Higher highs overwhelms Lower Low recorded temperatures, case for global warming

Quote from drjekyllus:

Based on this analysis I suspect you are one of many losers on ET. Why not use 420,000 years of data? Maybe the picture will become clearer.

From this graph it would appear that temp data is rather stationary. This one calls for a RTM strategy.
More...
I am not sure what is the significance of the 420k year data you posted on from the ice cores studies to what I posted in this thread. The study from Meehl et al. makes no connection or inference on the CO2, dust level and global warming. It showed that in the past 4 out of 5 decades, there is a significant recorded higher highs than lower lows of continental US tempearatures, suggestive of warming.

The long term data is useful for a baseline study of global temperature to other climate factors, but if you want to study human effects on climate changes, the significant data are in the last few hundred years, not hundreds of thousands of years ago when the human population was in the tens of thousands.
 
Quote from Index piker:

Yes I certainly do think the IPCC is just that dumb.
I think they are just politicizing a non-problem for extortion purposes.

However if the IPCC are correct in their predictions , I still just do not care.
Their hysteria does not alarm me anymore than the work of Thomas Malthus or that nutcase Paul Ehrlich.

Furthermore I don't find the concept of AGW even if accurate worthty of one thin dime of my net resources..

IOW: Bring it on!
More...

So, you retract your totally implausible claim the GW is due to the increasing solar radiation due to solar evolution over time scales of the order of a billion years?

Or like the great majority of deniers, keep repeating nonsense that is demonstrably false, in the hope of confusing and obfuscating the issues?

You see, truth does not matter to the most vocal of the deniers - just their peculiar brand of right wing politics.
 
Quote from dcraig:

So, you retract your totally implausible claim the GW is due to the increasing solar radiation due to solar evolution over time scales of the order of a billion years?

More...
I'm sorry you misunderstood I was merely pointing out "the burnt cinder future" information the likes of which is probably news to the IPCC .


4 salient points
1) I think AGW is wrong or vastly overstated.

2) The monstrous hubris that man can control the earth's climate is laughable.

3)So far all the solutions for AGW are civilization killers anyway.

4) Even if the predictions by IPCC are correct: I DON"T CARE, IT'S NO BIG DEAL when compared to real threats that exist.
 
the sample size is not large enough to reach a concrete conclusion

In any event, the environment will slowly deteriorate anyway, we should spend more time and money developing inter-planetary travel and astrobiology than this claptrap, eventually if mankind is to survive it will have to leave earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top