My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Grains]

I suggest you do some research before posting again and supply references in support of your postions so as not to look ignorant when your assertions are proven false or misrepresentative. Let's say this was just me being altruistic and trying to help you avoid that outcome.

Are you reading my post.....where have I been wrong?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Grains

Are you reading my post.....where have I been wrong?

Lessee here:

Originally Posted by Grains

The black line represents the trend line and the green line represents resistance.

Originally Posted by Grains

my graph does not indicate and increasing trend it indicates quite the opposite....it broke support (actually I would like to correct myself it was late last night i should have written support as opposed to resistance) which highly indicates a downward trend is upon us.

Originally Posted by Grains

I guess I differ because I try to concentrate on what I believe are real environmental issues that I believe could hurt our future...The problem to me is that real environmental issues get ignored because of the theory of global warming...which I believe is false.

Originally Posted by Grains

i haven't arbitrarily chosen start and end dates for this particular graph...

Originally Posted by Grains

You don't necesarrily need raw data for trendlines...

I am pretty sure I found something where you've been wrong in every post you've made. Fancy that.

Originally Posted by Grains

I only demonstrated from the original chart I posted...I haven't brought new charts into the picture but yes one could cherry pick his start and end points but it does not mean that it is not in a down or up trend....for whatever time period one chooses the trend still remains true for that time period..

Sure, you can show a trend anywhere. That doesn't negate the fact that you are arbitrarily choosing your time period to show the outcome you want. Like I said, 1998 was one of the warmest years on record, so saying that there has been a slight negative trend since then hardly indicates that the overall upward trend which we've been experiencing for centuries as a result of human activity is false or won't continue.

[InfiniteNow]

At this point, I'm pretty sure you're a troll or a common denialist, and I'm not inclinded to waste a whole lot more of my time with you.

[Grains]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Lessee here:












I am pretty sure I found something where you've been wrong in every post you've made. Fancy that.






Sure, you can show a trend anywhere. That doesn't negate the fact that you are arbitrarily choosing your time period to show the outcome you want. Like I said, 1998 was one of the warmest years on record, so saying that there has been a slight negative trend since then hardly indicates that the overall upward trend which we've been experiencing for centuries as a result of human activity is false or won't continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grains
The black line represents the trend line and the green line represents resistance.

The only thing wrong with this was I said resistance instead of support which I already corrected myself on the next post on. Minor typo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grains
my graph does not indicate and increasing trend it indicates quite the opposite....it broke support (actually I would like to correct myself it was late last night i should have written support as opposed to resistance) which highly indicates a downward trend is upon us.

nothing wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grains
I guess I differ because I try to concentrate on what I believe are real environmental issues that I believe could hurt our future...The problem to me is that real environmental issues get ignored because of the theory of global warming...which I believe is false.

nothing wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grains
i haven't arbitrarily chosen start and end dates for this particular graph

I have not chosen start and end points for this particular graph.
...the graph already set them for me...1988-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grains
You don't necesarrily need raw data for trendlines...

you don't...trendlines dont test the correctness of the data

I listed a lot of other comments in some of my most latest post that need response from you and you didn't touch one of them.. instead you go back and come up with this trying to not answer them...whats up with that?????

You were wrong on my trendlines being wrong.....end of story....they can't be wrong

[InfiniteNow]

A trendline can't be wrong, eh?

Awesome. Then the trendline I added to your graph below is also correct.

You're blatantly missing my point, and continuing this trendline thing unecessarily.

What benefit to our knowledge of the human impact on global climate does choosing a start date of 1998 provide?

[Grains]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

A trendline can't be wrong, eh?

Awesome. Then the trendline I added to your graph below is also correct.

Attachment 2380

You're blatantly missing my point, and continuing this trendline thing unecessarily.

What benefit to our knowledge of the human impact on global climate does choosing a start date of 1998 provide?

Well....I had a feeling you were going to post something like that.... the definition of a trend line connects 2 or more points in a similar direction....you have simply drawn a line through the chart...this is not a trend line....it is simply a line...but i do like how your line is indicating a downward movement so we are on the right track...

Also I had to continue the trendline discussion because it was the thesis my first comment which got us into discussion so it was a pretty important point.

My trendline that starts from 1998 simply shows that their has been a decrease in temperature trend and that it has broken support. It is just one tool I am using to base my assumption that temperatures are going to continue to decline on average for the next I would say....10 years. This graph shows a very recent pool of data so we can see how temperatures have been reacting in short term.

My recent graph that I posted that goes back 600 million years also indicates a decrease in temperature and after looking at more of a short term chart and seeing it fail recent support I do not see it making in major breakaway anytime soon and on a long term chart we will see no major changes for a long while.

Other than charting I agree with Mr. Easterbrook...
Global Warming Hoax: Content / No Consensus / Manuscript by Don J. Easterbrook, PHD

We need to be more focused on water pollution, resource depletion, toxins, farming, conservation, etc. Lets get to the real issues...

This Global cooling...i mean global warming....i mean global lukewarm has been distracting us for to long....

[modest]

10 year global temperatures with error bars and logarithmic trend line. Data (including uncertainty for error bars) is from link INow gave. The excel file with the data and chart are attached below.



~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Thank you, Modest. I appreciate your showing everyone clearly my point. I suppose my socratic method sometimes fails.

Originally Posted by Grains

My recent graph that I posted that goes back 600 million years also indicates a decrease in temperature and after looking at more of a short term chart and seeing it fail recent support I do not see it making in major breakaway anytime soon and on a long term chart we will see no major changes for a long while.

And during how many of those 600 million years were humans digging carbon deposits out of the ground and burning them, hence releasing them back into the atmosphere? If you actually answer this question, I'd like you to also show the concentrations.




However, seeing as you're a mere "obfuscator" or "GW troll," aka "denialist," I'll follow Modest's lead and show the data myself:

Global Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions - Graphics

Let's go back a little bit further though, shall we?

Historical trends in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Grains

This Global cooling...i mean global warming....i mean global lukewarm has been distracting us for to long....

You're clearly more interested in lies than science. I agree that there are other things we need to improve upon, other things we need to fix, but not at the expense of lying to everyone about climate change or misrepresenting its importance.

[Moontanman]

I have some problems with global warming but mine have nothing to do with whether or not human activity is contributing to global worming. I think that it's pretty obvious that human activity has contributed to global warming or at least sped it up significantly.

My problem lies with the assumption that a cooler earth is the natural set point for the earth. I think the earth is recovering from several recent (past several tens of millions of years) glacial events brought about by reasons we can only speculate about. Over the past 250 million years there is reason the think that during much if not all of this time the earth was much warmer than it is now. Near the end of the Cretaceous period the earth had no ice caps and the poles held a thriving sub tropical ecosystem.

I think the over all trend for the earth since the last series of ice ages has been naturally warmer. Now we have to ask has man sped this up by his activities? I would have to say yes. Is this a bad thing? Depends on your point of view. For human civilization it will be a test of our staying power to say the least. Is it a bad thing for all other creatures on the Earth? I would have to say yes for all the animals and plants that have adapted to the cold of the past tens of million of years it will mean doom but as we have seen the earth was populated when it was warm and will be again.

Life adapts, it is incredibly arrogant of us to think we can or even need to "save" the animals that have adapted to the current conditions over the animals that will come to be when the current conditions change.

Now, should we maintain the current temps to save our selves? I would have to say yes. To what ever extent we can I say lets try to stabilize the planets temps but I seriously doubt we will be able to do that. If we could magically bring CO2 levels back to where they were before humans had a significant impact we could possibly start a new ice age.

Personally I think we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. The best we can do is minimalize our impact and see where the trend naturally goes and if we have to modify our actions we should do so but I wouldn't want to say we are saving the planet. This would imply a hubris I don't think we need to have.

[modest]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Thank you, Modest. I appreciate your showing everyone clearly my point.

No prob. Pictures don't lie. Or, is it data that doesn't lie?... I guess it doesn't matter - we got them both

I'd also add that even if temps dropped over the next five or ten years, we'd still have a longterm increasing trend. As far as a trend is concerned, the next decade isn't as important as the last five. Which brings up - why would a person put a trend on the last ten years of data when we have good data on the last 100? Odd. Especially considering the trend slants less than the error bars - that's not a good sign for representing the trend.

~modest