http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html#addlinfo http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/94364main_STILLsea_ice_yearly.1979.tif http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/94370main_STILLsea_ice_yearly.2003.tif Arctic ice has been melting. Now go fuck yourself degenerate scum.
That's just embarrassing. Firstly, it looks like it was done by a grade three class. Secondly, it rehashes all the same old nonsense while drifting from logical fallacy to logical fallacy. If you have a particular point that he makes that you'd like to have reduced to ashes, please mention it.
I'm not sure how being ridiculed by a Bush appointee would be considered a black mark, scientifically.
Just a few questions. 1- do you agree that the IPCC "hockey stick" graph has been discredited? 2-If so, why do you continue to put your faith in them when it could only have been false to that degree due to lying? 3- do you agree that the Viking era was indeed hotter than today? 4- do you agree that we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age? 5- do you agree that direct temp measurements started about this same time? 6- do you agree that saying we have been warming for 500 yrs, when this also includes the cooling period after the Viking area is dishonest? 7- do you agree that it is only logical to have a warming period, when the data set includes the LIA? 8- what is your explanation for the Viking period? 9- do you agree that when we use a 1000 yr data set, that we are cooling?
You can do your own investigations, folks. They actually do publish all the data their conclusions are based on. As an illustration of this, I downloaded the following two bits of data: global blended land/sea temperature data, and the Mauna Loa CO2 data. Then I ran some statistical tests on them, to see if temps lag Co2 increases, as you would expect if Co2 is the cause. I operate under the assumption that as Elite Traders you guys are vaguely familiar with statistics. Notice that in the papers the right - let me rephrase that - the extreme right uses to say that Co2 lags, they carefully omit the part that says Co2 was found to be coincident with temperature increases, but lagging on temperature decreases. Now, if you're looking at ice cores covering tens and hundreds of thousands of years, and the lag between Co2 increasing and then temps increasing is only a few years, you're gonna have a tough time seeing that. But given our current yearly data, we can run some tests to see what the lag might be today. Results below: Code: Lag R squared Std deviation 0 0.82838618126848 0.0898120455513902 1 0.825213857146988 0.0910737930192681 2 0.824933297202645 0.0911795558376441 3 0.831922695691254 0.0898741912977007 4 0.840315601586038 0.0882917917966357 5 0.856886007117941 0.0843806651007023 6 0.858478773100529 0.082165367829109 7 0.855908907707782 0.0818836630392985 8 0.847439197776664 0.0836237947986607 What this shows - besides that the R-squared between these two data series is extremely high, which is suggestive of (but doesn't prove, of course) a strong link - is that if you lag your regression between Co2 and temperature, the best correlation between the two comes when you lag the temp by five to seven years from the year of Co2 data. The standard deviation is at its narrowest at six to seven years. So, best guess from this data is that temperature rises lag Co2 rises by about six to seven years. Or, to put it in big letters so it's understandable even by folks who can't be bothered to read and comprehend everything before forming an opinion, CO2 LEADS TEMPERATURE, when you run actual and precise data against each other. Sources: Temperature anomalies, land/sea global blended, 1880-2008: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Mauna Loa Co2 annual mean data: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
He wasn't a Bush appointee but was a career scientist but of course you know that. Just more of your endless supply of misinformation. Your posts should come with a warning label.
Nope, all the data indicates that it's correct. Nearly a dozen studies. It's not false. No, I do not. In fact, the "Viking Era" would only apply to areas where the Vikings lived, and not globally. As far as we can tell, global temperatures were cooler. Who knows, given that there's no agreed start and no agreed end. Even if we were we've already risen to levels above the assumed baseline climate. "About?" What's about? Within a hundred years? Within 50? Within 10? You use a lot of fuzzy language. No, I don't. In fact I think that using graphs from before the industrial revolution wouldn't be relevant. Yes, but again we've already exceed any average baseline measure. A lack of police to prevent those heathens from pillaging, also, that they had an affinity for furs and pointy hats. No, because temperatures have risen overall even if you cherry pick a 1000 years, long before the industrial revolution: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ng/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
I have no idea who you're discussing, or how "ridicule" somehow negates scientific observations, but yes, Hansen has been criticized by Bush appointees.
"the ice caps" aren't melting ... the IPCC has even demonstrated this ... yes, i'm the moron. now go back to filling sandbags and firmly replant your head into al gores ass idiocracy, indeed