Jindal is an idiot

[mneilmont]

Yes, that is an interesting position. It is not applicable to the discussion at hand but it is not applicable to the discussion at hand.

There HAS been warming over the last 18 years!!

Do you know where the 18 years comes from? That's is a rather arbitrary number, isn't it? Why not 15 years or 20 years? You know, increments in time that are more commonly used?

The reason is that people can point to the temperature EXACTLY 18 years ago, an El Nino year and say "well, the temperature was __ that year, and it's ___ now, therefore no warming" However, the temperature that year was unusually high, it was an outlier, so it is intellectually dishonest to pick that specific year as a basis of comparison.

If, instead, you actually look at the trend lines, you'll see that the temperature is still increasing. 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last decade. 2014 was the hottest on record, and 2015 is on pace to pass that.

If temperatures were increasing, you would expect to see more record highs recorded and less record lows recorded ... and that's exactly what we are seeing.

There HAS been warming over the last 18 years!!

Do you know where the 18 years comes from? That's is a rather arbitrary number, isn't it? Why not 15 years or 20 years? You know, increments in time that are more commonly used?

The reason is that people can point to the temperature EXACTLY 18 years ago, an El Nino year and say "well, the temperature was __ that year, and it's ___ now, therefore no warming" However, the temperature that year was unusually high, it was an outlier, so it is intellectually dishonest to pick that specific year as a basis of comparison.

If, instead, you actually look at the trend lines, you'll see that the temperature is still increasing. 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last decade. 2014 was the hottest on record, and 2015 is on pace to pass that.

If temperatures were increasing, you would expect to see more record highs recorded and less record lows recorded ... and that's exactly what we are seeing.

I am not equipped to debate specifics. I was borrowing the 18 year scenario from Tri-state. You may discuss that with him.

You now want to be specific with 18th year, and it was never offered as a point of discussion. WVPATX offered the span of time that included 18, but until now, a specific year has not been suggested. Why do you want to raise that point? Could that be something that fits your commentary? Why would you attempt to obfuscate and do a comparative of a specific time when it has never been the intent?

Enough said and I will not chase rabbits with you going in all directions.

 

[TarHeelEer]

The reason is that people can point to the temperature EXACTLY 18 years ago, an El Nino year and say "well, the temperature was __ that year, and it's ___ now, therefore no warming" However, the temperature that year was unusually high, it was an outlier, so it is intellectually dishonest to pick that specific year as a basis of comparison.

So when they say this year is the warmest ever on record, it would be intellectually dishonest because it's an El Nino year?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

 

[TarHeelEer]

What exactly are you trying to show?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I am not equipped to debate specifics. I was borrowing the 18 year scenario from Tri-state. You may discuss that with him.

I have discussed it ad infinitum with TriState, even providing links to data from reliable sources (multiple sources) and he still continues on with the same broken record statements. It's why I have him on ignore, because it doesn't matter how many times he is shown something, he refuses to accept it and continues on with the same statements that have already been shown to be false over and over again.

I would suggest you not borrow specifics from Tri-State. He is the most intellectually dishonest person on this board and the best example of the cowardice that I mentioned before. Which is saying a lot for this board.

until now, a specific year has not been suggested. Why do you want to raise that point? Could that be something that fits your commentary?

The 18 year doesn't fit my commentary, it fits his (although not really), which is why he sticks to that specific timeframe. The specific year HAS been suggested, like I said, which is why 18 is chosen and not 10, 15, 20 years, etc.

Why would you attempt to obfuscate and do a comparative of a specific time when it has never been the intent?

How was that not the EXACT intent? You specifically asked about water rising .13 over 18 years, and how could that be if there was no warming. I'm not obfuscating anything. Obfuscation is precisely the intent of anybody using the 18 years statement.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

So when they say this year is the warmest ever on record, it would be intellectually dishonest because it's an El Nino year?

No, it's not intellectually dishonest, because it's fact.

Picking a specific timeframe, on purpose, to speak about an overall trend IS intellectually dishonest.

It's like having a fever in January, then having another October, comparing those and coming to the conclusion that your temperature is exactly the same in October as it was in January ... therefore you must not have a fever at all.

 

[ThatNehlenFeelin]

The end is near

 

[Popeer]

"The hottest year on record" might actually mean something if the records went back more than 125 years.

 

[mneilmont]

No, it's not intellectually dishonest, because it's fact.

Picking a specific timeframe, on purpose, to speak about an overall trend IS intellectually dishonest.

It's like having a fever in January, then having another October, comparing those and coming to the conclusion that your temperature is exactly the same in October as it was in January ... therefore you must not have a fever at all.

May I refer you to a mirror? How many times must you refer to the 18th year as a period of reference? I think 18 was used in a period of time - not the exact 18th year.

My reference was to .13 inch that allegedly the sea-level rose "last year". Now, you are suggesting that I was objecting to a period of 18 years. No. What I disagreed with was the .13 inch rise being over one year, and that was referred to as "last year". That was the statement earlier in this thread.

If that is not obfuscation, it is as confusing as hell. Or ,did I misread the offering?

 

[mneilmont]

That's the whole point. Climate change is based on evidence and data; an overwhelming amount of evidence and data. So, if the sea level rose 0.13 inch last year, what caused it if global warming is not occurring?

Nope, it was from an actual quote.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

May I refer you to a mirror? How many times must you refer to the 18th year as a period of reference? I think 18 was used in a period of time - not the exact 18th year.

My reference was to .13 inch that allegedly the sea-level rose "last year". Now, you are suggesting that I was objecting to a period of 18 years. No. What I disagreed with was the .13 inch rise being over one year, and that was referred to as "last year". That was the statement earlier in this thread.

If that is not obfuscation, it is as confusing as hell. Or ,did I misread the offering?

I will try one more time.

Let's put it this way ... WHY would tristate pick a period of time of 18 years? Why not 5? Why not 10? Why not 15? Why not 20?

The reason is because that specific year, 18 years ago, is the most important to his argument. By looking at an abnormally high temperature year 18 years ago, and then looking at this year or last year, you can look at only the temperature 18 years ago and the temperatures now and claim that there is no warming or very little.

It implies that the trend line over that time frame is horizontal, but it isn't.

Look at the graph that CountryRoads supplied. And look 18 years ago, 1997, and you see that big spike. It is because of that spike that tristate makes his claim. The claim doesn't work for a 17 year period or even a 19 year period. It HAS to be 18 for his point.

It is two things. One, it is cherry picking data, and two, drawing an incorrect conclusion based on that cherry picked data because it ignores everything before that time 18 years ago and everything that the data trend would indicate in the years since then.

May I ask what the proper response is to your inquiry as to why sea level rose .13 inch last year if there has been no warming over the past 18 years??? Your settled science of 97 % of scientist say global warming is what gives rise to sea level. How much did the sea rise the year before last when we only had 17 years without warming? What will be the projected rise this year. Is there scientific proof that there is something particular about 18 years?

That is the exact statement from earlier in the thread. You said "if there has been no warming over the past 18 years" and then "is something particular about 18 years".

That is what I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to explain. There IS something particular about 18 years, and I've explained what that is. And also that it's untrue that there has been no warming over the past 18 years.

Again, I'll point to CountryRoads' graph. That is very clearly an upwards trend. In natural systems you can can expect scatter around the trend line, and you have to examine the trend, instead of picking something that deviates strongly from the trend line and using that as a point of comparison.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Again, I'll point to CountryRoads' graph.

Overall it's been warming since the Little Ice Age. Everyone knows that. There has been a flattening of the rate of increase for the last 18 years, when the IPCC said it should continue to warm at the same velocity. The longterm trend is warming, the shortterm trend is flat. It's not difficult to understand, and everyone does.

The difficult part for a lot of people to digest, is that science thinks man is the major cause of it, based on nothing but predictive models, when said models aren't any more accurate than the data you put into them... and we only have about 40-50 years of good data about temperatures (which has been modified by NASA). The rest has been summarized from tree rings and the like, which is not the same at all for predictive modelling. At all.

 

[dave]

I think there are a couple of posters that it isn't worth trying to debate any more (for me) because they just don't like facts; it's like arguing with a 4-year-old. Their response is typically "nuh uh" or "cause" or "you're a fuktard". They can't follow simple logic and can't comprehend what they read. If they read something, regardless of the source and it says what they want it to say, it becomes gospel. PATX is one of those.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[WVPATX]

Overall it's been warming since the Little Ice Age. Everyone knows that. There has been a flattening of the rate of increase for the last 18 years, when the IPCC said it should continue to warm at the same velocity. The longterm trend is warming, the shortterm trend is flat. It's not difficult to understand, and everyone does.

The difficult part for a lot of people to digest, is that science thinks man is the major cause of it, based on nothing but predictive models, when said models aren't any more accurate than the data you put into them... and we only have about 40-50 years of good data about temperatures (which has been modified by NASA). The rest has been summarized from tree rings and the like, which is not the same at all for predictive modelling. At all.

Whitetail blames me for not listening to others opinions when in fact he is the one who is dogmatic. It is no secret and the scientific community has agreed that there has been a stop in warming. Warmists call it a pause. They cannot explain it but they have several theories. All the models called for increasing warming. I noticed whitetail did not respond to the German scientists who came out with a paper recently that said that any warming we have had is within the normal range. Again, he does not want to listen to facts that contradict his Point of view. I have acknowledged warming has occurred. However I have also stated that I have no idea the degree to Which man is responsible.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

The difficult part for a lot of people to digest, is that science thinks man is the major cause of it, based on nothing but predictive models, when said models aren't any more accurate than the data you put into them... and we only have about 40-50 years of good data about temperatures (which has been modified by NASA). The rest has been summarized from tree rings and the like, which is not the same at all for predictive modelling. At all.

I can't disagree with much of that. I have to say though, what I truly appreciate about your statement is that you are starting with accepting the facts, and then starting the conversation based on those facts and what it means. Or doesn't mean. You cannot have an honest discussion about anything if people aren't willing to accept the facts up front. When many many credible sources are saying something and somebody simply attacks them as not being credible sources, there is no hope of having an honest discussion.

"science thinks man is the MAJOR cause of it" ... There is some nuance here that's important. Clearly there are natural cycles otherwise there wouldn't have been dinosaurs followed by an ice age. When they talk about man being a MAJOR cause of it, they aren't talking about warming in general, they are talking about warming happening faster than it would have with the natural cycle.

I will disagree with the statement "based on nothing but predictive models". That's not accurate. You have to have historical data to develop the predictive models. They have data going back thousands of years from things like air pockets trapped inside glaciers, the rings on the trees as you mentioned, and other things. From this historical data they were able to determine a correlation between our industrialization and CO2 levels in the atmosphere spiking WAY above anything seen historically, which then correlates with an increase in the warming trend.

I've gone on multiple times before about simulation models, I won't do that again, but actually if you take all the models in aggregate, they actually do predict what we are seeing now fairly accurately. As more and more data is collected the model iterations will improve. We will look at the predictive model and say "how well did we predict 2014? How much were we off? Why were we off?" and then improve the model. However, there are too many variables to get it 100% correct. Maybe we will someday, but that's going to be decades off. So, the question is, how far off are the models? Are they so far off as to be deemed totally useless? I'd say no.

You're right. In the overall context, we have very little data. Historically we have to find data points by other means, and perhaps it's possible that somebody will discover that those means are in error in some way. If they do, the data will be adjusted and we'll continue on.