jryan Posted July 13, 2009 Author Posted July 13, 2009 Oh really? I think you're wrong. Can you find a source that backs this up? Despite cherry picking endpoints, I still say you're wrong. I want evidence. I want calculations. http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/don-easterbrook-global-warming-since-1977-is-over/ See, this is what a real skeptic does. They don't take blind shots in the dark as you're doing. They look at an assertion and demand evidence. Irony I demand evidence. Please present me evidence. So you said. And to reiterate: you are not a skeptic. You are a propagator of disinformation, which is about as far from a skeptic as you can get. An I reiterate that your attempts at character assassination lend nothing to the debate. I am a skeptic. I am looking at assertions others are making and asking for supporting evidence. This is what skepticism is about. You focus your energy on denying that which discredits the theory. I suppose if there was such a thing as an "affirmative skeptic" you would be one. But please, defend your assertion and show I am wrong in questioning it! Present evidence to defend it. I am waiting. I posted something for you to dig into, and I will await your meticulous examination. Try to make it more meaty than the traditional link to "Who Worked for Big Oil Wiki" or other such nonsense.
iNow Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/don-easterbrook-global-warming-since-1977-is-over/ In what peer reviewed journal was this published? That paper makes claims DIRECTLY rebutted by the data. From your link: Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007–2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. All one needs to do is look at the pretty little images I've posted to see this is a blatant lie.
bascule Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/don-easterbrook-global-warming-since-1977-is-over/ I see, the "go fish" approach to defending your assertions. Would you care to cite the appropriate passage from this paper which substantiates your assertion: No it's not. If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining. The paper does contain the phrase "global cooling has occurred since 1998" in the abstract but I am not seeing what data is used to support that statement. Specifically I'm looking for a calculation of the trend line between your cherry-picked El Nino endpoint and the present. I'm not seeing it in this paper. Sorry. -- As a counterpoint: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. NASA GISS cites 2005 as the warmest year on record, edging out 1998 Edited July 13, 2009 by bascule
swansont Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Well, it was never intended to be a red herring, Swansont. Just an example of another compound in the atmosphere that in high enough concentrations can be deadly but that seems awfully silly to claim as a pollutant. I would say it is a fairly simple assumption that warming climate leads to more water vapor, though. But the water vapor isn't doing the things you claim it was doing. Your example of a spatial variation in concentration was a strawman, since we are discussing temporal variations. Here is the problem Swansnot, you are jumping into completely unrelated discussions, ignoring the reason the points were made in the first place, and then attacking them as if they were some central thesis. Go back and look at the reasons I was making the points I was making.... maybe take someone to task for claiming a threat of hypercapnia. A threat of hypercapnia from atmospheric CO2 was never made. It was brought up as a rebuttal to your claim that CO2 could never be a pollutant, and your pursuit of this has ignored clarifying comments made by Phi and also by Sisyphus. (and a Tu Quoque fallacy as well) What I was doing was pointing out that your rebuttal was misplaced, as I explained above. Are you asking what would be the point of a longer average time? Yes I am. What would be the point of reducing the bandwidth of your measurement. You suggested a 4000 year average, when the effect we are looking for is of a much shorter duration than that. You have a nanohertz signal, and you want an average that can't detect anything above a picohertz.
jryan Posted July 13, 2009 Author Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) I see, the "go fish" approach to defending your assertions. Would you care to cite the appropriate passage from this paper which substantiates your assertion: The paper does contain the phrase "global cooling has occurred since 1998" in the abstract but I am not seeing what data is used to support that statement. Here is the summary, the Journal in which it is published requires a fee for more than the summary (as do many) Specifically I'm looking for a calculation of the trend line between your cherry-picked El Nino endpoint and the present. It's no more cherry lpicked than the 30 year slice you provided. Which is the point you have yet to address. I'm not seeing it in this paper. Sorry. No apology necessary. As a counterpoint: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html It's the largest on record? Given that the record only goes back so far it's like saying that you are the set the world pogo stick golf score when you're the first to do it. NASA GISS cites 2005 as the warmest year on record, edging out 1998 Records do not equal climate, nor does GISS. Also, there is some interesting studies by statisticians into how GISS does it's running averages and end points... and has been shown at least twice in the last 10 years to have skewed their data... once due to a failure to catch erroneous data in Siberia, and once in screwing up the measuring times with their Y2K conversion. The former killed the "Warmest October on record" claim in 2007, and the latter killed the "warmest decade on record" when it was finally accepted into the GISS record. So you may want to be a little cautious when claiming any GISS records. Edited July 13, 2009 by jryan
bascule Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) Here is the summary, the Journal in which it is published requires a fee for more than the summary (as do many) "Go fish" again, huh? The summary (which is Comic Sans? ow my eyes) makes the assertion "Global temperatures have been on a cooling trend since 2002" (which contradicts the previous assertion of cooling since 1998?) and again does not provide a citation. Or any citations, for that matter. This is supposed to be a scientific paper? You're making a claim. You have the burden of proof. Giving me a URL and expecting me to dig through it to find the information which confirms your position is in very bad form. It's no more cherry lpicked than the 30 year slice you provided. Which is the point you have yet to address. It's the largest on record? Given that the record only goes back so far it's like saying that you are the set the world pogo stick golf score when you're the first to do it. Nice red herrings. Perhaps we could get back to your assertion that: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining." This assertion is wrong. You are still yet to find data to defend it. Either find the data to support your position (don't just give me a link and expect me to find the points to support your position) or admit you're wrong. Records do not equal climate, nor does GISS. Also, there is some interesting studies by statisticians into how GISS does it's running averages and end points... and has been shown at least twice in the last 10 years to have skewed their data... once due to a failure to catch erroneous data in Siberia, and once in screwing up the measuring times with their Y2K conversion. The former killed the "Warmest October on record" claim in 2007, and the latter killed the "warmest decade on record" when it was finally accepted into the GISS record. So you may want to be a little cautious when claiming any GISS records. It's a far more reputable source than any you have cited so far, which make inconsistent claims and don't support them with data or citations. Furthermore, making mistakes doesn't invalidate their research. The data were corrected. That's science for you: when errors are made they are corrected with the best available information. I continue to maintain that your assertion: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining" is wrong. The fact GISS made mistakes does not invalidate the totality of their research or any research output of NASA GISS as an organization. It only goes to show they are scientists who are willing to admit when they are wrong and are willing to make the appropriate corrections. You should be applauding them for that, not saying they are untrustworthy. It seems you are of the resolute opinion that climate scientists are incorrect in their assertions and are willing to spout whatever inaccuracies you wish in order to undermine them. This makes you anti-science, not a skeptic. Edited July 13, 2009 by bascule
jryan Posted July 13, 2009 Author Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) But the water vapor isn't doing the things you claim it was doing. Your example of a spatial variation in concentration was a strawman, since we are discussing temporal variations. Again, you are completely missing my point. The spatial variation in water vapor and temperature changes more traveling from Washington DC to Albuquerque (or from sea level to the top of Mt. McKinley for that matter) than is claimed to be coming temporally in the next 100 years. Unless you are claiming that DC and and Albuquerque are very similar in average temperature and humidity. A threat of hypercapnia from atmospheric CO2 was never made. It was brought up as a rebuttal to your claim that CO2 could never be a pollutant, and your pursuit of this has ignored clarifying comments made by Phi and also by Sisyphus. (and a Tu Quoque fallacy as well) Yes it was. It was made as an excuse for labeling CO2 a pollutant. Again, if you want to claim hypercapnia is a threat in the environment then explain how that would happen and how CO2 is a pollutant at that point. Furthermore, explain how exposing a person to the high CO2 environment is more deadly then filling that same space with water and submerging them. By the hypercapnia argument, and the micronutrient argument, water is also a pollutant. What I was doing was pointing out that your rebuttal was misplaced, as I explained above. It wasn't misplaced. The argument for making CO2 a pollutant applies to everything. Too much rain an kill crops... that doesn't make it a pollutant. Yes I am. What would be the point of reducing the bandwidth of your measurement. You suggested a 4000 year average, when the effect we are looking for is of a much shorter duration than that. You have a nanohertz signal, and you want an average that can't detect anything above a picohertz. Ok, so if you don't want to compare current trends to historical trends, then how do you know if the trend is abnormal? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Go fish" again, huh? The summary (which is Comic Sans? ow my eyes) makes the assertion "Global temperatures have been on a cooling trend since 2002" (which contradicts the previous assertion of cooling since 1998?) and again does not provide a citation. Or any citations, for that matter. This is supposed to be a scientific paper? No, it's a summary, as I said. You're making a claim. You have the burden of proof. Giving me a URL and expecting me to dig through it to find the information which confirms your position is in very bad form. It's called reviewing the data and discussing points. If you aren't willing to do that, then our discussion is at an end. Nice red herrings. Perhaps we could get back to your assertion that: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining." Again, you refuse to acknowledge the point I was making in ADMITTEDLY cherry picking that data. There is nothing to discuss with you. Taking a 10 year trend is no different than taking a 30 year trend when talking about the dangers of abnormal, man made, climate change. You litteraly have nothing to compare it to. This assertion is wrong. You are still yet to find data to defend it. Either find the data to support your position (don't just give me a link and expect me to find the points to support your position) or admit you're wrong. I'm not trying to defend it other than my selection has all the same logical pitfalls as your 30 year selection. It's a far more reputable source than any you have cited so far, which make inconsistent claims and don't support them with data or citations. Furthermore, making mistakes doesn't invalidate their research. The data were corrected. That's science for you: when errors are made they are corrected with the best available information. Which brings us back to opinion. It's hard to claim "reputable" when they have resisted correction and ignored glaring issues with their data while the curator is spending so much time in advocacy endeavors. I continue to maintain that your assertion: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining" is wrong. No it's not. The PDO follows 30 year cycles of warming and cooling, that 30 year time slice is dominated by a warm PDO. The fact GISS made mistakes does not invalidate the totality of their research or any research output of NASA GISS as an organization. It only goes to show they are scientists who are willing to admit when they are wrong and are willing to make the appropriate corrections. You should be applauding them for that, not saying they are untrustworthy. It's hard to show you one way or another because you will claim GISS as more reputable even though they have made some egregious errors, yet label those that found the errors as less reputable because they aren't 100% convinced of the AGW theory. How can one penetrate such circular logic? It seems you are of the resolute opinion that climate scientists are incorrect in their assertions and are willing to spout whatever inaccuracies you wish in order to undermine them. This makes you anti-science, not a skeptic. Of course it seems that way to you. Those who care enough to check the work of climate scientists are part of the anti-science in your belief... which is a very counter-scientific stand. Edited July 13, 2009 by jryan Consecutive posts merged.
bascule Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) It's called reviewing the data and discussing points. If you aren't willing to do that, then our discussion is at an end. Then again: please link me to the relevant data. Taking a 10 year trend is no different than taking a 30 year trend when talking about the dangers of abnormal, man made, climate change. You litteraly have nothing to compare it to. I somewhat encouraged this red herring, but now I'll ask you to put it aside, which I did myself. Your statement is: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining" Please find data to defend this statement. Which brings us back to opinion. It's hard to claim "reputable" when they have resisted correction and ignored glaring issues with their data while the curator is spending so much time in advocacy endeavors. When have they ever done that? When errors are found in their data they correct them and publish a statement. Now you're not just spreading lies about the climate, you're spreading lies about NASA GISS... great. I continue to maintain that your assertion: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining" is wrong. No it's not. The PDO follows 30 year cycles of warming and cooling' date=' that 30 year time slice is dominated by a warm PDO.[/quote'] Can you please connect the dots between the PDO and your statement "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining" This statement appears to be yet another red herring. It's hard to show you one way or another because you will claim GISS as more reputable even though they have made some egregious errors, yet label those that found the errors as less reputable because they aren't 100% convinced of the AGW theory. Who is claiming that "those that found the errors as less reputable because they aren't 100% convinced of the AGW theory"? It's not me. Strawman. Of course it seems that way to you. Those who care enough to check the work of climate scientists are part of the anti-science in your belief... which is a very counter-scientific stand. In what ways do you "check the work of climate scientists"? So far I've asked you a few dozen times to defend a single assertion by providing data or analysis which substantiates it and you have unable to do so. Now you're saying that NASA GISS "resisted correction and ignored glaring issues with their data" You're not looking at NASA GISS's argument. You're instead making value judgments about them as an organization, and saying that reflects negatively upon their arguments. That's an ad hominem. What's ironic is you are apparently accusing me of considering "those that found the errors as less reputable because they aren't 100% convinced of the AGW theory" even though I'm not. That's exactly what you're doing to NASA GISS here. Your confirmation bias against the mainstream scientific opinion has lead you to make a value judgment against this organization which is in turn influencing your interpretation of their scientific argument. Letting personal vendettas get in the way of your analysis of a scientific argument is very unscientific/unskeptical, sorry. I'm going to ask you again: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining" So let's see, what do your arguments consist of so far: Assertions which fly in the face of establish science and are not supported by data Red herrings Straw men Ad hominems This is not how a scientist or a skeptic presents an argument. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I'll give you one more chance to justify your statement: If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining If you are unable to do so in your next post, then I am done with you. You can't even present and defend one single argument, even when asked to do so dozens of times. Edited July 14, 2009 by bascule
JohnB Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) I continue to maintain that your assertion: "If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining" is wrong. jryan, I have to side with bascule on this point. The best that can be said for the most recent period is that the temp change is not statistically significant. It's pretty much "blah". Having said that, then the question must be asked "Where is all the extra energy trapped by the increasing CO2 going?" It's not warming the atmosphere, it's not warming the oceans and ACE index is heading for record lows. So, where is it? bascule, I think what jryan is getting at is that for most of the 30 year period, the PDO was in positive phase. This would mean that even without CO2 the temp trend would be positive. In that respect, the period from 1970-2000 could be viewed as "cherry picking". Just as only looking at the 1940-1970 cooling while the PDO was negative could be. The chosen period already had a warming trend from natural causes. Seriously, the warming/cooling/warming trends track rather nicely to a PDO superimposed on an underlying warming trend since the LIA. So three questions; 1. What was the forcing that exited the planet from the LIA? 2. How do you kow it isn't still there? 3. If it isn't still there, is the planet still adjusting to it anyway? (Lag) To explain 3. If the TSI rose by say 2.6 w/m2 in 1870, how long would it take the planet to reach the new equilibrium point? 50 years? 100 years? Any ideas? Note that these aren't "debating questions", they're questions I don't know the answers to. I hope someone else might have some ideas. Edited July 14, 2009 by JohnB
iNow Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) bascule, I think what jryan is getting at is that for most of the 30 year period, the PDO was in positive phase. We can assume what jryan means all day long, but bascule has quoted him directly about 10 or 12 times... quoted a comment he made over and over again in multiple posts, a comment demonstrably false based on the data. My own charts make the falseness of his statement apparent to even the lay reader. His argument started out sad (the WSJ article to which I originally responded), and has only gotten worse. I appreciate knowing that you agree. It makes me feel like there is hope in conversations like this. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedRE: The 4,000 year comparisons... This video at timepoint btw 4:00 and 5:00 made me snicker. boj9ccV9htk Via Deltoid Edited July 14, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged.
Lekan Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Before make final decision about Global Warming, we should agree in few points. 1) To produce any kind of motion, there must be some difference in the properties of space content, like density of particles or whatever. This allows dynamics and interference between particles which theoretically finish with entropy. To have such kind of interaction like life is, the environment must be very unstable, otherwise the rate of interaction would be very small so the time to reach an intelligent solution is infinite. Unstable systems are tending to oscillate or avalanche or both under action of a trigger which for us can be unnoticed. So Earth system is very unstable, otherwise no life could exist on it. 2) Scientific conclusions nowadays is still based on Greece philosophy in spite of technological advance. We need quite new approach to understand our environment and future. For instance water is the most important substance for existence but too much of it is poisonous as any other poison. The same problem we do have with heat. There is a maximum amount of heat the planet or stellar system can handle at a time. So don't blame CO2 but excess of heat rather. 3) To understand and resolve our survival including climate change we should reconsider our misleads in understanding gravity, electricity and magnetism and other phenomenon. In modern physics we mix waves, rays ( the way of motion) with matter. We must understand the interactions of matter regarding difference in size density speed etc. of a kind of matter. Then we shall understand the forces and energy which causes changes and predict the final result of it. Nowadays science underestimate the transparent aspects of matter like air. In modern language transparency is kind of good visibility, but transparent means invisible. When we learn about Gravity, the air resistance, aerodynamics and aerostatics are underestimated, because they are not influential when small velocity and mass are studied. However we faced serious consequences of transparent matter during space research and exploration. I am not sure who is right about CO2 influence on global warming ( look the percentage of it in air and amount of change which "cause" the warming), but I am sure that man have damaged Earth severely, applying most advanced science and technology to satisfy someones greediness. We must not stick to a theory or solution even when it is full of patches. Better abandon the science and be transparent.
jryan Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) jryan, I have to side with bascule on this point. The best that can be said for the most recent period is that the temp change is not statistically significant. It's pretty much "blah". Having said that, then the question must be asked "Where is all the extra energy trapped by the increasing CO2 going?" It's not warming the atmosphere, it's not warming the oceans and ACE index is heading for record lows. So, where is it? bascule, I think what jryan is getting at is that for most of the 30 year period, the PDO was in positive phase. This would mean that even without CO2 the temp trend would be positive. In that respect, the period from 1970-2000 could be viewed as "cherry picking". Just as only looking at the 1940-1970 cooling while the PDO was negative could be. The chosen period already had a warming trend from natural causes. Seriously, the warming/cooling/warming trends track rather nicely to a PDO superimposed on an underlying warming trend since the LIA. So three questions; 1. What was the forcing that exited the planet from the LIA? 2. How do you kow it isn't still there? 3. If it isn't still there, is the planet still adjusting to it anyway? (Lag) To explain 3. If the TSI rose by say 2.6 w/m2 in 1870, how long would it take the planet to reach the new equilibrium point? 50 years? 100 years? Any ideas? Note that these aren't "debating questions", they're questions I don't know the answers to. I hope someone else might have some ideas. Thanks, sometimes when you are in the middle of a debate it's easy to lose sight of different ways of stating the point to move the discussion along. I hope you have better luck getting the idea across. As for the point of stasis and or statistical insignificance in the last 10 years, sure, why not. That portion of my discussion is really not worth debating as it was merely a demonstration of the problems of short time slices. My point was not to make a definitive established trend over 10 years, but simply to show that the final 10 years do not follow the trend of the first 20. Also the divergence of the last 10 years appear to be the end of the 30 year warming PDO that dominate that time slice, and an end of the full 60 year PDO cycle. Another way to put it is it makes no sense to show a 30 year time slice of global climate when we know that global climate has a very real 60 year oscillation influenced by the PDO. If anything, a 60 year time silce at minimum is necessary to weed out any PDO signal. Edited July 14, 2009 by jryan
iNow Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Another way to put it is it makes no sense to show a 30 year time slice of global climate when we know that global climate has a very real 60 year oscillation influenced by the PDO. If anything, a 60 year time silce at minimum is necessary to weed out any PDO signal. Super. Again, where is the problem, exactly? SOURCE Raw Data In case you wish to view two cycles instead of one: Still not enough to see these "cycles?" Let's go back even further: As bascule noted... At some point, you're no longer a skeptic, but anti-science. Edited July 14, 2009 by iNow
jryan Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 Good, we're making progress. We are no longer looking at the 30 year graph. We have now moved into graphs depicting a glacial and interglacial cycle, which is, again, focusing on the interglacial warming rather than the full cycle. But the time slice has been increased by a factor of 10, so that is a step in the right direction.
insane_alien Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Good, we're making progress. We are no longer looking at the 30 year graph. We have now moved into graphs depicting a glacial and interglacial cycle, which is, again, focusing on the interglacial warming rather than the full cycle. But the time slice has been increased by a factor of 10, so that is a step in the right direction. do you even read the posts or do you just make up your own version in your head?
jryan Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) This is an interesting graph you have provided, iNow. It appears to have been produced in or around 2000, which is the end of it's listed instrumental record and the beginning of it's projection period. It is interesting in that ever single one of those projected warming trends is wrong when compared to the actual instrumental record of 2000-2009. Edit: Retracted one statement on time scale Edited July 14, 2009 by jryan
iNow Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Saying they are "wrong" is not enough. You need to now clarify a) what precisely was mistaken, and b) what is the magnitude of that mistake. Are we talking about a 0.00001% difference in a projection, or are we talking about 7 orders of magnitude off? Be specific (you know, all scientific like).
jryan Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Saying they are "wrong" is not enough. You need to now clarify a) what precisely was mistaken, and b) what is the magnitude of that mistake. Are we talking about a 0.00001% difference in a projection, or are we talking about 7 orders of magnitude off? Ok.. do you have the source of that graph? I will need the data that went into making it. Obviously it isn't 7 orders of magnitude off as the margins of error are very generous. Also, where is the MWP and LIA in that graph? Edited July 14, 2009 by jryan
iNow Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Ok.. do you have the source of that graph? I will need the data that went into making it. So, you're telling me that you declared the data and graph to be wrong BEFORE you even looked at the data feeding it? That's rather telling, and frankly I have no further desire to continue with you. You: THAT'S WRONG!! Me: Where? You: I don't know. I haven't looked at the source data. Me: The sources were many. http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2694.aspx'>http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2694.aspx http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/ SOURCES: IPCC URL: http://www.vitalgraphics.net/climate2.cfm?pageID=5 Cartographer/Designer: Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal NOTES: The diagram was made for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for purposes of explanation, it has been modified to reflect the most recent projections (using IPCC data, 2007), also the historical temperature level and the proposed temperature threshold were also added in.
jryan Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 So, you're telling me that you declared the data and graph to be wrong BEFORE you even looked at the data feeding it? That's rather telling, and frankly I have no further desire to continue with you. You: THAT'S WRONG!! Me: Where? You: I don't know. I haven't looked at the source data. Me: The sources were many. http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2694.aspx'>http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2694.aspx http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/ SOURCES: IPCC URL: http://www.vitalgraphics.net/climate2.cfm?pageID=5 Cartographer/Designer: Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal NOTES: The diagram was made for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for purposes of explanation, it has been modified to reflect the most recent projections (using IPCC data, 2007), also the historical temperature level and the proposed temperature threshold were also added in. I was discussing the graph which you felt was sufficient to be "scientific", I commented on it in the spirit in which it was presented and you requested hard numbers derived from the graph. You: You're wrong, here's a graph Me: That graph looks wrong. You: Don't comment on the graph comment on the numbers! Me: Ok, where are the underlying numbers You *Provides links to more graphs* Me:
iNow Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 That's super. Now, answer the damn question. Saying they are "wrong" is not enough. You need to now clarify a) what precisely was mistaken, and b) what is the magnitude of that mistake. Are we talking about a 0.00001% difference in a projection, or are we talking about 7 orders of magnitude off? Be specific.
iNow Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Okay... Whatever. Now... jryan claimed my image was wrong (note... and also edited his post AFTER my response in post #92). He has yet to demonstrate where, why, and by how much my image is wrong, or even whether or not it is wrong at all. We're still waiting.
bascule Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 So, you're telling me that you declared the data and graph to be wrong BEFORE you even looked at the data feeding it? That's rather telling, and frankly I have no further desire to continue with you. For what it's worth your experience with jryan is much like my own. I think insane_alien put it best: do you even read the posts or do you just make up your own version in your head? jryan doesn't seem to be here for discussion. I asked him to defend a single statement he made an absurd number of times and he just ignored me. From what I can tell he's just here to spread FUD and propaganda, and baselessly claim various aspects of the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change are wrong. I'd say we've entered "Do Not Feed the Trolls" territory. I don't think you're going to get any worthwhile information out of jryan.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now