>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too? >> http://tinyurl.com/27v967 > I'll take that as a 'NO'. Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
After reworking the faulty algorithm, we find that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record...
>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too? >> http://tinyurl.com/27v967 > I'll take that as a 'NO'. Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
After reworking the faulty algorithm, we find that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record...
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Quoted message said:
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.
If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re: man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure, the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and regardless of what you or I do.
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Quoted message said:
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.
If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re: man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure, the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and regardless of what you or I do.
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Quoted message said:
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.
If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re: man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure, the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and regardless of what you or I do.
Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Quoted message said:
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.
If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re: man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure, the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and regardless of what you or I do.
>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too? >> http://tinyurl.com/27v967 > I'll take that as a 'NO'. Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too? >> http://tinyurl.com/27v967 > I'll take that as a 'NO'. Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too? >> http://tinyurl.com/27v967 > I'll take that as a 'NO'. Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
>>> Did they have global warming in '53, too? >> http://tinyurl.com/27v967 > I'll take that as a 'NO'. Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
Right. It *is* thought the war had a temporary impact. Although CO2 was increasing, war-related particulates (e.g., the smoke you saw) and aerosol pollutants increased even more. Particulates and aerosols block out some of the solar radiation so the net effect was transitory cooling. So this is more evidence that human-related activities (in this case, war) can affect global temperatures.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
Right. It *is* thought the war had a temporary impact. Although CO2 was increasing, war-related particulates (e.g., the smoke you saw) and aerosol pollutants increased even more. Particulates and aerosols block out some of the solar radiation so the net effect was transitory cooling. So this is more evidence that human-related activities (in this case, war) can affect global temperatures.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
Right. It *is* thought the war had a temporary impact. Although CO2 was increasing, war-related particulates (e.g., the smoke you saw) and aerosol pollutants increased even more. Particulates and aerosols block out some of the solar radiation so the net effect was transitory cooling. So this is more evidence that human-related activities (in this case, war) can affect global temperatures.
Looks like the War had a temporary impact. I remember seeing the fires & smoke from the bombing of Rotterdam oil refineries which must have been over 150 miles away.
Right. It *is* thought the war had a temporary impact. Although CO2 was increasing, war-related particulates (e.g., the smoke you saw) and aerosol pollutants increased even more. Particulates and aerosols block out some of the solar radiation so the net effect was transitory cooling. So this is more evidence that human-related activities (in this case, war) can affect global temperatures.
> Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the > trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's > plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the > 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Quoted message said:
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.
Dude, you're exact question was this: "Did they have global warming in '53, too?"
Anyone can look just a few posts up the thread and see it. Steve answered your question. Now you're shucking and jiving cause he answered the question you asked, not the question you think you asked.
Quoted message said:
If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re: man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure, the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and regardless of what you or I do.
Yow. You think the -->temperature record<-- is a leftist hysterical plot. That settles it. You're a nut job.
> Really? Yow. I look at that and it sure looks clear to me that the > trend is pretty much upward over the last century. Although there's > plenty of year-to-year and even decade-to-decade variability, the > 1950's seem to be right in the middle of that century-long trend.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Right... its trending upward (by less than a degree) after having first trended downward for awhile, but before that upward, then of course preceeded by a bit of downward.... lather, rinse, repeat. Its cyclical, and its not driven by man's actions.
Quoted message said:
Your question wasn't about cyclicity, the size of the trend, or about man's actions. Your question was "was there global warming in 1953?" Steve gave a pointer to the instrumental record and the answer to the question you asked is yes. Now you're changing your story and acting like the question you asked wasn't the question you asked. Dude, it's time for you to man up. You can argue about the cause, or what should or shouldn't be done, or what'll happen next, but only nut jobs look at the past data and say that there's no trend. Don't be a nut job.
I didn't ask the question 'has the earth shown a warming trend?'... I asked if there was global warming in '53. For you to see the subtle difference, you have to understand that 'global warming' in today's usage implies the unstated 'global warming CAUSED BY MAN'.
Dude, you're exact question was this: "Did they have global warming in '53, too?"
Anyone can look just a few posts up the thread and see it. Steve answered your question. Now you're shucking and jiving cause he answered the question you asked, not the question you think you asked.
Quoted message said:
If you don't think of it as man-made, you can't use it as a tool for social change. If you don't understand that the leftist hysteria re: man-made global warming is a strategy to bring about social change that has nothing to do with the weather, YOU are the nut job. Sure, the earth is currently undergoing a cyclical warming trend. It will trend downward again, too, regardless of what Al tells us and regardless of what you or I do.
Yow. You think the -->temperature record<-- is a leftist hysterical plot. That settles it. You're a nut job.
