9.8/10 according to who? Al Gore? You think by repeating that lie enough times, it will come true. It doesn't matter since concensus is not science. Established theory based on computer models?
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability. The theory of GW has not been tested and confirmed. That chart of yours has whiskers on it. The pendulum has swung. Concensus is not science.
Well, since you asked.... The East Anglia Mafia led by Phil Jones has done it's best to sabotage contrary opinion through the corrupted peer review process. Their own emails indict them. Mann's Hockey Team buggered the data and some of the statistical methodology in the most well known graphic of the past 20 years. Nobody seems to care but it will end up at the bar soon enough. Thank you, Marc Stein. Hansen has pulled several omissions and revisions to temp data always in the same direction. Guess which one? It goes to ideology. Must you cheat and deceive? Seems so. It's the Alinski war cry: 'By any means necessary'.
Playing with their computers and fudging the numbers. The title thread is the last 18 years. Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News ... www.nature.com › … › Volume 505 › Issue 7483 › News FeatureThe biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, ... But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Does "Global Warming Pause" Debate Miss Big Picture? news.nationalgeographic.com/.../130925-global-warming-pause-climate...Sep 25, 2013 · As the IPCC prepares to release its next report on climate change, scientists and skeptics debate the impact of a recent pause in global warming. .There Are Now 52 Explanations For Pause In Global Warming ... dailycaller.com/...now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warmingSep 12, 2014 · It’s been a busy year for climate scientists, who have been trying to explain why there has been no global warming for nearly two decades. The Daily ... ..Climate Scientists Face Crisis Over Global Warming Pause ... www.spiegel.de › English Site › World › Climate Change Sep 23, 2013 · Data shows global temperatures aren't rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a … .UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions? SPIEGEL ONLINE - March 26, 2014 In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims. By Axel Bojanowski more... [ Comment ] .Satellite instruments began uniformly measuring temperatures throughout the Earth’s lower atmosphere in 1979. Climate scientists overseeing these NASA satellite instruments produced the chart below showing the following temperature trends: •a plateau of temperatures, with absolutely no warming, from 1979 through 1997 •a large temperature spike in 1998 •a return to the 1979-1997 mean in 1999-2000 •a modest escalation of temperatures in 2001 •an elevated plateau of essentially flat temperatures from 2002-2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/
Right. You failed to find a similar system as posed in the question so obviously the question is the problem. Cancer does not meet the challenge. If you think so, explain the parallels, if you can.
The climate at any given time is the combination of trend and variability. Climate variability cancels itself out over time periods of 30 years or more, while the underlying trends continue unchanged. View attachment 34830
Would someone PLEASE show me what computer models Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar based their theories of Anthropogenic Global Warming on?
So you are now saying that man is not the main driver of climate change as has been claimed over and over again. Got it. - - - Updated - - - Or the models that Arrhenius can show how racial hygiene is so important?
It is not based on computer models; it is based on empirical evidence - scientific data that is observable, measurable, and quantifiable. In short, global warming is a fact.
Nope, it is solely based on computer models as the 'empirical' data has been refuting with no warming this century.
That's wrong - the evidence has not been refuted - the "empirical" data has been disputed without any evidence. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=365161&p=1064074898#post1064074898
Well, since the models, which all of this is based on, are off by quite a bit and continue to deviate, I guess the models are correct and the observed science is wrong.
No, obviously you don't. Nice ad hominem. Guess you can't dispute the fact that someone could calculate climate sensitivity without a computer.
One is left to wonder how you can have the highest temperatures on record with no warming...seems counter intuitive.
"Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world." Yes, one is left to wonder considering to some that this is all "settled."
Easy when you rely on a mythical one temp for the earth when the spike was caused by weather in the North Pacific which is heated by the sun.
That is what one should always do, especially in cases of climate change science denial. Never fails...these sources in one way or another have something to gain in their proliferation of denial BS. Shame really, that this world has come to the point that enough people can be so easily duped and manipulated by the shills and puppets of big oil...to everyone's detriment.