Previous  1 ... 13  14  15  16  17  18  19 ... 24  Next

Bluenose

I actually went back and looked at it.

It's profile has no similarity to the climate record.

Warming through the 20-30's and then some stasis to 1960 then a gradual cooling until 1980 then an upward creep---

The temperature value of the 20-30 exceeded anything until the late 90's. This is even worse than the hockey-stick...

Did you leave eye-holes in the foil?

   

Where's the hot spell from the 1930's?

   

Hey retards, it's not my temperature record, but the one N_Fiddledog used in his "leveling off" argument. I couldn't care less about where the values came from or how accurate they are, because I didn't once argue that they were. I questioned his method of interpretting that graph, nothing more.

Blame him for it if you want, but I suggest actually reading what I posted and trying to understand it before making stupid and irrelevant comments.

That a nasty habit both of you have - assuming that anyone who might question the validity of a global warming argument automatically supports an opposing view. Stop that.

   

I dont care who posted it - it's still missing the 1930's hot spell.

   

Well that's a personal issue I'm sure you'll manage to overcome in time.

   

here's an idea--you could actually visit some the links and do a little reseacrh yourself and find out why your 1930s hot spell is not there. Why should Blue Nose do your work for you?

   

Bart knows what he wants to see, obviously, and it's not there in that graphic.

What's worse is that I've already explained here once to samsquanch that I wasn't arguing with Fiddledog over the data itself, but to highlight the issues with his interpretation of it. Regardless, neither of them read this obvious disclaimer and instead chose to argue against an uncited graphic without context or even proper labels.

For all they knew, that was a graph showing the global return on investment from the sale of bluejeans.

   

Bluenose

Yes that was our main concern. After the exposed antics of such "scientists" such as Mann and Hansen we appropriately suspect every tin-hater graph....

Oct 30, 1938 still is a valid parrellel.

   

Now graphs are suspect by the very virtue of being graphs... how "appropriate". I suppose we'll have to start miming data sets, or perhaps write poems about them.

You haven't figured it out yet, you dolt - it's not my graph.

Learn how to spell PARALLEL, you dumb shit.

Your rhetoric is irrelevant.

   

My kingdom for a time machine, so I could send you back to that date...

   

Blue_Nose

The arthritis in my hands today is very relevant---thank-you very much.

Actually thanks to the antics of Mann, Hansen, Gore and the IPCC..........graphs are VERY suspect.

You are only validating my Oct 30, 1938 anology.

   

So we should just go on faith that everything will be okay?

   

Saying graphs are 'suspect' is like saying words are 'suspect'.

Face it, samsquanch, you're a stupid old trucker who knows nothing about science. Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

   

Graphs are a visual display of data, so you are implying that data is "suspect". How fucking genius.

I know you're hooked on the "hockey stick", but most people of meager intelligence don't look at a graph and say:

"Wow! Look at how tall that is! Look, a spikey and a flatty!"

Context.

   

Well, since you put it so nicely...

I'll do that. Now that you're able to admit the 1998 anomaly exists I'll show you why it matters, and why Zip has been calling black white, attempting to misdirect the conversation and refusing to admit it does exist.

Unlike yourself he's been here since the beginning of the debate, and he knows what you don't. If you view facts from a skewed perspective the statement "there's been no warming since 1998" becomes true. This is problematic, not because it has any real significance to climate science, but because it complicates the Gorons ability to BS. It reveals what a Bullshit misrepresentation of facts looks like. They can't have that.

For example. Ever since I've been following this argument I've noticed this graph which sooner, or later gets posted. I've seen it here as recently as a few weeks ago. It shows a marked upward trend to 2001, then stops. To the mind's eye it speaks of a continuous upward trend to catastrophic levels.

(Incidentally what you guys keep calling "my graph" is in fact a time extension of the 2001 bullshit graph I just mentioned and comes from a link by Zipperfish, not from me. It's his graph. I've said that three times now.)

I've always wondered why that graph ends at 2001 in it's original form. Now I know why. If they continued the graph to 2006 the mind's eye of the average, uninitiated viewer would get a different impression. He'd see the little flattening tick at the end. It's just not the same emotional message. That tick matters not for it's scientific significance, but because the viewer doesn't get the same emotional message.

OK. So why is the statement "no warming since 1998" bullshit. The warmer's critique of it is valid. Here's what they say.

* It uses selective data.

* It cherry picks an anomaly and starts from that year.

* El Nino matters and can be seen as the cause of the temperature rise to the 1998 peak.

* Ten years is not a sufficient amount of time to signify a trend.

Now let's go back to the Warmer's graph. What I now refer to as simply the "Bullshit graph"

* It uses selective data.

As I understand it, it averages anomalies to display a more or less smooth line progressing steadily upwards and displaying a dramatic spike to 2001 from the 80s, after which (in the mind's eye at least it continues rising.

* It cherry picks an anomaly and starts from that time period.

As I recall the bullshit graph starts around the 1800s somewhere. Curiously enough that's about the same time we were coming out of the little ice age. So what the graph really shows is a warming after a cold era. But they don't tell you that when they post it, of course.

* El Ninos Matter.

Here's an assertion from Wikipedia about El Ninos.



So what does that say about the dramatic rise seen on the graph from the mid-80s to 2001. We concede the 1998 anomaly was most likely El Nino forced. El Nino's matters. Did they cause the more noticeable rise from the mid-80s. Who really knows. But it does present the possibility of a natural forcing, from if not El Nino perhaps other factors. They're a natural factor. And we've seen how such factors can affect the climate record from the 1998 anomaly. In other words accounting for the rise seen on the bullshit graph does not necessarily have to rely on an explanation of C02 forced global warming. In fact I've heard it said if you account for El Nino warming and Volcanic cooling there's been no warming since 1979.

* Twenty years is not a sufficient amount of time to signify a trend.

Real simple. If ten years is not enough, then why is twenty from 80ish to 2000ish?

So basically here's my point. Saying there's been no warming since 1998 is true. It's also a bullshit misrepresentation by selected facts. Selecting a time period of warming beginning as we come out of the little ice age, is also bullshit. Neither of these selected facts have significance in themselves to the science of climate change as regards possible human causes. Stressing either is pure out and out bullshit. It's just a tricky way of manipulating public opinion with a quick selected picture, or choice of phrasing, and the next time someone tries it with the "bullshit graph", or any other method they'll hear me telling them there's been no warming since 1998.

   

Previous  1 ... 13  14  15  16  17  18  19 ... 24  Next