[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

more than make up a human lifetime, mon ami......probably ~300-500 years for a 'trend', and a millennia for a 'permanent occurrence'

either way, all we can do is look backwards and try to guess what's in front of us.

Based on the outside (500 yrs) of your own "probability" you can't even establish that warming is a trend today.

Don't get me wrong ..... again .... I agree that the planet has been undergoing a warming cycle.

I suppose I'll be dead and gone long before being proven correct that the trend is curving to the cooling side .... through no act of humanity.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Puleeeeze.........the next ice age is just minutes away

Damn it Jack! I don't need espresso drips on my monitor!

[valis]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I agree that the planet has been undergoing a warming cycle.

so, is that your final answer?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

so, is that your final answer?

It always has been.
My complaint is that the cycle isn't anything but totally natural. History proves this.

BTW, you've been saying that mankind's 3-4% emissions contribution has had a significant effect on the increase of warming globally since the industrial revolution 100 years ago.
Based on your own estimate of 300-500 years in order to prove a trend, I believe you have just revealed your poker hand theology.

Not to mention, accurate sattelite temperature measurements aren't even a decade or two old, further complicating your theory of manmade warming on a global scale.

You folks not only want it both ways, you want it every which way.

[Stoner]

Hey Lanmaster.......are bloggers reporting any increased sales of parkas and long johns in the Equatorial regions?








_

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Hey Lanmaster.......are bloggers reporting any increased sales of parkas and long johns in the Equatorial regions?








_

I don't know about that, but London just got it's first October snow since 1934

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I don't know about that, but London just got it's first October snow since 1934

Why don't you know?
I thought blog readers had all the facts at their finger tips

[valis]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

It always has been.
My complaint is that the cycle isn't anything but totally natural. History proves this.

BTW, you've been saying that mankind's 3-4% emissions contribution has had a significant effect on the increase of warming globally since the industrial revolution 100 years ago.
Based on your own estimate of 300-500 years in order to prove a trend, I believe you have just revealed your poker hand theology.

au contraire, mon ami. The hockey stick graph clearly shows the increasing level of co2 emissions coordinate nicely with the advent of industrialism. You are talking about geological change times versus the influx of anthropogenic co2. Apples and buicks; they don't match.

good try, though.

[Stoner]

I want to see some phony graphs on this catastrophe in London.

[Stoner]

http://www.weather.com/outlook/trave...hbox_typeahead

http://www.weather.com/outlook/trave...opnav_business

http://www.weather.com/outlook/trave...omnav_business


Snow?
Hmmmm?, must have been a real fluke

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I want to see some phony graphs on this catastrophe in London.

best i could do on such short notice

[Stoner]

Shocking! , shocking I tell you!!

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

au contraire, mon ami. The hockey stick graph clearly shows the increasing level of co2 emissions coordinate nicely with the advent of industrialism. You are talking about geological change times versus the influx of anthropogenic co2. Apples and buicks; they don't match.

good try, though.

But you, yourself, wrote that it takes 300-500 years to make a trend.

HA!

[valis]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

But you, yourself, wrote that it takes 300-500 years to make a trend.

HA!

indeed I did. Please refer to this post again:

Originally Posted by me

The hockey stick graph clearly shows the increasing level of co2 emissions coordinate nicely with the advent of industrialism. You are talking about geological change times versus the influx of anthropogenic co2.

I'm talking about the anthropogenic effect, which can indeed be sudden; you are talking about a natural trend, which is NOT sudden.

Get it? Anthropogenic vs natural.

[lotuseclat79]

Science study by MIT contradicts global warming theory.

A simultaneous world wide increase in methane was observed in 2007. This contradicts theories stating man is responsible for increases as it takes a year for gases from industrial north to reach southern hemisphere.

Well, this won't be the first time, nor the last time MIT scientists have been baffled before they figure it out!

-- Tom