> 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.
Yeah. One of the interesting things is that people often think global trends ought to be mirrored locally or regionally.
BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead, they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
Yeah. One of the interesting things is that people often think global trends ought to be mirrored locally or regionally.
BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead, they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
Yeah. One of the interesting things is that people often think global trends ought to be mirrored locally or regionally.
BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead, they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
Yeah. One of the interesting things is that people often think global trends ought to be mirrored locally or regionally.
BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead, they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead, they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
La Rue du Chat qui Peche. The cat used to hunt for fish in the cellars after the floods :-))
BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead, they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
La Rue du Chat qui Peche. The cat used to hunt for fish in the cellars after the floods :-))
BTW, on a vaguely related topic, I was kinda surprised to learn that Paris didn't keep rainfall records until relatively recently. Instead, they have centuries of flood records (or, more exactly, height of the Seine at the Ile de la Cite).
La Rue du Chat qui Peche. The cat used to hunt for fish in the cellars after the floods :-))
On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <[email hidden]> wrote: >>>>> 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.
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.
I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, apologies if you've already commented. He really didn't say it was a lefty plot, he says it is being exploited by hysterical leftists bent on social change (what social change, I wonder? Ending the industrial age?). But that's really another issue, as is of course the right wing's casting doubt on data which show something they don't wish to acknowledge. In other words, they are consciously drawing (specious) conclusions from data they say supports their agenda. The science is the science. I don't personally have the standing to contest it, but there is no political litmus test performed on climatologists studying this issue. If it is true that the overwhelming majority now agree that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity, at a rate which ensures significant climate change in the near future, I have no choice but to form my opinions based on that. What the appropriate measures may be to mitigate whatever negative impact this phenomenon causes involves political decisions. That's why we vote. I doubt I would vote the way Scott will, but I don't think we'll change his mind.
On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <[email hidden]> wrote: >>>>> 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.
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.
I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, apologies if you've already commented. He really didn't say it was a lefty plot, he says it is being exploited by hysterical leftists bent on social change (what social change, I wonder? Ending the industrial age?). But that's really another issue, as is of course the right wing's casting doubt on data which show something they don't wish to acknowledge. In other words, they are consciously drawing (specious) conclusions from data they say supports their agenda. The science is the science. I don't personally have the standing to contest it, but there is no political litmus test performed on climatologists studying this issue. If it is true that the overwhelming majority now agree that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity, at a rate which ensures significant climate change in the near future, I have no choice but to form my opinions based on that. What the appropriate measures may be to mitigate whatever negative impact this phenomenon causes involves political decisions. That's why we vote. I doubt I would vote the way Scott will, but I don't think we'll change his mind.
On Nov 9, 9:09 pm, Scott <[email hidden]> wrote: >>>>> 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.
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.
I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, apologies if you've already commented. He really didn't say it was a lefty plot, he says it is being exploited by hysterical leftists bent on social change (what social change, I wonder? Ending the industrial age?). But that's really another issue, as is of course the right wing's casting doubt on data which show something they don't wish to acknowledge. In other words, they are consciously drawing (specious) conclusions from data they say supports their agenda. The science is the science. I don't personally have the standing to contest it, but there is no political litmus test performed on climatologists studying this issue. If it is true that the overwhelming majority now agree that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity, at a rate which ensures significant climate change in the near future, I have no choice but to form my opinions based on that. What the appropriate measures may be to mitigate whatever negative impact this phenomenon causes involves political decisions. That's why we vote. I doubt I would vote the way Scott will, but I don't think we'll change his mind.
You know, at first glance that chart looks really impressive due to the scale used. However, it's showing anomolies in global temperature variants of less than a degree over a 150 year period with what appears to be a cyclical nature in the variations.
Funny, but lately we've been hearing about how the current warm weather in CO is of course a function of global warming. But, yesterday's high was 3 degrees away from a record high, and that record for the date was set in 1929. We didn't have global warming in '29, either.
Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as warm as the 13th century, though, thank whoever is in charge here. I say let's have the good old days when the Thames froze over every winter. Bring back the London Frost Fairs.
You know, at first glance that chart looks really impressive due to the scale used. However, it's showing anomolies in global temperature variants of less than a degree over a 150 year period with what appears to be a cyclical nature in the variations.
Funny, but lately we've been hearing about how the current warm weather in CO is of course a function of global warming. But, yesterday's high was 3 degrees away from a record high, and that record for the date was set in 1929. We didn't have global warming in '29, either.
Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as warm as the 13th century, though, thank whoever is in charge here. I say let's have the good old days when the Thames froze over every winter. Bring back the London Frost Fairs.
You know, at first glance that chart looks really impressive due to the scale used. However, it's showing anomolies in global temperature variants of less than a degree over a 150 year period with what appears to be a cyclical nature in the variations.
Funny, but lately we've been hearing about how the current warm weather in CO is of course a function of global warming. But, yesterday's high was 3 degrees away from a record high, and that record for the date was set in 1929. We didn't have global warming in '29, either.
Global warming is true. We are getting warmer. Not as warm as the 13th century, though, thank whoever is in charge here. I say let's have the good old days when the Thames froze over every winter. Bring back the London Frost Fairs.
