When was all the data released for public scrutiny? Its not debunked until it is.
We know that the planet has been much warmer in the past so the last few years are not the warmest that we know of, just on record. Its pretty meaningless to make such claims but it is good propaganda.
# According to those who did the adjusting...
Nobody's told them it's been happening ever since the last ice age.
So for about 10,000 years then. And in 5,000 more or so, this inter-glacial will be over and the ice will return.
In article , Tim Streater writes
The real question is not whether the climate is changing but whether any change is being significantly affected by mankind's activities in particular processes which produce CO2. So far no detailed comprehensive scientific evidence has been offered for public scrutiny that shows that it is. All we get are "reports" from those with a vested interest in scare mongering and evidence (e.g. the East Anglian e-mails) that shows any results which conflict with their hypothesis is covered up. In the meantime when their short term models are demonstrated to be wrong they move out the timescales to where they cannot be measured - i.e. the next
100 years.
Why do men get the blame every time? What about womankind?
Included in mankind.
Not according to the sisters.
Yes, but they're mad.
F*** the sisters - Oh somebody already has.
The data is available. The Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project reanalysed it and came out with the same answer.
As we were talking about Nasa ice measurements covering 1992 to 2008 that's irrelevant.
Its not available, you have to go through an application procedure to get it and its covered by a NDA. Whats to stop them only giving it to people that will agree?
When its available so it can be properly reviewed let me know.
Only to someone that doesn't want the truth.
It was freely available to the Koch brothers funded Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project.
Try reading the thread again and pay intention to the context.
On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a minority.
As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly within their normal variation since about 2000.
Conclusions:
(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.
(2) Climatologists still have an awful lot to learn about what does control the climate.
QED
If you want to revert to that laughable escalator graph that you linked to earlier, and fit a straight line, then selecting the limited
40 year time period as they did is definitely cherry picking. Either you attempt to follow short term changes by using a moving average technique to smooth out most of the short term 'noise' (which most climatologists do), in which case the flattening of temperatures over the last 15 years is undeniable, or you put a single straight line through all the data you have access to, in which case you go back to ~1850, and see that temperatures have been rising slowly but steadily, consistent with the climate still emerging from the last ice age, which it is.
Hypothesis, dear boy, hypothesis. Not theory. Not until it has made some testable predictions which have come to pass. If and when that happens, that will get the donkey's attention. But not until.
As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated blog(43%).
Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.
Just because they don't know everything, doesn't mean they don't know anything.
Well that shows how little you understand the science.
Even the most ardent warmist agrees that without 'amplification' the effect of doubling CO2 is less than one third of a degree.
You didn't read what the man said - 'major' is the key phrase.
No one denies that climate changes or that CO2 has *some* effect.
That's not what is under discussion although denialists like you always try to pretend that sceptics *are* saying that. They are not.
Which is where your actions are of course openly dishonest.
However that aside, the whole argument rests on the 'positive feedback' that had to be assumed to make CO2 a major player in climate variability.
For a short period of about 15 years, assuming positive feedback made CO2 almost fit temperature, if you wiped out the mediaeval warm period and tortured the data by improper statistics and cherry picked proxy data.
Since then it hasn't fitted the data at all, and anyone with any sense can see that if the sorts of positive feedback assumed by the warmistas in fact was the case, earth's climate would have been in the past so massively unstable that life would probably never have developed.
After all the unmodified forcing of a doubling of CO2 is nothing like as bad as a big volcanic eruption or an asteroid impact. Or indeed te differences between winter and summer.
In short the evidence all points - not to CO2 having no impact - but to CO2 having no *major* impact. And that the feedback is not positive, but negative, as the water cycle acts as a planetary thermostat, not an amplifier.
And what really drives climate change is climate itself. Its a chaotic system, and has no 'stable average' state. Its always wobbling around some attractor or another, an moves from one to the other all by itself.
No, but it doesn't preclude that possibility, either, does it?
No it doesn't.
The alarmists have had to introduce forcing factors into their models to get the results we see. In other words the CO2 doesn't make a significant contribution, its claimed to make other effects worse which is not the same thing.
There is little known about these forcing effects and why they exist other than that they have to be in the model to get the results.
Then there is the other problem, the models have been unable to predict the future so the forcing effects used have never been correct. This is because they don't understand them.
However don't let facts get in the way just continue to believe^W insist its CO2 that's the problem and bend everything to ensure its CO2 that is the problem. If it doesn't fit in five years time just come up with some scare stories and bend something else.
Things like water vapour has the biggest effect on climate is a good fact that you may like to investigate.
They have so far failed in every prediction so it appears they know very little but still make exaggerated claims to get the scare factor.
Let us know what the latest predictions are so we can see if they get it right with the latest round of scare stories.
There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.
OK, off you go and test them.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.