It's Not Global Warming

[zubenelgenubi]

You are talking about 1999?? Look at your chart comparison again.

No, the 1999 chart shows different data from 1880 through 1999 than the 2017 chart shows for that same period. You said the 1999 chart data was incomplete, suggesting that they "found" new data for the period 1880 through 1999 that was added in for the 2017 chart. That would be the only legitimate reason why the two charts are different for the same time period. So I ask, what data might be missing from the current data pool? Or are we expected to believe, even if they published incomplete data in 1999, that every data set since has been entirely complete?

 

[UnconTROLLed]

No, the 1999 chart shows different data from 1880 through 1999 than the 2017 chart shows for that same period. You said the 1999 chart data was incomplete, suggesting that they "found" new data for the period 1880 through 1999 that was added in for the 2017 chart. That would be the only legitimate reason why the two charts are different for the same time period. So I ask, what data might be missing from the current data pool? Or are we expected to believe, even if they published incomplete data in 1999, that every data set since has been entirely complete?

The chart you posted in 2017, completes 1999. The 1999 chart ends before 1999 is complete, and you don't see the continued spike upwards.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Again, look closely. Not sure where you and others dig this stuff but you might want to be skeptical yourself

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Raw data...no pretty colored maps

Global Land Temperature Anomalies
Units: Degrees Celsius
Base Period: 1901-2000
Missing: -999
Year,Value
193401,-0.39
193402,0.43
193403,-0.48
193404,-0.45
193405,0.22
193406,-0.02
193407,-0.04
193408,-0.05
193409,-0.36
193410,0.02
193411,0.26
193412,0.11


1999

199901,1.01
199902,1.71
199903,0.38
199904,0.79
199905,0.64
199906,0.64
199907,0.68
199908,0.56
199909,0.67
199910,0.64
199911,0.63
199912,1.21

The chart comparison, not the maps, were for US temperature only, not global. You will have to read the post I was replying to to get the context. Basically I claimed the 1930's were warmer than any years in the past two decades. He responded by quoting an opinion "science" article saying that the 30's were only hot in the US, but not globally, which I didn't have time to dig into, but it also claimed that the 30's were not hotter than the 6 hottest years since 2000, in the US. The chart comparison gif I posted was to show that the published temperature data for the US has changed for that time period. The 1999 chart shows the 30's were hotter than the 2017 chart shows. As for the global land temperature anomalies, 12 data points aren't a lot to go on.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Again, look closely. Not sure where you and others dig this stuff but you might want to be skeptical yourselfView attachment 268707

I don't know what you're seeing that's different from what I'm seeing. This is the data published by NASA for the US in 1999 and 2017. The data for the 30's, particularly, was altered between the two graphs. I am skeptical. I'm not saying what is right, just pointing out there is evidence of data tampering, but some people just accept what is put out by the established "science community" as gospel.

 

[BrownArmy]

Geek-a-palooza, amirite?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Geek-a-palooza, amirite?

Shhhh, don't interrupt, I think they're really on the cusp of solving the climate change debate.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I can't keep explaining the same point or be more clear. Nevermind.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Geek-a-palooza, amirite?

I wish I knew nothing.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I wish I knew nothing.

You're happier than you realize.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I can't keep explaining the same point or be more clear. Nevermind.

I just think you were conflating two different points I was arguing. It's ok. The climate is complex.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I just think you were conflating two different points I was arguing. It's ok. The climate is complex.

maybe, I am just saying the 1999 graph seems to cut pre 2000. Notice the anomalies rise beyond late '99 into 2000, with the peak 4/2000

199907,0.68
199908,0.56
199909,0.67
199910,0.64
199911,0.63
199912,1.21
200001,0.52
200002,1.09
200003,1.09
200004,1.35
200005,0.75
200006,0.64
200007,0.54
200008,0.68
200009,0.52
200010,0.22
200011,0.07
200012,0.23
200101,0.76

Misleading

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Shhhh, don't interrupt, I think they're really on the cusp of solving the climate change debate.

You mother...

I don't know why I let myself get sucked into these things. After all, there is no debate, right?

 

[BrownArmy]

You mother...

I don't know why I let myself get sucked into these things. After all, there is no debate, right?

Yes, you’re the winner.

 

[vantexan]

@vantexan has an IQ of 150. Please don’t disagree with him. He is the smartest person on BC.

Don't stop there. Bend the knee and kiss the ring knave!

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Yes, you’re the winner.

The winner of the lack of a debate?

 

[BrownArmy]

The winner of the lack of a debate?

No, you’re just the all-around winner.

Enjoy your title, it will change soon.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

No, you’re just the all-around winner.

Enjoy your title, it will change soon.

K. Thanks.

 

[It will be fine]

You mother...

I don't know why I let myself get sucked into these things. After all, there is no debate, right?

As much of a debate as flat earth. Maybe some day we’ll put that debate to rest, but there’s just too much evidence on both sides.

 

[newfie]

Again, look closely. Not sure where you and others dig this stuff but you might want to be skeptical yourselfView attachment 268707

the red parts really add to my chart viewing pleasure