2016 even hotter than 2015 and 2014

[ThickStemz]

In the graph you referenced, the blue line is the natural CO2 cycle, the purple/red line is the added amount of carbon human activity has put into the atmosphere. That is unnatural

Any higher rates of CO2 in the past were natural and they accumulated over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The unnatural CO2 emitted by us that's responsible for the current warming trend accumulated in less than 200 years

Yep. That is self evident.

My point though is you keep harping on 400ppm.

If you look at that graph and read it you'd see naturally peaks go up to about 300ppm.

We're on a natural co2 peak of about 300ppm right now anyway. So our addition has it up to 400ppm.

Obviously we need to work on technology to reduce our co2 and create advanced technologies.

Here is something that bugs me. If you look at the graph 300ppm appears about half of 400ppm. The graph is dishonest in its depiction. It looks like we've doubled the natural peaks. But when you read it we've only added 25% to 33% or so to the current total.

I've seen people criticize Fox News for representing statistics on a graph out of scale. This graph does the same thing. Showing 400ppm as twice as high as 300ppm.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yep. That is self evident.

My point though is you keep harping on 400ppm.

If you look at that graph and read it you'd see naturally peaks go up to about 300ppm.

We're on a natural co2 peak of about 300ppm right now anyway. So our addition has it up to 400ppm.

Obviously we need to work on technology to reduce our co2 and create advanced technologies.

Here is something that bugs me. If you look at the graph 300ppm appears about half of 400ppm. The graph is dishonest in its depiction. It looks like we've doubled the natural peaks. But when you read it we've only added 25% to 33% or so to the current total.

I've seen people criticize Fox News for representing statistics on a graph out of scale. This graph does the same thing. Showing 400ppm as twice as high as 300ppm.

No it doesn't, that graph tells the exact same story as the previous graph

 

[ThickStemz]

No it doesn't, that graph tells the exact same story as the previous graph

The graph represented that way is accurate to scale.

The way I've seen it posted by the fellow who posted it is the misleading version. How shocking that fellow decided to misrepresent the visual effects of something.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The graph represented that way is accurate to scale.

The way I've seen it posted by the fellow who posted it is the misleading version. How shocking that fellow decided to misrepresent the visual effects of something.

He didn't misrepresent anything, the original graph didn't misrepresent anything, I just altered the same graph in paint to show you it says the exact same information. You think it looks deceptive because you already hold a personal bias against anthropogenic climate change. Anyone reading the information the graph depicts would understand natural amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere range from between 175PPM to 300PPM, and the most recent spike is demonstrably unnatural

 

[ttystikk]

I put people on ignore when they refuse to acknowledge settled science. At that point, they've proven themselves to be beyond the pale of reason, therefore attempting to continue reasoning with such people is a complete waste of time.

He knows he's wrong, he's just getting his jollies.

 

[Fogdog]

I put people on ignore when they refuse to acknowledge settled science. At that point, they've proven themselves to be beyond the pale of reason, therefore attempting to continue reasoning with such people is a complete waste of time.

He knows he's wrong, he's just getting his jollies.

Yeah, ignore. Boring people go on ignore.

 

[ThickStemz]

He didn't misrepresent anything, the original graph didn't misrepresent anything, I just altered the same graph in paint to show you it says the exact same information. You think it looks deceptive because you already hold a personal bias against anthropogenic climate change. Anyone reading the information the graph depicts would understand natural amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere range from between 175PPM to 300PPM, and the most recent spike is demonstrably unnatural

There are two ways to read a graph. Since they're designed to convey information by looking at them, the visual way is the first way of reading them.

The second way is actually looking at both axi and taking note of the values.

When the graph here goes to zero it represents the data accurately in both the visual and axi values.

When it was choped off to 175 on the y axis the values were still accurate, but the impression given by the visual was out of proportion.

This is undeniable reality.

 

[ThickStemz]

I put people on ignore when they refuse to acknowledge settled science. At that point, they've proven themselves to be beyond the pale of reason, therefore attempting to continue reasoning with such people is a complete waste of time.

He knows he's wrong, he's just getting his jollies.

I'm not denying it. Man is adding to co2 above and beyond what would naturally occur on the earth and that causes the earth to warm.

I'm just not participating in the circle jerk that goes along with it here where it seems to be one of the five pillars. It's a sacred cow and has taken on the trappings of dogma.

 

[Padawanbater2]

When it was choped off to 175 on the y axis the values were still accurate, but the impression given by the visual was out of proportion.

Only to somebody who can't read a graph

That isn't the graph's fault

 

[ThickStemz]

Only to somebody who can't read a graph

That isn't the graph's fault

It's the same type of criticism you levy against FNC. It's a subtle undertone to push an agenda.

Showing them so skewed with respect to their true proportion to each other serves to sway the low information crowd to just glance and not go in depth and read it only visually and see man made going twice as high when it's only going 25 to 33% or so higher

 

[ttystikk]

I'm not denying it. Man is adding to co2 above and beyond what would naturally occur on the earth and that causes the earth to warm.

I'm just not participating in the circle jerk that goes along with it here where it seems to be one of the five pillars. It's a sacred cow and has taken on the trappings of dogma.

No more or less than the dogma surrounding that other quack theory with just as much doubt about its operation;

Gravity.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's the same type of criticism you levy against FNC. It's a subtle undertone to push an agenda.

Showing them so skewed with respect to their true proportion to each other serves to sway the low information crowd to just glance and not go in depth and read it only visually and see man made going twice as high when it's only going 25 to 33% or so higher

Yet you were defending Fox News for doing it but you're condemning it here?

 

[Not GOP]

I put people on ignore when they refuse to acknowledge settled science. At that point, they've proven themselves to be beyond the pale of reason, therefore attempting to continue reasoning with such people is a complete waste of time.

He knows he's wrong, he's just getting his jollies.

The thing about science... it's never settled. There is so much more to discover. It looks like you are more likely making excuses not to hear other points of view. Ignorance is bliss, and gives you hope for a socialist utopia.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The thing about science... it's never settled. There is so much more to discover. It looks like you are more likely making excuses not to hear other points of view. Ignorance is bliss, and gives you hope for a socialist utopia.

Science as a whole isn't settled, but things like human reproduction and human evolution or the atomic number of an element, all settled science. They are "settled" to the point that accurate predictions can be made based off of what is known about them, i.e. a male and a female have sex to become pregnant.

Same thing with anthropogenic climate change. We know enough about it to make accurate predictions about the future.

That's what makes it settled science. It doesn't mean we're done, we've figured it all out, that's it, we're finished

 

[ttystikk]

The thing about science... it's never settled. There is so much more to discover. It looks like you are more likely making excuses not to hear other points of view. Ignorance is bliss, and gives you hope for a socialist utopia.

The picture may never be perfect, but it gives a pretty good view. It's too bad you're not even looking, snowed as you are by a convenient propaganda, one that absolves you and your sycophants of any responsibility for the destruction of the environment with your profligate and self centered habits.

 

[ThickStemz]

No more or less than the dogma surrounding that other quack theory with just as much doubt about its operation;

Gravity.

Ah... but no one is trying to use gravity as an excuse to gain power.

 

[ttystikk]

Ah... but no one is trying to use gravity as an excuse to gain power.

So why are you defending them?

 

[Not GOP]

The picture may never be perfect, but it gives a pretty good view. It's too bad you're not even looking, snowed as you are by a convenient propaganda, one that absolves you and your sycophants of any responsibility for the destruction of the environment with your profligate and self centered habits.

What makes you believe I destruct the environment, and have self centered habits? Is it because I deny the premise that you know everything about the planet?

 

[ThickStemz]

So why are you defending them?

There are those on both side of this issue interested in using it to push their agenda and secure for themselves more power. I am against both of them. I don't see anyone here supporting much that would go to benefit the ExxonMobile end of this spectrum. I have plenty to say about them when discussing this issue with people of different persuasions.

 

[ThickStemz]

Yet you were defending Fox News for doing it but you're condemning it here?

To the extent that Fox News is guilty of it, I would simply say that its wrong to do and they should stop. But I'm not talking about any one example so more specific comments aren't warranted.

I never said they actually did it, but when possible the true proportion should be shown in a graph. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with the implications.