it's been 23 years since 1993 and the estimate sea level rise should be 2.3 inches.

as I always say: predicting the future is easy - even a monkey can do that. predicting the past however takes some real talent.

unfortunately, for climate scientists, that talent is solely lacking.

 

I've offered you the opportunity to show me a better way. I haven't seen anything better than averages.
Edit:
I don't think you have any appreciation for the methodology. It is not just a bunch of readings from a bunch of gauges.

Actually it is nothing but a bunch of reading from a bunch of gauges.
That's where all the data for your average mean value comes from.
It also has a underlying and very critical timeline relating to every single one of those guages and when it was read that goes with it which you seem all to happy to totally ignore to prove your largely invalid point.

The thing is now, I have now pointed out several times that the mean average number that is most often used does not accurately represent the 'when' of what the readings it is made of show. I've even given links to clarify that as well now. That's the problem that I do not know how to explain to you any better.

Yes that particular method of correlating said data shows an increase BUT it does not show the actual timeline and points in it's own sub data sets that push it's value up whereas with other methods that 'when' aspect is clearly and accurately represented.

In the case of annual mean temperature an increase in winter temperatures will make that mean value higher but that winter season temperature rise in itself has near zero gross negative influence on life or actual climate itself which again for the 3 - 4 - 5th time I refer to your own link to my own state's annual weather data way back in post 28 where the average mean number went up only because of warmer winter season temperatures. Summer time temperature averages didn't change a bit and by your own data link show that they have not changed since 1950. A now 66+ year running trend!

The average mean value went up yet in reality the only weather change that is responsible for said average mean rise was warmer winter temperatures which have no negative bearing on life whatsoever.

So given that example if that holds largely true for the majority of the global warming trend is having better more mild winter weather conditions something you really want to stop and if so why?

As far as I see it having warmer winter weather is no different than turning up the heat in a basement room that is normally 10 - 15 degrees cooler than the rest of the house. Turing said rooms temperature up up will change the statistical average value of the whole house yet that room going from say 55 degrees to 60 degrees while the main area of the house you live in stasy at 70 doesn't make your lived in area the least bit warmer in itself.

As for me, I am done with discussing this with you. To me it's pretty clear now you have near zero capacity to grasp the difference between how and when data is collected and how it is represented using different methods of statistical analysis practices.

You can comment on whatever I have said all you want and put every smiley face you can fit behind it as.
May the unending happiness of an ignorant fool forever shine out your butt for the whole world to see by.

 

as I always say: predicting the future is easy - even a monkey can do that. predicting the past however takes some real talent.

unfortunately, for climate scientists, that talent is solely lacking.

Pretty sure you got that backwards too.

But hey, "May the unending happiness of an ignorant fool forever shine out your butt for the whole world to see by" as well.

I think I m done with this thread. It's getting way to bright in here.

 

May the unending happiness of an ignorant fool forever shine out your butt for the whole world to see by.

Poetry!

 

Just for reference info it would appear that Winter season temperatures have a significant influence on annual mean values and shouldn't be discounted for their contribution. Go figure.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-are-warming-all-across-the-us-15590

Just for ponderance of alternative views to global warming and what if it turns out to be beneficial being the believers have yet to get any prediction to fall anywhere close to reality.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

 

Actually it is nothing but a bunch of reading from a bunch of gauges.
That's where all the data for your average mean value comes from.
It also has a underlying and very critical timeline relating to every single one of those guages and when it was read that goes with it which you seem all to happy to totally ignore to prove your largely invalid point.

The thing is now, I have now pointed out several times that the mean average number that is most often used does not accurately represent the 'when' of what the readings it is made of show. I've even given links to clarify that as well now. That's the problem that I do not know how to explain to you any better.

Yes that particular method of correlating said data shows an increase BUT it does not show the actual timeline and points in it's own sub data sets that push it's value up whereas with other methods that 'when' aspect is clearly and accurately represented.

In the case of annual mean temperature an increase in winter temperatures will make that mean value higher but that winter season temperature rise in itself has near zero gross negative influence on life or actual climate itself which again for the 3 - 4 - 5th time I refer to your own link to my own state's annual weather data way back in post 28 where the average mean number went up only because of warmer winter season temperatures. Summer time temperature averages didn't change a bit and by your own data link show that they have not changed since 1950. A now 66+ year running trend!

The average mean value went up yet in reality the only weather change that is responsible for said average mean rise was warmer winter temperatures which have no negative bearing on life whatsoever.

So given that example if that holds largely true for the majority of the global warming trend is having better more mild winter weather conditions something you really want to stop and if so why?

As far as I see it having warmer winter weather is no different than turning up the heat in a basement room that is normally 10 - 15 degrees cooler than the rest of the house. Turing said rooms temperature up up will change the statistical average value of the whole house yet that room going from say 55 degrees to 60 degrees while the main area of the house you live in stasy at 70 doesn't make your lived in area the least bit warmer in itself.

As for me, I am done with discussing this with you. To me it's pretty clear now you have near zero capacity to grasp the difference between how and when data is collected and how it is represented using different methods of statistical analysis practices.

You can comment on whatever I have said all you want and put every smiley face you can fit behind it as.
May the unending happiness of an ignorant fool forever shine out your butt for the whole world to see by.

No, I think it is you that misses the point. It doesn't matter if it is summer or winter or even day or night that is raising the temperature. If the yearly temperature trends continuously going up it is getting warmer. It is the number that got this started. The models have been developed around it to better define it. To use your term: there is a correlation between the temperature by your barn and your house. But it really doesn't matter neither of us will live long enough to be bothered much by it.
So in closing... Kiss my shiny butt.

 

Well, after all that I finally found out today what is causing global warming. Apparently when one goes on a diet the body fat is transformed to CO2 and water which is breathed out and expelled. So its all the fatties in the world dieting who are raising the CO2 level and sea levels. Stop dieting and get fatter. Global warming will stop.

 

It doesn't matter if it is summer or winter or even day or night that is raising the temperature.

Yea it does actually. It's basic thermodynamics.

When, where and how much energy is put into a system has everything to do with the outcome of said system.

Read here for more info on the principles of Thermal Dynamics then convince me that none of that has any effect on how the weather and climate or anything else in reality behaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

After everything I have seen in this thread I have ask, Do you really honestly have this poor of grasp of basic applied science? I just can't imagine it to be true yet continually you show it to be so.

 

Yea it does actually. It's basic thermodynamics.

When, where and how much energy is put into a system has everything to do with the outcome of said system.

Read here for more info on the principles of Thermal Dynamics then convince me that none of that has any effect on how the weather and climate or anything else in reality behaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

After everything I have seen in this thread I have ask, Do you really honestly have this poor of grasp of basic applied science? I just can't imagine it to be true yet continually you show it to be so.

Which one do you think is being violated?

 

Global warming will stop.

if you can get all the "climate scientists" to stop blowing hot air, global warming will stop.

 

Yea it does actually. It's basic thermodynamics.

When, where and how much energy is put into a system has everything to do with the outcome of said system.

Read here for more info on the principles of Thermal Dynamics then convince me that none of that has any effect on how the weather and climate or anything else in reality behaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

After everything I have seen in this thread I have ask, Do you really honestly have this poor of grasp of basic applied science? I just can't imagine it to be true yet continually you show it to be so.

Wait, let me tell you how I think it works and you tell me the law it violates.
The heat source is obviously the sun. Most of it's energy is in the visible spectrum. This light can easily pass thru CO2. Some is of course reflected back into space and some strikes earth and warms it. The heat from the earth radiates long wave IR, some of which CO2 absorbs and some escapes to space. Since the air is cooler than the land no laws broken. Some of the energy in the CO2 is re-radiated, but in all directions, so some escapes and some is returned to the system. All of this is in equilibrium until you add more CO2, then the temperature rises because less heat escapes back into space.
There is a lot written about this. I just rephrased it to make it simple.

 

Sorry. I'm all out of troll food. You have to go back to playing with yourself again until someone else comes along.

 

Sorry. I'm all out of troll food. You have to go back to playing with yourself again until someone else comes along.

Edit:
I knew you would get it if I made it easy enough. (more smiles)

 

Okay? So how exactly doe acting like a trollish ass when someone tries to pursue a rational review and debate of a topic over how its data is being collected and interpreted help your image and general standing on the forum or anywhere else for that matter?

It clearly put you on my list of idiots I will never respect let alone never help here again and it more than likely got you on a few others similar lists too. Heck to be honest if I have a bad day now you're on my list of people I will have no issue with just following and kicking around until I feel better.

Also I rather doubt you had any of this planned in the least bit. You proudly posted some info to prove I was wrong without having reviewed it yourself and it came right back around and hit you in the ass and there was no easy way out of it afterwards so you took the cowardly fools route and trolled a way out, which just made you look that much worse, rather than put any effort into redeeming yourself or your views.

Lose face, lose credibility, lose respect, further discredit what you started claimed to be true and believe in, make yourself look like another ignorant internet troll and waist a lot of people's time while doing it. Is that really a proud and joyful win for you in the end worth smiling about?

BTW. You could have easily gotten a honorable out on this by simply saying something like,

'Ah. I see. I never really thought about how warmer Fall, Winter, and Spring season temperatures would raise the statistical mean value before and just took it that a higher mean value meant higher Summer season temperatures were what did it. Thanks for pointing that out. My bad. '

But clearly you didn't and concluded that looking like a proudly ignorant ass and troll for as long as I or anyone else would give you the benefit of the doubt was best.

 

Okay? So how exactly doe acting like a trollish ass when someone tries to pursue a rational review and debate of a topic over how its data is being collected and interpreted help your image and general standing on the forum or anywhere else for that matter?

It just shows people that you are not the only one that can do it. Actually I think I see why you think it's fun.

It clearly put you on my list of idiots I will never respect let alone never help here again and it more than likely got you on a few others similar lists too. Heck to be honest if I have a bad day now you're on my list of people I will have no issue with just following and kicking around until I feel better.

I'm hurt, but I'll live thru it.

Lose face, lose credibility, lose respect, further discredit what you started claimed to be true and believe in, make yourself look like another ignorant internet troll and waist a lot of people's time while doing it. Is that really a proud and joyful win for you in the end worth smiling about?

Yes

BTW. You could have easily gotten a honorable out on this by simply saying something like,

'Ah. I see. I never really thought about how warmer Fall, Winter, and Spring season temperatures would raise the statistical mean value before and just took it that a higher mean value meant higher Summer season temperatures were what did it. Thanks for pointing that out. My bad. '

But clearly you didn't and concluded that looking like a proudly ignorant ass and troll for as long as I or anyone else would give you the benefit of the doubt was best.

I could have, but I would have been wrong. I never said a higher mean value meant that higher summer temperatures did it.
So to recap:

Umm. Not here so I'm suspecting our region doesn't get counted in the statistics.

It's called global warming

It was warmer where ever that graph represents therefore it was hot everywhere?

Sorry, It was a joke to show that it is warmer in Bismark ND. I would have used Sawyer, but I'm not sure there were any people there to measure the temperature in the old days.

Simply put a higher statistical average does not indicate a higher peak temperature. It's basic Junior high school math all of us should be able to follow but sadly very few obviously can or do.
Without a seasonal time frame and context a few additional Degree days of change over a whole year don't mean Jack Shyte in reality.

The data is yearly data so it does include all 4 seasons. I never implied it indicated a higher peak value. I'm not sure where you got that.

BTW our average annual mean temp is ~53 degrees a good 4.7 degrees below the planetary average putting us in the planetary mean average equivalent of latter part of the last ice age.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement.

If so why don't I get a say in it? They don't care about me or my region so why exactly should I and anyone else here care about them exactly?

As I said, I'm happy for you. Really, I am.

Interesting thing is in the timeline range of 16,000 BCE to 15,500 BSC they even mention short term blips which in their sub graph show 2 - 3 dots to be an insignificant blip yet as their overall graph shows just three dots are ~100- 120 year time and at the end of their graph in present time the rapid warming timeline is still under 60 years long or well within their own rough approximate Blip time line definition.
co2
Also in the timeline from ~8750 BCE to ~1250 BCE they average temperature then was only fractions of a degree different than where we are shown now. So how is that ~7500 year warm period of no statistical significance?

I think if you do a little research you can find some reasons for this.

Say you take your vehicle to the mechanic and tell him you have been getting worse and worse fuel mileage numbers and even show him your meticulously collected and calculated numbers per fuel up and it's trend and show that by the numbers ever since you got it it has infact had a continual downward trend in the average MPG value.

Obviously by the numbers something is wrong. Right? He checks everything over and can't find anything that has ever gone out of spec with it and even takes it on a drive and finds that in his drive that every thing checks out at factory spec including the on the go MPG values.

The average temperature is going up.

So given that, he looks over your data and sees that most every fuel up on or just after a weekend has a substantially different and much lower value than the mid week ones. He then asked you if you go places on weekends and you say yes you do. You take your new camper trailer out most every weekend and since you got it you have been going farther from home and even up into the mountains with it!

Hmm Your CO2 is going up as well.

Hmm. Now your downward MPG trend has a context that explains it and that context clearly says that the trend is not a indication of a mechanical issue but a dumbass who can't put his calculations in the proper relation to the actual when, what and where of what really was going on in reality.

Yes, we have context for the increase

Just for reference info it would appear that Winter season temperatures have a significant influence on annual mean values and shouldn't be discounted for their contribution. Go figure.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-are-warming-all-across-the-us-15590

I really thought we were getting somewhere with this one.

Yea it does actually. It's basic thermodynamics.

When, where and how much energy is put into a system has everything to do with the outcome of said system.

I think I answered this one.

Are we having fun yet?

 

Too late. You had your chance.

 

an old interview with Bill Gates: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/

the interesting part:

On the dangerous certainty of environmentalists:

The heating levels have not tracked the climate models exactly, and the skeptics have had a heyday with that. It’s all within the error-bar range. To me, it’s pretty clear that there’s nothing that relieves this as a big problem. But when people act like we have this great certainty, they somewhat undermine the credibility. There’s a lot of uncertainty in this, but on both the good and the bad side.

By overclaiming, or even trying to ascribe current things more to climate change than to other effects, environmentalists lend weight to the skeptics. Like, in the near term, the Pacific oscillation, this El Niño thing, has a much bigger impact on current weather than climate change has had so far. Now, climate change keepsclimbing all the time—it just keeps summing, summing, summing, and adding up. So, as you get up to 2050, 2080, 2100, its effect overwhelms the Pacific oscillation.

Quite reasonable I must say.

his points on the reusable energy faithfuls' self-defeating claims are quite accurate as well.

all you need is to have some common sense, which can be in short supply among the faithfuls.

 

Yes, the hypothesis that mankind is making enough CO2 to alter our climate is still a reasonable hypothesis. The only reason for skeptics to speak up is because of the unreasonable hype from the other side.

If reducing CO2 emissions was free, even a skeptic could support reducing emissions. Why wouldn't you? But it's not free, and in fact is very expensive. Crippling the global economy will hurt the rich nations, but it's the poor nations that will really feel it. It will literally come down to life or death at the margins.

So the question becomes, how much are we willing to spend? Or, how many are we willing to kill? It's not a given that reducing emissions will matter. It's not a given that warming is all bad. All that is given is that it will be more expensive to live on this planet. When you increase the tax on life, there will be less of it.

 

Yes, the hypothesis that mankind is making enough CO2 to alter our climate is still a reasonable hypothesis. The only reason for skeptics to speak up is because of the unreasonable hype from the other side.

If reducing CO2 emissions was free, even a skeptic could support reducing emissions. Why wouldn't you? But it's not free, and in fact is very expensive. Crippling the global economy will hurt the rich nations, but it's the poor nations that will really feel it. It will literally come down to life or death at the margins.

So the question becomes, how much are we willing to spend? Or, how many are we willing to kill? It's not a given that reducing emissions will matter. It's not a given that warming is all bad. All that is given is that it will be more expensive to live on this planet. When you increase the tax on life, there will be less of it.

Your right of course. But on the other hand, what if they are right and it tips over due to positive feedback? That would make those still around say why didn't they do something when they could have made a difference.

 

what if they are right and it tips over due to positive feedback?

That could certainly happen... some call it "The Runaway Point"