Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2011

The links I posted are completely based on HADCRUT data.

Ok. I see that now. When I put in 1920 to 2010 I see a clear warming trend.

Oleg Bach · April 7, 2011

Ok. I see that now. When I put in 1920 to 2010 I see a clear warming trend.

Much like from April to August.

sunsettommy · April 7, 2011

Ok. I see that now. When I put in 1920 to 2010 I see a clear warming trend.

That is nice.

But you failed to understand what my point was at post # 147.

Want to try again?

sunsettommy · April 7, 2011

I heard a nasty couple who's dog had bitten and injured a child state to a judge "Our breed does not bit childern - you can look that up on the net - your honour...as if what is contained in glowing black and white within the banks of a machine is gosspel...that's plain lunacy. I could write a blog saying that the deseased Liz Taylor rose from the dead and kissed me....this does not take this silly statement and thrust it into the realm of reality and truth! JUST because this fantacy is published.

Your ignorance is vivid.The source I used is valid and uses only published temperature data.

Plus you mispelled a few words.

He he.

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2011

That is nice.

But you failed to understand what my point was at post # 147.

Want to try again?

I don't think I'll get it if I try again. There's a warming trend, but not from 2000-2010, I take it.

sunsettommy · April 7, 2011

I don't think I'll get it if I try again. There's a warming trend, but not from 2000-2010, I take it.

I showed why Oleg was wrong.By showing ALL three warming trends,that have occurred since 1860.He had claimed that we have caused an "unatural" warming trend.The three warming trends are quite similar.

It is warming since the 1850's to now.That is because we have been climbing out of the LIA epoch.

Timothy17 · April 8, 2011

Global warming is Walt Disney Bull $#!+.

sunsettommy · April 8, 2011

Global warming is Walt Disney Bull $#!+.

That is cute.

Global Warming is real in the long term.But a natural one since it is a rebound from the LIA epoch.

It is the absurd idea that an increasing trace "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere can compel a run away warming trend.It is called the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW).

WE are on the edge of the end of the interglacial period.That is scary and yet many people are afraid of a slow warming trend.Because they have been conditioned to fear the warming by the media and dishonest environmentalist organizations.

It is good to be skeptical.

sunsettommy · April 8, 2011

Much like from April to August.

I take it then,that you have no answer for my point made at post #147.

Timothy17 · April 8, 2011

That is cute.

Global Warming is real in the long term.But a natural one since it is a rebound from the LIA epoch.

It is the absurd idea that an increasing trace "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere can compel a run away warming trend.It is called the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW).

WE are on the edge of the end of the interglacial period.That is scary and yet many people are afraid of a slow warming trend.Because they have been conditioned to fear the warming by the media and dishonest environmentalist organizations.

It is good to be skeptical.

More Walt Disney Bull$#!+.

sunsettommy · April 8, 2011

More Walt Disney Bull$#!+.

Yeah it is obvious that YOU can not articulate a point.

:rolleyes:

Timothy17 · April 8, 2011

Greenhouse @$$-gas emanating from Hollywood's h0rse$#!+.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Timothy17

Timothy17 · April 8, 2011

Yeah it is obvious that YOU can not articulate a point.

It's a Walt Disney movie.

Michael Hardner · April 8, 2011

It's a Walt Disney movie.

Timothy - that's 4 posts in a row where you just trolled. Why not add something ?

Go to Richard Lindzen - he's the go-to guy for skepticism on this topic.

bloodyminded · April 8, 2011

Global warming is Walt Disney Bull $#!+.

This is a fringe idea, thoroughly discredited.

The argument now, by sceptics, is about the human causes (and, related, the doubts over any suggested ways to combat the matter); not the existence of the phenomenon itself.

Keepitsimple · April 10, 2011

Of course climate changes.It does it all the time.

The warming trend from 1978-2000 is almost identical from 1920-1940 and from the late 1800's as well.

1860-1880

LINK

1920-1940

LINK

1978-1998

LINK

Since 2001,the warming trend has vanished.

LINK

"Unnatural" warming trend is not showing up.

It's also interesting that if you take 1900-1949 - and then 1950 - 1999, the amount of warming for each half century is just about the same.....which flies in the face of using the hot years of the 80's and 90's to claim unprecedented heating of the planet - especially since we've levelled off since 2001.

Michael Hardner · April 10, 2011

It's also interesting that if you take 1900-1949 - and then 1950 - 1999, the amount of warming for each half century is just about the same.....which flies in the face of using the hot years of the 80's and 90's to claim unprecedented heating of the planet - especially since we've levelled off since 2001.

Well this tool provides smoothing so it's hard to tell. If you put in 1980 to 2000 it seems to show a .35 increase for those decades which is high for a shorter span.

Shady · April 10, 2011

Well this tool provides smoothing so it's hard to tell. If you put in 1980 to 2000 it seems to show a .35 increase for those decades which is high for a shorter span.

Yes, taking from a smaller sample size can skew that data in both directions.

Michael Hardner · April 10, 2011

Yes, taking from a smaller sample size can skew that data in both directions.

That's true as well.

Keepitsimple · April 10, 2011

Well this tool provides smoothing so it's hard to tell. If you put in 1980 to 2000 it seems to show a .35 increase for those decades which is high for a shorter span.

....deleted

Edited April 10, 2011 by Keepitsimple

Keepitsimple · April 10, 2011

Well this tool provides smoothing so it's hard to tell. If you put in 1980 to 2000 it seems to show a .35 increase for those decades which is high for a shorter span.

That's exactly my point. It's a couple of decades of warming. Try 1925 to 1945 and you'll get almost exactly the same warming. But as I said - take a laeger sampling of the first 50 years of the 20th century and last 50 years - and you'll get pretty well the same warming trend. Yes, the world is warming - has been since about 1850 or so....but one could make a strong argument that it's mostly natural cyclic Climate Change. I'm sure we contribute a bit here and there but honestly - just look at the last century......and the fact that nothing much has been happening since 2000......it gives one pause to reflect on all the hoopla.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Keepitsimple

sunsettommy · April 16, 2011

It's also interesting that if you take 1900-1949 - and then 1950 - 1999, the amount of warming for each half century is just about the same.....which flies in the face of using the hot years of the 80's and 90's to claim unprecedented heating of the planet - especially since we've levelled off since 2001.

That is about right.

sunsettommy · April 16, 2011

Well this tool provides smoothing so it's hard to tell. If you put in 1980 to 2000 it seems to show a .35 increase for those decades which is high for a shorter span.

LINK

This is the Unadjusted version.

sunsettommy · April 16, 2011

Yes, taking from a smaller sample size can skew that data in both directions.

Keepitsimple made a point that you fail to realize.

It's also interesting that if you take 1900-1949 - and then 1950 - 1999, the amount of warming for each half century is just about the same.....which flies in the face of using the hot years of the 80's and 90's to claim unprecedented heating of the planet - especially since we've levelled off since 2001.

The very fact that warming trends in the first 50 years is very similar to the last 50 years.Does great damage to the AGW hypothesis.Since it is shown here that the first 50 years of warming is not effected by the slow increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Michael Hardner · April 16, 2011

The very fact that warming trends in the first 50 years is very similar to the last 50 years.Does great damage to the AGW hypothesis.Since it is shown here that the first 50 years of warming is not effected by the slow increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

There has been a lot of regression analysis and testing done, accounting for myriad factors and so on... much more than can be accomplished by looking at the smoothed trends between two years.