Well, if you don't accept the temperature record, that's fine. Most people, even among skeptics, accept the instrumental temperature record showing a global rise in temperature of about 0.74 deg C.
If you don't accept the temperature record, then your logical response with respect to global warming, should be "I don't know" since that should be your conclusion when lacking any data.
zipper said:Well, if you don't accept the temperature record, that's fine. Most people, even among skeptics, accept the instrumental temperature record showing a global rise in temperature of about 0.74 deg C.
You speak as if the 'climate' is deemed to be static and never moving.
With respect, it is fair to say that no one has a fully comprehensive understanding of the climatic system(s) and relevant variables. I believe your advice would be best adopted by the truther crowd that has pinned their position on 'facts' that simply don't exist
Why? You have no choice but compare interglacial to interglacial.No, I speak of the tempperature record since 1850. No more, no less.
I didn't make the claim.
Lol
I'm laughing extra hard because this is what the deniers sound like.
Why? You have no choice but compare interglacial to interglacial.
A geological phenomenon that has been going on for millions of years with chronological precision can only be viewed with one geological outcome.
Whatever happens along the way in regards to climate is Social fluff.
The outcome of our journey through time is set in stone.
Yes they are.There is nothing precise about the advent and passing of ice ages and interglacial periods. They are periodic, but not in any readily predictable way.
Nor did I. I simply passed on the information that I read.
If you dispute it, feel free to check at your leisure. It is easy to find.
Just because the Alarmists have been embarrassed by Prof. Turney's failed Global Warming Expedition being trapped in the ice and having to be rescued isn't going to prompt me to run their errands and do their research for them.
Whatever. You can't even provide a source, never mind a calculation.
Sure I can...
It's all out there... multiple sources actually....
I just won't run errands for zealots...
... feeling cheated?
Yes they are.
You made a claim, you can't back it up. Whay are you still arguing the point? You tapped out about six posts ago. :lol:
.
I didn't make the claim. It's out there... you know it is. I am sure you checked and got red in the face. It hasn't been a good week for the Alarmist has it?
No one is arguing anything. You're just fuming that I won't do your research for you. No wonder why scientist are getting their funding cut. Too lazy.
Uranium and thorium don't lie and shore up geological time quite nicely.
You got caught making stuff up.
At this point you're just wandering around teh ring and spitting out your teeth like so mnay bloody broken chiclets. Do yourself a favour and stay down. :lol:
.
What's to predict when we're living at the end of one?You got caught making stuff up.
At this point you're just wandering around teh ring and spitting out your teeth like so mnay bloody broken chiclets. Do yourself a favour and stay down. :lol:
They don't precisely predict ice ages and interglacial periods either.
People who specilaize in earth scineces know that prediction is very difficult. Although I'm not an earth scinetist, I've read quite a bit, out of interest, on predicting earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. Beilve me they don't go around saying these kinds of things happen with predictable precision.