Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

First and foremost, I never claimed anything about the sun. I was asked to look at a link of 175 disputed posts and I picked one to use. The dispute made the claim about the sun, not me. My word. And i could not find a correlation.that the sun was cooling for 35 years as was the claim. You posted your graphs that agreed with me. So what's your point. I was challenging the rebuttle.

 

I found this link and read it. Very interesting. Take a read!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/

Now this makes sense to me. And it appears to line up the years.

 

It is interesting to note that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is not included in the models the IPCC uses from what I understand.

 

So why did scientists point out errors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis

 

Sunspot activity study was greatly enhance when it was discovered that the cold period between 1645-1715 there was very little sunspot activity. Another probably more important affect of the sun is cycle length and the this next one is predicted to be longer.

 

When I posted on the forum, it rained in NY. It rained in NY because I posted on the forum.

The above argument sounds silly doesn't it? It's a therefore because of this fallacy. And your above argument is in the same form.

Why do you think sunspots will change the physics of CO2? Even if they mattered, they would only be amplified through CO2.

And why do deniers avoid physics as if it were the plague? I guess it's harder to bull(*)(*)(*)(*) physics.

 

Can you post for NW Queensland please we need some rain

 

Page 962 - you understood wrong
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

 

You are approaching global warming in such a simple way and using silly comparisons to try and make some kind of goofy point.

The physics of CO2 will not change but the simplistic use of it in a wicked system is a problem that has become apparent when the models missed the hiatus. For instance, the models for CAGW do not include things like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which of course, makes you wonder what else is missed in the models.

 

So tell me, aren't you following the same logic you just asserted here? If CO2 goes up, and temperature goes up, there is a correlation right? However, there is no causal proof, so saying something silly to someone else can always come back at you. that's just silly. Still no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to go up. I posted a link to show the temperature cycling when CO2 was low and high, and there is no correlation. No cause either. Cause has never been found. In fact, there are now those scientists out there stating that temperature will cause a rise in CO2 not the other way around. Hmm.....BTW, The end of the next cycle is 2030. So far the cooling period has begun in 2000 just as the pattern suggests from earlier records.

 

If you actually had read the Skeptical Science page, you would have been able to find solar activity going back to 1611, because they cite their sources (and link to them) right on the page: Solanki and PMOD.

This is the problem I have you with deniers: over and over again, they prove that they just can't read.

 

Hard to rely on a highly biased cartoonists communication project.

 

Problem I have with folks like you is only your links are the links. Right, wrong whatever, your links. LOL.

Avoid my data, that's ok. It's expected.

 

You're blind. Sunspots run in an 11-year cycle. Run an 11-year average to smooth out that cycle, and you will see that on average the Sun has been cooling since its all-time peak in 1958.

 

So don't. Rely on the sources he cites. If you have a problem with Solanki, state it. Or shut up.

 

Oh, you've posted DATA? Where? Because all I've seen you post is links to newspapers and blogs.

 

see, lol again, expected.

Edit: what did Hoosier call it..cartoonists? Haahahahaahahahahaha

 

Another post, another zero in the data department. As expected.

 

So where's your data? I haven't seen your data, you know the data that you collect, no links no pictures from links, your data, the stuff you're capturing and plotting? I already stated I ain't no climate guy, so the chances of me having collected data from stations around the world is going to be null. But now that I know you're the expert let's see your work.

 

Hmmm - without going through every model I am betting they HAVE since the IPCC does discuss it

 

The University of Queensland backs this - unlike America our universities are not paper mill fronts and the UQ is an Ivy league establishment. Funny how denialists keep misrepresenting facts.

Fact John Cook also has a degree in physics!

Ad Homs - when you have no other debate points use ad homs

 

Nasa
NOAA
BOM (Aust)
WMO
Hadley Centre
IPCC
BEST (berkeley)
any of these http://www.world.org/weo/climate

Want me to continue??

 

If you haven't seen my data, it's just more proof that you haven't been reading my posts.

Solar irradiance from 1611.
CO2 data 1.
CO2 data 2.
Mauna Loa CO2 data.
Global temperatures.
CMIP5 model runs.
Sea level rise.
Antarctic ice loss.
Ocean Heat Content.

And where's your data? Nowhere. You've got bupkus, zip, zero, nada, goose egg on your face.

 

Yeah and my posts with links utilize that data from most of these sites. So what's the difference?
So when I posted links from Cryosphere Today, whose data did I use?

 

Many of the papers he picks through are old and many are interpreted by Cook and buds and not a true reflection of what the paper is about. You should do some reading yourself before you open your mouth and prove your ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

He is not a climatologist though he may have taken some classes in it.