What Do We Think About Climate Change

It could have been a lot worse. Don't be an ezel.

 

I won the bet! I won the bet! There we have the predicted Weasel's shameless scatterbrained answer!

First of all I'm afraid your quoting is an explicit recognition you knew the correction but you hided it, just to throw that 4x10^40 idiotice to my head. SHAME on you!

The second point is: Where is now that 76.4% you were so proudly waving like if it was the Holy Grial, dear Weasel? Do you think the idiotic 4x10^40 thingy still stands if it a 60% instead? Have you calculated it? How do you know it is 4x10^40 or whatever other figure? Is it the same a 60% than a 76.4% for you? How can you still insist on trusting that guy's numbers anymore, be them whatever ones, if he has explicitly been proved he didn't know what he was doing? You are a total shameless idiot, indeed! (on top of being a LIER!)

And perhaps you didn't notice but I have done NOT correlation acuracy calculations, just asked for somebody here to validate or falsify the temps preceding CO2 graph I presented. Are you able to do that for me, my darling?


Alan, you already ow me 5 bucks!

 

Well, I'm doubting now....there are two possibilities Weasel: you are either a CHEEKY DEVIL and you conciuously hided the correction in the guy's site or then you are an IDIOT who was fooled by not realizing those calculations posted at the blog where you took the information from were not the whole thing constant in the guy's web page.

But you know what? I'm inclined to think you are BOTH things!

 

apparently you missed this post

ya ya ya I know you sorta responded but something tells me you didn't read past the "Some half-educated global warming deniers" comment with anything resembling a comprehension level.

cheers
B

 

sorry folks but because scientist base there findings on facts ,and politicians on lies and ignorance . its come to my attention that I am forced to beleve the scientist by default. therfore global warming is not only an issue! its real!
and most of all it is being denounced by flaming idiots versed and schooled in levels of ignorance beyond comprehension.

 

don't hold back, tell us what you really think

 

hear hear

 

Ad hominem

What is ridiculous is that you would choose to believe anything based on what you perceive to be democratic consensus rather than your own reason based upon empirical data and the scientific method.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming could potentially be as real as the proponents make it out to be, but not because of some consensus. If it turns out to be the most correct theory it will be by a preponderance of evidence that has successfully contested ANY and ALL challenges.

For a scientific theory to be considered even potentially tenable even one simple refutation is sufficient to call the theory into question, and begs the creation of a new theoretical model.

Consensus and democracy has little or no place in science.

 

scientists don't agree with each other, they agree with the science

and the refutation has to include credible science to back it up, not just a "I disagree".

 

We have had some good laughing thanks to our friend the Weasel.
Enough of that. Let's come back to more serious work.

The attached graph is a Fourier analysis of the unadjusted HadCRUT3 temp data for the 1850-2010 period, detrending 0.3ºC just to make things more clear.

Can we see here a clear quasi 60 years cycle?

Is also there a quasi 170-200 years strong one?

Remember Komitov, Abdussamatov, Zhen-Shan and Xian, Klyashtorin and Lyubushin, Lohele...etc?

 

Where did spare parts say he believed in global warming because of 'democratic consensus'? I didn't see that anywhere in his post....

And although scientific matters are not decided by consensus, much less by democratic vote, it's quite legitimate to point out the large consensus in the scientific world that AGW is real. That doesn't make it automatically true, of course. But it does show that it's a scientific theory that should be given serious attention, rather than some flaky idea proposed by a handful of pseudo-scientific goofballs.

 

In other words, you're totally blowing off Boston's posting of Levinson's rebuttal... for the second time.

Is that because you have no answer to it?

 

bingo

that and proving himself incapable of rational polite conversation while actually addressing the points made concerning why his logic is so flawed.
its a pattern or a curse take your pick

thing is that the preponderance of data supports the theory and all this nipping at heals wont change that fact which is the exact reason the vast majority of scientists agree with that data's inescapable conclusion. It is a simple truth that compels a consensus. Now some would have you believe otherwise but once again its a generally disgruntled few who make the most noise and act like something is amiss. The reality is somewhat less acceptable to these few.

Obviously there is always more to learn and there will always be anomalous data but in a data pool as large as this that is bound to happen. The scientific process has a solution, it throws out the highs and the lows and moves on.

to my eye these deniers who cant produce a coherent counter theory yet constantly complain about the working theory we do have, are the lows that deserve to be ignored

doesn't mean science wont discover new things, just means that those discoveries need to be strong enough to generate a actual debate, thus far the oil and gas industry fools haven't even come close, and science isn't fooled

guillermo might be fooled but apparently
thats not so hard to do
cheers
B

 

Let's go on

I think everybody agrees Sun has been the main driver of the climate changes for the last 400.000 years up to the industrial era (1750 A.D.), while CO2 air concentration is said to have been quite constant for that period.

I think everybody agrees also on the contribution of CO2 from fosil fuels burning to the atmosphere between 1750 and 1850 was negligible, begins to slowly rise since 1850, and has been only significant to influence temperatures since around the half of the XXth century.

Let's say then, agreeing with IPCC AR4, Sun has been the main driver of temperatures, through a complex feedback with oceans, albedo, clouds, natural GHGs and water vapour, all the way up to around 1950.

The near surface temperature on Earth has varied around 30ºC in geological time scales in cycles of around 200 million years, around 10ºC in prehistorical times (last hundreds of thousands of years) with main cycles of around 100,000 years, and around 2ºC during the Holocene (including our historical times) with cycles of around 2200-2500 years. The minimums of such last cycles are named as "Little Ice Ages" or LIAs.

The last one of such LIAs happened during the second half of the 17th century, and temperatures are back on their millennial way up since then, in an amount not well known but which we need to estimate using our best criteria, as this is vital to understand the global temperature trend of the last decades.

Centurial and subcenturial variations of the temperature also are evident in the proxy and instrumental records. We have been able to check by ourselves in this thread , with a simple analysis of the available instrumental data, the strong signatures of the quasi 22 and 60 years cycles.

As everybody knows, the IPCC global circulation models need CO2 to explain the warming only after the half of the XXth century, as it is perfectly explainable by the mentioned complex natural cycles alone till then.

As temperatures did not rise for the 1940-1970 period and are again not rising for the last decade, the main and ONLY question remains: how much of the 1970-2000 warming has been due to CO2 and other man-made GHG's and how much to natural cycles?

As we have seen, the subcenturial natural cycles (22 and 60 years) are enough to explain the oscillations around the subjacent trend of +0.44 ºC from 1850, without the needing of introducing whatever man-made forcings.

We should focuse then, as I have rised here, in determining how much of such 0.44ºC trend is due to natural causes and how much is due to anthropogenic ones.

Now your constructive ideas, not scorning, ranting or acts of faith again, please.

 

::thumbsup::

I approve this message.

I want to put sand in Boston and Troy's panties because they dont seem to get that Guillermo, myself and others have no problem with saying that CO2, or even anthropomorphic CO2 is a contributor to the global temperature.

We just disagree with the relative contribution it has made compared to other factors. As well as disagree with some of the computer models.

So please when you want to respond, please respond to Guillermo's points with that in mind.

Danke.