Gill

Your graph indicates a typical trick used by the alarmists... a start point to produce the desired results. Since I am contending that the temps started dropping in 2002, don't you think it wise to use 2002 as a starting point??? When you do, you get the graph that I posted.

I'll be glad to look at what you have. But one word of warning... you'd better bring your "A" game and exhibit a better understanding of the subject than what I've seen from you so far. I have tons of data on the poor quality of surface temperature data. For starters, how do you explain the paucity of stations in the NASA GISS network as shown above??

__________________
“Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” [Miguel de Unamuno, “Essays and Soliloquies,” 1924]

mikhail

Well the temperature isnt gonna just go straight in an exact line with carbon emissions Al gore has in some ways done more harm than good because he kinda simplified and exaggerated certain aspects in his film and lectures.Some of the criticisms of an inconvient truth are valid but that doesent mean global warming is bunk or that there isnt a scientific consensus.

the trouble is scientists are terrible politicians they have the disadvantage that they will never say they know everything for certain on such a massive subject.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Gill

kinda simplified and exaggerated??? Now that's an understatement ....

That's part of the problem. The ARE saying that man is undoubtedly causing global warming.

metreon

I didn't quite catch the description of these temperature measurements, are they air or surface temps? The reason I ask is because something is causing polar ice to progressively melt in the arctic on a year to year basis, and an accompanying decline in local tempertures is counterintuitive. Is the sea warming substantially?

What mechanism would you propose to explain simultaneous cooling but increased summer ice melting...higher summer temps but lower winter temps? The antarctic might support cooling data due to its increased ice thickness in some areas, but even that data seems inconsistent since many ice shelves have broken up in recent years. That might also support something happening within the sea, - increased thermal and kinetic energy?

Gill

Satellite temps are lower troposphere, surface temps are measured about 6' above ground level. Arctic sea ice extent has varied, just like global temperatures. Much of the Arctic sea ice melted early in the 1900's.

Actually the ocean temperature is declining, just like air temperatures are.

Daytime summer temps are practically unchanged. Most of the reported warming has occurred on winter nights.

The Antarctic peninsula is the only region of Antarctica that has warmed. The remainder has cooled significantly. The broken ice shelves in the news are all from the peninsula.

jfuh

Oh boy, here we go again with the bull**** of how it's been record cool temperatures relative to 1998, what else is new?

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Cataclysmic 7.9 earthquake in China, how to donate to the relief fund.

Gill

What's 1998 got to do with this thread??? Nothing...

jfuh

Ahh, I see started dropping since 2002. But here you are being an utter hypocrite, screaming fowl because the graph posted started at a point that produced "desired results" but then at this very same moment of screaming fowl you're screaming that we should be using 2002 so as to produce YOUR desired results?
Global warming is looking at the long term trend. As 1975 to 2008 is 32 years and 2002 to 2008 is but a mere 6 years clearly the data which middleground showed far out trumps what you've done.
In reality I think you know that you're regurgitation of website denials is utter nonsense. But since you've been so completely debunked and shamed over and over again on this site on this very subject matter you just got to go around and say "you see? told you so". Only to make a fool of yourself even more because you're still using the same rubbish arguments that had previously already been debunked.

Here we go again with the rubbish. Tell me gill, considering that the data you've obtained is also produced by many of these stations how is your data any more credible? Satellite imagery? Well those even confirm with what the GISS network has developed.
You want to bring your A game gill, then go publish your "science" in an actual scientific journal. I'm sure that millions of scientists would be most interested in your miraculous break through. I'd certainly be one to be most interested in reading your research.
word of advice though, don't plagiarize off those websites or start citing opinion articles as evidence - that will guarantee that you can never be able to publish your research.

jfuh

Oh I don't know bull**** maybe? Rather interesting though that you're here posting 2008 as if the year is already over.

jfuh

Knew nothing about science? Is that what I said? Actually it wasn't posted a year ago it was posted but less than 4 months ago. I said the article you produced was rubbish and that the authors had ulterior motives. Their publication has been thoroughly debunked by mainstream science.

Yet another opinion article. Why is it when you deniars cite anything you've always such a difficult time citing anything that's published in peer reviewed articles? Scientific? Well shouldn't be too difficult especially if it's something as ground breaking as to over throw mainstream science it would quite literally be headline news world over with top tier publication in something like Nature or Science.