It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We either have global warming with temp increases ... or we do NOT have global warming, in which average temps for cities around the world will be relatively flat lined .. and thats what my test cities are showing.
So are you agreeing that global warming as such is a fallacy ? Bear in mind that the term "global warming" implies that the NETT temp of the earth is increasing over time. This means that theoretically, no matter what part of the planet you choose to measure, the average local temp must be on the increase.
Originally posted by rnaa
That means that 11 of the 14 years since 1997 have been warmer (or the same as) than 1997. It is impossible, by any stretch of the imagination, or spin of the data, to find a cooling trend, or even a flat trend in those facts.
Please explain why there's no "noticeable temp" increases in the last 15 years.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Most proxy data is accurate within 2 degrees Celsius. This means we have a high, a low, and in most cases what's in between +/- 2 degrees. We have multiple proxies from multiple sources which all more or less agree.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Here's another challenge for you since you failed quite miserably at the first one. Try and find any naturally occurring phenomenon which we attribute the current rise in global temperature to.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
We have inaccuracies of +/- 2 degrees ranging across temperature spans of 20+ degrees over a known period of time. You do not need to be accurate to the tenth degree to get a fairly precise picture of what's going on.
And yet I've presented you with verifiable data that has NOT been "imagined or spun" for those 15 years showing essentially a flat temperature trend. Have you actually investigated the data yourself and satisfied yourself that there was indeed a warming trend for 11 of the 14 years that you mentioned ? Because I certainly don't see any such trend and neither does the data. Perhaps then you'd be kind enough to show me where my interpretation of the 15 years worth of data is in error.
Originally posted by CranialSponge
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Most proxy data is accurate within 2 degrees Celsius. This means we have a high, a low, and in most cases what's in between +/- 2 degrees. We have multiple proxies from multiple sources which all more or less agree.
But that's my point... a +/- 2 degree error margin is not good enough when we are currently screaming for global policy changes due to a 0.7 °C increase in temperature. Again, precision then becomes a must for historical comparisons if we are to apply panic over tenths of degrees. And no, we do not have proxy data from multiple sources all over the globe, most of the proxy data has been taken from the northern hemisphere. You can't deny that.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Here's another challenge for you since you failed quite miserably at the first one. Try and find any naturally occurring phenomenon which we attribute the current rise in global temperature to.
I didn't "fail miserably" at anything because we both know there are no such scientific data points showing what you asked for. This does not mean that absence of data equates to non-existent events. Again, precision of tenths of degrees in a short geological timescale is needed to compare the tenths of degrees we're claiming right now in this short geological timescale.
And as for finding any naturally occurring anomaly attributed to global temperature rise and/or fall, well that gets back to the base arguments, doesn't it ? Something as simple as the hydrological cycle and oceanic circulations has changed their predicted "trends" just in the past decade or so. They are no longer on track with "runaway" global warming, nor are they on track for their calculation of a 3°C rise in temps for every doubling of CO2. Nor has the oceans risen at their predicted rates, nor has the arctic icesheet disappeared at their predicted timeframe, nor are the glaciers melting at the rates they predicted. All they can do now is move the goal posts by saying, "Well, we may go through a small cooling period, or slowdown rate of warming due to temporary natural occurances, but eventually the unprecidented warming will kick back in and take over."
Sounds like assumption and speculation based on (already) faulty calculations to me.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
We have inaccuracies of +/- 2 degrees ranging across temperature spans of 20+ degrees over a known period of time. You do not need to be accurate to the tenth degree to get a fairly precise picture of what's going on.
But we do need that accuracy when we're panicking over tenths of a degree as it stands right now.
Look, I don't argue over the fact that we've warmed, and I certainly don't argue the fact that we need to clean up our act, whether AGW is happening or not. But what I do argue is that this science had damn well better be spot on perfect, with no room for error, if we're to utilize it as a means of making drastic changes to socio/economic policies worldwide.
Besides, even in the most unlikely event that we are wrong about climate change..... the payoffs that we receive from global environmental policy changes will still far out way the benefits....
I think that's already been suggested in this post:
Originally posted by tauristercus
And yet I've presented you with verifiable data that has NOT been "imagined or spun" for those 15 years showing essentially a flat temperature trend. Have you actually investigated the data yourself and satisfied yourself that there was indeed a warming trend for 11 of the 14 years that you mentioned ? Because I certainly don't see any such trend and neither does the data. Perhaps then you'd be kind enough to show me where my interpretation of the 15 years worth of data is in error.
It looks to me from that graph like there was not only a flat line but perhaps an actual decrease from 1945 to 1965, which is a 20 year period. Yet is not the overall trend of that graph moving higher, despite a 20 year period where it moved slightly lower?
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by tauristercus
We either have global warming with temp increases ... or we do NOT have global warming, in which average temps for cities around the world will be relatively flat lined .. and thats what my test cities are showing.
www.pewclimate.org...
When you view the last 15 years of mean global temperature variations they do seam fairly flat compared to the longer term trends over the past 100 years. In trying to understand and predict the weather it is a tough complex job with many complex scientific, political, economic and environmental factors to consider with the repercussions. Big systems do move slowly and not every year is consistent, but there is a lot of force behind it when it does move. Ask questions, but don't keep the blinders on too tight.