Amusement in the NewsFollow

Yes? What is their function, otherwise?

Ask the coral reefs about the whole "unprovable" thing. Global temperature rise has resulted in the rising of the ocean's temperature, which has resulted in a massive "bleaching" (aka "death) of thousands and thousands of acres of coral reefs.

Dead coral reefs.

Well documented.

Several of those curves have no net average temperature change over several years - which is entirely consistent with recent history:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

You can look at about 1970-1980 or 1980-1990 and there was no net real dramatic increase in temperature during those intervals, if you pick the right windows. However, there is a net increase on aggregate.

We can take a decade-by decade view of the data and there is a steady increase on average.

You're kidding, right? You test a theory by testing whatever the theory predicts. A theory is meaningless if you can't test it. Testing the source data isn't testing the theory. You must test the results and see if they matched predictions. Global warming doesn't predict levels of CO2 in the past. It predicts temperature changes in the future. You test the latter, not the former to see if it's right.





That chart is a set of predicted temperature changes. All of them predict a pretty steady temperature increase over the next century. You should be able to measure this once you've gone 10% of the way. Not being able to do so calls them into question.




Huh? Those are historical data Joph. There's no prediction there. They measured temperatures up to around 2002. There was a slight increase after 2000, but it's pretty clearly tapering off. And it has continued to for the next 7 years. Something that was *not* predicted by Global Warming theories.



To be able to tell one that predicts future trends versus one that's just historical data? Yeah. That's me with that problem...



Huh? The chart you linked doesn't show that at all! Of the three data points after 2000, the highest is only .05 degrees above the 2000 number. Where do you just magically double that value Joph?

And the 2000 number is .18 degrees lower than the peak in 1999 (actually 1998 I believe).



No. It doesn't. My argument is based on trendlines. I'm not looking at the outliers. The trend over the last 10 years has been significantly shallower than the trend for the preceding 30 years. That's my point. Whatever was causing increased temperature increase during that earlier time period has slowed down in the last decade. Yet emissions of greenhouse gas have not been reduced.

Ergo, the previously measured increase cannot have been caused by greenhouse gases alone. More importantly, greenhouse gas emissions almost certainly were not the major cause of that earlier temperature increase. Some other factor either contributed to the earlier period's rapid temperature increase *or* has intervened to slow down that increase over the last decade. In either case, that effect (whatever it is) seems to be having a much more significant impact on global temperatures than greenhouse gases.


Get it? That's how science works. You're latching onto one theory and defending it to the death. I'm looking at the freaking facts and drawing some very obvious conclusions. Does this mean that CO2 emissions have *nothing* to do with temperature? Of course not. But it's not such a significant factor that we should be spending (wasting) billions of dollars reducing emissions.



I am smarter than that. Read what I write.

Sorry.... no.

Your linked graph is based off of models created in 2001. Don't you bother to read what you link to?The graph I linked to is based off of the data that occured after 2001 (well, and before it). You'll notice that the data on my graph matches the projections on your chart. Really, my chart only goes to what looks like 2005 but the next couple years stayed at about the same level (I think slightly less but over the baseline).Sure it is. The little dots on the historical data graph are, mainly, higher up on the chart after 2000 than between 1990-1999 -- true or false?

The one you linked to had historical data. That was the one I was talking about.

Need clarification?

My graph showed predictions going forward to 2100. That graph showed temperatures rising steadily during the entire time period.

Your graph only went to about 2002, and showed historical data generated at that point. There were no predicted trends.


The actual temperatures have not gone up significantly between 2000 and 2009. Thus, the graph I linked (with the predictions) did not match the actual data.

Your graph is irrelevant because it didn't make predictions. I'm not even sure why you linked it.


Want to try again?