snip
You really are displaying an appalling lack of scientific (and in this particular case mathematical) knowledge. The Met Office in their wisdom show the 95% confidence limits as well as the actual figure for each year. If you take 95% to be +/- two standard deviations then for the 2 to be equal a reduction of 0.3 of a standard deviation in the higher and an increase of 0.3 in the lower (or any other combination with the same sum) is all that is required.
It didn't just repair itself. It was pointed out that we were chucking nasty things into the atmosphere, people stopped doing some of that and then it started to repair itself.
Rather the opposite of crying wolf and an "embarrassing fact" - the wolf turned out to be real and the actions people were persuaded into taking were shown to be useful.
I thought it was going to be difficult for me to track down where it was that I saw the original information but it turned out to be ridiculously easy. There it was bold as brass in the text of the link I gave.
"Each of the three global temperature centres uses different observation sets, although there are large overlaps in the information used. Each centre also has its own methods for checking and processing data, as well as for making the final calculation."
I think you will find the "hole" was repairing itself before a significant drop in the CFCs occurred.
In other words they are fudging the figures.
Two different years - yes or no?
snip
You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You are providing a certain level of amusement.
As I said in an earlier post. Don't attempt to patronise me f****it.
First of all, attacking me instead of my arguments shows how weak yours are. And I take it you are the official spokesman for the entire group when you claim I am providing amusement?
Your arrogance is staggering. Only matched by your gullibility.
So, your answer would have holes in it? Would they be like the holes in the ozone layer that was going to end mankind?
Thats why you didn't answer the question.
Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't ignore it;
"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used fossil fuels?"
Got any answers f****it?
I wonder who wrote it?
Gasp! Dennis - how dare you bring facts into an ecobollox argument!
Going back to Phil's question, the point isn't that it was 'noticed'
100 years ago but that the basic physics was described. If I recall, some of the earliest science in this area was formulated by Fourier so in fact that would have been well over 100 years ago.This is the crux of the matter really. The greenhouse effect is basic, established physics. At the same time, we know that CO2 levels are increasing. The uncertainty is in modelling and predicting the
*precise* consequences of that. However there is general agreement on broad trends and it does not provide good news. If anything predictions that have been made seem to have been on the optimistic side.I don't understand why people feel that when it comes to certain topics, science is a matter of opinion. Why don't we get threads about general relativity or something? A lot of the climate change sceptic stuff that I see on the internet reminds me of the creationist, anti-evolution opinions that I come across and seems to employ similar tactics:
- putting forward spurious arguments that have been refuted time after time
- picking holes in small areas, ignoring the fact that in practice science relies on real world measurements that contain outliers and need to be analysed using (again very well understood and established ) statistical methods
- most importantly, doing the above while not putting forward good quality peer-reviewed science of their own
Unfortunately these tactics seem to work. Most people are happy to be ignorant and when the scientific message is as unappealing as it is in this case, are happy to accept dissenting voices without scepticism.
What Roger is saying is that you are not going to get a definitive temperature to 10 decimal places for each year so you can't compare years like that. You have to take into account the statistics of the data sets and there will be some fluctuations around the broad trends. This means that one data set may show a different warmest year from another while still demonstrating the same general trend. Roger showed that the data is indeed in general agreement.
But they are comparing years and are proposing changes that affect people lives based on flakey evidence.
The figures conveniently ignore history.
General agreement from people who earn their living from being green is biased.
Even that is not proven. The greenhouse effect relies on the CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere and we don't have any measurements dating back more than a decade or three.
It is well known that there are benefits from climate change as well as bad things. You cannot state that it will be bad for the majority as nobody knows at this time.
Well generally believers in relativity don't come here and start telling everyone that they have to fix the world.
Except the good science doesn't show that GW is actually happening or that it will be bad if it were. You have just committed the vary offence you accuse others of.. bad science.
Wikipedia is known to be biased towards climate alarmists, so is useless as a source of climate information. A number of moderators sit around all day and get rid of changes that they don't like. e.g. have a look at what William M. Connolley has done on 8 Dec 09:
Tell that to an Australian :
snip
With every post you get further and further into insanity. Phil got an answer and hasn't come back again. If I had ignored it Phil wouldn't have got that answer.
You can churn out as many lies as you like but none of them alter the reality or the fact that you are a clueless idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about science.
Not half as much as you are!
snip
They are applying proven scientific methods. You on the other hand are just continuing to be a clueless idiot.
You have had the rational explanation. That you chose not to accept it, or anything else you don't like, comes as no surprise. You are an empty barrel making a great deal of noise but not any sense.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.