a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Oh?
Simple Question About AGW
- Thread starter Tokenconservative
- Start date
zeusbheld
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 260
from the beginning.
starting with the guy who "debunks" the science by debunking the news stories.
David Rodale
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 680
You are making a claim. If you can't back it up (which you implicitly admit in your very short post that you can't), it is meaningless. Worse, it is a foundless belief.
You're sounding more and more like someone who's swallowed whole the "religiosity" of the pro-AGW movement and, for all intents and purposes, has lost the ability for rational thinking.
Prove me wrong. (That's all I've ever asked.)
-Dr. Imago
"Prove" is too strong a word of course. That said...
Sun Not the Cause of Recent Warming
Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming
No indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
That chart certainly does point up the problem with CO2 driving global temperatures quite nicely. Of course it is only the last 30 years, but we do consider 30 years as a period over which climate may be measured. And a warmer would say that there was a relationship over a longer term, I guess.
The Alarmist AGW trend line, the predicted linear extrapolation of the 1980s and 1990s temperature increase, ain't happening.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
A pretty picture, but if you told us where you got it from we could better understand what it's about. Or you could just explain it to us, as you see it. Whatever. If a picture's worth a thousand words, surely this one is worth a few dozen.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Another pretty picture, but it does claim to represent the "accurate long-term trend" from 1860 to 2000. Which you'll notice is upward. You'll also have noticed that 140 years is about two 60-80 year cycles, and the trend has gone up across both of them. The cycle is visible, but there's clearly some other influence imposed on it.
The accurate trend-line is alarming enough in its implications, and is the one that's taken account of. The really silly line in that picture is the thick black one, the current "no warming" period. It's a projection from a few years ago, and it's still not quite flat.
Your chosen model (a 60-80 year cycle) predicts clear cooling by 2015. Only seven years up the line. Are you prepared to commit yourself to it, or will you just dump it when some new hottie comes along?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
We didn't get where we are today by demanding absolute proof, and those that did have generally perished in the proving of it. When it comes down to it, push becoming shove and so on, sound judgement is what distinguishes winners from the other lot.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
He's been asked again, and again, and again. He never does tell us his sources.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The evidence has been supplied in these threads already. Thanks Varwoche. There's only so many times evidence can be presented before it gets to be tedious. As I said, my friend who is a climate research scientists (involved in modeling, what's more
), gave up on the internet years ago. His much smarter than me, and realised that there are people out there who will never be convinced, so don't waste any time trying to do so. I can see his point.CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Rubbish. Your ignorance of what it's founded on is your problem, not something to be projected onto others. Educate yourself, don't demand that we go over the same ground yet again.
You have clearly failed to educate yourself in a subject on which you are pontificating. You do come across as a pompous ass, there, I've said it.
You won't be proved wrong because you've never taken a definite position. I could be proven wrong, as could varwoche, because we've taken definite positions, based on sound judgement.
You'll have to wait a while to prove us wrong. Let us know how that works out for you.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The evidence has been supplied in these threads already. Thanks Varwoche. There's only so many times evidence can be presented before it gets to be tedious. As I said, my friend who is a climate research scientists (involved in modeling, what's more
Dr Imago is no better than a Philosopher, going by the evidence. The strutting about while making demands thing gives it away
.CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
mhaze is much the same. It's almost as if they're embarrassed about where they've been presented with them. So they upload the picture, post it, and contribute the caption (generally speaking) "What about that then, eh?".
It's all very demanding ...
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
zeusbheld
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 260
the careful observer will note that while you jumped in to dump your snide "what about that then, eh?" in there, you meticulously avoided disclosing your source.
if i'm to be persuaded that the climate change that is clearly happening is natural, i need links to sources so i can see your pretty pictures IN CONTEXT with the arguments they support.
i need a lot more, but that is a bare bones place to start.
Last edited:
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
What Capeldodger does not tell you is that these charts have been discussed on this forum before including various references and supporting studies. As for requesting a reference to Rodale's graph, sheesh. That's just the old CO2 trend and two major temperature series. Which everyone should already accept. So this is a chart of basic raw data, rather than a chart which forms a correlation or a conclusion from that data. The chart I presented does form a conclusion, by noting a high correlation of the sinusoidal curve with the raw temperature data. The source is given below -
I took this graph and marked it up to indicate some of the alleged trends and what I thought were more realistic. The issues that it shows are not that "there is or is not global warming" but...
- Charts are often made starting in 1900 and ending in the current, these exaggerate warming by starting at a low and ending at a high. (Red line wrong, blue line right).
- Charts for recent decades often have shown a linear continuation of warming which is not happening. (Purple line wrong, current climate is following the black line)
- Tsonis 2007 and several other scientists, including the arthors of the study from which the 60-80 year chart was made, indicate that temperatures should go down in the next decades, not up.
- Hansen, Gore and other climate alarmists started agitating largely in 1988 and have been riding a known, predictable upward trend of temperature due to natural causes while promoting it as due to man's CO2 emissions. That upward trend is now over and the temperatures are stable and or declining.
- The chart acknowledges a trend toward a increase in temperature over the last century.
Klyashtorian and Lyubushin 2003
I draw your attention to two sets of summary graphs and note that R = 0.80 to 0.90 for all series studied by these scientists.
First graphs and discussions.
Figure 5.3 The full spectrum of unsmoothed reconstructed temperatures from ice core samples for the last 1420 years.
Spectral analysis of the time series of dT, ACI and LOD are presented in Fig 5.4. It is clear that the spectra of dT, ACI and LOD are rather similar. Primary maxima of dT and ACI are 50-55 years, and the period of the LOD cycle is 64 years. Other maxima are less pronounced, although there are clear peaks of ACI and LOD values (19 and 23 years, respectively) in the high frequency (left) range of the spectrum. The latter indicates that there is a global climate cycle with a frequency of about 20 years. Its effect on biota should be taken into account.
Second graphs and discussion.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e06c.htm#FiguraC
Last edited:
You love calling me names, don't you CD.
AUP made a specific point that solar influences have not contributed to the recently recorded phenomenon. Again, for completeness, this is what he said...
... which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And, worse, it's unsubstantiated.
Want a source? Here ya go:
If this construct is accurate, you can't conclude what AUP has. Period. All name-calling aside. Or, do you want to now call NOAA a bunch of liars/deniers/asses?
-Dr. Imago
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
This really is rich coming from you, CD. I've found your understanding of thermodynamics comical. I'm also waiting for your explanation as to why, if all the physiscs you rely on for your belief that AGW has been established ss fact, scientists trying to deliever a falsifiable hypothesis have failed to do so over one hundred years (your figure, not mine).
Here's another of your favorite slights. As I've pointed out to AUP previously, the AGW side hasn't put out anything falsifiable either so there's no proving your side wrong. You keep harping on the net warming occuring on the planet as if that were proof of your hypothesis but it isn't. I think you need to study up on thermo before you try to make that k's (pun intended but you probably won't get it).
Last edited: