greggerypeccary wrote on May 27
th, 2014 at 11:34am:
rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27
th, 2014 at 12:32am:
greggerypeccary wrote on May 26
th, 2014 at 5:39pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on May 26
th, 2014 at 5:13pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on May 26
th, 2014 at 2:26pm:
Kytro wrote on May 26
th, 2014 at 2:10pm:
i'm not really sure what you are trying to get at by saying 100 years isn't much time.
I can't make it any clearer.
It's relatively insignificant.
One cannot come to an accurate conclusion about the Earth's climate based on only one or two hundred years of official records.
To suggest otherwise is just naive foolishness.
One
can come to an accurate conclusion about the Earth's climate during the period of time that humans have populated it with significant infrastructure based on only one or two hundred years of official records Greggery.
This is what we are discussing Greggery. This is the issue.
One can
not accurately conclude that it is unusual, or even significant.
No Greggery.
An anomaly well beyond the
observed data is unusual, and even significant.
The planet is warming.
To deny that is sily
Your "observed data" is relatively insignificant.
No Greggery. Over a century of climate data is very significant in the context of man's built environment. This is how we have towns and cities built where they are and how they are. And this is why agriculture and other industries have developed the way they have. All based on the relatively stable climactic conditions observed during the period of their development. These climactic conditions are now changing significantly.
greggerypeccary wrote on May 27
th, 2014 at 11:34am:
That's one of the major problems with your theory.
Not my theory Greggery. A theory developed over decades by those that study these matters. If the 'theory' had 'major problems' - it wouldn't be a valid theory. But it doesn't. So it is.
greggerypeccary wrote on May 27
th, 2014 at 11:34am:
The temperature at my place right now is about 6 degrees warmer than it was when I woke up this morning. Oh dear! The planet is warming!
Yes Greggery. Most parts of the planet generally warm and cool on a daily basis because of the rotation of the earth. This is why an hourly time frame is not appropriate when discussing long term climate.
And there are other drivers such as ENSO or solar irradiance which affect climate over yearly or decadal time spans - this is why a yearly time frame is not appropriate when discussing long term climate.
And there are other non-cyclical drivers such as volcanic activity which may affect climate for a short amount of time on an irregular basis.
But when measured over many decades - these irregularities tend to even out - and we can observe a relatively stable climate. This relatively stable climate is now being observed to be changing to a degree that is beyond the normally expected anomalies.
greggerypeccary wrote on May 27
th, 2014 at 11:34am:
See how ridiculous your data is?
I certainly see something ridiculous
greggerypeccary wrote on May 27
th, 2014 at 11:34am:
Two hours, two months, two hundred years: all ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.
Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.
Two hundred years isn't.
If a 50yo man who had had a relatively constant weight of 80kg for a decade weighed himself every morning and noticed a 10% weight increase every week - would you argue that it is impossible to know if he is in fact gaining weight - because from his point of conception 50 years ago he gained weight at a much quicker rate? Or would you perhaps disregard his embryonic and adolescent periods of weight gain as being not relevant to the issue of his current adult health?
Forum
Pages: 
Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud (Read 10778 times)
