Some easy-to-understand "eye candy" to show skeptical friends/family/co-workers

I just put up some image files on docs.google.com that show, in a very nice "eye candy" visual way, just how robust and reliable the global-temperature results published by NASA/etc. are.

It's similar to stuff that I've posted here, but packaged up on Google Documents for easy redistribution to others.

The package of images, along with a "plain English" README file that explains everything, can be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/globaltemperatureresultsV2

Feel free to pass the material around to whomever you think might benefit from it. The story told by the pictures should provide a nice counter to the unfounded claims made by "skeptics" about the supposed unreliability of the global temperature record.

 

And that helps with "skeptics" who doubt that the climate is changing.

But the real "skeptics" (like me) do not argue that point.....my point is that there is no proof that man is causing the change. It is the A in AGW that we take issue with. Climate change is a constant.....it is always changing....right now getting warmer is the most likely flux, I'll grant. But it began long, LONG before I bought by GMC Yukon.

But thanks for the info.......

 

LOL, 100 years of temp readings is supposed to be indicative of millions of years of climate change.

 

The people pushing AGW say we should be afraid of 4 inches of sea water. When the warming trend reverses then we have to worry about 3 MILES of ICE.

BUt I'm sure they will find a way to blame the ice on suv's too........

 

No, and how can anyone get that out of the OP??

 

Climate change of the past had its causes, but none of those causes are the reason for current climate change. NO SUVs added CO2 to the carbon cycle in the past; volcanoes and/or the oceans did. Volcanoes and/or the oceans are not currently adding CO2 to the carbon cycle; SUVs are.

 

Citiations ???....Backup.....???? That is nothing but parroting from Ring -Wing.....errrrrrr...I mean Liberal propaganda blogs. Prove it, Prove it, Prove it.......

Right back at ya Manny........

But seriously, there are volcano and oceans today (last time I looked). Also there is a VERY tight correlation between temperatures and the sun's activity....but that can't be huh....the sun responsible for the earth's temperature.........how silly would that be.

Also we have no idea how all these things work together. The miserable failure of the IPCC climate models prove that. The idea that SUV's are responsible for this tiny, tiny fluctuation is nothing but a huge throbbing red assumption.......

Anyone open to intellectual honesty can see it.......Unless of course there is another *cough* agenda involved....*cough*.....

 

Really Elmer? Really? I had expected anyone discussing climate change would be familiar with the basics, like the carbon cycle. I guess my expectations were too high.

That should read "Also there is a VERY tight correlation between temperatures and the sun's activity" until the 1970s.

tiny, tiny fluctuation of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]? 40% increase is not a "tiny tiny fluctuation". You claim to be an engineer. Tell me what system would not have large consequences if the system increased its input by 40%. Do you design systems with a 40% tolerance?
And it is not an assumption; it is the laws of physics.

I will await your deflection or insult.

 

Uh, because we only have about 100 years of actual temperature readings. Everything else is interpreted proxy data based on specific locations.

 

We don't have 100 years of actual temperature readings. We do not have 1 year of actual temperature readings. All records we have for the human habitat, made for purposes useful to the human habitat such as agriculture and navigation show that climate has not changed. what you and I and others have lived through tells the same. There have been no event recorded, except for usual Sun fluctuations, wich would make one suggest that Earth athmosphere has recieved abnormal amount of heat from any other source. The sun is cooling and the earth is cooling passing thier heat to the cosmos, untill their Tempreture becomes even to the tempreture of the comsos which is 0K. Business as usual. Peoiple always elect governments because people are social beings, goverments always tend to suppress people. Business as usual.

 

Uh. because the OP was talking about the robustness of the existing statistical analysis of the current temperature record - he/she said nothing about proxies

 

I was speaking of the tiny fluctuation in temperature, but since CO2 has been well over 1000 ppm in the past the same holds....

Tell me what system would not have large consequences if the system increased its input by 40%.



Never quote percentages as absolute statements Manny...(Engineers know that).

As for an example: Ordinarily we have 100,000 tons of coal in inventory. Vessels come to get loaded that hold 30,000 - 80,000 tons. So if my inventory goes up 40% (40,000 tons) that IS a big deal - practically a whole vessels worth. However last month we were down to under 10,000 in inventory and a boat for 50,000 tons was on the way....an increase of 40% inventory would have been inconsequential.

Understand now why you must only quote percentages in context, NEVER as absolutes and NEVER mathematically manipulate percentages (add, subtract, divide and multiply....)

Hope that helps......

 

That is not just apples and oranges but dirty underwear and a brand new sports car \

In other words your comparison isn't

 

That's an absurd claim that flies in the face of all climate science. Are you really claiming that absent anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the earth's climate would have suddenly stopped changing and entered a steady state? REALLLLLYYYYY?

And if that is not what you are claiming, are you claiming that you KNOW what the earth's climate WOULD have been like absent anthropogenic CO2 emissions? REALLLLYYY??

I don't thnk so.

The earth's climate results from three different kinds of influences:

1. Highly regular orbital cycles such as the day, year, Milankovitch cycles, precession of the equinoxes, etc. These are the only climate inputs that are entirely predictable and susceptible to analysis using standard mathematical tools.

2. Chaotic cycle-like variations such as the sunspot cycle, atmospheric and ocean circulation cycles (El Nino/La Nina, PDO, etc.), the heliomagnetic and geomagnetic field cycles, etc. These are semi-regular cycle-like variations that are poorly understood, and because they vary substantially in both frequency and amplitude, are not susceptible to mathematical analysis except in chaos theory, a young and extremely difficult branch of mathematics that is beyond the reach of current climate science because it requires extremely detailed and precise information about all significant input factors.

3. Non-cyclical inputs such as volcanoes, continental drift (including its profound effects on oceanic circulation patterns), asteroid/comet impacts, cosmic rays, cosmic dust, and biological inputs such as variations in predominant vegetation, organisms' extractions of gases from and emissions of gases into the atmosphere, and including ALL anthropogenic influences such as land use changes, irrigation and flooded-field paddy agriculture, river diversions and other hydrological projects, deforestation and desertification, emissions of gases and particulates, dust from dry field cultivation, agricultural methane emissions, night-time heat emissions, jet contrails, ground water withdrawals, effects of fertilizer and pesticide runoff on ecosystems, human-started forest fires, etc., and last but presumably not least, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption.

The notion that AGW theory has measured, analyzed and accounted for all the interactions of all these inputs, and arrived at a warming effect on global climate as seen in -- and pretty much limited to -- the 1970-2000 period that is purely attributable to anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption OVER AND ABOVE THAT INCREASE IN CO2'S KNOWN, DIRECT EFFECT ON THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF ANY HYPOTHETICAL PLANET IN THE EARTH'S ORBIT is just false, absurd, dishonest and anti-scientific.

 

I'm sure it looks like that to you......

 

Major logic failure by Elmer. His stupid chain of reasoning here is "Since it happened in the past a certain way, it must happen that way again, even if all the conditions are wildly different".

That's BS. Engineers do it constantly, because it's so useful. I've never heard any engineer make such an absurd statement before. It really is that dumb. If the baseline isn't specifically given -- and it usually isn't -- it is assumed that the baseline for the percentage is the previous normal state of the system.

Since climate scientists stated the baseline, what's the fuss about?

Why such a focus on this red herring? CO2 is up 40%. Address that, instead of handwaving it away with this irrelevent nonsense.

 

Translation:
"I can't understand it, so it can't be true, and anyone who does understand it must be lying!"

Sadly, this is about the best the denialists have.

 

Oh hail no!.....you object to the earth warming and the records man keeps and tell me the suns cooling?

 

<yawn> Any purveyor of post hoc fallacies could make the same groundless accusation against anyone identifying those fallacies as such.

Sadly, this is about the best the warmmongers have.

 

Strawman - not what mannie said

Why not? We have models that show what the effects would be - what is so hard to understand about that?

Only three? Where are you getting this material?

And are there any of those things occurring now that would account for rising global temperatures?

Oh! I don't know - we have some pretty impressive models of sunspot cycle activity now. Nice correlations with past temperature readings too. I admit we are still learning about some of the ocean current events but we are a lot further along the road of understanding it than we were 10 years ago and improving every day. To say we are still at the "can't find any correlation" stage is ridiculous. Just throwing the words "chaos theory" into an argument is the same as saying "this toothpaste works on Quantum mechanics" in other words semantically null

So, how do the volcanoes affect temperature and ocean circulation patterns??
Haven't seen any asteroid or comet impacts lately - must have missed them.
And the lumped together anthropogenic causes which you seem to be simultaneously saying DOES influence the climate and yet not influence the climate

So your so called "three kinds of influences" comes down to

Orbital variations
Some ocean current stuff I don't understand
Everything else I want to dismiss

And I notice you have done all of that without one single reference or link!!

In which case it is opinion and a poor one at that

 

Yes, it IS what he said, explicitly, in post #6 in this thread:

That is an explicit claim that the causes of past climate change cannot cause the earth's climate to change now.

No, that is a flat-out lie. We have models that HYPOTHESIZE what SOME of the effects COULD be. Which is why those models have been reliably and hilariously wrong.

Three categories.

Logical analysis -- an abstruse discipline with which you are, I realize, entirely unacquainted.

Nobody knows. AGW liars lie that they know, but they are just lying. They don't know:

"We can't account for it, and it is a travesty that we can't account for it."

Remember?

So you will now be posting links to the sunspot cycle models that accurately hindcast the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima of the Little Ice Age...? That will be most interesting.

Which might be why I didn't say it, so stop lying.

And in any case it would be about as accurate to say, "can't find any correlation" as to say, "understand everything well enough to rule out everything but fossil fuels."

No, that is just another stupid lie from you. Weather is certainly chaotic, and many climate input factors show strong indications of being chaotic.

AGW liars are the ones who pretend they know the effects of all climate inputs, not I.

Paleoclimatic analysis requires an understanding of their effects. You just choose not to know such facts.

No, you are just lying again. I have never said or implied that anthropogenic causes do not influence the climate. I have stated many times that they do.

That is an infantile lie, as anyone who read my post can verify for himself.

I am merely reminding you of facts that you already know, but have decided not to know.

No, that is another lie from you. You are just lying. Stop lying.

To claim that any statement not accompanied by references and/or links is opinion is not only a lie, it is a stupid lie, and easily proved to be a stupid lie: it self-evidently implies an infinite regress fallacy.

Please identify which of my statements is not factual.

 

Well, then let us take a closer look at exactly what Mannie DID say

And if you read what he wrote that is NOT what he said. (((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))) I feel like I am teaching English comprehension 101

He did not say they COULD not cause climate change but that at present they ARE not causing climate change - see the difference? If Krakatoa burst forth again and filled the upper atmosphere with particles we would see a change in climate. We know elevated CO2 plays a role in climate change - we know that there is a rising level of CO2 - we also know that that level is not caused by volcanoes or the oceans - but if you have EVIDENCE that anything BUT anthropogenic causes are influencing our climate please post a link

 

I quoted him verbatim, as anyone reading this can confirm.

Yes, it is. I quoted him verbatim. Stop lying.

You would have to develop better English comprehension skills yourself before you would be qualified to teach it.

Yes. He is explicitly stating that if those were the only influences on climate, the climate would not now be changing. Ergo, he is stating that absent anthropogenic influences like CO2, the climate would have somehow stopped changing and entered a steady state. That is in fact the essence of the AGW position.

You are trying to evade the facts I have identified by focusing on "links," which is merely an ambitious form of the appeal to authority fallacy: you insist that I commit the fallacy, or I am not making an argument at all, but only voicing an opinion!

Anyway, here's a primer:

http://geochange-report.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92&Itemid=114

 

I have pretty much stopped responding to you Roy, but in this case I will clarify my statement "Climate change of the past had its causes, but none of those causes are the reason for current climate change."

It may have been poor wording on my part. Bowerbird correctly interpreted what I meant. And anyone who has been reading my posts (and I know that includes you Roy) knows I would never claim that the only cause of the current CC are humans. A better way of writing it would have been "Climate change of the past had its causes, only the recent change has added humans as a cause."
And I am not going to bother discussing what climate change would look like without human influence because the only response I will get would be similar to

I am just not going to waste my time with you. And that ain't no lie!

 

But actually, you did.

Better indeed, as it is trivially true and offers zero (0) support for AGW alarmist garbage.

Of course. Warmmongers want to be free to lie and not have anyone identify their lies. Simple.