The Negative Correlation Between Global Temperature Rise andCO2 Concentrations
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Australia Dust Storm ... WELL DESERVED DIVINE RETRIBUTION FOR WELL KNOWN COLLECTIVE CRIMES
Next: sonoluminescence: sonofusion explained
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 23:03 b0onz wrote: >> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in >> >> I simply asked you to cite data that supports that >> the "globe has been cooling for at least 10 years". >> >> What is YOUR DATA? Cite Please. > ====================================== > > OK > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/06/ncdc-updates-database-for-dec08-ncdcs-own-graphic-shows-10-year-cooling-trend/ > Thank you Bonzo--From your reference above: "He has indeed, see below. Try your own hand at it. The trend will likely flatten a bit with the removal of 1998 from the 10 year set. Of course you could pick any number of scales/periods and get different results. The point being made here is that the last 10 years hasnât met with some model expectations. "Some folks are erroneously thinking that this graph above represents a global trend, it does not. Read on". "Yes we really do need longer data periods to determine climate trends, 30 years is the climatic standard, but you can also learn useful information from examining shorter trends and regional trends". Thanks for sharing this Bonzo. -Sam
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 23:05 leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > > You have no way to prove global warming ergo I have nothing to prove. > Obviously.
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 23:06 b0onz wrote: > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/06/ncdc-updates-database-for-dec08-ncdcs-own-graphic-shows-10-year-cooling-trend/ > Thank you Bonzo--From your reference above: "He has indeed, see below. Try your own hand at it. The trend will likely flatten a bit with the removal of 1998 from the 10 year set. Of course you could pick any number of scales/periods and get different results. The point being made here is that the last 10 years hasnât met with some model expectations. "Some folks are erroneously thinking that this graph above represents a global trend, it does not. Read on". "Yes we really do need longer data periods to determine climate trends, 30 years is the climatic standard, but you can also learn useful information from examining shorter trends and regional trends". Thanks for sharing this Bonzo. -Sam
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Sep 2009 23:09 leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > > realclimate is as I explained before is an AGW alarmist site > They are real good at cookbook science. Ref: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/ RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except group posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Sep 2009 15:47
leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, "Cwatters" > <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >> <leonard7...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f60db5ba-ce84-403a-9598-e60d4c5d6bb2(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> On Sep 28, 9:49 am, Animal03- <Wherew...(a)yesterday.com> wrote: >> > It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to >> > limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling >> > temperature when it is the temperature that >> > controls CO2 >> >> Neither view is correct. It's both! > > Bullshit!!!! > Can you articulate why it is bullshit, Leonard? |