What Do We Think About Climate Change

The fields

Casimir effect says matter is electromagnetic.
Nasa says weather and clouds are electromagnetic.
Nuclear processes in stratosphere are electromagnetic.
Earth fields are electromagnetic
Solar wind is electromagnetic
Cosmic fields is electromagnetic

And our climate change is CO²

Very logical

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical4.html

 

The 1.5 mm pretty constant yearly rise is recorded back at least to the last decades of the 19th century, and probably has being doing so for at least another 100-150 years more, since the coming out of the LIA. The posted graph is the section for the 20th century, lacking the previous and following parts of the line. What I meant is that the last and more accurate 2003-2007 data continue the trend, contradicting some previous studies saying speed had lately rise to around 3mm/a which some wanted to link to AGW.

Realize the 1,5 mm trend is steady in spite of the very variable yearly amount of anthropogenic CO2 during the period (very low at the beginning and steepening from around half of the 20th century onwards).

Cheers.

 

You shouldn't laugh so loud and read the work instead, to find out why. Probably your laugh will freeze if you have some brains under your hat

Cheers.

 

Boston my darling, we have discussed and debunked your mentioned Oreskes' work a long time ago in this thread (post 1291 and subsequents. Search for Oreskes). Don't come back again with it, as it is quite boring from you and of no use to learning something new. And also please don't come back again with your usual nonsense of discrediting works just because of who writes them, instead of debating with data or other works if they are right or not.

P.S.
Let me quote here something else from the very Naomi Oreskes herself (also already previously posted):

"There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all."

And also this pearl (which means she's a clever person), I had already posted specially for you: "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility". Here we go again, my dear scatterbrain.

Cheers.

 

And Boston, my deligthful scientist, here you have (once again! ) a long term sea level rise data set, as you asked for. Probably you can explain to me what this has to do with anthropogenic CO2. Do you want any more data?



Cheers.

 

Oh, come on. You guys are throwing out research, data and observations left and right for not meeting your supposedly rigorous scientific standards.

Then you turn around and claim that since two poems don't specifically mention snow and ice, it somehow proves there was none at the time.

What's next? Will you tell me that since not a single verse in the Bible specifically mentions Jesus having a *****, he must have been a eunuch or a woman?

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away...

 

Keep in mind that significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only a ~60 year old phenomenon. We can re-visit the actual emissions numbers if you want, but trust me, we've done this already twice before. Our emissions were a mere 1/100 of present circa 1880, and ~60% of ALL cumulative anthropogenic CO2 was emitted since 1978! If you are then going to say that even 1/100 present is 'significant' that opens up an even bigger can of worms for AGW, so do the AGW side a favor and just don't go there. Live with the ~1945-55 period as the beginning of 'significant' anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Then all you have to do is explain warming and sea level rise before then, but at least that's an easier row to hoe than a much lower 'threshold of significance' for CO2 emissions.

Jimbo

 

Oreskes debunked ?
when did that happen
her work is famous and very well respected with numerous published articles and peer reviewed works
her papers are popular and cited often as I pointed out
her studies into the history of climate change science are universally accepted within the scientific community and I have never even heard of a counter arguement being presented to the review panel nor of any retractions being made by either the author or any of the panels that have reviewed her work

do you have some peer reviewed basis for this claim
or is it just another one of the many baseless claims being made on the part of the deniers camp

just curios
cause I dont remember any debunking of Naomi's work that went beyond
"I dont agree"
cause not agreeing is not enough
each of us should have a viable reason to believe what we do and in the case of science that reason must stand up to the scientific method

soooooooo

whats your peer reviewed evidence to support your claim that Naomi's work has been debunked

( your right this it to much fun as long as it remains civil )

cheers
and Im out for the evenings festivities
B

 

This your post only means all you want is to rant around here without carefully studying what it is posted. OK, that's your choice, but don't complain if we apply then to yourself your own signature's motto.

Cheers.

 

Boston,
I'm not going to enter an idiotic debate with you about Oreskes, as things are quite clear on the matter. Idiotic debates are the only thing you like, and that's a pity. Would you please answer the sea level question, instead?

Cheers.

 

I'll believe that there are real scientists contributing to this thread when the most vocal debaters swap sides and give calm, cogent, arguments for that side of the debate

 

We could use another "source"?
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...rds-are-migrating-earlier-study_10063070.html

birds birds birds.... Who had that song lyric?

 

I will repeat my point a third time, and thus give you one last chance to refute it, instead of coming back with yet another condescending non-answer:

The fact that two poems about the beauty of a temple don't mention ice and snow does not prove there was none at the time. To claim it does is so absurd I thought you were joking at first, when I read your post.

It's even more absurd, when compared to the penchant of people in this thread to throw out actual scientific research, measurements and data left and right as being unreliable.

 

Since when was Oreske's hatchet piece peer-reviewed in the first place, such that it requires some other peer-reviewed refutation? It was just an opinion piece; a very informal search of titles and abstracts of the existing peer reviewed lit. The debunking came from the exposure of the very flawed (intentionally?) search string, which excluded a plethora of papers that Oreske's paper claimed don't exist.

Jimbo

 

Peer reviewed and published 10.1126/science.1103618
I even included reference work and citations
if you would like I can give you the definition of citation within peer reviewed work

oh common now G Idiotic debate covers this whole thread pretty darn well

I think I covered the sea level rise question in post #4372 and it was also answered pretty handily in post #4373

maybe I didnt understand the question
were you suggesting that recent data in red on the graph you presented somehow does not correlate with the observed short term trend the graph represents cause it looks clear that it does. :idea:

since we seem to be in good spirits around here again maybe if you rephrase your question I will be able to answer it better
please include long term multiple data sets though as I think it will prove itself to negate the question I think your trying to get at