To those who don't believe AGW is real

[TimberWolf]

So to summarise: more hot air and BS from the sceptics who clearly don't have the requisite knowledge or mental apparatus to understand the arguments in a complex topic.

Next!

I think some of our sceptics have been taken in a bit by the high temperatures around 1998 and that used for evil purposes by their sceptic leaders to support a 'decade of cooling' hypothesis from that high 10 years ago, just as the AGW'ers use a handy low temperature and upward trend beginning around 1975?

[sasguru]

I think some of our sceptics have been taken in a bit by the high temperatures around 1998 and that used for evil purposes by their sceptic leaders to support a 'decade of cooling' hypothesis from that high 10 years ago, just as the AGW'ers use a handy low temperature and upward trend beginning around 1975?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the links posted in this thread.

[Bob Dalek]

I countered your rather silly arguments to that paper. Those arguments indicated that you don't have the requisite knowledge to assess what they are talking about.
HTH

Your comments on the model were laughable.

The model? You mean the "model" they, themselves, call into question? Titter!

[sasguru]

The model? You mean the "model" they, themselves, call into question? Titter!

Where do they call it into question?
Tit!

[sasguru]

Right off to a meeting.
Gibber and prance around amongst yourselves. I'll be back to clean up the faeces later.

[Bob Dalek]

Where do they call it into question?
Tit!

"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."

So, brains, they parp on about preceding analyses and models (in the same paragraph), and then caution that they are, oh dear, not necessarily of any use!

Your bronze swimming badge is not, I repeat not, an A Level in anything.

[TimberWolf]

Can we all at least agree that global warming is an entertaining topic?

[sasguru]

"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."

So, brains, they parp on about preceding analyses and models (in the same paragraph), and then caution that they are, oh dear, not necessarily of any use!

Your bronze swimming badge is not, I repeat not, an A Level in anything.

Look up the idea of confidence intervals especially when applied to modelling. That's what they are talking about. To be fair they should have quantified it.

If you don't know how modelling works, which is clear, why parp on about them and reveal your ignorance ?

[The Lone Gunman]

I wasn't goint to join in this, but it looks like fun.

As I have asked before, and you have copletely ignored the data. What about the ice core data (and others) that shows trends over millions of years, not a few hundred?

OK SAS: Lets just accept your point about noise on long term trends.
I would like to suggest that my prefered data of the last 65 million years shows that the long term trend is actualy that of a cooling earth. There are clearly shorter term periods of fluctuation but as you say, they are just noise.

See here http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...Change_Rev_png

If you just take the last 5 million years you see a more cyclic global temperature trend with rapid rises and then long cooling periods every 130 thousand years or so.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...rature_Rev_png

Please show me how AGW was responsible for the last 3 peaks on that data.

I am not saying I do not believe in AGW, but I fall firmly into your sceptics camp.
I would hold that GW occurs in natural cycles influenced by all sorts of inputs.
Mankind must be having an effect, but I am not yet ready to accept your argument.
It is clear from more recent data that a plateau is occuring in the data which has not occured before but a cause for this is a long way from certain.

What about the pastafarian belief that GW is caused by a lack of pirates? The decline of pirates does seem to reflect the increase in GW.

[Bob Dalek]

Look up the idea of confidence intervals especially when applied to modelling. That's what they are talking about. To be fair they should have quantified it.

If you don't know how modelling works, which is clear, why parp on about them and reveal your ignorance ?

I am, like you, not a climate specialist. Nor an expert on modelling. But I don't have to be. They pissed on their own chips, and it's tragic types like you who gobble it all up without question that they feed on.

There is simply no way that 115 years is a long enough time frame to use to unequivocally identify climate trends of that nature.

And as for ignorance: I am ignorant when it comes to AGW; but so are the numpties you salivate over.