What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

Caught By the B... Shameless Monkey Boy: what the hell are you scatterbraining around now? what about the time scale? why don't you plot all the way back to the ordovician and then try to highlight the last ten years trend?

Stop fuzzing nonsense and just begin to answer some basic questions. I.e., tell all of us from your superior sapience how do you explain the similar amount of rising temps from 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 if the increase in CO2 concentrations were so disimilar (10 vs 50 ppm) for those periods.

Not that the debate with you is much more rationale than with Believer Troy, but at least you are more funny and hard-working.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

This your answer proves my assertion about you being just a true believer. Not of use trying to keep a rational debate with you anymore. Thanks.

How would you know? You've never tried.

Your beef with me isn't that I accept arguments from authority; it's that I won't accept you as an authority.

[troy2000]

Here we go, Guillermo. A blind test from the Associated Press:

"Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.

"Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

"The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

"In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.


"'If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,' said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5423035.shtml

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Caught By the B... Shameless Monkey Boy: what the hell are you scatterbraining around now? what about the time scale? why don't you plot all the way back to the ordovician and then try to highlight the last ten years trend?

Stop fuzzing nonsense and just begin to answer some basic questions. I.e., tell all of us from your superior sapience how do you explain the similar amount of rising temps from 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 if the increase in CO2 concentrations were so disimilar (10 vs 50 ppm) for those periods.

Not that the debate with you is much more rationale than with Believer Troy, but at least you are more funny and hard-working.

well I'm glad you see some humor in it G cause at this point its all in good fun anyway

ok let me get some food in me and then I'll come check the latest wild assertions for obvious errors

[Boston]

Originally Posted by troy2000

How would you know? You've never tried.

Your beef with me isn't that I accept arguments from authority; it's that I won't accept you as the authority.

Guillermo can be an authority
as long as he's buying rounds that is

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

well I'm glad you see some humor in it G cause at this point its all in good fun anyway

ok let me get some food in me and then I'll come check the latest wild assertions for obvious errors

Why would you check your own wild assertions for obvious errors? Just leave them out and post tame assertions.

[wardd]

Enough talk, more charts proving something or other!!

[Boston]

I kinda prefer to tackle the wild ones myself, brunettes to be exact, but to each his own.
I suppose if you prefer larger, tamer woman thats up to you there shipmate.

[hoytedow]

The lowest common denominator is the one at the bottom. Look below.

[Boston]

no problem



if you notice the recent forcing seen clearly in the instrument record of the industrial age contains an oscillation reasonably consistent with the normal oscillating trend. That oscillation is the movement that some folks are trying to foist off as an issue, its not. Matter of fact it seems completely reasonable that we will see several more of these kinds of fluctuations in the rising trend over the next 50 years or so.
Doesn't mean that trend wont continue rising, just means that we live in a complex system.

just sayin

love
B

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

The lowest common denominator is the one at the bottom.

old military expression, "remember your weapon was made by the lowest bidder"

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo View Post

Stop fuzzing nonsense and just begin to answer some basic questions. I.e., tell all of us from your superior sapience how do you explain the similar amount of rising temps from 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 if the increase in CO2 concentrations were so dissimilar (10 vs 50 ppm) for those periods.

its tough to get an ape to where glasses isn't it
you gotta work on these questions a little G of the Jungle cause this bit about there being a similar amount of increase in temp between 1910~1940 and the 1970~200 period is got me questioning your visual acuity



if you look at the graph presented you will see that the first period you question has a rise in temp of about 0.4°C and the second of about 0,9°C yet your sayin they have a "similar amount of rising temps" when if fact according to the graph we are looking at these days they actually have no similarities in the increase in temp other than both increases were positive. So once again its difficult to properly field such a poorly constructed question.

if you would like to look at some other graphs you will notice a similar problem but this time based on a lack of knowledge surrounding the burning of high sulfur coals and the interactions of aerosols in the system



The real nail in the coffin for this kind of argument is the simple fact that the slight downward trend from about 45 to 75 is largely attributed to the increase in sulfate aerosols seen during this time because of the burning of high sulfur coal. Aerosols have a cooling effect as we have discussed before, if you consider that there are other factors like these aerosols that influence the system then it all becomes a bit more clear

likely this simple realization will also put a slight bruise on our banana of the day but hey

monkeys don't seem to care

love
B

[hoytedow]

“Never trust a man in a bow tie.”
Doc Wilson

[wardd]

Koch Industries Donates $1 Million to Prop 23 Effort To Kill California Climate Law

and I bet they have charts too

[Boston]

sure but there charts where probably made by Guillermo