Australian Politics Forum - 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19963
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #60 - May 17^th, 2016 at 8:13pm

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 '

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

'the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)'

You, sir, are guilty as charged.

So you can't tell the difference between 1997 and 1998? What a doofus.

What happened to critical thinking? You can't even quote from your sources the relevant pieces.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #61 - May 17^th, 2016 at 8:33pm

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

You are being facetious. You know very well that the cherrypick is the START date. 1998 ... 1998 ... any time you see 1998 or 1997 mentioned, you KNOW that's a cherrypick.

Nope that's just the lie Big Green spreads. Why else would it go all the way out to current data?

Irrelevant. The cherrypicking by the deniers starts specifically at 1997 or 1998 without any explanation offered for why this start date was selected. It's easy - the deniers are hiding the truth. I notice that you have repeatedly refused to address the start date of the cherrypicking. Why? Too hard for you?

And it's not even you. It's Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers (among others) who are financing this denialism, along with a few opaque "foundations" that only exist as conduits to launder money. A lot of the crap that is being circulated is the same misrepresentation of data, most often involving data sets that mysteriously don't show anything before 1997 or sea level measures that just as mysteriously don't show any sea level measures farther than about 3000 km from the North Pole.

You're not able to think critically about anything that plays to your own biases, which is where you fail. You just copy and paste from elsewhere, and not once ever bother to check that the source data that is cited (which is not even always accurate) even matches what you're pasting. You really need to stop being so gullible and start thinking clearly about all the data and not just those bits that the deniers want to con you with.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

I provided a link in the headline of the post

Nope

Nope ... what? Nope, can't find the link? Nope, not interested? Nope, checked it out and found nothing you liked?

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

... but I did find a link attached to your long term graph. climate reality project. Grin

It even has a link to Bill Nye, the science guy. Except he's not - he;s a mechanical engineer.

I provided links without being asked. How many of these "graphs" and "facts" that YOU reply on have you provided links for? Very few. You have not provided many links yourself. What are you hiding? Provide links, please.

It's a sure sign that you're just blindly copying and pasting when you're quoting data in Fahrenheit. Grin

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 2:24pm:

Just remember: all the data you need to prove them wrong can be found in the blink of an eye on reputable websites like NASA and NOAA.

And that is where I got my data. And now you want to throw it away.

No it's not. Don't lie. You're getting your information from third parties who sanitise it by cherrypicking it or misrepresenting the data to pander to your biases. Why else are you blindly parroting the same cherrypicking crap that others do? So don't lie. I know for a fact you have not got any of this information direct from the source.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

All of the "facts" they post (and that you parrot without any apparent ability at critical thinking) are financed by vested interests (eg: Exxon Mobil, Koch brothers) and laundered money.

That's funny. I use NOAA's "facts", but I don't use critical thinking. Whereas you presumably do use critical thinking but deny the facts.

I am not denying any facts, you are. You demonstrably deny the existence of any climate data for the years before 1996. You have not provided links. You pretend you're getting your information from "NOAA" but won't provide a link to your source. You are hiding something.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #62 - May 17^th, 2016 at 8:37pm

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 '

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

'the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)'

You, sir, are guilty as charged.

So you can't tell the difference between 1997 and 1998? What a doofus.

What happened to critical thinking? You can't even quote from your sources the relevant pieces.

The difference is irrelevant. Some of the denier crap uses 1997 as a starting point, others use 1998. Note though that the form of your argument is VERY similar to the example shown.

Your argument goes like this: "I will cherrypick two completely unrepresentative years from the data set, conceal all the rest of the data, and pretend that the years are actually representative."

If you do this, you are cherrypicking. The exact years are irrelevant. You are guilty of cherrypicking. You cannot refute this.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #63 - May 17^th, 2016 at 8:56pm

juliar wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

Oh Bam,

I hate to contradict but YOU started the Greenie nonsense about how to fudge graphs.

I appreciate your difficulty in doing any valid searches for genuine info as you are used to just quoting the Greenies' propaganda.

And I realise a Google search is rather difficult to do.

The burden of proof fallacy.

YOU made the argument. YOU prove it. You're obviously too lazy to provide the links to prove your own argument. Why should I do it for you?

juliar wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

I prefer to know the TRUTH but the TRUTH never enters a Greenies' mind and is actively avoided.

But now, just to do the very unusual act of injecting TRUTH into the discussion consider:-

Instead, both satellite data and independent balloon data show a near-zero trend from 1979 to 1997, followed by a well-known 1998 temp “spike” which is universally attributed to a Super-El- Niño.

It’s also worth remembering that about half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred prior to the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels. Also consider that, even today, about 97% of all current atmospheric CO2 derives from natural sources.

Links please.

Oh .. and there was a noticeable warming spike IN the 1940s - right when World War 2 was happening. Coincidence? Or human cause?

juliar wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

For an excellent explanation of the TRUTH about our normal weather behavior have a look at

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warmi...

Weather.

Weather isn't the same thing as climate.

The 1998 cherrypick again. It's not even correct - most of the warmest years on record have been the last 10. 1998 is an exception; it was an outlier because it was a very intense El Niño year. We're right in the middle of another such year. Each one of the last seven months have been the warmest on record. 2016 will be as much of a standout year as 1998 was, and for the same reason.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

juliar Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 22966	Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election Reply #64 - May 17^th, 2016 at 9:06pm Poor Bammy, they are having a go at you I believe. I admire your persistence in flogging a dead horse.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19963
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #65 - May 17^th, 2016 at 9:07pm

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

The difference is irrelevant. Some of the denier crap uses 1997 as a starting point, others use 1998. Note though that the form of your argument is VERY similar to the example shown.

And obviously you don't know that https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
is the NOAA website. And couldn't be bothered to check it. It is data direct from one your favourite sources.

Bam wrote Today at 2:24pm:
Just remember: all the data you need to prove them wrong can be found in the blink of an eye on reputable websites like NASA and NOAA.

You really are a know nothing, who can't even check NOAA's site for the accuracy of my statement. What a joke.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election Reply #66 - May 17^th, 2016 at 9:11pm juliar wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:06pm: Poor Bammy, they are having a go at you I believe. I admire your persistence in flogging a dead horse. I see that you have conceded. I accept your concession.
Back to top	You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument. IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #67 - May 17^th, 2016 at 9:25pm

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:07pm:

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

The difference is irrelevant. Some of the denier crap uses 1997 as a starting point, others use 1998. Note though that the form of your argument is VERY similar to the example shown.

And obviously you don't know that https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
is the NOAA website. And couldn't be bothered to check it. It is data direct from one your favourite sources.

Bam wrote Today at 2:24pm:
Just remember: all the data you need to prove them wrong can be found in the blink of an eye on reputable websites like NASA and NOAA.

You really are a know nothing, who can't even check NOAA's site for the accuracy of my statement. What a joke.

I have checked it, and I know why you're not providing links to the 2015 report. It totally destroys your argument. Here's a link to the 2015 report.
Global Analysis - Annual 2015 (NOAA)
Quote:

Global Temperatures
The State of the Climate November 2015 report noted that in order for 2015 to not become the warmest year in the 136-year period of record, the December global temperature would have to be at least 0.81°C (1.46°F) below the 20th century average—or 0.24°C (0.43°F) colder than the current record low December temperature of 1916. In fact, December 2015 was the warmest month of any month in the period of record, at 1.11°C (2.00°F) higher than the monthly average, breaking the previous all-time record set just two months ago in October 2015 by 0.12°C (0.21°F). This is the first time in the NOAA record that a monthly temperature departure from average exceeded 1°C or reached 2°F and the second widest margin by which an all-time monthly global temperature record has been broken. (February 1998 broke the previous record of March 1990 by 0.13°C / 0.23°F.)

With the contribution of such record warmth at year's end and with 10 months of the year record warm for their respective months, including the last 8 (January was second warmest for January and April was third warmest), the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), beating the previous record warmth of 2014 by 0.16°C (0.29°F). This is not only the highest calendar year temperature, but also the highest temperature for any 12-month period on record. The global temperatures in 2015 were strongly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that developed during the year.

The 2015 temperature also marks the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken. Prior to this year, the largest margin occurred in 1998, when the annual temperature surpassed the record set in 1997 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). Incidentally, 1997 and 1998 were the last years in which a similarly strong El Niño was occurring. The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both well below the 2015 temperature departure.

This marks the fourth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, and 2014) and also marks the 39th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, including 2015, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century. 1998 is currently tied with 2009 as the sixth warmest year on record.

Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)

The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

Rank 1 = Warmest	Year	Anomaly °C	Anomaly °F
1	2015	0.90	1.62
2	2014	0.74	1.33
3	2010	0.70	1.26
4	2013	0.66	1.19
5	2005	0.65	1.17
6 (tie)	1998	0.63	1.13
6 (tie)	2009	0.63	1.13
8	2012	0.62	1.12
9 (tie)	2003	0.61	1.10
9 (tie)	2006	0.61	1.10
9 (tie)	2007	0.61	1.10
12	2002	0.60	1.08
13 (tie)	2004	0.57	1.03
13 (tie)	2011	0.57	1.03
15 (tie)	2001	0.54	0.97
15 (tie)	2008	0.54	0.97

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19963
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #68 - May 17^th, 2016 at 10:46pm

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:25pm:

I have checked it, and I know why you're not providing links to the 2015 report. It totally destroys your argument. Here's a link to the 2015 report.
Global Analysis - Annual 2015 (NOAA)

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

'The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 '

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

'the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)'

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

1.62°F + 57.0°F = 58.62°F

That makes 2015 3.83°F cooler than 1997. That doesn't seem to be reflected in your graph. Why is that? Is NOAA lying?

Do you mean that link to 2015? The one that said-

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:25pm:

the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F),

Now how about you check the link to 1997, dipshit.

And see if you can come with your own argument, your scripted ones are failing, Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #69 - May 18^th, 2016 at 11:47am

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 10:46pm:

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:25pm:

I have checked it, and I know why you're not providing links to the 2015 report. It totally destroys your argument. Here's a link to the 2015 report.
Global Analysis - Annual 2015 (NOAA)

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

'The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 '

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

'the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)'

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

1.62°F + 57.0°F = 58.62°F

That makes 2015 3.83°F cooler than 1997. That doesn't seem to be reflected in your graph. Why is that? Is NOAA lying?

Do you mean that link to 2015? The one that said-

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:25pm:

the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F),

Now how about you check the link to 1997, dipshit.

Personal abuse is not tolerated. REPORTED.

The link for 1997 is not needed because it is out of date and is not comparing like with like. The 2015 report has a table of the 16 warmest years. 1997 did not even make the list though 1998 did.

The table alone is sufficient refutation. Why do you ignore that? I have posted a lengthy excerpt from the 2015 report explaining how that year broke numerous temperature records. Why do you ignore that? You're ignoring all of this because that evidence utterly refutes your claims. Why wasn't 1997 in the table of 16 warmest years?

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 10:46pm:

And see if you can come with your own argument, your scripted ones are failing, Wink

What scripted ones? Like the ones you're so obviously using? Roll Eyes

No, I don't do scripted. I just deal with facts.

It's useless discussing this with you because you are determined to remain wilfully ignorant of anything that refutes your viewpoint. That's the problem with you conservative types - your thought processes are irretrievably ossified and unable to assimilate new information.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

juliar

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 22966

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #70 - May 18^th, 2016 at 12:02pm

Poor old totally debunked numerous times Bammy is STILL banging his cranium against the 1998 El Nino temperature spike.

Masochism ?

What a waste of time cause all poor old Bammy is doing is totally convincing just about every normal straight person that he is simply talking GREENIE BULLDUST!!!

And here is Bammy's hero sneering and leering in front of slashed and bashed forest, what a Greenie hypocrite!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19963
Gender: male

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #71 - May 18^th, 2016 at 1:47pm

Bam wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

Personal abuse is not tolerated. REPORTED.

Than you for that. Let me know how you get on. Wink

I am sorry for calling you a dipshit, I was tired. Perhaps I should have said mental midget.

Bam wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

The link for 1997 is not needed because it is out of date and is not comparing like with like.

The 1997 report show what NOAA said the Global Average Temperature was in...1997.

And you say you can't compare it to the Global Average Temperature of 2015, but you can compare it to all those others you listed? You are truly delusional.

Bam wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

The table alone is sufficient refutation.

So you ignore NOAA's own data again, after previously posting "Just remember: all the data you need to prove them wrong can be found in the blink of an eye on reputable websites like NASA and NOAA. "

So now NOAA's 1997 data is not reputable? Grin

Bam wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

What scripted ones?

Bam wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

2. Cherry-Picking Facts

This is an especially tough one to crack because climate deniers often cite factual statistics. And factual statistics are factual statistics, right? Except when the statistics are taken out of context or missing pertinent information, making it hard to have an informed rebuttal ready.

Let’s take this statistic that’s often cited out of context: “The global mean temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit in 1998 (14.6 degrees Celsius) according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 2012, it was 58.2 degrees (14.56 Celsius).”

The obvious conclusion here is that global warming stalled or even stopped during this period. And if you look at changing temperatures in just these 14 years, it does look like they rose at a slower rate than they did over the longer period from 1951—2012.

You made that up yourself? I am truly impressed.

Bam wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

Like the ones you're so obviously using?

I merely posted data from NOAA's own website, how is that scripted?

Back to top

IP Logged

juliar

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 22966

Re: 400 PPM Co2 Heats Up Election
Reply #72 - May 19^th, 2016 at 8:00am

Geez, I have injected a new word "cherry picking" into the Lefties and Greenies very limited vocabulary and they are becoming addicted to using and misusing it. A bit like my "smell the Greenies fear" which spread like wildfire amongst the inarticulate Lefties and Greenies.

Just goes to show the power of real education that has not been sabotaged by the Greenies replacing essential subjects like maths and English with totally useless Greenie propaganda.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 19^th, 2016 at 9:49am by juliar »

IP Logged