My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Zythryn]

This just in!
Yesterday from 7pm to 4am the temperature dropped many degrees!! Watch out, an ice age is upon us!
Grains, just because the average global temperature dropped below the running average over a year or a few years even means little in and of itself.
As was already said by many, look at long term trends.
I do applaud you for making falsifiable predictions about the next number of years. I suspect you are wrong with the possible exception of this year. But that is at least a claim which can be tested.

The basics is this,

A. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs heat (long wavelength energy).
B. Mankind is pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the earth's natural systems can absorb, leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.
C. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat.

That is really the basic foundation. The climate is incredibly complicated and many things affect it, of which the 'greenhouse' gases are only one.
If you disagree with any of the above issue, please let us know which one. Otherwise if you agree with each, it appears you agree mankind is contributing to GW.

[Grains]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

This just in!
Yesterday from 7pm to 4am the temperature dropped many degrees!! Watch out, an ice age is upon us!
Grains, just because the average global temperature dropped below the running average over a year or a few years even means little in and of itself.
As was already said by many, look at long term trends.
I do applaud you for making falsifiable predictions about the next number of years. I suspect you are wrong with the possible exception of this year. But that is at least a claim which can be tested.

The most recent graph I posted was over 600 million years so the fact that you said "Grains, just because the average global temperature dropped below the running average over a year or a few years even means little in and of itself." I am going to assume you were being sarcastic.....i hope....

You said you applaud me for making falsifiable predictions?????? First off a prediction is a prediction and one cannot be false until time has spoken or it can proved wrong....as i have forecasted thie prediction for the future you will not be able to tell me its false until 10 years is up from now because that was my predicition...I have formed the basis of my predictions that temps have been going down for a longgg time. again refer to 600million year graph.

[Zythryn]

Grains, you are fast approaching the level of Troll.
The few years I was mentioning refers to the last couple of years in your first 10 year graph which you seem to think scew the entire trend into a downward trend even though if you actually plot it, it is still a positive trend.
Second, I didn't say it was falsifiable NOW, I said it was falsifiable. As you stated, it will take time to test it. Since you made predictions for the next 10 years, it will be tested by that very passage of time.

[Grains]

Originally Posted by 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

i cant see this chart to well but I think the blue line is the logarithmic trendline correct? which is trending down correct?

[Grains]

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

whatever....i have seen that you do like to name call when someone opposes your position...childish

Global Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions - Graphics

They used estimations...

[quote]
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

Attachment 2382

[QUOTE]
not that long of a time period...i see you are enjoying the cherry picking now

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.

Just because someone opposes your opinion does not make it lies...

[Grains]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Grains, you are fast approaching the level of Troll.
The few years I was mentioning refers to the last couple of years in your first 10 year graph which you seem to think scew the entire trend into a downward trend even though if you actually plot it, it is still a positive trend.
Second, I didn't say it was falsifiable NOW, I said it was falsifiable. As you stated, it will take time to test it. Since you made predictions for the next 10 years, it will be tested by that very passage of time.

I don't understand how you can be called a Troll for having an opposing opinion from the norm. The first graph I posted is in a downward trend....no matter how i look at it or how i plot it it is in a downward...

in response to the falsifiable I am sorry if I interpreted your meaning wrong. Thats the problem with internet writing/typing the lines of communication can broken very easy without certain words...my bad

[Overdog]

I'm kind of jumping into this in the middle, but my understanding is that global warming peaked in 1998, and the earth has been cooling ever since. Modest's post seems to support this. One of the problems I have with the whole "Global Warming" thing is that the earth is no hotter now than it has been in the past. I;m not worried about Global Warming, anyway. I hope it is true. I am aware the earth is recovering from the little ice age...

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I see no reason to be alarmed. Yes. C02 IS a greenhouse gas. So What?
So is H2O.

I pray that we can pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to prevent the next Glacial cycle from occuring anytime soon.

[Grains]

Originally Posted by modest

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

I agree with this. More data is better and yes there is a positive trend over the last 100. But we have charts that go back even farther than that which show a decreasing trend. I never have said my 10 year chart was the best chart out there. I simply stated in that 10 year period it is in a downward trend..

[Grains]

Originally Posted by modest

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

~modest

unless i am missing something (the blue line is your logarithmic trend line) your chart has downward trend written all over it...even you logarithmic trend line indicates this.... you and infinate now were praising this chart and now i am really confused because this is what I have been saying the whole time...since my first post...and you posted a chart that supports that????

[Overdog]

The problem is that the whole Global Warming Apocalypse thing is based on computer models. Climate is a chaotic system. The Computer models we have simply do not have all the initial conditions. You can't trust them. It's just that simple.

Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chaos Theory

An early pioneer of the theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961.[14] Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time.

To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before. Lorenz tracked this down to the computer printout. The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, so a value like 0.506127 was printed as 0.506. This difference is tiny and the consensus at the time would have been that it should have had practically no effect. However Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome.[15] Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period (at most).