Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:07:24 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
==============

I think not.

Why do you think not? The peaks and troughs of the graph are hardly
subtle. Do you distrust the data that the graph is based upon, or
believe it to be skewed somehow?


I think "recorded hostory" goes back no more than 8000 years (and I'm being very generous there),
that's what I think
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:09:41 +0100, Scott
wrote:

The graph (and the loss of a tiny
fraction at the end is not significant) shows clearly that we are
approaching the peak of previous global average temperatures, but have
not started on the downslope quite yet.


It does not you should get your eyes tested!

Just as a thought - I hope you are reading the timeline the correct
way around. It goes the opposite way to usual, and should therefore
be read right to left.

--
Cynic

"Scott" wrote in message
...
A one hundred year spike would stick out like a saw thumb,

You should use a finger guard.

Bill

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:07:24 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going
through
==============

I think not.

Why do you think not?

Because you don't know what "recorded history" means. It means history that
people lived through and wrote about. Pre-people - no recorded history.

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:09:41 +0100, Scott
wrote:

The graph (and the loss of a tiny
fraction at the end is not significant) shows clearly that we are
approaching the peak of previous global average temperatures, but have
not started on the downslope quite yet.

It does not you should get your eyes tested!

Just as a thought - I hope you are reading the timeline the correct
way around. It goes the opposite way to usual, and should therefore
be read right to left.


You're imagining things. Peaks have been extremely transient in the past. If
any peak was due (which is isn't) it was that spike to +2 which occurred
several thousand years ago. Spike duration is determined by CO2 levels. It is
the high current levels which is sustaining the temperature.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:20:45 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
==============

I think not.

Why do you think not? The peaks and troughs of the graph are hardly
subtle. Do you distrust the data that the graph is based upon, or
believe it to be skewed somehow?


I think "recorded hostory" goes back no more than 8000 years (and I'm being very generous there),
that's what I think

So you are saying that the data from the ice records is not accurate?

--
Cynic

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:20:49 +0100, "Amethyst Deceiver"
wrote:

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going
through
==============

I think not.

Why do you think not?

Because you don't know what "recorded history" means. It means history that
people lived through and wrote about. Pre-people - no recorded history.

Don't be so pedantic. The context of the discussion made it perfectly
clear what I was referring to.

In any case, I would take issue with your definition - it depends what
events are being recorded. "Recorded" does not *have* to refer to a
deliberate act by man. The evidence left by ice and tree rings are
records of historic events just as much as a record written by a man -
and cannot be falsified or be subject to human error.

--
Cynic

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:20:45 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
==============

I think not.

Why do you think not? The peaks and troughs of the graph are hardly
subtle. Do you distrust the data that the graph is based upon, or
believe it to be skewed somehow?


I think "recorded history" goes back no more than 8000 years (and I'm being very generous there),
that's what I think

So you are saying that the data from the ice records is not accurate?

That's not a valid inference from what I wrote.

--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:09:41 +0100, Scott
wrote:

A one hundred year spike would stick out like a saw thumb, I don't see that in
the past, but I do know the current trend does exactly that.

On that particular graph, a time period of 50000 years is represented
by about 60 pixels horizontally or about a cm on my display. Thus a
time period of 100 years would be 0,12 pixels wide or 0.02mm, and thus
impossible to represent at all, let alone "sticking out like a sore
thumb"

There is a difference between the screen representation of the graph and the
raw data. Recent raw (ice core) data is sampled at about 30 year intervals. It
would be clearly visible.


A hundred years is far too short a time to determine climatic trends -
the trend is lost in the noise.
So the spike in CO2 over the last 100 years is lost in the noise is it? You
don't half talk some tripe when it comes to climate change.

I am not talking about CO2, I am talking about climate change.

The graph (and the loss of a tiny
fraction at the end is not significant) shows clearly that we are
approaching the peak of previous global average temperatures, but have
not started on the downslope quite yet.

It does not you should get your eyes tested!

Previous peaks are a good 1 degree higher than the position we have
currently reached.


We have had our peak. We are in the middle of an interglacial period - we are
not waiting for one, or approaching one.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:01:33 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

I think "recorded history" goes back no more than 8000 years (and I'm being very generous there),
that's what I think

So you are saying that the data from the ice records is not accurate?

That's not a valid inference from what I wrote.

Sorry, I don't feel in the mood to solve riddles.

--
Cynic