Still waiting for MF's scientific theory that better explains global warming.
Hell might freeze over first.
Still waiting for MF's scientific theory that better explains global warming.
You must have been a lousy student in school.Still waiting for MF's scientific theory that better explains global warming.
Here's the New York Times' Andrew Revkin on a study that is more recent than anything you cited that says the Medieval Warm Period was global:That article is 10 years old and wrong.
Studies show that the warming during the Medieval Warm Period were local, not global and we have far surpassed that temperature now.
The information I cited came directly from the IPCC's AR5 report, and was quoted in media reports (in both left-leaning and right-leaning media) throughout the world. I didn't cherry pick anything.You can ONLY make that argument with those sets of cherry picked dates.
Thank you Captain Obvious, no one here has made that claim. Something tells me that wasn't the answer to the question but you're good at giving non answers.You must have been a lousy student in school.
Please pay attention, as this has been answered numerous times. Changes in the climate are not unique to the past 200 years.
Au contraire. It continues to be implied in repeated questions that ask for alternate theories to explain changes in the climate.Thank you Captain Obvious, no one here has made that claim.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
Speaking of school, you might want to go back and learn about science.You must have been a lousy student in school.
Please pay attention, as this has been answered numerous times. Changes in the climate are not unique to the past 200 years.
Implied? Only to you and your bunkie AK. The questions about alternate theory is simply a way of commenting on no throwing out the baby with the bathwater.Au contraire. It continues to be implied in repeated questions that ask for alternate theories to explain changes in the climate.
No one disputes that climate changes. Whether or not empirical evidence will ever be found that supports the premise that man-made CO2 is a primary driver of changes in the climate is another matter.
Meanwhile, here's a blast from the past: The 2012 interview with scientist and environmental hero James Lovelock, where Lovelock conceded that the expected warming of the planet has not occurred:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
It would appear to me he's simply saying he does't think it's as bad as he initially thought, not that it doesn't exist, or that it should be ignored.Its annual climate summary for 2011 said that the combined land and ocean surface temperature for the world was 0.92 degrees above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees, making it the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average.
“All 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011,” it said.
In the interview, Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” published in 1979.
But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.
“I would be a little more cautious -- but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.
I did, but I'm happy to quote it again.Would you mind quoting where in that lengthy article where Lovelock says what you claim.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-changeThe world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.
The scientific method is clear: A hypothesis does not become an accepted theory until it is supported by evidence and results can be replicated. An accepted theory would allow you to make accurate predictions.The scientific community will not throw out a theory that does a pretty good job (not the spectacularly garbage you try and claim) unless they have a better theory.
Plenty.So where is your theory that something other than CO2 is driving global warming? Are there even any scientists who believe that?
I did, but I'm happy to quote it again.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
The scientific method is clear: A hypothesis does not become an accepted theory until it is supported by evidence and results can be replicated. An accepted theory would allow you to make accurate predictions.
It's funny, by the way, that a guy who claims to have such a firm belief in the scientific method was so willing to accept the very unproven premise that the IPCC's missing temperatures must have gone into the deep ocean.
Plenty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
The quote reminds me of Henny Youngman's response when he was asked, 'how's your wife? To which he responded, 'compared to what'?Originally Posted by James Lovelock View Post
The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.
You are cherry picking.The information I cited came directly from the IPCC's AR5 report, and was quoted in media reports (in both left-leaning and right-leaning media) throughout the world. I didn't cherry pick anything.
"
You're being a bit too precious. Lovelock makes it absolutely clear that the predicted increases in temperature that were supposed to be caused by man-made CO2 didn't materialize and that the alarming predictions about global warming were wrong.The quote reminds me of Henny Youngman's response when he was asked, 'how's your wife? To which he responded, 'compared to what'?
Lovelock doesn't really quantify 'much'. The temperature rose and relative to what has happened since the beginning of the written records, it's still rising.
Try reading your own Wiki quote a bit more carefully. Wiki agrees with me.As for your concept of the scientific method, I can't seem to find anyone who thinks along the same line. Even the summary supplied by Wiki doesn't seem to jive with you.
The IPCC's reference to the 1998-2012 time period speaks to the most current period that has been measured. The dates were selected by the IPCC, not by me. You don't know what the phrase "cherry picking" means.The footnote from the page of the IPCC you quoted makes that very clear, your argument only works from one possible date. That is the definition of cherry picking.
Fail.The IPCC's reference to the 1998-2012 time period speaks to the most current period that has been measured.
Could you point out/quote where it agrees with you?You're being a bit too precious. Lovelock makes it absolutely clear that the predicted increases in temperature that were supposed to be caused by man-made CO2 didn't materialize and that the alarming predictions about global warming were wrong.
Try reading your own Wiki quote a bit more carefully. Wiki agrees with me.
The IPCC's reference to the 1998-2012 time period speaks to the most current period that has been measured. The dates were selected by the IPCC, not by me. You don't know what the phrase "cherry picking" means.
Furthermore, I'm happy to take a look at longer-term results and see how they compare with the 1990 predictions. I'll get to it this evening, but I can assure you the result will be the same for the IPCC (remember, in 1990, the IPCC was predicting temperature changes of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade).
And your assertion that the IPCC is using "fossil fuel-funded talking points" is a bit difficult to believe, even for a "conspiracy theorist" like me.
On the contrary. It is the IPCC that appears to be guilty of cherry picking dates.And the IPCC report specifically speaks against the cherry picking argument.
Every thing in nature goes in cycles, and given enough time, always averages out.They called it "global warming" until that didn't make any sense now it's "climate change".
How bout we call it what it really is: EVOLUTION of the earth!
Get used to it. The dinosaurs didn't and look what happened to them!!
So what the average?Every thing in nature goes in cycles, and given enough time, always averages out.
FAST
You seem to have missed the fat that the world is getting warming, hence the term Global Warming.They called it "global warming" until that didn't make any sense now it's "climate change".
How bout we call it what it really is: EVOLUTION of the earth!
Get used to it. The dinosaurs didn't and look what happened to them!!
Straightforward answer.Hey groggy, since you claim to understand the IPCC data so well, why dont you predict for us based on IPCC data which of the following summer's we're supposed to get here in Toronto this year:
1. Normal summer
2. Hotter then normal summer
3. Colder then normal summer
Fairly straight forward question, groggy. And since you claim to be so much more intelligent than most of us, you should have no problem answering it :eyebrows:
AK still hasn't got the basics down and can't remember, no matter how many times it's explained, the difference between climatology and meteorology.Straightforward answer.
You are asking for weather predictions, we are talking about climate predictions.
Start another thread if you want to talk weather.
For climate prediction: the planet will probably be warmer this year then last and we probably will have more extreme weather events.