ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Give up Doug,...fuji will NEVER acknowledge those facts,...
Also the fact that the temp. rose at the same rate in the 30 years from 1910,...as it did for the last 30 years,...and then cooled as you noted,...another fact he will run away from.
But will simply respond with nonsensical jabbering,...and childish insults,...
BULL SHIT,... as Doug and I have proven,...
During one period,...CO2 rose in response to the temp. rise.
And you still have no guts to answer posts,...but if you don't doesn't understand the subject,...that's ok then fuji,...just don't keep on wasting band width.
I didn't post a link to ANY video fuji,...so I don't know what your bull shit again is all about.
The fact that the temp. rose at the same rate in the 30 years from 1910,...as it did for the last 30 years,...and then cooled,...what other explanation do you have for that event fuji,...???
And that bull shit is your answer to my following post,...???
Or are you going to have to run away and read some magazine again,...and then get back to us,...???
This isn't the first time in this thread that I have provided a link to this February 2016 article in Nature, which specifically refutes the adjusted data that claimed to show "consistent" warming over the past 30 years:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/jour...0&spJobID=862987827&spReportId=ODYyOTg3ODI3S0
It is a matter of record that Fuji has completely rejected the findings from the peer reviewed paper that appeared in Nature last year.
That's his right.
But it is pure bullshit for Fuji to claim the peer reviewed papers support his claims about the observed data. Some do. Others clearly do not -- such the one linked above (for the umpteemth time).
Not quite. And that's because the GCM's don't properly account for natural variations in climate. What we do know that for every doubling of CO2 levels we will see about 1C of warming, other things being equal. Problem is - other things don't remain equal. Solar activity, oceans, cosmic rays, tectonic shifts, volcanoes, earth's axial tilt, cloud cover, albedo. They all play a factor in short and long term climate fluctuations. And they are not modelled because we don't know enough about their behavior.
The longer you time horizon the less natural variation matters. So you see things like natural variation deviating from the prediction for ten or twenty years, but not for fifty years.
Which is why climate is defined as thirty year average weather, shorter time periods than that are absolutely dominated by natural variation.
As you say we know that CO2 is driving up the temperature, over the LONG run. On timescales of thirty years or less it's hard to make an accurate prediction but it actually gets easier over timescales of fifty or s hundred years. Volcanos, El Niños, sun spots, etc, all just wash out of the average over longer time periods.
20 years vs 30 years vs 50 years ??
The earth is 4.5 Billion years old and has had a constantly changing climate driven by numerous events and numerous constantly changing factors
The timeline here is not even a rounding error relative to the history of the earths climate
There is no way in hell one can be absolute on any conclusion using the recorded data set
And tossing about a magazine name "Nature" does not change that fact
Nor does someone saying "No you are wrong" or "it has been proven" or "my opinion disagrees with you so lets call my opinion a fact"
The earth is 4.5 Billion years old and has had a constantly changing climate driven by numerous events and numerous constantly changing factors
The timeline here is not even a rounding error relative to the history of the earths climate
There is no way in hell one can be absolute on any conclusion using the recorded data set
And tossing about a magazine name "Nature" does not change that fact
Nor does someone saying "No you are wrong" or "it has been proven" or "my opinion disagrees with you so lets call my opinion a fact"
You mean like the February 2016 article in Nature that says your 30-year numbers are wrong.
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html
But don't you know,...that 30 year numbers are not relative now,...because they don't support the 'sky is falling club',...and of coarse our very own, terb's resident self proclaimed climate expert.
That is too funny,
My guess is he lacks the guts to address this directly and will instead deflect or change the subject.
ie. no backbone, no integrity
O
OnTheWayOut
How about this quote,...
"It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims."[/B]
,...That you and your unemployables claim isn't happening.
Last edited:
