Global Warming Theory not looking hot anymore

[stevewinn]

It's global climate changed induced by a net increase in infrared radiation absorption. This infrared absorption has a heating effect but absolutely does not necessitate a net increase in temperature of all climate systems concerned, although without inspection that would appear to be the most likely consequence. This is the current state of things, it always has been; it hasn't changed.

Many people ask the questions that they do because they do not understand the subject; the questions are often difficult to answer because people are often unwilling or unable to try to understand the subject.

Its funny how anyone who is sceptical about global climate change seem to not be able to understand the subject.

i go to bed at night and thank my lucky stars we are blessed on UM with enough clever people who can understand the subject and explain it to the rest of us.

pull the other one. its got bells on it.

Edited October 14, 2009 by stevewinn

[stevewinn]

Well, if that article sezz the truth you should lobby for NASA to close down it climatological department, they seez the contrary:

Temperature anomalies:

ED: forgot the link http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

are you still playing with images and graphs. people are still waiting for the link to show the proof, or are you not interested in that, is it the different colours you like.

[Raptor]

Its funny how anyone who is sceptical about global climate change seem to not be able to understand the subject.

Quite.

I'm not one to appeal to authority, but I have to say it's hard to take the debate seriously when the divide in opinion is consistently drawn between those who have repeatedly demonstrated having a firm understanding of the scientific method as well as a moderate understanding of the basic sciences concerned, and those who repeatedly demonstrate a fairly disconcerting disregard for critical thought and a rough understanding of said sciences.

[Startraveler]

are you still playing with images and graphs. people are still waiting for the link to show the proof, or are you not interested in that, is it the different colours you like.

You prefer a raw data set to a graphical representation of it?

[Moon Monkey]

Quite.

I'm not one to appeal to authority, but I have to say it's hard to take the debate seriously when the divide in opinion is consistently drawn between those who have repeatedly demonstrated having a firm understanding of the scientific method as well as a moderate understanding of the basic sciences concerned, and those who repeatedly demonstrate a fairly disconcerting disregard for critical thought and a rough understanding of said sciences.

Put your money where your mouth is and provide real proof...no-one has a clue about the climate and anyone who says otherwise is just chasing the ridiculous ammounts of research cash available to those who agree with what governments want saying.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[SQLserver]

OK, because it is always the same crap over and over again from the denialists, I shall simply repost what I put in the other thread.

But first:

A. The Daily Mail is crap.

B. If there is "controversy over global warming", it would be published in a scientific journal, not a rabid tabloid.

C. Anyone who seriously thinks this has anything to do with climate change is wrong. The climate could care less about the weather.

You're not allowed to cite temperature in the discussion anymore. Apparently it has nothing to do with Climate. ( And the term " Global Warming " is wrong too. Please always say " Climate Change " )

Hey, we got your idea: You have nothing rational to add to the discussion and you simply cannot respond to the science.

Agreed, but part of the problem is that what is meant by "global warming" has changed several times now. If we are to build our lives around stopping global warming then there should be a predictable , measurable pattern and it seems to me that rather than the current conditions matching the models set out by scientists , the scientists are changing their models to fit the current conditions.

That's how science works, genius.

Additionally, this isn't true. The earliest predictions were spot on:

go on tell us.

How about you go and read Geophysical Research Letters, come back, and then tell US?

could this warming trend over the past 150 years be considered normal? considering we just came out of a 'mini ice age'.

No, this is not possible. See this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

exactly. when they realised calling it Global warming wouldn't sell very well and would come and bite them on the buttocks,

No. The stupid proposition you suggest is stupid and wrong.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures."

At least try to learn something before splurting out conspiracy-nonsense next time, k?

They knew people would start asking the questions that are difficult to answer. such has why has china had its coldest winter for a hundred years etc....

What does that have to do with global warming? Oh, that's right, nothing: You simply can't reply to the science, so you continue to spew the same nonsense time and time again.

Second, your claim is immediately rejected from this discussion without a scientific source to back it up.

Well said and good post! I hope people like Mattshark would take note and see the light.

ROFL! Mattshark is going to look at this post and laugh his *** off at the nonsense shown in it.

The Sun causes "Global Warming",or what I like to call Globull Warming, not people, like what Al Gore says.

No duh: The sun is the source of basically all heat in our solar system.

Do you REALLY think you are outwitting the vast, vast majority of scientists here?

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Wrong.

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Christ, that was easy. Come on, the denialists in this thread can't do any better than THAT?

Its funny how anyone who is sceptical about global climate change seem to not be able to understand the subject.

No, that's not funny: It's scary. Take yourself for example. It is quite remarkable how you are able to peddle the same claims over and over without even thinking to analyze the evidence.

i go to bed at night and thank my lucky stars we are blessed on UM with enough clever people who can understand the subject and explain it to the rest of us.

Good, because quite frankly, you would have nothing, and know nothing, and would almost certainly not be alive, if it wasn't for people who understand science.

Now, for what I posted in the other thread:

As is explained here, the 2000's are by FAR the warmest decade ever recorded.

The entire article is ripped to shreds here.

I think this should settle the issue for once and for all; here's the data we get when we look at the means of Ocean and Land temperatures:

and from this link:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

Note that there are no weather recording stations in the arctic, the place which is warming the fastest, so all of the data is conservative.

Note this claim has been around forever, and has been debunked before.

This figure, from here, puts this into perspective:

Yep, there's 1998, right at the top of some data sets. However, note the overall trend: The 2000's are still much, much warmer on average.

And here we see the air temperature has continued to increase:

from:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/

Most importantly:

So what? Lets' say the world hasn't warmed since 1998. What's your point?

Here's the trend of global warming:

The overall trend, which is the ONLY trend which seriously matters in the theory of global warming, is up.

from:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/

There. Now, I seriously hope that's it.

Edited October 14, 2009 by SQLserver

[Moon Monkey]

All I see is at the most 1500 years worth of data on rough graphs that should be on scales of millions of years to show any real significant trend. Its not even a blip. Oh, and that is long before we deal with causes or try to claim what will happen in the future.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Ufo Believer]

What I meant by the sun causes global warming is that people think that people are the problem.

[stevewinn]

Put your money where your mouth is and provide real proof...no-one has a clue about the climate and anyone who says otherwise is just chasing the ridiculous amounts of research cash available to those who agree with what governments want saying.

well said. proof is all one can ask for.

its surprising how people persist in the absence of proof. replies that contain links and graphs, am wondering who they're trying to convince? themselves?.

[danielost]

You must not have gotten the new memo from the Enviro-Greenies. You're not allowed to cite temperature in the discussion anymore. Apparently it has nothing to do with Climate. ( And the term " Global Warming " is wrong too. Please always say " Climate Change " )

your also not allowed to bring up historic climate because it has nothing to do with global warming or something like that.

[danielost]

one of the big problems i have with the ozone being destroyed by pollution. is that those same pollutions at the surface are making ozone. that's right folks most smog is made up of ozone.

[Moon Monkey]

well said. proof is all one can ask for.

its surprising how people persist in the absence of proof. replies that contain links and graphs, am wondering who they're trying to convince? themselves?.

Yeh, I remember one bloke pointing me to the Vladivostock ice-core data so I downloaded it and plotted it and it made the global warming argument look like it should be a 'very, very recently the globe is warming a bit cos we got a lot more data recently " argument but absolutely insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Ufo Believer]

Ohio Traveler,

No, I will not use "Climate Change", I would use Global Change if that's better.

[SQLserver]

All I see is at the most 150 years worth of data on rough graphs that should be on scales of millions of years to show any real significant trend.

Millions of years? Do you have any idea how data works?

The goal of this data is to show the increase in temperature caused by using fossil fuels in the last two hundred years.

This data can be extended to a few thousand years to show that this extraordinarily fast trend is not natural.

What can hundreds of thousands of years tell us?

CO2 and temperature are correlated on a grand scale.

Here are the facts:

A. Global Warming is a scientific theory, accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, which is based on a natural, observed, and explained mechanism(The Greenhouse effect), and it perfectly explains the evidence.

B. You have no alternative scientific theory, or even a good hypothesis.

Let's make something clear:

This is you vs science here. You do not have the science on your side, you do not have the evidence on your side, you do not have the experts on your side, and you have shown us this with your reply that amounts to:

"LOL THE PHENOMENON WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN OCCURRING FOR LESS THAN 200 YEARS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED ON A SCALE OF MILLIONS OF YEARS LOL ALL OF THAT SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!1111"

[danielost]

OK, because it is always the same crap over and over again from the denialists, I shall simply repost what I put in the other thread.

But first:

A. The Daily Mail is crap.

B. If there is "controversy over global warming", it would be published in a scientific journal, not a rabid tabloid.

C. Anyone who seriously thinks this has anything to do with climate change is wrong. The climate could care less about the weather.

Hey, we got your idea: You have nothing rational to add to the discussion and you simply cannot respond to the science.

That's how science works, genius.

Additionally, this isn't true. The earliest predictions were spot on:

How about you go and read Geophysical Research Letters, come back, and then tell US?

No, this is not possible. See this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

No. The stupid proposition you suggest is stupid and wrong.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures."

At least try to learn something before splurting out conspiracy-nonsense next time, k?

What does that have to do with global warming? Oh, that's right, nothing: You simply can't reply to the science, so you continue to spew the same nonsense time and time again.

Second, your claim is immediately rejected from this discussion without a scientific source to back it up.

ROFL! Mattshark is going to look at this post and laugh his *** off at the nonsense shown in it.

No duh: The sun is the source of basically all heat in our solar system.

Do you REALLY think you are outwitting the vast, vast majority of scientists here?

Wrong.

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Christ, that was easy. Come on, the denialists in this thread can't do any better than THAT?

No, that's not funny: It's scary. Take yourself for example. It is quite remarkable how you are able to peddle the same claims over and over without even thinking to analyze the evidence.

Good, because quite frankly, you would have nothing, and know nothing, and would almost certainly not be alive, if it wasn't for people who understand science.

Now, for what I posted in the other thread:

As is explained here, the 2000's are by FAR the warmest decade ever recorded.

The entire article is ripped to shreds here.

I think this should settle the issue for once and for all; here's the data we get when we look at the means of Ocean and Land temperatures:

and from this link:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

Note that there are no weather recording stations in the arctic, the place which is warming the fastest, so all of the data is conservative.

Note this claim has been around forever, and has been debunked before.

This figure, from here, puts this into perspective:

Yep, there's 1998, right at the top of some data sets. However, note the overall trend: The 2000's are still much, much warmer on average.

And here we see the air temperature has continued to increase:

from:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/

Most importantly:

So what? Lets' say the world hasn't warmed since 1998. What's your point?

Here's the trend of global warming:

The overall trend, which is the ONLY trend which seriously matters in the theory of global warming, is up.

from:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/

There. Now, I seriously hope that's it.

i know that 1995 after looking at all of the evidence was one of the coldest years of the 20th centery. it was only hot that year in the cities. you facter in the country temps and it becomes one of the coldest years not one of the hottest years.

also i heard that those official themometers are supposed to be away from any heat source. and at least one of them is hanging next to kitchen exhaust pipe.

[SQLserver]

its surprising how people persist in the absence of proof. replies that contain links and graphs, am wondering who they're trying to convince? themselves?.

I guarantee you that every rationally thinking person who has read this thread has had their acceptance of the scientific community's consensus cemented.

I know you aren't rational, Stevewinn: I'm not trying to convince you, of course. I'm trying to convince all of the rational people who are reading this. I am also helping everyone see the irrationality of the denialist psyche, although you do a pretty good job of that yourself independently.

[Raptor]

one of the big problems i have with the ozone being destroyed by pollution. is that those same pollutions at the surface are making ozone. that's right folks most smog is made up of ozone.

I might be missing something, but I think there's been a misunderstanding. Ozone depletion is very much unrelated to global warming.

[SQLserver]

i know that 1995 after looking at all of the evidence was one of the coldest years of the 20th centery. it was only hot that year in the cities. you facter in the country temps and it becomes one of the coldest years not one of the hottest years.

This claim is immediately dismissed from the discussion unless it is backed up with a scientific source.

Thank you.

also i heard that those official themometers are supposed to be away from any heat source. and at least one of them is hanging next to kitchen exhaust pipe.

This is data from dozens of different and independent sources from around the world, each which uses hundreds of different monitors. Any single outlier is irrelevant.

Additionally, this claim is also immediately dismissed from the discussion unless it is backed up with a scientific source.

Note: Daniel's baseless claim is debunked here.

[Moon Monkey]

Millions of years? Do you have any idea how data works?

The goal of this data is to show the increase in temperature caused by using fossil fuels in the last two hundred years.

This data can be extended to a few thousand years to show that this extraordinarily fast trend is not natural.

What can hundreds of thousands of years tell us?

CO2 and temperature are correlated on a grand scale.

Here are the facts:

A. Global Warming is a scientific theory, accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, which is based on a natural, observed, and explained mechanism(The Greenhouse effect), and it perfectly explains the evidence.

B. You have no alternative scientific theory, or even a good hypothesis.

Let's make something clear:

This is you vs science here. You do not have the science on your side, you do not have the evidence on your side, you do not have the experts on your side, and you have shown us this with your reply that amounts to:

"LOL THE PHENOMENON WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN OCCURRING FOR LESS THAN 200 YEARS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED ON A SCALE OF MILLIONS OF YEARS LOL ALL OF THAT SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!1111"

Data is my business. Have you seen the data or just internet graphs on riduculous scales that make you argument look correct ?. Every bit of data I have personally dealt with on this subject has left me far from convinced that we are seeing a trend. If you are asking me if global mean land and ocean temperatures are higher now than they were 150 years ago I would agree. If you are saying it is an apocalyptic end of the world future trend I would laugh and ask for proof. Which, in essence, is what I am doing.

O btw I have correlated lots of different data and my conclusions are very different.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[SQLserver]

Data is my business.

Obviously, Science is not.

Have you seen the data or just internet graphs on riduculous scales that make you argument look correct ?.

You could have just asked. Also, note that all of the graphs I supplied were from scientific journals. Try reading one sometime.

1880 -.25 *

1881 -.19 *

1882 -.22 -.24

1883 -.23 -.25

1884 -.30 -.26

1885 -.30 -.29

1886 -.25 -.29

1887 -.35 -.26

1888 -.26 -.28

1889 -.15 -.28

1890 -.37 -.27

1891 -.28 -.28

1892 -.32 -.32

1893 -.31 -.30

1894 -.33 -.28

1895 -.27 -.24

1896 -.17 -.23

1897 -.12 -.19

1898 -.24 -.16

1899 -.17 -.16

1900 -.10 -.19

1901 -.15 -.20

1902 -.27 -.23

1903 -.31 -.26

1904 -.34 -.27

1905 -.24 -.30

1906 -.20 -.30

1907 -.39 -.30

1908 -.34 -.32

1909 -.35 -.35

1910 -.33 -.34

1911 -.33 -.33

1912 -.34 -.29

1913 -.32 -.25

1914 -.15 -.24

1915 -.09 -.25

1916 -.30 -.25

1917 -.40 -.26

1918 -.32 -.28

1919 -.20 -.25

1920 -.19 -.22

1921 -.13 -.19

1922 -.24 -.19

1923 -.20 -.19

1924 -.21 -.17

1925 -.16 -.14

1926 -.01 -.13

1927 -.13 -.13

1928 -.11 -.11

1929 -.25 -.11

1930 -.07 -.10

1931 -.01 -.11

1932 -.06 -.07

1933 -.17 -.08

1934 -.05 -.08

1935 -.11 -.06

1936 -.03 .00

1937 .08 .02

1938 .11 .05

1939 .03 .08

1940 .05 .07

1941 .11 .06

1942 .03 .10

1943 .10 .10

1944 .20 .07

1945 .07 .07

1946 -.04 .04

1947 .01 -.01

1948 -.04 -.06

1949 -.07 -.06

1950 -.15 -.05

1951 -.04 -.02

1952 .03 -.03

1953 .11 -.02

1954 -.10 -.05

1955 -.10 -.04

1956 -.17 -.04

1957 .07 -.01

1958 .08 .01

1959 .06 .06

1960 -.01 .05

1961 .08 .05

1962 .04 .00

1963 .08 -.02

1964 -.21 -.05

1965 -.11 -.05

1966 -.03 -.08

1967 .00 -.02

1968 -.04 .01

1969 .08 -.01

1970 .03 -.01

1971 -.10 .03

1972 .00 .00

1973 .14 -.02

1974 -.08 -.03

1975 -.05 .00

1976 -.16 -.03

1977 .13 .00

1978 .01 .05

1979 .09 .13

1980 .18 .12

1981 .26 .17

1982 .05 .17

1983 .26 .14

1984 .09 .11

1985 .05 .16

1986 .12 .17

1987 .26 .19

1988 .31 .25

1989 .19 .30

1990 .38 .27

1991 .35 .24

1992 .12 .24

1993 .14 .24

1994 .23 .23

1995 .38 .29

1996 .29 .37

1997 .39 .39

1998 .56 .38

1999 .32 .41

2000 .33 .45

2001 .47 .44

2002 .55 .48

2003 .54 .53

2004 .48 .55

2005 .62 .55

2006 .53 .53

2007 .56 .54

2008 .44 *

2009 .54 * (January-September mean)

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103.

Every bit of data I have personally dealt with on this subject has left me far from convinced that we are seeing a trend.

How about you try putting the above data into Excel?

If you are asking me if global mean land and ocean temperatures are higher now than they were 150 years ago I would agree. If you are saying it is an apocalyptic end of the world future trend I would laugh and ask for proof.

This strawman argument is ignored, and is immediately rejected out of hand as such.

O btw I have correlated lots of different data and my conclusions are very different.

Really? What scientific journals have you published in? Nature? Science? Geophysical Research Letters, perhaps?

[Moon Monkey]

Obviously, Science is not.

You could have just asked. Also, note that all of the graphs I supplied were from scientific journals. Try reading one sometime.

1880 -.25 *

1881 -.19 *

1882 -.22 -.24

1883 -.23 -.25

1884 -.30 -.26

1885 -.30 -.29

1886 -.25 -.29

1887 -.35 -.26

1888 -.26 -.28

1889 -.15 -.28

1890 -.37 -.27

1891 -.28 -.28

1892 -.32 -.32

1893 -.31 -.30

1894 -.33 -.28

1895 -.27 -.24

1896 -.17 -.23

1897 -.12 -.19

1898 -.24 -.16

1899 -.17 -.16

1900 -.10 -.19

1901 -.15 -.20

1902 -.27 -.23

1903 -.31 -.26

1904 -.34 -.27

1905 -.24 -.30

1906 -.20 -.30

1907 -.39 -.30

1908 -.34 -.32

1909 -.35 -.35

1910 -.33 -.34

1911 -.33 -.33

1912 -.34 -.29

1913 -.32 -.25

1914 -.15 -.24

1915 -.09 -.25

1916 -.30 -.25

1917 -.40 -.26

1918 -.32 -.28

1919 -.20 -.25

1920 -.19 -.22

1921 -.13 -.19

1922 -.24 -.19

1923 -.20 -.19

1924 -.21 -.17

1925 -.16 -.14

1926 -.01 -.13

1927 -.13 -.13

1928 -.11 -.11

1929 -.25 -.11

1930 -.07 -.10

1931 -.01 -.11

1932 -.06 -.07

1933 -.17 -.08

1934 -.05 -.08

1935 -.11 -.06

1936 -.03 .00

1937 .08 .02

1938 .11 .05

1939 .03 .08

1940 .05 .07

1941 .11 .06

1942 .03 .10

1943 .10 .10

1944 .20 .07

1945 .07 .07

1946 -.04 .04

1947 .01 -.01

1948 -.04 -.06

1949 -.07 -.06

1950 -.15 -.05

1951 -.04 -.02

1952 .03 -.03

1953 .11 -.02

1954 -.10 -.05

1955 -.10 -.04

1956 -.17 -.04

1957 .07 -.01

1958 .08 .01

1959 .06 .06

1960 -.01 .05

1961 .08 .05

1962 .04 .00

1963 .08 -.02

1964 -.21 -.05

1965 -.11 -.05

1966 -.03 -.08

1967 .00 -.02

1968 -.04 .01

1969 .08 -.01

1970 .03 -.01

1971 -.10 .03

1972 .00 .00

1973 .14 -.02

1974 -.08 -.03

1975 -.05 .00

1976 -.16 -.03

1977 .13 .00

1978 .01 .05

1979 .09 .13

1980 .18 .12

1981 .26 .17

1982 .05 .17

1983 .26 .14

1984 .09 .11

1985 .05 .16

1986 .12 .17

1987 .26 .19

1988 .31 .25

1989 .19 .30

1990 .38 .27

1991 .35 .24

1992 .12 .24

1993 .14 .24

1994 .23 .23

1995 .38 .29

1996 .29 .37

1997 .39 .39

1998 .56 .38

1999 .32 .41

2000 .33 .45

2001 .47 .44

2002 .55 .48

2003 .54 .53

2004 .48 .55

2005 .62 .55

2006 .53 .53

2007 .56 .54

2008 .44 *

2009 .54 * (January-September mean)

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103.

How about you try putting the above data into Excel?

This strawman argument is ignored, and is immediately rejected out of hand as such.

Really? What scientific journals have you published in? Nature? Science? Geophysical Research Letters, perhaps?

Science is my baby, no guessing, nothing open to chance, just 100% guarantees.

As for your data 1880-2009....what have i been saying ? And excel...cmon, if you have some data lets use some serious analysis software.

My work is in many scientific journals I read them every day, it is my job. Not climate change stuff usually but data analysis with 100% peer reviewed guarantees, no arguments with my work...it is right and that is proven science.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[SQLserver]

My work is in many scientific journals I read them every day, it is my job. Not climate change stuff usually but data analysis with 100% peer reviewed guarantees, no arguments with my work...it is right.

So? I was asking if you've published anything on climatology.

The sources for all of the data I've shown is available in the scientific literature. As you are a publishing scientist, I assume you have access to almost all major journals and thus the information is just a few clicks away for you.

If you think that the data is not being fairly represented in any of the graphical representations I've shown, prove it instead of making baseless: "LOL MAYBE ITS WRONG IVE WORKED WITH DATA YA KNOW?" claims.

[stevewinn]

Science is my baby, no guessing, nothing open to chance, just 100% guarantees.

As for your data 1880-2009....what have i been saying ? And excel...cmon, if you have some data lets use some serious analysis software.

My work is in many scientific journals I read them every day, it is my job. Not climate change stuff usually but data analysis with 100% peer reviewed guarantees, no arguments with my work...it is right and that is proven science.

you'll be going around in circles with SQL in the early days i use to think he knew his stuff, but pretty quickly i realised he was talking out of his Turbine.

[Moon Monkey]

So? I was asking if you've published anything on climatology.

The sources for all of the data I've shown is available in the scientific literature. As you are a publishing scientist, I assume you have access to almost all major journals and thus the information is just a few clicks away for you.

If you think that the data is not being fairly represented in any of the graphical representations I've shown, prove it instead of making baseless: "LOL MAYBE ITS WRONG IVE WORKED WITH DATA YA KNOW?" claims.

No my friend, you are making the claims...YOU PROVE IT......thats how science works.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Moon Monkey]

you'll be going around in circles with SQL in the early days i use to think he knew his stuff, but pretty quickly i realised he was talking out of his Turbine.

Yeh Steve, we have met so many of his ilk over the years on this site....its all in other threads.