- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then you throw science completely out the window.
Then you throw science completely out the window.I disagree.
Use this site. If you plug in 2003, the trend lines all go down.
In you plug in 1998.5, the trend lines all go up.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
It depends greatly on which year you want to choose to start.
The key to this, though, is that the notion of AGW demands that if the CO2 is rising, the temperature must also rise as a direct impact of the most powerful forcing agent. It is not.
The proof is in the effect from the cause. if the predicted effect is not there, then the cause is suspect. If the predicted effect is always there as predicted in all cases at all times in all places, then the notion becomes a theory. If the predicted effect is never there in any case in any place, the cause should be questioned quite strongly. I am questioning your stated cause.
Here is a table of 73 predictions of AGW. They are united one to the other by the fact that they are all wrong. How many models have to be wrong and by how much before we can accept that the modelers are not capable of making a prediction that works?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
That is a pretty good representation of 73 incorrect predictions. The average of all of the incorrect models is way off.
Are you now saying it's not science? Oh, and this seems to disagree with him.If this science is really a science, why is everyone making predictions that are so inaccurate? In a real science, they would be hitting it pretty well.
Like this:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf
Why?Then you throw science completely out the window.
No, that simply isn't true.
and I seriously doubt you can show on any but the blogger anti sites that they do.
One thing that is still being debated among scientists is the degree to which global warming is due to human activities.
Not whether, just how much, and not whether it already ended. Were that the case, there would be no reason to assign it a cause, or causes.
No, that is not at all what that means. You are missing basic concepts here and I'm not sure how to explain them. I'll give it a shot, though.
Factors A, B, and C all influence the change in Widget Production. All conditions "standard," 100 widgets are produced.
A is the biggest factor. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/- 50 units.
B is the next biggest. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/-20 units.
C is a small variable. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/- 5 units.
From 1950 to 2000, Factor A goes from its baseline and falls to 10% of its maximum "down" oscillation. Net result: -5 units. (10% of its maximum oscillation of 50)
In the same period, Factor B goes from its baseline to 100% of its maximum "up" oscillation. Net result: +20 units.
In the same period, Factor C goes from its baseline and falls to its maximum "low" oscillation. Net result: -5 units.
The end result is only + 10 units. Factor B could clearly be said to be driving this shift, as the other factors are actually resisting this trend. That doesn't mean A has suddenly become unimportant, its oscillations are still going to have a major influence on things. Why, who knows, over the next few years it could swing way down and completely erase the progress that B has made. Stranger still, Factor C turned out to have the same effect as Factor A, -5 units, despite it being the smallest of the three variables. This is because it fluctuated a lot from the norm while Factor A did not.
This is the deal with temperature. We'll call Factor B the green house effect. It has been steadily increasing for more than a century now. However, Factor A (the sun), has oscillated up and down quite a bit. This has the effect of temporarily halting the rise in temperature. And then boosting it. And then halting it. And then boosting it. But the overall solar influence on the change in temperature has been small, because the sun just hasn't changed much in the last 50 years. Its oscillations have been pretty regular up until this latest cycle, which dipped down lower than before. And sure enough, this caused the temperature rise to halt.
So, pondering it, the basic concept you're missing is the net change in any given variable being key. The sun is very, very important to temperature. It just hasn't been doing much, allowing the influence of CO2 to show.
But it has still risen, no? I set almost all of those back to 0 (as old as they'd go) and all of them showed an upward trend. Nice.
Is this that old spiel about "CO2 lags temperature?"
Again, just to verify, you're questioning whether or not CO2 causes a rise in temperature?
More blogs, surprise surprise. Why doesn't he get that stuff peer reviewed? He wouldn't be cherry-picking, would he?
Are you now saying it's not science? Oh, and this seems to disagree with him.
The IPCC says that "most" of the warming is due to the activities of man.
Are we classing the IPCC as a blog? I'm not sure it's up to that standard.
This from the fist of about a zillion cites to google.
Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<snip>
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2] The IPCC defines "very likely" as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.[3]
Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
<snip>
You may have said that, but the "scientists" that depend on this to make their living are saying that 50% of the warming is due to the activities of man.
You keep referring to BS like the IPCC reports. You know we disagree with them, why do you do it?Your statement:
You keep referring to BS like the IPCC reports. You know we disagree with them, why do you do it?
You know, some people say the definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over, expecting the results to change...
The average global temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius from 20 years ago. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 10 percent over the same time- see the graphs below for the rate of increase. Sea levels have risen by about 5cm. Although .5C and 5cm changes sound insignificant (and are small compared to predicted future changes) they result in larger changes happening every day all over the world. You have seen the news: glaciers are melting in our national parks, snow caps disappearing on mountains, large chunks breaking off glaciers and ice shelves as these bodies break apart. Artic permafrost is thawing, and polar bears populations are decreasing with the ice. The balance of ecosystems is changing as animal and plant species breed and bloom earlier in the spring and shift their geographic ranges with changing climate.
If it's "showing signs of decrease" then where did your assumption that these "signs" show a decrease come from? Past information and indications? Or did you just dream it up? Here's what you disagreed with:Why?
Because I am certain the sun is the primary factor, and it has stopped increasing in power, and shows signs of very probably decrease?
If disagree with that, then you've abandoned science for a crystal ball.There is no guarantee of future anything.
But, what has happened in the past is our best indication of what is likely to happen in the future.
Just look at the satellite TSI data, and the solar indications of cycle 24. We are just less than half way through cycle 24 and it is not as powerful as cycle 23 was.MoSurveyor said:If it's "showing signs of decrease" then where did your assumption that these "signs" show a decrease come from? Past information and indications? Or did you just dream it up? Here's what you disagreed with:
Really? Because I realize there is not strong evidence that temperature follows CO2? That I realize that temperature correlates better with the sun?MoSurveyor said:If disagree with that, then you've abandoned science for a crystal ball.
You're not addressing what I said about your reply to Dittohead not!'s statement. You indicated you disagreed with the statement:<snip AGW argument - unrelated to the issue>
Your statement:
You're not addressing what I said about your reply to Dittohead not!'s statement. You indicated you disagreed with the statement:
"What has happened in the past is our best indication of what is likely to happen in the future.",
which I said meant you were throwing science out the window.
Now you're presenting a ton of *something* and saying this is an indicator of the future. If your *something* isn't past data that you've extrapolated into the future than what is it? It seems like all you're doing here is confirming what Dittohead not! has claimed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?