions are false.

Crick charts are dishonestly scaled to make it appear scary, you should NOT have fallen for it so easily, with no links behind them they are just cartoons to me.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
It surprises me when people have difficulty understand this section, it is about the spread of temperature change in various time subsets, versus the nearly monotonic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no cause/effect relationship between them in the chart, THAT is the point!
You clearly don't understand your own graph.

If it was all clustered around zero, you'd have a point. It's not. It's all clustered around 0.2. That means there is a very obvious cause/effect.

You're telling us "Since the car is accelerating around a fixed rate (with some variation) as we very slowly press down on the accelerator, that proves there's no cause/effect between pushing the accelerator and speed". You're claiming the opposite of observed reality, according to your own chart.

"This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months)."
And again, exactly what are "Multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter? I have never seen that term used before, so it's very curious that you bring it up. The fact that you won't explain it, despite being asked directly, makes me think that you don't know what it means. It's just some technobabble you're flinging around in a failed attempt to sound knowledgable.
Bwahahahahaahha!!! You have no idea what the article is about at all.

The per decade warming rate isn't the topic of the article, it is about the temperature change by the year in relation to the yearly monotonic rise of CO2.

The yearly temperature swings are not showing up in the yearly CO2 change, that is the main point of the article,

1603405730879.png


LINK

=====

Can you see El-Nino's in the chart, See La-Nina's....?

There is no direct relationship.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
5,306
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
The per decade warming rate isn't the topic of the article, it is about the temperature change by the year in relation to the yearly monotonic rise of CO2.
There's no reason that the year-by-year temperature increase should be level or linear. The science doesn't say that. Nobody says that, except you and whatever crazy article you cribbed that from. The science expects what your chart shows -- an increasing trend, but with a lot of noise on top.

So congratulations on debunking one of your nonsense strawmen. Now, would you care to address the actual science?

And can you link us to the actual conspiracy blog article you cribbed from?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,325
Reaction score
1,492
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
And I just gave you the answer directly. 3.0C/doubling ...
Where do you get this? ... do you have a citation, or are you just making this up as you go along? ... and please explain why this doesn't work with all the data we have in hand ...
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
You are making a fool of yourself now on this ...
Glad to see you agree with my argument ... and have only my character to attack ... dude, it's a Russian hack job, vote for The Donald and be done with it ...
No, you never backed up YOUR claim that the chart are based on anomaly data, something I brought up several times, you come back with nothing.

I wrote: "You are making a fool of yourself now on this, you have yet to show any evidence to support your claim the chart is false, the conclusions are false."

Cheers.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
The per decade warming rate isn't the topic of the article, it is about the temperature change by the year in relation to the yearly monotonic rise of CO2.
There's no reason that the year-by-year temperature increase should be level or linear. The science doesn't say that. Nobody says that, except you and whatever crazy article you cribbed that from. The science expects what your chart shows -- an increasing trend, but with a lot of noise on top.

So congratulations on debunking one of your nonsense strawmen. Now, would you care to address the actual science?

And can you link us to the actual conspiracy blog article you cribbed from?
I see you still avoiding the strange concept of a counterpoint to the article, something you have yet to do here. Instead you post another canned response that has nothing to do with the article, you can't debunk when you don't address it in the first place.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
5,306
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
see you still avoiding the strange concept of a counterpoint to the article,
What article? You just gave us an unsourced chart and raved about it. I keep asking for its source, and you keep refusing to provide it. You act like you're ashamed of your source.

I'm going to keep ignoring your deflections, and keep coming back to what you keep running from.

You made a crazy claim that year-by-year temperature change should be the same or linear. AGW science says the opposite, that there should be a great deal of year-by-year variation. Your fundamental premise is a dumb strawman. Knocking it down and declaring victory fools nobody.

What are "Multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter? If you weren't just cribbing something you don't understand, you'd have no trouble answering that. You can't explain what your own chart means, which indicates you don't understand it. That's because you just brainlessly copied it.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
see you still avoiding the strange concept of a counterpoint to the article,
What article? You just gave us an unsourced chart and raved about it. I keep asking for its source, and you keep refusing to provide it. You act like you're ashamed of your source.

I'm going to keep ignoring your deflections, and keep coming back to what you keep running from.

You made a crazy claim that year-by-year temperature change should be the same or linear. AGW science says the opposite, that there should be a great deal of year-by-year variation. Your fundamental premise is a dumb strawman. Knocking it down and declaring victory fools nobody.

What are "Multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter? If you weren't just cribbing something you don't understand, you'd have no trouble answering that. You can't explain what your own chart means, which indicates you don't understand it. That's because you just brainlessly copied it.
This ARTICLE


Now you are just flat out LYING, I posted the SOURCE data and how it was generated for the chart about 3-4 times in the thread, here it is again!

Note: Plots, temperature change and 36-month average calculations done with Excel. Sources: global HadCrut dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset
=====


Meanwhile I am still waiting for Crick to post LINKS to all of his charts.....,

Waiting,

waiting
waiting......

===

Meanwhile, I repeat myself:

"I see you still avoiding the strange concept of a counterpoint to the article, something you have yet to do here. Instead you post another canned response that has nothing to do with the article, you can't debunk when you don't address it in the first place."

:laugh:
 
Last edited:

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,069
Reaction score
1,446
Points
275
Location
N/A
Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).
View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722
May I direct your attention to the first chart ... the period 1940 to 1975 ... it shows increasing CO2 levels and decreasing average temperatures ... technically, that's not correlation, in fact it refutes any correlation ... maybe the laws of nature were different during this time period ... Truman, Kennedy, LBJ ... DemoNazis do shit like that ...
May I direct your attention to the practice of "cherry-picking"
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,069
Reaction score
1,446
Points
275
Location
N/A
I've noticed a VERY strong inclination amongst AGW deniers on this board to make responses like Mr Oddball's above. A brief insult, no evidence, no logic, no reasoning. Forgive me if I don't feel anyone out there has yet challenged any of the points I've made on this board. AGW is real. Consensus among active scientists is a valid measure of the validity of the scientific theory. Idiots like you put the human race, my children and their grandchildren for generations to come, in danger. So, don't be surprised if I hold you in great disregard and with significant hostility. Asshole.
No ... you just ignore anyone who suggests other factors are in play ...

What danger is it to your grandchildren that temperatures will be a single degree C higher? ... do you think they'll care that their day-time high will be 11ºC instead of 10ºC? ... for this you'd refuse electric service to the 1.6 billion people who have none today ... condemning them to a hand-to-mouth cooking over an open fire existence forever ...

Absolutely heartless ...
Sea level rise will force the movement of hundreds of millions of people. Weather changes will increase damage from hurricanes, flooding and wildfires. Weather changes will also reduce crop output and fresh water supplies globally. THAT is the danger to my descendant. You are the heartless one and the fool.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,325
Reaction score
1,492
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
May I direct your attention to the practice of "cherry-picking"
I presented my data in context of the entire data set ... that's a counter-example, not cherry-picking ... I take it you've never picked cherries for a living ...

You know the answer ... but your foolish pride won't let you say ... so sad ...

Sea level rise will force the movement of hundreds of millions of people. Weather changes will increase damage from hurricanes, flooding and wildfires. Weather changes will also reduce crop output and fresh water supplies globally. THAT is the danger to my descendant. You are the heartless one and the fool.
... and so you're left with stale rhetoric you don't understand that's easily refuted with just a simple application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
5,306
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Now you are just flat out LYING, I posted the SOURCE data
The source data is your conspiracy blog, which did a whole lot of weird political ranting along with the parts you copied.


They're morons. They made up a stupid strawmen that year-by-year temperature change should be the same, and then knocked it down.

Why do you say that year-by-year temperature change should be the same?

What are "Multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter?

Those two address the basis of your argument ... and you've been running from them, over and over. I address the science directly and honestly, while you evade and run. You don't know what you're babbling about, and everyone sees it.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
Now you are just flat out LYING, I posted the SOURCE data
The source data is your conspiracy blog, which did a whole lot of weird political ranting along with the parts you copied.


They're morons. They made up a stupid strawmen that year-by-year temperature change should be the same, and then knocked it down.

Why do you say that year-by-year temperature change should be the same?

What are "Multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter?

Those two address the basis of your argument ... and you've been running from them, over and over. I address the science directly and honestly, while you evade and run. You don't know what you're babbling about, and everyone sees it.
Ha ha,

you keep ignoring the NOAA and Hadcrut4 data:

You haven't posted anything of value here, and you keep ignoring the data over and over.....

You ignored post 102 again. the monthly rise of CO2 doesn't match with the monthly temperature changes.

The main point of post 37 remains unchallenged.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
The main point of post 37 remains unchallenged.
I challenged that ... you said I was too stupid to know anomaly data when I saw it ... that's why everyone is laughing at you right now ...
Ha ha, yet you never answered my question over it, gave you the link to it, you never responded with the evidence to back your claim.

Meanwhile even anomaly based temperature changes doesn't help you anyway, CO2 changes doesn't match with it at all, that is the point you are too stupid to understand.

Your anomaly arguments has been a RED HERRING in the first place, it doesn't materially damage post 37 claims anyway, your deflection was stupid from the start.

Post 102 makes it clear that CO2 rises in a very specific way, at complete variance to monthly and yearly temperature changes, that you have NEVER challenged.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,325
Reaction score
1,492
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Ha ha, yet you never answered my question over it, gave you the link to it, you never responded with the evidence to back your claim.

Meanwhile even anomaly based temperature changes doesn't help you anyway, CO2 changes doesn't match with it at all, that is the point you are too stupid to understand.

Your anomaly arguments has been a RED HERRING in the first place, it doesn't materially damage post 37 claims anyway, your deflection was stupid from the start.

Post 102 makes it clear that CO2 rises in a very specific way, at complete variance to monthly and yearly temperature changes, that you have NEVER challenged.

Cheers.
Comedy gold ...
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,740
Reaction score
10,706
Points
1,410
I've noticed a VERY strong inclination amongst AGW deniers on this board to make responses like Mr Oddball's above. A brief insult, no evidence, no logic, no reasoning. Forgive me if I don't feel anyone out there has yet challenged any of the points I've made on this board. AGW is real. Consensus among active scientists is a valid measure of the validity of the scientific theory. Idiots like you put the human race, my children and their grandchildren for generations to come, in danger. So, don't be surprised if I hold you in great disregard and with significant hostility. Asshole.
No ... you just ignore anyone who suggests other factors are in play ...

What danger is it to your grandchildren that temperatures will be a single degree C higher? ... do you think they'll care that their day-time high will be 11ºC instead of 10ºC? ... for this you'd refuse electric service to the 1.6 billion people who have none today ... condemning them to a hand-to-mouth cooking over an open fire existence forever ...

Absolutely heartless ...
Sea level rise will force the movement of hundreds of millions of people. Weather changes will increase damage from hurricanes, flooding and wildfires. Weather changes will also reduce crop output and fresh water supplies globally. THAT is the danger to my descendant. You are the heartless one and the fool.
1603778839779.png
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,016
Reaction score
3,357
Points
1,050
Ha ha, yet you never answered my question over it, gave you the link to it, you never responded with the evidence to back your claim.

Meanwhile even anomaly based temperature changes doesn't help you anyway, CO2 changes doesn't match with it at all, that is the point you are too stupid to understand.

Your anomaly arguments has been a RED HERRING in the first place, it doesn't materially damage post 37 claims anyway, your deflection was stupid from the start.

Post 102 makes it clear that CO2 rises in a very specific way, at complete variance to monthly and yearly temperature changes, that you have NEVER challenged.

Cheers.
Comedy gold ...
Another counterpoint free reply, still no counter to the main point either.

Come on you can't be that stupid?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top