Originally posted by scottishinnzPersonally I couldn't care less, the point was to show your twisting and squirming, and you responded as expected, good show.
But the temperature did not cool for 25 years. It cooled over a much shorter period and simply did not warm (probably due to global dimming). The two are not synonymous.
Look at the graph again, they give yearly and the 5 year mean, what would the 10 year mean look like, or a 15 year mean, each time the graph would be smoothed out until eventually it indicated a 30 year cooling period, use a greater span of time and the cooling period would level out (as you selectively claim it to be) then keep going and the dip would disappear all together.
You maintained your position, and that is of a snake.
Originally posted by WajomaBut the graph isn't presented that way. He has deliberately over-simplified the data in order to maintain a position that isn't tenable in light of the evidence presented.
Look at the graph again, they give yearly and the 5 year mean, what would the 10 year mean look like, or a 15 year mean, each time the graph would be smoothed out until eventually it indicated a 30 year cooling period, use a greater span of time and the cooling period would level out (as you selectively claim it to be) then keep going and the dip would disappear all together.
You maintained your position, and that is of a snake.
If you really want to play it that way. The graph shows 3 cooling periods in the 40 - 75 period, and not the single 5 year cooling period then leveling that you claim.
Can't have it both ways scottish, try to define your position F FS.
Edit: Again, I'm not concerned at all with the ups and downs, it's happened before and will continue long after I'm gone, but your writhings, well, haha.
Originally posted by WajomaCorrelations and trends do not mean that every single data point follows the relationship, but that the majority do. Irrespective of the individual data points, or of the cyclic phenomenon (such as the 11 year sunspot cycle) which must be superimposed and rationalised, the long term trend is one of warming - and rapid warming at that.
If you really want to play it that way. The graph shows 3 cooling periods in the 40 - 75 period, and not the single 5 year cooling period then leveling that you claim.
Can't have it both ways scottish, try to define your position F FS.
Edit: Again, I'm not concerned at all with the ups and downs, it's happened before and will continue long after I'm gone, but your writhings, well, haha.
[edit' really, is arguing a single peak in a graph the best you can do? Why are you unwilling to debate the graph as a whole, the entire trend?]
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is what my point is. Instead of a 1 year mean or a 5 year mean, you now want to use the 50 year mean or 100 year mean. You select a period of time that happens to suit your faith and discard everything else as being anomalies. This all came up by you saying that Dr David Evans was a liar.
Correlations and trends do not mean that every single data point follows the relationship, but that the majority do. Irrespective of the individual data points, or of the cyclic phenomenon (such as the 11 year sunspot cycle) which must be superimposed and rationalised, the long term trend is one of warming - and rapid warming at that.
[edit' real ...[text shortened]... the best you can do? Why are you unwilling to debate the graph as a whole, the entire trend?]
Answer this one question: According to the graph was the earth cooler in 1975 than 1940?
Originally posted by WajomaYes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time.
That is what my point is. Instead of a 1 year mean or a 5 year mean, you now want to use the 50 year mean or 100 year mean. You select a period of time that happens to suit your faith and discard everything else as being anomalies. This all came up by you saying that Dr David Evans was a liar.
Answer this one question: According to the graph was the earth cooler in 1975 than 1940?
And one for you. According to the graph, was the temperature higher in 1990 than 1890?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6929668.stm
Originally posted by scottishinnzscottish says: "Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time."
Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time.
And one for you. According to the graph, was the temperature higher in 1990 than 1890?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6929668.stm
Twist and squirm scottish, twist and squirm. Did Dr David Evans say anything about "cooling trend". Why did you use quotation marks here, who are you quoting?
scottish says: "He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A LIE."
The quote from Dr David Evans article:
"We now know that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased..."
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf
scottish says: "And one for you. According to the graph, was the temperature higher in 1990 than 1890?"
Why are you asking me this? Did I call someone a liar in regard to these dates? Is this diversion from you lodging your foot in your mouth? again?
Originally posted by Wajoma[/i]"Someone else said so. Independent repeatable observations only please,
scottish says: "Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time."
Twist and squirm scottish, twist and squirm. Did Dr David Evans say anything about "cooling trend". Why did you use quotation marks here, who are you quoting?
scottish says:[i] "He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A these dates? Is this diversion from you lodging your foot in your mouth? again?
otherwise it's not science."
Here's an interesting quote from that paper, bottom of page 8.
Same was said by us quite a while back, still waiting! 😛
Incidentally: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group