2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

[UncleBuck]

Seems like this was done to hide the hiatus in warming.

there you go again with your retarded, denier talking points.

there has been no hiatus.

we just got done with the hottest two decades on record, and the last few years have all been the hottest on record.

so for you to proclaim this fox news talking point about a hiatus just displays that you are a denier to anyone who is familiar with basic data.

 

[Fogdog]

there you go again with your retarded, denier talking points.

there has been no hiatus.

we just got done with the hottest two decades on record, and the last few years have all been the hottest on record.

so for you to proclaim this fox news talking point about a hiatus just displays that you are a denier to anyone who is familiar with basic data.

The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

Look at that shit, there's been 5 hiatus' since the 1970s!

 

[NLXSK1]

Look at that shit, there's been 5 hiatus' since the 1970s!

Both are wrong. 4 years of data is missing from the end of the graph and warming is slowing or stopping near the top edge of that graph.

Of course if you want to just connect 2 random data points from 1970 to today you can get whatever you want out of that graph.

 

[OddBall1st]

Global surface temperature scientists: Bring water to thermometer.

Idiot denial people: Put thermometer in water...



Case approved for appeal: Scientists want to take temperatures at different depths.

Result of appeal: Bring fishing weights.


.................................ellipses.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Both are wrong. 4 years of data is missing from the end of the graph and warming is slowing or stopping near the top edge of that graph.

Of course if you want to just connect 2 random data points from 1970 to today you can get whatever you want out of that graph.

136 years of data "isn't enough evidence" to conclude the climate is warming, but 4 years is enough to conclude that the climate is cooling

OK buddy

 

[UncleBuck]

warming is slowing or stopping

that must be why we just had the hottest two years on record.

 

[NLXSK1]

136 years of data "isn't enough evidence" to conclude the climate is warming, but 4 years is enough to conclude that the climate is cooling

OK buddy

I am not allowed to point out the graph is not current? And the argument is that the climate has been cooling for the last 10-15 years so yes, the last 4 years might be an issue as it is up to 40% of the timeline discussed.

Of course the graph starts in the 70's at the bottom of a cooling trend so you get a much better angle than if you went back say 100+ years instead of 40.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I am not allowed to point out the graph is not current? And the argument is that the climate has been cooling for the last 10-15 years so yes, the last 4 years might be an issue as it is up to 40% of the timeline discussed.

Of course the graph starts in the 70's at the bottom of a cooling trend so you get a much better angle than if you went back say 100+ years instead of 40.

"hiatus"

 

[UncleBuck]

the climate has been cooling for the last 10-15 years

no wonder rolli calls you a retard.

Of course the graph starts in the 70's at the bottom of a cooling trend so you get a much better angle than if you went back say 100+ years instead of 40.

better, princess?

 

[NLXSK1]

Thanks for proving my point... anything before 1970 would flatten the line.

Take a straight line and put it from today to 1970. Then move it backwards in time.... Pretty simple geometry here...

 

[UncleBuck]

Thanks for proving my point... anything before 1970 would flatten the line.

Take a straight line and put it from today to 1970. Then move it backwards in time.... Pretty simple geometry here...

was your point that it still shows rapid warming?

learn to use ellipses you fucking retard.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Thanks for proving my point... anything before 1970 would flatten the line.

Does that line look flat to you?

 

[NLXSK1]

Does that line look flat to you?

I said it would 'FLATTEN' the line. Go back and look it up. Draw a line from the bottom of the graph at 1970 to 2000 and you are looking at something close to 45 degrees. Your line is 20-30 degrees. The point is that the typical graph to prove we all are going to die is drawn from the most advantageous point in 1970 to the present to make it as scary as possible. Do I need to cut and paste the graph with a line from 1970 to today to show you the incline or will you simply admit by looking at the graph that I am right?

 

[OddBall1st]

I said it would 'FLATTEN' the line. Go back and look it up. Draw a line from the bottom of the graph at 1970 to 2000 and you are looking at something close to 45 degrees. Your line is 20-30 degrees. The point is that the typical graph to prove we all are going to die is drawn from the most advantageous point in 1970 to the present to make it as scary as possible. Do I need to cut and paste the graph with a line from 1970 to today to show you the incline or will you simply admit by looking at the graph that I am right?

Yea ya gonna have to draw that there line,...Puff, puff, cough ....choke,.....ellipses.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I said it would 'FLATTEN' the line. Go back and look it up. Draw a line from the bottom of the graph at 1970 to 2000 and you are looking at something close to 45 degrees. Your line is 20-30 degrees. The point is that the typical graph to prove we all are going to die is drawn from the most advantageous point in 1970 to the present to make it as scary as possible. Do I need to cut and paste the graph with a line from 1970 to today to show you the incline or will you simply admit by looking at the graph that I am right?

Buck and I just posted two separate graphs beginning at 1880 and the line clearly ascends confirming warming. Fogdog's graph was to highlight how deniers point to cherry picked sets of data and go "see, hiatus!", not to make the reality look more dire than it actually is

 

[NLXSK1]

Buck and I just posted two separate graphs beginning at 1880 and the line clearly ascends confirming warming. Fogdog's graph was to highlight how deniers point to cherry picked sets of data and go "see, hiatus!", not to make the reality look more dire than it actually is

My point was that the graph is commonly drawn from the 1970 timeline because it creates the steepest angle and the fastest rise in temperature. Buck is on ignore so I dont see shit of what he posts. Not worth reading any of it anyway.

You posted a graph from the 1880's and then put a line on it. Great, we agree that there is now a line showing warming. Now, if you draw a line from 1970 to present it will show faster warming. My point again was that propaganda is commonly used to exaggerate data to achieve whatever results you want.

Carry on with your ideology!!

 

[Bugeye]

The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

I see a step function where the last step is unexpectedly shorter in height and longer in duration than those preceding it at a time of peak modern day CO2 levels. Why wouldn't that be worth questioning?

But go ahead and educate me on the settled science explanation for this. I'm all ears.

 

[Padawanbater2]

My point was that the graph is commonly drawn from the 1970 timeline because it creates the steepest angle and the fastest rise in temperature. Buck is on ignore so I dont see shit of what he posts. Not worth reading any of it anyway.

You posted a graph from the 1880's and then put a line on it. Great, we agree that there is now a line showing warming. Now, if you draw a line from 1970 to present it will show faster warming. My point again was that propaganda is commonly used to exaggerate data to achieve whatever results you want.

Carry on with your ideology!!

So your argument against my claim that there is no "hiatus" in warming if you observe the entire history of collected data is "well some people only show the rise in temperature from the 1970s to make it look worse than it is!"...

...

How does that address my claim?

There is no known force on Earth that can raise the temperature at this rate except CO2

Humanity has been introducing exponentially more CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began

The rate of the rise in global average temperature directly coincides with the added CO2 introduced by humanity

There is no denying this, this is what they mean when they say "the science is settled". The question of if we are affecting the climate and by how much is not debatable

 

[Padawanbater2]

I see a step function where the last step is unexpectedly shorter in height and longer in duration than those preceding it at a time of peak modern day CO2 levels. Why wouldn't that be worth questioning?

But go ahead and educate me on the settled science explanation for this. I'm all ears.

Why is ~15 years of data enough to conclude cooling, but 136 years of data not enough to conclude warming?