always knew global warming was a hoax

It would be no worse on this planet than it would be on a much younger one. The point is that you have to come up with a reason why it's not sufficient, one better than "but it's such a small fraction!"

Quote: AZDuffman

So what you are saying then is that you can use a 1 hour chart of GM to perform a valid technical analysis for the last year?

Sort of like finding a "biased" dice cube and extrapolating that to all dice in all casinos in, say, Las Vegas.

Quote: 24Bingo

It would be no worse on this planet than it would be on a much younger one. The point is that you have to come up with a reason why it's not sufficient, one better than "but it's such a small fraction!"

Fine. The reason why is that climate trends on Earth have tended to last hundreds to thousands of years. Therefore, measuring only 150 years would historically not give a long enough data stream to show an irreversible trend.

If you like, we can also discuss how there is no control planet we can use to isolate differences in solar output or other factors from outer-space.

Quote: AZDuffman

Fine. The reason why is that climate trends on Earth have tended to last hundreds to thousands of years. Therefore, measuring only 150 years would historically not give a long enough data stream to show an irreversible trend.

[Kiwi] How do you know? [/Kiwi] You're accepting conclusions about the past drawn from modern data right up to the nanosecond you hear something you don't like. That's ridiculous, but it wouldn't necessarily make you wrong. What makes you wrong is that modern observations coincide with hypotheses drawn from indicators of Earth's past history. The conclusion comes not just from our present, but also our past.

Though there is a kernel of truth there: the reversibility of climate change is considerably more an open question than its human origin for something like that reason, since nothing quite like this has ever happened (since it is clear industrial times are unique in Earth's history). Still, that's not a reason to play Russian Roulette with the clathrate gun.

Quote: AZDuffman

If you like, we can also discuss how there is no control planet we can use to isolate differences in solar output or other factors from outer-space.

As you keep reminding me, we have four billion years of control to show the uniqueness of our time. The demand for a "control planet" is the equivalent of demanding a pharmaceutical study give its new drug to aliens.

Quote: 24Bingo

As you keep reminding me, we have four billion years of control to show the uniqueness of our time. The demand for a "control planet" is the equivalent of demanding a pharmaceutical study give its new drug to aliens.

Uh, no. We have 4 billion years of history. For a control we would need a planet with no human activity as well as our own to determine what happens when the sun changes at the same time. You see, if the sun changed 10,000 years ago and the earth was in a different state than it is now then that data cannot really be said to be a control.

It matters not, because we do not have reliable data pre-1800s. Even then we did not measure most of the surface that is under the oceans. It is as if we check out a Hemi V-8 and say the compression is good even though we only checked cylinders 1 and 3.

We have the sun itself to compensate for solar activity in the past. That seemed so obvious I didn't think to say it explicitly.

And back to the "we can't say anything about the world before 1800!" Again, you can't use geological timescales as a talking point and reject all data about the past.

Quote: 24bingo

As you keep reminding me, we have four billion years of control to show the uniqueness of our time.

You were doing so well up until this.

Quote: 24Bingo

And back to the "we can't say anything about the world before 1800!" Again, you can't use geological timescales as a talking point and reject all data about the past.

Actually, I can. We know there were cooler and warmer periods. But we do not know how much cooler or how much warmer. When you want to convince be that a 1C change will mean the end of the world you had better be able to measure to within 1C. This cannot be done.

BTW: It isn't even 1800, more like 1850s when they started keeping records in the USA. Even that is faulty since the monitoring stations have moved over the years.

This is exactly the kind of nutty crap that makes me shake my head in disbelief over some of the actions of climate alarmists:

The Center for Biological Diversity (a bunch of lawyers posing as environmentalists that make a ton of money suing the government) has petitioned the EPA to list CO2 as a toxic substance under the Toxic Substance Control Act so it can be regulated.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_acidification/pdfs/Petition_OA_TSCA.pdf

I suppose that would mean the EPA could regulate our breathing.

Since fearmongering hasn't worked the alarmists have taken a page out of the religion playbook and are trying guilt.

Headline: You're making this island disappear.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/