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

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:15:20 GMT, JAF
wrote:

"Recorded" does not *have* to refer to a
deliberate act by man.

This is the same tactic used by cretinists/ID-iots. As soon as you point
out an error, they change their definitions.

Is it also a tactic to snip the context as you have done?

As I stated and you snipped, the words "recorded history" were used in
a context in which it was 100% clear exactly what I was referring to -
the climate graph produced from the ice record. Thus using *any*
other definition as a reason for refuting the point I was making is
disingenius.

--
Cynic

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
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.

Ah, you won't be helping me work out why I can't get Perl CGI working on IIS6 then. It's OK, I'll
soldier on alone.
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:02:27 +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.

So post that graph, as well as one with similar resolution from
pre-industrial times so we can see whether there is significant
differences.

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.

"In the middle of" ?? You mean the peak was reached tens of thousands
of years ago?

I could accept an argument that the peak was *very recently* reached,
but would refute that based upon previous peak heights achieved being
higher and the fact that short-term variations can easily equal or
surpass the general trend over thousands of years, so looking at the
last 100 years will not give any indication of whether we are on an
upslope or downslope - you need to view the whole graph to see what is
and is not likely.

The main point however is that climate change is not something that is
suddenly happening for the first time, so there is no need to look for
reasons for it that have not existed since prehistoric times.

--
Cynic

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:15:20 GMT, JAF
wrote:

"Recorded" does not *have* to refer to a
deliberate act by man.

This is the same tactic used by cretinists/ID-iots. As soon as you point
out an error, they change their definitions.

Is it also a tactic to snip the context as you have done?

As I stated and you snipped, the words "recorded history" were used in
a context in which it was 100% clear exactly what I was referring to -
the climate graph produced from the ice record. Thus using *any*
other definition as a reason for refuting the point I was making is
disingenius.


********. "recorded history" has always and will always refer to the stor[y|ies] of mankind's past as
written down by people. You can't change what it means at a whim.

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

In article ,
says...
In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
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.

Ah, you won't be helping me work out why I can't get Perl CGI working on IIS6 then. It's OK, I'll
soldier on alone.

's alright, I found the problem.

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

Cynic wrote:
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.

They can be subject to misinterpretation, as you have so convincingly
demonstrated.

Cynic wrote:
The main point however is that climate change is not something that is
suddenly happening for the first time, so there is no need to look for
reasons for it that have not existed since prehistoric times.

That's complete mind-rot. The whole point of climate science is to
understand the forcing and feedback mechanisms that control climate. Our
understanding of the past is what allows us to be confident that the present
warming is acyclic. There are no external forcings that can account for it,
and the changes observed are beyond what might be expected from natural
variability. We are left with increased atmospheric CO2 levels due to human
activity as the smoking gun.

Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:

by CO2 levels. It is the high current levels which is sustaining the
temperature.

The ice records show that CO2 levels *follow* temperature about 800
years behind not the other way around.

Of course it does. CO2 levels do not increase without a reason. Rising CO2
levels do not *initiate* recovery from ice ages, as everyone who studies the
subject understands.

The higher the temperature the
more CO2. So if CO2 also raises temperature why has the planet not
spiralled into a burning inferno thousands of years ago?

Why do you imagine a positive feedback has to be unconstrained?

Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:

by CO2 levels. It is the high current levels which is sustaining
the temperature.

The ice records show that CO2 levels *follow* temperature about 800
years behind not the other way around.

Of course it does. CO2 levels do not increase without a reason.
Rising CO2 levels do not *initiate* recovery from ice ages, as
everyone who studies the subject understands.

The higher the temperature the more CO2. So if CO2 also raises
temperature why has the planet not spiralled into a burning inferno
thousands of years ago?

Right so we cannot use the ice records to show that CO2 causes the
planet to warm up because its the other way around. That's mighty
inconvenient don't you think?

You are an idiot. We understand the physics. We can do actual experiments.
We know what the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are, and have done for
many years.

What about sunspot activity over the same period?
What about the sun's magnetic field over the same period?

What about them? No change in TSI since at least 1980, and probably well
before that, apart from the normal 11-year periodicity. There is thus no
correlation with recent warming, and no mechanism. What next? Fire-breathing
space pixies?

Why do you imagine a positive feedback has to be unconstrained?

By what, and why would it not save us from your imagined CO2 suicide?

I asked why *you* imagined it would be *unconstrained*. You were the one who
suggested it. Even the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum wasn't an
unconstrained event. Perhaps you were thinking of Venus.

And who said anything about CO2 suicide? What does that even mean?

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:37:15 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
The main point however is that climate change is not something that is
suddenly happening for the first time, so there is no need to look for
reasons for it that have not existed since prehistoric times.

That's complete mind-rot. The whole point of climate science is to
understand the forcing and feedback mechanisms that control climate. Our
understanding of the past is what allows us to be confident that the present
warming is acyclic. There are no external forcings that can account for it,
and the changes observed are beyond what might be expected from natural
variability. We are left with increased atmospheric CO2 levels due to human
activity as the smoking gun.

The *results" are not in the slightest atypical when compared with
what has happened quite naturally in the past.

The Sun has been observed to disappear below the horizon on every
evening in the past without setting fire to the treeline. But *this*
time it is said to be different, and we will all perish horribly in
the flames.

--
Cynic