Major analysis confirms global warming is real

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:54:12 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| Let me see now...
| He asks you a question, you can't answer it and that makes him the idiot
| in a clinical sense? You've been attending the wrong clinic.
|
| He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
| answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it makes
| you one as well.
|
Ok, let's find out. What he want is for you to fill in the blanks
with numbers and report the source of the information:
The rate at which the Earth is currently warming is ____ watts per year.
The rate at which the Earth was warming 100 years ago was ____ watts
per year.
At no time in the history of the Earth was either figure exceeded: true or
false?

If you cannot answer it makes you the clinical idiot.
And if you don't see that, it makes you a ****ing imbecile.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:54:12 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

Let me see now...
He asks you a question, you can't answer it and that makes him the idiot
in a clinical sense? You've been attending the wrong clinic.

He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it makes
you one as well.

No, I haven't received any answers.

Climate "scientists" say the earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in
"recorded history".

1. What is the current rate of warming?

2. What was the second highest rate of warming in "recorded history", and
when did it occur ?

3. How were these calculated?

Pretty simple questions. But no answers.

Of course, your usual form is to claim these have already been answered.
They haven't. Rather than pretend they have been answered, why don't you
actually answer them? The first question requires a number. The second
question requires a number and a date. The third question requires a
sentence to answer. Why not just answer the questions?

And, of course, before making a claim like the one above, somebody would
have to have answered these three questions already to see if the claim is
true. Or at least a real scientist would; maybe Believers just invent ****
and claim its true without evidence.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:34:47 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

Ok, let's find out. What he want is for you to fill in the blanks
with numbers and report the source of the information:
The rate at which the Earth is currently warming is ____ watts per year.

The question is meaningless, as a rate of warming cannot be expressed
in units of watts.

The rate at which the Earth was warming 100 years ago was ____ watts
per year.

See above.

At no time in the history of the Earth was either figure exceeded: true or
false?

See above.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:34:47 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| Ok, let's find out. What he want is for you to fill in the blanks
| with numbers and report the source of the information:
| The rate at which the Earth is currently warming is ____ watts per year.
|
| The question is meaningless, as a rate of warming cannot be expressed
| in units of watts.

I heat my home in watts to keep the temperature constant, and I pay
for kilowatt hours. You can use megawatts, gigawatts, terawatts,
I don't mind. I'm trying to find out who is the clinical idiot.

If you cannot answer it makes you the clinical idiot.
And if you don't see that, it makes you a ****ing imbecile.

So far it's beginning to look as if you are a ****ing imbecile.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:34:47 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

Ok, let's find out. What he want is for you to fill in the blanks
with numbers and report the source of the information:
The rate at which the Earth is currently warming is ____ watts per year.

The question is meaningless, as a rate of warming cannot be expressed
in units of watts.

The rate at which the Earth was warming 100 years ago was ____ watts
per year.

See above.

At no time in the history of the Earth was either figure exceeded: true
or
false?

See above.

Of course his question is meaningless.

These ones are not:

1. Is the current warming rate of the earth unprecedented in recorded
history, as is often claimed? If so:

2. What is the current rate of warming?

3. What was the next highest warming rate in "recorded history", and when
was it?

4. How were these figures derived?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:08:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
When climatologists say "the earth is warming at an unprecedented
rate",
which definition are they using?

Depends on which climatologist you're referring to (to find the
answer for specific climatologists, read their research papers where
such details are given).

However, the result is pretty much the same in either case: there is
a remarkable global warming going on, and it can be seen in 5-year
averages, 30-year averages and any other commonly used climatological
average.

And, no, it's not meaningful to ask if there was a warming in one
specific year, e.g. 1961. For such a small time interval you're
talking about weather, not climate. For climate you should consider
time intervals ofb at least several decades. So you could rephrase
your question as e.g. "was there abglobal warming 1960-1990?". The
answer is obvious.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:24:24 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:21:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:57 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.

No you didn't.

Or at least, I can't find it.

Then you need to learn to read! I could find it easily.

My news reader must have dropped it.

If so, re-read the post in Google Groups


How is the warming rate calculated/defined?
What is the current warming rate?
What was the second fastest rate of warming in the last 200
years,
when was
it, and what was the warming rate at this time?

I just want to see exactly how "unprecedented" the current
"warming
rate"
is.

No, you want to avoid precisely that! That's why you keep
re-asking those
stupid questions, claiming you've never seen any answer althought
they've
popped up right before your eyes multiple times!!! "My news
reader must
have dropped it" ..... you stupid fool, you obnoxious troll....


Where has somebody said what the current warming rate is?


Where has somebody said what is the second fastest rate in
"recorded
history" (another undefined term used by climatologists to vague
things up)?


You claim one number (the current warming rate) is larger than
another (the
previous fastest warming rate in "recorded history"), but you still
haven't
said how the numbers are calculated or what their numerical values
are.


Its like somebody claiming that Pluto is currently closer to the
earth than
it was on Jan 1st 1900. If you wanted to check this fact, you would
first
ask how far away Pluto was on Jan 1st 1900, then ask how far away
it is now,
then see which is larger. Indeed, its difficult to see how somebody
could
even make this claim without first working out the two distances.


If an astronomer made this claim (and it was correct), he could
show from a
table of orbits that it was true, by comparing the two numbers.


However, if an astronomer made this claim, and then couldn't
actually tell
you the distance to Pluto now, or on Jan 1st 1900, and indeed
couldn't even
tell you how distance was defined or how to measure them, then you
would
think he was a crank pretending to be an astronomer.


The claim is that the earth is warming at faster rate than at any
time in
"recorded history". Putting aside the deliberately vague and
undefined term
"recorded history" (you can interpret this how you like), to show
this is
true you have to say how the warming rate is calculated. Then we
can
actually determine whether the current warming rate is higher,
lower or the
same as at previous times in "recorded history".


So, if we currently have the highest warming rate in recorded
history, what
is that rate, and what do you claim was the fastest previous
warming rate?
How did you work this out?

There's no point in even trying to answer you here, since you'll just
claim you didn't see. Any answer, with lame excuses like "my
newsreader must have dropped it".

So you want to dispute that claim? Well, make a counter-claim and
provide evidence for that! That's the way ***serious*** discussions
are performed!!

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:40:29 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it
makes
you one as well.

No, I haven't received any answers.

That's because your newsreader conveniently drops the answers for
you. Get a better news reader!!!!

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:08:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
When climatologists say "the earth is warming at an unprecedented
rate",
which definition are they using?

Depends on which climatologist you're referring to (to find the answer for
specific climatologists, read their research papers where such details are
given).

However, the result is pretty much the same in either case: there is a
remarkable global warming going on, and it can be seen in 5-year averages,

Well, actually it can't. The 5 year average from 2005 to 2010 shows no
almost warming.

30-year averages

30 year average of what, exactly? Temperature? How does that produce a rate?


and any other commonly used climatological average.


You can't claim that it doesn't matter what definition you use of "warming
rate" because they all show unprecedented warming. They clearly don't. In
fact, by almost any measure I can think of, the earth is not warming at an
unprecedented rate.

So, by which definition of "warming rate" is the earth currently warming
faster than at any time in recorded history?


And, no, it's not meaningful to ask if there was a warming in one specific
year, e.g. 1961. For such a small time interval you're talking about
weather, not climate. For climate you should consider time intervals ofb
at least several decades. So you could rephrase your question as e.g. "was
there abglobal warming 1960-1990?". The answer is obvious.

But its not obvious to me that this is at a higher rate than during the late
19th century.

So, what definition of global warming rate do you want to use? The
temperature increase over a 30 year period divided by 30 ? And what period
is "recorded history" in this context?

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:24:24 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:21:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:57 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.

No you didn't.

Or at least, I can't find it.

Then you need to learn to read! I could find it easily.

My news reader must have dropped it.

If so, re-read the post in Google Groups


How is the warming rate calculated/defined?
What is the current warming rate?
What was the second fastest rate of warming in the last 200
years,
when was
it, and what was the warming rate at this time?

I just want to see exactly how "unprecedented" the current
"warming
rate"
is.

No, you want to avoid precisely that! That's why you keep
re-asking those
stupid questions, claiming you've never seen any answer althought
they've
popped up right before your eyes multiple times!!! "My news
reader must
have dropped it" ..... you stupid fool, you obnoxious troll....


Where has somebody said what the current warming rate is?


Where has somebody said what is the second fastest rate in
"recorded
history" (another undefined term used by climatologists to vague
things up)?


You claim one number (the current warming rate) is larger than
another (the
previous fastest warming rate in "recorded history"), but you still
haven't
said how the numbers are calculated or what their numerical values
are.


Its like somebody claiming that Pluto is currently closer to the
earth than
it was on Jan 1st 1900. If you wanted to check this fact, you would
first
ask how far away Pluto was on Jan 1st 1900, then ask how far away
it is now,
then see which is larger. Indeed, its difficult to see how somebody
could
even make this claim without first working out the two distances.


If an astronomer made this claim (and it was correct), he could
show from a
table of orbits that it was true, by comparing the two numbers.


However, if an astronomer made this claim, and then couldn't
actually tell
you the distance to Pluto now, or on Jan 1st 1900, and indeed
couldn't even
tell you how distance was defined or how to measure them, then you
would
think he was a crank pretending to be an astronomer.


The claim is that the earth is warming at faster rate than at any
time in
"recorded history". Putting aside the deliberately vague and
undefined term
"recorded history" (you can interpret this how you like), to show
this is
true you have to say how the warming rate is calculated. Then we
can
actually determine whether the current warming rate is higher,
lower or the
same as at previous times in "recorded history".


So, if we currently have the highest warming rate in recorded
history, what
is that rate, and what do you claim was the fastest previous
warming rate?
How did you work this out?

There's no point in even trying to answer you here, since you'll just
claim you didn't see. Any answer, with lame excuses like "my newsreader
must have dropped it".

So you want to dispute that claim? Well, make a counter-claim and provide
evidence for that! That's the way ***serious*** discussions are
performed!!

OK. Here is my counter claim. That you have never answered these questions.

Here is my evidence. I now have 5 posts in a row from you which I can
produce which claim that you have answered these questions, but in none of
them do you actually provide the answers.

Now, for the proof.

You can either respond to this post with the answers to my three questions,
cut and paste from one of your previous replies if you like:

1. Is the earth currently warming at an un precedented rate in recorded
history? If so,
2. What is its current warming rate?
3. What was the second highest rate, and when was it?
4. How did you work that out?

My bet is that you won't provide an answer yet again. Perhaps you will lie
and say you already have, but funnily enough won't provide the answers
(*again*), rather proving me correct.

Or maybe I can panic you into actually providing a definition, and then we
can test the statement scientifically to see if it is correct.

And the reason you don't want to do that is you quite probably know that the
current warming rate (by any reasonable definition) is anything but
unprecedented, in fact it looks quite common. This throws the central
premise of AGW into considerable doubt, but rather than "doubt" the science
you try and pretend otherwise.