To those who don't believe AGW is real

[shaunbhoy]

Fantastic argument proving ...what? That SB is mildly amusing and witty but not the sharpest tool in the box?

Not sure how old you are sg, but summers are most definitely NOT warmer than they were as recently as the 60s and 70s, no matter how many "special needs" graphics you want to trump up. A damned sight wetter I'll grant you but warmer? Get yourself outdoors man and stop spending your time researching websites that tell you what to think. Have a bash at analysing things for yourself and remember, when you fall off the horse just get straight back on!!


Now I am off for a well earned holiday

TTFN

[EternalOptimist]

Mars - warming up. No CO2. Cause - solar irradiation

Earth -hardly warming up, CO2 way up. cause - CO2


sasguru

[shaunbhoy]

Mars - warming up. No CO2. Cause - solar irradiation

Earth -hardly warming up, CO2 way up. cause - CO2


sasguru

The only thing raising the temperature in any meaningful way is the hot air being expelled by sycophants like sasguru, and countless farting ruminants. Not much in it for who makes most sense either!!

[Bob Dalek]

More drool, no arguments or numbers. Par for the course.

The IPCC presented a falsifiable hypothesis. The data confirmed that the hypothesis stood:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Pu...ience_2007.pdf

That's a pretty poor link.

"Since 1990 the observed sea level has been rising faster than the rise projected by models"
- So their models, or their peers' models, are junk.

"The rate of rise for the past 20 years of the reconstructed sea level is 25% faster than the rate of rise in any 20-year period in the preceding 115 years."
- 115 years? Utterly meaningless.

"Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy; it would be premature to conclude that sea level will continue to follow this “upper limit” line in future."
- Ah! They agree with me: their data is meaningless.

[DimPrawn]

That's a pretty poor link.

"Since 1990 the observed sea level has been rising faster than the rise projected by models"
- So their models, or their peers' models, are junk.

"The rate of rise for the past 20 years of the reconstructed sea level is 25% faster than the rate of rise in any 20-year period in the preceding 115 years."
- 115 years? Utterly meaningless.

"Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy; it would be premature to conclude that sea level will continue to follow this “upper limit” line in future."
- Ah! They agree with me: their data is meaningless.

Meaningless + Random Noise = Noisy Random Meaningless Bulltulip.

[TimberWolf]

I must admit I'm unconvinced by the statistical argument used by AGW supporters that 1975 is a choice (non-cherry picked) starting point (and which also happens to coincide with where temperatures began a recent significant upward trend), while scoffing at the seemingly blatently1990 cherry-picked starting date used by denialists which shows a cooling trend.

Roughly over the last 100 million years the Earth has been cooling, over the last 1 million years about static, 10,000 static, and over the last 150 years rising. It's hotter now than it has been for 12,000 years.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1880-2005.gif

[sasguru]

That's a pretty poor link.

"Since 1990 the observed sea level has been rising faster than the rise projected by models"
- So their models, or their peers' models, are junk.

Read up about mathematical models before you make such a stupid statement. Models are representations of reality not reality itself. No model will predict anything 100% - but a good one will predict a trend or direction and a really good one will get the numbers nearly right - as has happened for temperature rise.
"The rate of rise for the past 20 years of the reconstructed sea level is 25% faster than the rate of rise in any 20-year period in the preceding 115 years."
- 115 years? Utterly meaningless.

Why meaningless as this is the period that C02 emissions have risen. If anything they should have started a little later.

"Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy; it would be premature to conclude that sea level will continue to follow this “upper limit” line in future."
- Ah! They agree with me: their data is meaningless.

That's not what they are saying is it? I've been trying to drum the simple concept of variation and randomness into Dim's brain throughout this thread

It's becoming clear that most of you don't have the necessary knowledge (of data analysis and statistics, let alone basic scientific method) to really have a meaningful discussion of this topic.
I blame the educashun system

[tay]

It's becoming clear that most of you don't have the necessary knowledge (of data analysis and statistics, let alone basic scientific method) to really have a meaningful discussion of this topic.
I blame the educashun system

Blind faith

[DodgyAgent]

No its just statement of fact. Someone who resorts to screaming the same discredited argument time after time without addressing the evidence presented against is a retard by my definition.

Evidence that you are interpreting to suit your own agenda.

[tay]

Roughly over the last 100 million years the Earth has been cooling, over the last 1 million years about static, 10,000 static, and over the last 150 years rising. It's hotter now than it has been for 12,000 years.

Sorry that doesnt count, SAS said so earlier.