Global Warming

[Damocles]

These things are easily fakeable. Never trust anything of wicky or skeptical science :)

Feel free to make your own graph from the data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51</a>

EDIT: That's the wrong tab, but it's a paper supporting the conclusion

 

[pauldominic]

Being as how cows produce huge amounts of methane its their fault.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

This is bollocks. You are talking about local and not global temperature. Show me the data. Here's mine:

I see climate gate passed you by. Your use of the discredited Briffa graphic does you no justice.

[bigimg]http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/muller_1.png?w=300&h=252[/bigimg]

this is what they wanted us to worry about.

[bigimg]http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/muller_21.png?w=300&h=246[/bigimg]

Here's one where the decline wasn't hidden.

I see the results of a bunch of independent enquiries that didn't take random sentences out of context in an email conversation from several years passed you by. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf</a>

Oh, and that they went back to the original data and found the exact same trends as quoted.

It may say independent on the front cover but there are many who would argue it wasn't.

 

[Skashion]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter2.pdf</a>
p. 203

The Level of Scientific Understanding for almost all forcings, according to the IPCC, are low to very low or very low. Out of sixteen factors, five are very low, six are low to very low, two medium to low, two medium and only one high. By marvellous coincidence, the higher LoSUs happen to be positive forcings i.e. ones where the temperature will go up, and low vice versa. How can data with margins of error as big as they are for the cloud albedo effect and lack of understanding so pronounced be considered conclusive? Fuck knows.

 

[Tuearts right boot]

How does anyone know the bloody temperatures in the medievel times when the basic thermometer wasn't invented for at least 200 years later.

 

[Davs 19]

These things are easily fakeable. Never trust anything of wicky or skeptical science :)

Feel free to make your own graph from the data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51</a>

EDIT: That's the wrong tab, but it's a paper supporting the conclusion

I was being tongue in cheek. My point is that the data I was talking about I'd from a site which is openly sceptical about the claims of others that there is no 'man made' impact on possible global warning. Obviously they use data which supports there case, just as those with opposing views do. I'm not sure which camp I'm in as there seems to be a recent welter of opinion that we are in fact, just going through a predicted cycle of climate change. Just pointing out that the source from which you pulled your data can't be considered open minded.

 

[Challenger1978]

How does anyone know the bloody temperatures in the medievel times when the basic thermometer wasn't invented for at least 200 years later.

The thickness of tree rings maybe ?

 

[Damocles]

These things are easily fakeable. Never trust anything of wicky or skeptical science :)

Feel free to make your own graph from the data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51</a>

EDIT: That's the wrong tab, but it's a paper supporting the conclusion

I was being tongue in cheek. My point is that the data I was talking about I'd from a site which is openly sceptical about the claims of others that there is no 'man made' impact on possible global warning. Obviously they use data which supports there case, just as those with opposing views do. I'm not sure which camp I'm in as there seems to be a recent welter of opinion that we are in fact, just going through a predicted cycle of climate change. Just pointing out that the source from which you pulled your data can't be considered open minded.

I don't actually use either site, it's just easy to Google for a data image graph than going back to the source when you know what the data says already.

 

[Davs 19]

Feel free to make your own graph from the data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51</a>

EDIT: That's the wrong tab, but it's a paper supporting the conclusion

I was being tongue in cheek. My point is that the data I was talking about I'd from a site which is openly sceptical about the claims of others that there is no 'man made' impact on possible global warning. Obviously they use data which supports there case, just as those with opposing views do. I'm not sure which camp I'm in as there seems to be a recent welter of opinion that we are in fact, just going through a predicted cycle of climate change. Just pointing out that the source from which you pulled your data can't be considered open minded.

I don't actually use either site, it's just easy to Google for a data image graph than going back to the source when you know what the data says already.

Fair enough Damo.

 

[Damocles]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter2.pdf</a>
p. 203

The Level of Scientific Understanding for almost all forcings, according to the IPCC, are low to very low or very low. Out of sixteen factors, five are very low, six are low to very low, two medium to low, two medium and only one high. By marvellous coincidence, the higher LoSUs happen to be positive forcings i.e. ones where the temperature will go up, and low vice versa. How can data with margins of error as big as they are for the cloud albedo effect and lack of understanding so pronounced be considered conclusive? Fuck knows.

Let me try and bring this down to more common language as we're getting into technical language here and this argument will go a bit mad.

You are stating that a Level of Scientific Understanding for the different factors that drive climate change are low, with the exception of the one that we understand the most, that points to a large warming. Then you provide a paper on radiative forcing.

And you think that despite have a large understanding of a primary cause of temperature and is showing a clear correlation, we should what? Ignore it? Say that we don't know?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, especially with "By marvellous coincidence"?