Reply With Quote
I said that? The dispute at hand was the temp record and its analysis.
Do you be live your chart with no error bars is a good one?
I find it scary that you think any graph showing the earths temperature changes somehow qualifies as proof of agw theory.
I said that? The dispute at hand was the temp record and its analysis.
Do you be live your chart with no error bars is a good one?
Also its mislabled. Do you know why?
except they clearly are against just that.
http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/
In the context of this thread yes you are arguing that manmade CO2 is warming the planet and using a temp graph as proof. I haven't read any of the "dispute" and I'm not going to because I know that's what you are arguing and Yoni, WC, etc. are arguing the that manmade CO2 is not warming the planet.
If that's not what you're arguing then your just wasting time talking about the weather.
It shows the earths temp is not static same as yours. It's good enough for me.
Nope, don't care either. It shows the earths temp is not static, good enough for me.
Then why are they including inaccurate data.
Nothing says I'M RIGHT like admitting your ignorance on a subject. Well done!
It doesn't show that. Well, it tries to show that, but removal of the error bars which show the RANGE of possible values is a complete manipulation. The maker of that chart can't say what the temperature was during that time period. They can provide you with error bars of a range of what was the most likely temperature of that time. Why didn't they do that?It shows the earths temp is not static same as yours. It's good enough for me.
Its funny that you come into the thread and shout FIRE while holding the god damn torch. Actually, its more sad than funny.
Holy let me get you a chart that shows the sky is blue and water is wet too! You can take your strawman down as no one is claiming a static temp on earth. More conformation of just how ty your standards are.Nope, don't care either. It shows the earths temp is not static, good enough for me.
Oh , show me the temp changes!
Because they have found that large amounts of data with low accuracy but high precision are worthy of being included if they are weighted properly. On what grounds do you dispute their use of the data?Then why are they including inaccurate data.
In any event, in addition to your graph being intentionally misleading it is also inaccurate as . The North Atlantic was warm (hence the viking ) which in turn caused parts of North America and Europe to be warmer. But what about the rest of the planet? It was cooler.
This one is a bit out of date now and it only goes back 1000 years but you can see exactly how the error bars work. As soon as you get out of the instrumental record and start relying on proxies, you develop large margins of error due to the uncertainty.
Any graph showing a reconstruction that is based on proxies without error bars is dishonest as .
Make up your mind Manny. If no one is claiming the earths temp is static AND you are not posting temp graphs as some sort of proof of agw theory as you say then what the are you doing. You might as well be posting charts showing the sky is blue and water is wet.
Funny to see you get pissed though. I recall a few years ago another global warming thread where you were pressed to show your proof and you posted a pic of a glacier melting. For all your attempts to be so scientific and knowlegable it always boils down to you posting obvious and claiming you're smarter than everyone. Here see the temp changes, oh look ice melts...lol you're a one trick pony Manny.
Why do I need to make up my mind? You're the one jumping all over the place here. If you had bothered to actually read what you were replying to instead of just posting out of ignorance you would have seen that Yonivore was claiming that the methods of calculating global temp from the instrument record were wrong. Thats why I brought up BEST and thats exactly why I posted their graph. Whether AGW is true or not is not central to the instrument record.
Thats why I didn't need to post a temperature recostruction record dating back 2000 years (We can go way further than that from proxies so I'm not even sure why you're acting like 2000 years is some kind of domain holy grail) but rather simply the duration of the instrumental record. You then went ahead and posted a chart that was COMPLETELY DISHONEST (not to mention inaccurate).
So, you call one chart with error bars misleading because it didn't include proxies when its intent was never to do so and then followed it up with a graph that intentional omits many proxy datasets and then completely removes error bars.
Nice job!!!!!
Link? You won't find one because it wasn't me that did that. I know exactly who did but I'd love for you to find the link and show that I EVER did that.Funny to see you get pissed though. I recall a few years ago another global warming thread where you were pressed to show your proof and you posted a pic of a glacier melting.
I'll save you the time for your response. You're going to say that its not worth your time to look for it right? You're just going to throw up a bull accusation that you can't back up, right?
Its going to be really ing ironic when I show you what thread it was, too.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...85&postcount=8
SMH
Butthurt poster is butthurt. THAT much is obvious. You came into a thread, saw a picture you didn't like and called it dishonest. You didn't bother to read before you posted and you then followed it up with an actual dishonest graph.For all your attempts to be so scientific and knowlegable it always boils down to you posting obvious and claiming you're smarter than everyone. Here see the temp changes, oh look ice melts...lol you're a one trick pony Manny.
And now, you're just pissed because you look like a moron.
Damn I always get you two confused. Should have used the one where you claimed the relationship of ocean ph & co2 levels were simple and completely understood...that was you right or am I attributing every stupid thing to the wrong person?Its going to be really ing ironic when I show you what thread it was, too.
You may now return to arguing about the weather.
Yes and you look smart because you've proved the temperature changes.
All of this because you just couldn't admit you were wrong and man up. Jesus this thread never fails to deliver from one dumb ass or another.
PS
If you want to dig your hole even digger, provide a link to the CO2 thing.
This just demonstrates a fundamental inability to understand how the dynamics of systems work. K is a function of both. Its like talking about motion but only wanting to talk about mass.
Simpleminded and you want to talk about nuance.
What are you talking about, I clearly admitted I was wrong and got you confused with baseline bum. I also said I may have you confused with someone else on the CO2 thing. I'm not going to spend the time looking for that thread as I don't remember what the topic was or when it was. As you can see from my post count in 4 years, I'm just not that into ST.
PS
If you want to dig your hole even digger, provide a link to the CO2 thing.
I'm not wrong that how data is presented can be a form of manipulation. I'm not wrong that this study only shows a brief period of time and includes unreliable data. I'm not wrong that a longer term look at global temps doesn't have the same "OMG the earth is going to overheat" effect.
But on top of admitting I got you confused with someone else, I'll even go so far as to tell you that you are right in your argument that the historical temps that the agw crowd have built their dogma around are highly inaccurate and should always be shown with error bars.
You can measure accuracy of things and all you are doing is characterizing it such as to ridicule it. There is a degree of error in literally everything. To claim something as being irrefutable is just hubris.
Also, using vague scare tactics like "how data is presented can be a form of manipulation" does not posit much at all. I could just as easily say "skeptics can be shills for the oil lobby" and it has just as much merit.
Normalization can be misrepresented with intent to mislead but BEST for example has their dataset publicly available. If you want to argue where they misrepresent data then you can look at if yourself. I guarantee you that the oil lobby has people doing just that and if they find any anomaly that they will pimp it until the end of days.
BEST's finding are 100% empirical and they refuse to attribute causation. They just say it's getting hotter relative to historical cycles and has been doing so for over the past 100 years.
When you make claims as to the misrepresentation of statistics its not difficult to make the arguments. Look at MiG's response to the data of the supposed MWP. Using the data of one geographic region and claiming that it is representative of the whole earth is a misrepresentation.
If BEST did that or something similar its open for evaluation. Do you have a observation of any particular thing such as limited observation or are you just going to leave it at that vague bull ?
Just the vague bull . I don't have a problem with BEST methods or results. It's a study that proves water is wet. , even Sarah Palin knows the climate has been warming. I just have a problem with it being touted as proof of agw, which I assumed Manny was doing.
If you do not disagree with their results then you do not disagree that the current warming trend is not explained by historical natural cycles. That was the entire point of their correlation analysis. Thats why you see the term anomaly. It's a deviation from a cycle. Spectrum analysis and all that good stuff.
There isn't enough historical data to make that call. The best study shows a significant margin of error just from 1800. Manny's error bar 2000 year chart shows a huge margin of error. Even if we had an accurate 2000 or even 10000 year chart it would still be insufficient to claim the recent warming has never occured before and is unnatural.
The only thing I'm interested in on the topic of agw is how much of the co2 increase are we responsible for thru co2 production vs deforestation. And then can that increase have enough of a greenhouse effect to account for the temperature increases.
I'm not talking about "k" you idiot. I'm talking about "α."
Don't you read the material you link?
Do you not understand anything? Can't you get anything right?
I am talking about the solubility of CO2. You can dither about labels all you like.
You obviously don't understand how temperature affects it. I believe that link you provided stated it changes by 4.23% per degree. That becomes a pretty huge difference if the global temperature of the ocean increases by 1 degree. So much more sourcing, so much less sinking...
I am talking about the solubility of CO2. You can dither about labels all you like.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-14-2012 at 03:31 AM.
What part of "function of temperature and ph" is difficult to understand?
I mean we do not even need to talk about how thermal layering acts as a buffer that keeps surface waters supersaturated or the influence of calcium or the influence of biotics.
There are actually three different dissociation states for CO2 in water. There are two transitions between the three sates both with a relative solubility. Both K's are a function of ph and temperature.
The links I gave you didn't say about 4%. Weiss talks in terms of a formula not a chart, dolt.
However if they had said that then they would have been climate scientists discussing the effects of temperature and relative solubility of the oceans.
You cannot even keep up with your own bull .
Wow...
just wow...
How can you be so ing stupid?
pH has little to do with differences, because it changes so little. Why are you bringing up pH? Why are you going off on some stupid tangent again? Your "k" factor also changes little over the long term.
From your link:
Also from your link:where k is the CO2 gas transfer velocity, a is the solubility of CO2 in seawater
Now I thought it was only about 3.1% per degree, but your link says it's more. I guess I could be misunderstanding what they mean.While the
temperature effect on pCO2 in isochemical conditions
(qln pCO2/qT) is +4.23% 1C1 (Takahashi
et al., 1993)
Why can't you accept, the the oceans have a sourcing flux of about 90 GtC and a sinking flux of about 94 GtC, and that temperature has a notable effect on this. An increase in global temperature both increases the sourcing and decreases the sinking. Your link with the formula is a simplified formula for approximation. Look what it does.
I don't think you understand how all this works. Maybe these will help:
Appendix A
Calculations
A New Formula for the Effect of Temperature on the Partial Pressure of CO 2 in Seawater
Now before you dismiss the water vapor one, keep in mind the immediate humidity in the fractions of a centimeter above a water surface.
Public Understanding Of Climate Science Rebounds, 72% of Independents Say There Is ‘Solid Evidence’ Of Global Warming
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...lobal-warming/
When a science discussion is split between right-wing- s vs non-right-wing- s, it's certain the right-wing-nuts are taking an anti-science political stand (as dictated to them by the UNION of UCA financiers protecting their profits).
A 200-year trend, in a 4-billion-year timeline, isn't even a data point.
Whatever killed the dinosaurs is an event.
And, causes can be natural.
Oh, and you never did answer the question.
Did the AGCC proponents analyzing the raw temperature data change the way they normalize them, why, and to what effect?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
