🚀 go-pugleaf

Surfer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:00:17 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> Nice apologia
>>    Doesn't change a bit that since they can't account for the source and 
>> destination of all that energy, they have a problem with supporting their 
>> claim.
>>
> 
> The principle claim was "Global warming is still happening" made at a
> time when surface temperature was temporarily decreasing.
> 
> That claim could have been supported by accounting for the source and
> destination of energy and a hypothesis was made that energy was being
> absorbed at ocean depths greater than 900 m.

And it could have been the man in the moon. You can hypothesize away the
truth in any weird & wonderful way you like. The claim could also be
supported by "the dog ate the temperature increase". Don't forget, that
dog already ate Phil Jones's temperature data.

> However, the claim can also be supported by simply showing that global
> mean surface temperature has an upward trend line, in spite of
> temporary downward fluctuations. 

God you warmists make me laugh. If you "simply" expand the timeframe
back into the embarrassing centuries, the claim can be equally well
*dismissed* by

"simply showing that global mean surface temperature has" a pretty flat
"trend line, in spite of temporary" upward "fluctuations."

> The following shows that this is the case:
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global Mean Temp.jpg
> 
> 
> Also, consistent with the above.
> 
> - Global mean troposphere temperature has an upward trend line
> http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/0710_graf.jpg?w=500&h=183
> 
>  - Arctic sea ice extent has a downward trend line
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
> 
>  - Antarctic mass has a downward trend line
> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
> 
>  - Global sea level continues to rise
> http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
> 
>> In other words, they're saying:
>>    -    We don't know what's happening.
> Not the full details. But the general picture is known.
> 
>>    -    We have no handle on the data
> There is lots of data that show that global warming is real.

only in the selected window of observation that make it appear to be so.

> You should at least look at the links above.
> 
>>    -    We don't even have a computer model that works properly
> There are many computer models and they appear to work as well as
> expected.

They are all variations on the same theme and they all work equally
abysmally.

>>    -    But we know that our conclusions are good.
> Basic physics predicts warming, computer models predict warming and
> the temperature data shows warming.

Basic physics can be manipulated to predict warming... or cooling... or
nothing. It all depends on what conclusion you want to reach.

>> That's NOT the way science is supposed to work 
>>
> 
> Science works by making and testing hypthesises and theories. That
> seems to be happening.

Nothing could be further from the truth in the voodoo world of the AGW
religion, which dares to call itself a "science".

AGW - see also eugenics, phrenology, astrology

-- 
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention:

Jan 2005 __________
Jul 2005 ________
Jan 2006 _________
Jul 2006 ______
Jan 2007 _____
Jul 2007 ____
Jan 2008 ____
Jul 2008 ___
Jan 2009 ___ Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________
Jan 2010 _________________
Jul 2010 ______________________________

Where to next?