An Open Invitation:

Yes! You finally get it! You want to discuss a time frame I do not beleive encompasses the problems or solutions. What happens in the short term is just weather, long term trends are climate. One hopes you would agree an ice age represents a climate change.

(You may need to explain your definition of strawman, the one I use does not seem to apply to my premises. I keep citing climate changes, you keep wanting to talk about a mere 100 year time frame. I seriously doubt that goats were introduced to all of North Africa within 100 years, or that Clovis man wiped out the megafauna of North America within 100 years. Not to mention how long it has taken mankind to occupy all the arable land on earth. I just don't see how to both only talk about the last 100 years AND discuss climate change rationally)

You do not seem to even be reading my replies, the industrial revolution did NOT happen in the last 100 years, no climate change I have mention happened in the last one hundred years. Ask someone in 2510 about climate change in 2010 and you can get a reliable answer, but I can't give you one. But I do feel we have a good handle on changes started 500 years ago. Since we do not have a 'control earth' and a 'test earth' to do experiments on, we have to look at what DID happen. If you have several earths we could borrow, you can greatly improve scientific accuracy on this.

I wish I could discuss meaningfully within your premises, I fear I am only agitating you, without making you examine your premises. For this I am truly sorry.

 

It is tragic that both I and The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have it all wrong then.

"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system."

 

I am comforted that mere facts do not sway you.
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.”- Homer Simpson

As I keep saying, it is not possible to sanely discuss that premise.

 

Sadly, the National Weather Service was doing a poor job even 150 years ago*, so no, no one has interesting and detailed weather data from much over 100 years ago.

Without accurate data from outside your period, how could you contrast your period with some other period you don't have data on?

*They were not formed until 1870
National Weather Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

How soon they forget. The IPCC used 'months to thousands or millions of years'. It was the World Meteorological Organization that used 30 years. (Unless you have another source than mine, in Wikipedia.

Climate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

 

So long as you realize I have never offered any opinion about 'global warming' what so ever. I have merely pointed out that I can't make any sense out of your questions. That would detract from their argument if your questions were in fact their questions.

 

You do realize that if they did, it would not BE a hypothesis. it would be a theory. I see no way to test any climate hypothesis except in real time, in 500 years, we will know.

Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Until then, we are just typing.

 

Thankyou in that one statement alone you just disproved AGW

 

I see you did not read the link on how to disprove a hypothesis, and how you can never prove one. The prime way to disprove a hypothesis is via experiment and observation. If mankind can do an experiment that DOES change the climate, just doing the experiment at all moves us from theory to fact. I suspect we will have to rely on observation.

 

No, I am outside your box. I do not believe you are measuring climate, (nor to I believe the World Meteorological Organization is measuring climate if they think 30 years is not just weather. I favor the IPCC's time frames: several months to millions of years) so you are not getting good answers, since you are not measuring what you think you are.

Since you are not measuring climate change, arguing about whether or not it is man made is not productive. (Pick a known climate change, say an Ice age, do you think any single 100 year period shows dramatic change? I don't. Significant change? I don't. Measureable change? I do. Yet the OP insists he only wishes to consider the last 100 years)

I do believe climate is changed by Man, and based on random chance, about half will be warming effects and half will be cooling effects, so technically I do believe in man based global warming AND man based global cooling, I just have no perspective to allow me to say what we are doing now. I mistrust human records on weather before the NWS and it foreign equivalents, and I don't like the short base line of records after that creation.

In my youth, a journalist asked a historian what the historical significance of the Vietnam war was. The historian claimed they were just getting the historical significance of the Civil War and that they felt they had a good handle on the historical significance of the Revolutionary War. He suggested that in 150 years, historians would agree on the significance of the Vietnam war.

News and history have the same relation as weather and climate, history is made of news, but much news never becomes history. Climate is made of weather, but much weather is not climate.

 

Shouldn't be too hard, all we need is another planet just like this one as a control ...

Alternatively why not just go along our merry way and when this planet is stuffed we can just move to that other planet. See no problem.

 

I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the best way we can combat global warming is to ignore the hot air emanating from RP1. Instead of wasting any more of our energy trying to talk to the wall, we concentrate our energy on being positive.

I plead guilty to prolonging hopeless debate(s) over the months with the feeling that either one could change his mind, or that by keeping him contained on this forum perhaps I could limit the damage he can do to this forum.

It has finally become clear that like beating a mule with a 2x4 you eventually realize after a while, you aren't likely to make progress, and indeed the mule likes it. The classic definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again expecting a different result. I for one am coming out of rehab on this subject. I may not be cured, but I am going to try real hard not to respond to even the most outrageous behavior. No promises however.

I suggest that others do the same, (as others have suggested to me!)