Originally posted by @wildgrassIt says "about" .5 C, not exactly. The graph fluctuates up and down quite a bit. I think you are nit picking in an effort to deny the data that you would rather not exist.
"Temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first 50 years of this time period."
This statement (the first sentence of the webpage) does not appear to be correct based on the authors' own data. I didn't read the rest. Is the above statement correct?
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_100_yrs.html
The graph clearly indicates there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. That is why alarmists typically omit data prior to 1960. If they can't convince you with truth they will do it by misleading with omissions.
Originally posted by @metal-brainHere is a dataset going back to the late 17th century. It does not correspond with your statement about the early twentieth century.
Here is a link with a graph of the entire 20th century. It takes a little getting used to the graph going farther in the past at the right instead of left but you can adjust to it.
Notice the part before 1940, that shows a warming, or the part after 1940, that shows a cooling? See the dilemma?
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_100_yrs.html ...[text shortened]... ew-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/#11caa5b42a4c
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Originally posted by @metal-brainSince they measure radiance they can tell the concentration, up to calibration.
Measurements or mere detection? Get your facts straight.
Originally posted by @deepthoughtAccurately? Many leaks at the same time?
Since they measure radiance they can tell the concentration, up to calibration.
Originally posted by @deepthoughtThe temps from your link are from central England. We are talking about GLOBAL warming.
Here is a dataset going back to the late 17th century. It does not correspond with your statement about the early twentieth century.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainI'm not nit-picking, it's the first sentence of the web page and it doesn't make sense. Did most of the increases, as shown in the graph, occur in the first 50 years of the time period?
It says "about" .5 C, not exactly. The graph fluctuates up and down quite a bit. I think you are nit picking in an effort to deny the data that you would rather not exist.
The graph clearly indicates there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. That is why alarmists typically omit data prior to 1960. If they can't convince you with truth they will do it by misleading with omissions.
From what I can tell by counting dots, there are about 5 dots above 0 in the first 50 years and about 15 dots above 0 in the last 50 years (of the time period). Am I missing something, or are the authors exceedingly bad at data interpretation?
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe graph is accurate as far as I can tell. Are you hallucinating?
I'm not nit-picking, it's the first sentence of the web page and it doesn't make sense. Did most of the increases, as shown in the graph, occur in the first 50 years of the time period?
From what I can tell by counting dots, there are about 5 dots above 0 in the first 50 years and about 15 dots above 0 in the last 50 years (of the time period). Am I missing something, or are the authors exceedingly bad at data interpretation?
Originally posted by @metal-brainThe bottom line is no matter whether it is excess CO2 or excess Methane, ALL of that is caused almost 100% by humans. End of discussion. There is NO natural cause for all of that.
The graph is accurate as far as I can tell. Are you hallucinating?
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainPlease answer my questions before speculating wildly. I am not hallucinating. The majority of temperature increases are in the last 50 years of the graph.
The graph is accurate as far as I can tell. Are you hallucinating?
Originally posted by @sonhouseWhoa!
The bottom line is no matter whether it is excess CO2 or excess Methane, ALL of that is caused almost 100% by humans. End of discussion. There is NO natural cause for all of that.
So you are saying it doesn't matter if it is caused by methane or CO2? Carbon taxes are not going to do anything about methane leaks. Isn't it important to identify the problem? Isn't that important to finding the right solution?
What the hell are you thinking?????
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou are nit picking. The difference in temps between 1900 and 1910 is significant. If you were to start at 1910 it would not seem so different of a ratio like you are making it out to be. I know you want to pick apart anything you can but you really are being hypocritical in not accepting the data presented just as you have accused me of in the past.
Please answer my questions before speculating wildly. I am not hallucinating. The majority of temperature increases are in the last 50 years of the graph.
The difference between 1900 and 1910 alone shows fluctuations in temperature are normal and any alignment recently is coincidence and you are just grasping at straws in a feeble attempt at denial of the data.
You are free to post your own data if you feel it contradicts what I have posted. Your reluctance to do that has not gone unnoticed. Why don't you try try that instead of being a mere critic? You are capable of that, right?
Originally posted by @metal-brainI don't understand. All I asked is whether the claim the author made in the first sentence is correct. It is not nitpicking, as this claim is central to their thesis. At best, it seems very ambiguous whether or not any warming at all occurred during the first 50 years. "Most of the increases" seems a huge stretch. Please explain.
You are nit picking. The difference in temps between 1900 and 1910 is significant. If you were to start at 1910 it would not seem so different of a ratio like you are making it out to be. I know you want to pick apart anything you can but you really are being hypocritical in not accepting the data presented just as you have accused me of in the past.
...[text shortened]... iced. Why don't you try try that instead of being a mere critic? You are capable of that, right?
Compare that "finding" to some of the other studies we have discussed. In one study we were debating whether 65% (the average) or 49% (the lower statistical value) of global warming was anthropogenic. Regardless of your impossible "most significant forcing factor" metric, the anthropogenic fraction of warming is significant and important. Should we ignore it?
Originally posted by @wildgrassI think you do understand. The first sentence is correct according to the graph. If you can find another graph you think is more accurate then post it. If not, stop pretending something is wrong with it.
I don't understand. All I asked is whether the claim the author made in the first sentence is correct. It is not nitpicking, as this claim is central to their thesis. At best, it seems very ambiguous whether or not any warming at all occurred during the first 50 years. "Most of the increases" seems a huge stretch. Please explain.
Compare that "finding" ...[text shortened]... metric, the anthropogenic fraction of warming is significant and important. Should we ignore it?
I think you are in denial and you are having a hard time coping with the facts. There is no correlation between CO2 and temps in the 20th century. I know your cognitive dissonance doesn't want you to accept that because you have believed that myth for so long but facts are facts. Put on your big boy panties and accept it.
Originally posted by @metal-brainThe article says its resolution is 164 square feet, so it can tell if there are sources of methane in that area. It cannot count individual leaks within that area, but I don't think that's the objective. The purpose seems to be to discover leaks and other sources of methane so they can be mitigated.
Accurately? Many leaks at the same time?
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainWell the dataset you linked to is based on "satellite and southern hemisphere air measurements". Since there is less land in the one would expect southern hemisphere temperature differences to be lower.
The temps from your link are from central England. We are talking about GLOBAL warming.
Since the dataset I referenced earlier and below goes back to 1880 and is for global mean temperatures it is not obvious what your case is.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/#
Also at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming