by designs 165 Replies latest social current
betsy
Well if temperature charts are the definitive proof of any assumption then checking before the industrial revolution is a fair test. Rambling about other factors hardly adds data or depth to any argument and makes you look at best uninformed or perhaps dishonest. You make big claims but simple analysis of past trends doesnt support your view.
betsy
I don't know anybody who promotes the idea of a constant climate.
MP:
Well you keep mentioning climate change as if it were knew completely disregarding until now that it has been getting warmer for hundreds of years. What i find interesting is given the acceleration of pollution in the past 50 years the graph should not be linear but exponential and yet its not. Are we to honest believe that the increase in the 1600s has the almost same gradient as 2000 ? Thats absurd.
The Economist? Or http://theresilientearth.com/ ?
It is from The Economist.
Well you keep mentioning climate change as if it were knew completely disregarding until now that it has been getting warmer for hundreds of years.
@mP - the science of climate change might be new to you but it has been under way since the late 19th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
What i find interesting is given the acceleration of pollution in the past 50 years the graph should not be linear but exponential and yet its not. Are we to honest believe that the increase in the 1600s has the almost same gradient as 2000 ?
I'd need to know what graph you are referring to before I could comment.
It is from The Economist.
No. It is from the rag Daily Mail:
And here is why:
http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2013/03/daily-mail-climate-change-bullshit.html
You and your graphs have been pantsed again. Honesty is a better policy. And less embarrassing.
OK - to summarise, you accept greenhouse gas theory, you accept that human origin CO2 warms the planet, you are open minded on the causes of climate change and you feel an Ice Age beginning in 2014 is inevitable. You are not convinced scientific consensus exists with regard to climate change.
Did I get that right?
What you need more clarification on is previous planetary warming going back 11,000 years and 125,000 years. Correct?
You mostly got that right. I believe that humans can contribute to accelerating an eventuality that is destined to happen anyways with or without man. I think a new ice age beginning in 2014 is a remote possiblity, and if it happens, then we adapt just like we've always done. In other words there is little to no sense in running around in a panic, and regressing technologically for something that will inevitably happen anyways. I'd argue that things like this should give us more impetus to advance further, and perhaps diversify our planetary choices of where to live. I have no problem taking money from the military and giving it to NASA and other US based space research firms.
I would be very interested to hear some clarification/explanation though from the AGW body on how the earth was warmer and most of the ice melted prior to the industrial revolution.
No. It is from the rag Daily Mail:
You are wrong. As I said, that graphic I attributed to The Economist is from The Economist.
Here is what I said previously:
The other chart is from The Economist.
What I said is correct. What you and Berengaria are saying is incorrect, and I have proven that by linking to the original article.
And even if it wasn't from that source, but a different one, it would still be accurate if the underlying data accurately represents both observed temperatures and predicted temperatures.
The underlying data show the actual temperature data on the verge of being outside the predicted temperature's 95% confidence interval.
That means the models' predictive powers might not be very good. A flat or cooler year would push it out of the range entirely.
You and your graphs have been pantsed again. Honesty is a better policy. And less embarrassing.
You obviously aren't paying any attention to the discussion and are only coming around to bash and engage in personal attacks. You have shown yourself to be either dishonest or unintelligent here, and are looking foolish yet again.
You obviously aren't paying any attention to the discussion and are only coming around to bash and engage in personal attacks. You have shown yourself to be either dishonest or unintelligent here, and are looking foolish yet again.
Hooray for longer growing seasons .
Hooray for longer growing seasons .
Thermageddon will destroy us all.
