View Single Post
  #26  
Old October 26th 11, 11:32 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real


"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
They've all been answered before- and by people who, unlike

yourself,
understand science.

Sorry, yesterday when I wrote the questions I wasn't aware that

there were
already expert answers already available on the internet.


There are lots of things you aren't aware of....


Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?


Doing so is pointless, since you'll just misinterpret the link, then
you'll forget about it and re-ask the same question again, and again, and
again...


Ohh. So you don't know either.

So typical of cranks with crank theories. You use terms that you don't
define, you claim that evidence for your beliefs is all over the internet
(but always refuse to provide even a single credible link), you make
ad-hominem attacks when cornered, you refuse to have your theories disected
using the scientific method ...



Here are the questions again:


'Take for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...e_Record_(NASA
).svg
The 5 year average global temperature was lower in 1963 than at any

time
since 1935. Was "global warming" occurring in (say) 1961? How do

you know?
What calculation based on temperatures (which is what was measured)
determines if "global warming" is occurring or not occurring at

some point
in time?'


In that particular case no calculation is necessary - a quick glance at
the figure you linked to is enough. Unless you're blind (physically or
mentally) that is....


So, was global warming occuring in 1961?

How did you determine your answer?

Why do you cranks always refuse to answer specific questions about the
scientific basis of your beliefs?




You appear to be confusing me with somebody else. I personally have

never
asked if the earth was warming in (say) 1961.


There you go again! You add or change a small detail in your question,
then you claim your question is completely new even though it's just a
small variation of questions you've already asked many times before.


And never been answered.

Was global warming occuring in 1961?

What criteria determine if global warming is occuring at some point?

Why don't you just answer the question? Or point me to where the question
has been answered in the past?




I just want a scientific term defined. That term being "global

warming".
That definition is simple: there is a global warming if the global mean
temperature increases. It's no more complex that that.


Increases since when? The day before? The year before? The decade before? An
increase implies a difference between two numbers. I am guessing that one of
the numbers is the average global temperature for that year. I am also
guessing that the other is the average global temperature during some
different year. Is this correct? What is the "other" year which is used for
comparison?

Have you got a single calculation which shows that global warming has ever
occured? Was global warming happening in 1961? If it was, when did it
increase from which means that global warming was occuring? If it wasn't
when was the period over which there was no temperature difference?



Such that given a complete temperature record


Sorry but you'll never reach that ideal. All available temperature records
are and will be incomplete. That's what you'll have to work with. If you
require perfection, you'll never be able to draw any conclusions.


I realise that their are limits to measurement. That is not the issue. Lets
imagine that you had access to complete and accurate temperature records -
say the records which have been published for the last 150 years are
perfectly correct. What formula/algorithm/definition allows you to determine
when global warming did or not occur within that period of (assumed) perfect
and complete temperature records?



And here's where your agenda reveals itself: you want to avoid the obvious
conclusions, and you do so by requesting unattainable perfection.


No. I do not ask for any perfection. I don't actually care about the
possible inaccuracies in the temperature record; they are the best we have.
I simply want a definition of "global warming", such that given an idealised
perfect and complete temperature record the periods during which global
warming occurred can be identified.

Imagine that the all of the values given in the graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ord_(NASA).svg

are absolutely correct and perfect.

During which years was global warming occurring? How did you work that out?