The point of that graph is to show that there's cooling for a 30 year period, despite increasing CO2 during that time. No one is trying to hide the data since 1970.
Here's another 30-year period that's not very impressive. Unless you think that temperature variation within 1 degreee Celcius is frightening.
Yawn.
Well done, Darrin. Spoken like someone who clearly doesn't understand global temperature figures.
It is funny to see you dance though. First its cooling, then we don't do enough to add CO2 to the atmosphere and now its ONLY warming a certain amount.
Nice.
If you followed past conversations, the AGW crowd likes to tell everyone how much warming we had since the 70's, and use satellite data to support their claims, which started in the 70's. This short term data starts at a low point. I simply countered the argument of cherry picking. Now I don't think Darrin intended that as cherry picking as he was accused of. I think his intent was the same as mine, to show there are normal short term trends that are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
I don't grasp at straws. Not my fault you don't understand. You simply don't see the correlation of what the chart shows - at least for those who understand the effect eccentricity has. You see, we started coming out of the last major ice age when the vector of the eccentricity changed. This slow warming trend will continue for another 20+k years. We have no way to stop it. Solar irradiation changes will still drive the Bond events, but over the course of several thousand years, we will continue to warm up.
This long term trend has more relevance than the way the AGW crowd quantifies the effect of CO2.
It bothers me that this one uses a 13 month average instead of a 12 month average.The point of that graph is to show that there's cooling for a 30 year period, despite increasing CO2 during that time. No one is trying to hide the data since 1970.
Here's another 30-year period that's not very impressive. Unless you think that temperature variation within 1 degreee Celcius is frightening.
Yawn.
Wow... Just wow...
Ignore his obvious point.
Are you really that dumb?
Oooo! Oooo! Let me answer that.
YES! MANNY IS THAT DUMB.
Long term as in 100s of thousands of years you still may not see a temperature rise like AGW is capable of causing. Its not my fault you can't understand that.
Orbital changes will show up as increased solar radiation. Thats something you somehow can't understand that hasn't increased enough to cause the warming we've seen.
Its not my fault you can't understand that very simple fact.
The obvious point that .6 degrees Celsius isn't a big deal? Given the context of the situation its a big deal. The fact that you guys don't understand that isn't my fault.
Yeah - I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in the thread with any training in the relevant sciences and I'm the dumb one.
Yep. What a waste of an education, Manny.
Again, you jump to conclusions. The AGW crowd claims that long term we will see temperature increases from anthropogenic forces. What they are doing, and the true believers like you don't understand, it they will claim this natural change is man-made, and claim their position was correct.
Yep...
About a 0.8 C rise since 1750.
Very little is man made. Most of this increase is natural.
I'm sure you have modeled that extensively, and produced a peer-reviewed paper to prove this thesis, correct?
No.
I have gone by peer reviews papers like Lean 2004, and used other peer reviewed finding to show what they don't.
As for the peer review process, it lacks integrity in the field of climatology. the peer review process is being limited to those who already agree, rather than having an open process.
Peer review in climatology is a joke.
So you keep saying.
If the science were so airtight in support of your theory, then it would still win out nonetheless. Biased and messy it might be, but the right idea, backed by appropriate data would still win out.
Unless you can prove that everybody involved in climate science is outright lying and dishonest.
Do you have proof that the thousands of people involved are all lying and dishonest?
lol "thousands"
But my side is winning.
This is a topic invested by too many people and too much money right now. When you look at momentum, the AGW theory is constantly losing supporters. Their agenda isn't forming as it would if it were real. It won't be long till this AGW scare is a laughable part of history like the global cooling scare in the 70's was.
No such thing needs to be proved. They need to prove their case, as the default position of science is to be skeptical. Something they all forgot.
I never said thousands were. Such a conspiracy would be impossible to maintain, and the few that are involved in lying have had some of their emails exposed.
Incorrect scientific believe has made it's way into the schools. The hypothesis, which barely warrants being called a theory, has been taught as fact for years. Just like the earth being flat used to be. One day, this will all correct itself. I will contend that most people believe the AGW lies because they were indoctrinated to believe it. Not because they have an agenda themselves, malice, profit etc.
WC, PussyEater, Jack, et all are a total dupes, ignorant, self-flattering tools of the heavily financed and focused VRWC by the carbon-extractors/polluters to protect their profits.
What a ing coincidence that all of climate scientists are wrong to the benefit of the wealthy conspiring polluters. Seems like the more and longer the VRWC pays, the luckier it gets.
Great Britain desperately wishing for global warming
There is more than enough money from the oil/coal companies going to fund such "studies" that I personally have to treat that with a fair amount of skepticism as well.
That one side is "losing supporters" to a well-funded propaganda campaign is not really all that convincing to me.
That is, by the way, an Appeal to Belief, another logical fallacy.
Your implication that your theory is true, because more and more people believe it is true, does nothing for the merits of the case.
The science will win out in the end, of that I have no doubt.
The raw data aren't impressed with money.
Remember when Darrin tried to say it was cooling in 2010? That was pretty funny. Remember when Darrin pointed to the 1998 El Nino but didn't mention the La Nina in 2010 that couldn't stop 2010 from being amount the warmest years on record? That was pretty funny too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
