No, no, no. Movie Fan said 'natural factors'. Than means non-AGW. That suggests someone has isolated that cause.
We already know about what CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. Is it not self-evident?
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
We already know about what CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. Is it not self-evident?
I'll check that out tonight.Excellent article.
I find it amazing that guys like Groggy and Basketcase can get excited about a reported temperature change of 2/100ths of a degree -- for the entire planet -- and then claim the rest of us don't understand "the science."
The huge industrial expansion that led to the significant increase in man-made CO2 emissions came after the Second World War.
Even the IPCC is only claiming that man-made emissions were a dominant factor after 1950 (which is why the Netherlands survey discussed on the weekend specifically refers to the period since the mid-20th century). Regardless of what one believes about AGW, it is widely accepted that the warming that occurred in the late 19th century and the early 20th century was primarily due to natural factors.
Good luck with that. I've asked him that dozens of times but all he does is change the topic. He doesn't have a scientific thesis; just complaints.
Science is not a word game. More research comes along, new data is collected, new conclusions are reached. It's nice that you have a Mennonite view on science though.
So in your warped arguments, the increasing CO2 from industrialization doesn't count because....?
Oh that's right, you think you can win some argument if you ignore facts.
And yes, CO2 was increasing noticeably for more than 100 years and it's contribution to climate has been continually growing. It was not until 1950s until it clearly became the DOMINANT factor. Before that it was an INCREASING factor. Is that too complicated for you?
It's difficult to know if you're a compulsive liar or a complete idiot.
For the record, you asked me what natural causes might explain the current temperatures, not the past temperatures.
Contrary to your lies, at no point did I try to change the topic. I said the scientists don't know the answer, largely because the IPCC's politically driven agenda has focused exclusively on trying to build a case for man-made global warming (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf).
Having failed to properly study the issue, the scientists don't have any answers. That's why they can't come up with a consistent explanation for the stagnant temperatures in the 21st century, which have been nothing at all like the skyrocketing temperatures they predicted: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img908/4312/pUBBwm.jpg.
In 2001, the IPCC said the Earth's temperature could increase by as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100. Now, the AGW crowd wants us to get excited about a reported temperature change of 0.03 degrees Celsius over nearly a decade.
The climate researchers are also facing serious challenges because the climate is far more complex than the modellers want to acknowledge. It sure as hell is a lot more complex than Michael Mann wants to believe.
K. Douglas and others have no difficulty understanding my response. It's only you, Basketcase, that is struggling with it.
You don't get it because you don't understand any of this. Much the same way that you spent more than a year struggling to understand how people could accept there has been warming and still not believe in anthropogenic global warming. It isn't difficult for people who understand science. It's only difficult for you.
And unlike you and your fairy-tale prediction of a 0.18 degrees Celsius temperature increase from 2010 to 2014, I actually know the data and know how to read graphs.
He wasn't talking about science. He was talking about your posts. And his characterization of your posts is 100% correct.
Speaking of word games...
And still you don't give an answer. If you claim that 'natural causes' is a scientific thesis, you should be able to expound on it. But you can't and you won't.
Fact is that the scientific community, the IPCC, NASA, the NAOA, etc. etc. see AGW as the dominant factor in the current climate change and your only defense is to call them liars.
Do you ever get sick of your own non precise BS? Like the way you constantly say ".... in recorded history", what do you mean by recorded history? do you mean since humans could write, do you mean since climate records were kept, do you mean when we had satellites such that there is uniform measurement across the globe, do you include tree ring data and ice core data.
Science is precise, the BS you say is never precise. You are no different that other AGW supporters who will throw non-coherent thoughts into a blender and then pour out the contents expecting to prove some point when all it proves is your ignorance.
Again I ask you precisely what breakthroughs and technologies are you referring to such that you are confident that the current AWG theory is correct WRT past climate views and WRT future climate developments? Of course a guy like you would constantly jump the band wagon and say the newest AR99999999 is the correct one, without trying to reconcile why AR99999998 was such a disaster.
With your lackadaisical scientific mind you could very well earn a PHD in climate science easily, that is by no means a compliment.
Between 1910 and 1945, the global temp made a steady rise for 35 years, setting many high temp. records since 1880,... with an OBVIOUSE,... to anybody with a minimal amount of problem solving ability,... zero human influence.
As the global temp. then made a steady decline for another 35 years,...this logically confirms there was NO man made influence in the rise from 1910 thru 1945.
Unless we are going to blame aliens,...that leaves,...the obvious,...!!!
To not to even consider an ulterior motive from the "global warming" community,...as they have been proven wrong more than once,...is also ignoring the obvious.
If the "global warming" community is constantly "collecting new data, and new conclusions are reached" ,...all of their previous conclusions must have been wrong,...but now we are supposed to believe that they finally got it right,...I've got some slightly damp land in Florida,...if anybody is interested.
FAST
Last edited:
In the Netherlands survey of climate researchers' views, nearly 12 per cent of respondents said natural factors are at least as significant -- or more significant -- than man-made emissions. Another 9.9 per cent said it is unknown how much of the warming that has occurred can be attributed to greenhouse gases: http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/pbl-1a.jpg
The survey of American Meteorological Society members found that 15 per cent of respondents believe natural factors are either an equal or dominant cause of warming, while another 20 per cent of respondents said there is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of warming.
The idea that natural factors -- such as solar activity -- have been a significant or even dominant cause of the warming in the late 20th century has not been rejected by climate researchers. Some believe it. Others don't. Many say we don't understand the climate well enough to determine what caused the warming in the late 20th century.
The most recent warming occurred from the late 1970s to the 1990s. Yet, in 1995, climate scientists told the IPCC there was no evidence of any human influence. Surely, the IPCC's climate scientists must have believed something caused the warming that was occurring at that time.
Indeed, the IPCC's own graphs prior to 2001 showed temperatures had increased more significantly in the Medieval Warm Period. That was well before the Industrial Revolution. The IPCC scientists who believed the Medieval Warm Period was global must have believed the climate can be affected by natural causes.
As for your claim that the "scientific community" supports AGW, there is no reason to believe that.
Consider the IPCC's headline-grabbing prediction in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. That fairy-tale claim made international headlines and the IPCC spent more than two years defending it.
According to you, the "scientific community" would speak out if the IPCC and its followers were saying things that were as obviously preposterous as the Himalayan glaciers prediction. But as we all know, that didn't happen. For the most part, it was only climate skeptics who said anything at all, even though any person who knows anything about science knew it was total B.S.
The reality is the "scientific community" has mostly been quiet on AGW. Indeed, not a single scientist on the planet -- climate researcher or otherwise -- provided an amicus brief in support of Michael Mann in his lawsuits against Mark Steyn.
The silence of the "scientific community" doesn't prove that scientists don't believe in it. But the assertion that the "scientific community" supports AGW is completely baseless.
Last edited:
Seems your numbers pretty much confirm the beliefs of a clear majority of the scientific community yet you still accuse them of cooking the books.
Are you really taking the view of 12-15% over the 65-78%?
Bullshit. Provide a link to a specific post where I said the "scientific community" is cooking the books.
No. There's a correlation from about the late 1970s to the late 1990s.
The problem is there is no correlation in the years following the La Nina years at the turn of the century.
Another problem is that the significant increase in man-made emissions following the Second World War didn't lead to increases in the Earth's temperature. Different graphs show somewhat different data, but they generally show there was a cooling period from the 1940s to the 1970s (which is why you saw front-page headlines predicting another ice age).
I don't want to focus on magazine covers.No. There's a correlation from about the late 1970s to the late 1990s.
The problem is there is no correlation in the years following the La Nina years at the turn of the century.
Another problem is that the significant increase in man-made emissions following the Second World War didn't lead to increases in the Earth's temperature. Different graphs show somewhat different data, but they generally show there was a cooling period from the 1940s to the 1970s (which is why you saw front-page headlines predicting another ice age).
So you admit to a correlation of increasing emissions with rising temperatures, but that this correlation stopped after 1990?
So you're saying that there hasn't been increases in the overall global temperature since WWII up to now?
How can this be when we have receding glaciers, diminished snow caps and reduction in polar ice?
The magazine covers merely illustrate that the Earth's temperature was cooling and, by the 1970s, there were fears of another ice age. What's most interesting, actually, is that the climate researchers said the new ice age would be caused by man-made CO2 emissions -- the same emissions that now allegedly cause global warming.
In any event, the correlation increasing between man-made CO2 emissions and warming ended at about the turn of the century -- anywhere from 1997 to 2002, depending on which data set you're using.
Overall, I fully acknowledge -- as do almost all scientists on all sides of the debate -- that the planet has warmed by about 1C over the past 135 years. However, I see no evidence that the warming over that 20-year period in the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented or that it can be attributed to anthropogenic factors. Correlation does not prove causation.
The best way to test these things is to compare the predictions about future outcomes with the observed data. The observed data confirm the predictions were spectacularly wrong.
I wouldn't subscribe to magazine covers (no pun intended - lol). Could be freakish weather patterns. Did we have big volcanic eruptions in the 70s?
Also, they thought we were going to run out of oil in the 1970s, so I don't give much credence to predictions in that era.
You say correlation doesn't prove causation, but isn't that a convenient statement from a denier?
Also, how can you say that when you are expecting a correlation between observations and predictions?
