Press: The party of climate change denial

There is some weird compulsion to refuse to admit they are wrong. I don't understand it.

 

I say you don't have an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate. Do you?

 

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.

For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249

 

Continued dodge noted.

It was a simple challenge: Look up the toxic concentration of botulin toxin. What's so hard about that? All this hand-waving by you and Hoosier to avoid answering a simple question. It's stupid, transparent evasion, and with every post where you continue to evade it, your little remaining credibility shrinks.

 

Once again you use strawman arguments to misrepresent the position of the opposition. The intellectual dishonesty undermines your opinions right or wrong. Example, I have not seen anyone to include myself, argue that the Milankovitch Cycles are the "only explanation for climate change." I have argued that they are the primary driver of climate change.

During the time of the Dinosaurs, CO2 levels were 5 times what they are now. They lived for millions of years.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to make a point, make it. We are not here to solve riddles in order for you to make a point which is unrelated to the topic at best.

 

This is getting comical. There's a reason I want you to look it up yourself. You have now spent more time refusing to do so than it would have taken you to just look it up. You're acting like my 11-year-old daughter.

 

You are acting like your 11 year old daughter. Man up and make a point. Stop trolling off topic.

 

LOL! This is getting ridiculous.

I asked you a simple, reasonable question. You keep dancing and dancing to avoid answering it. Answer it already!

 

/EndConversation

 

Well we know that's horse shot since both the PDO and AMO were discovered after climate hysteria began. Hansen and the rest obviously didn't understand the natural part. Climate scientists hat to admit that there are unknown unknowns the.

 

I keep saying that the sensitivity of CO2 needs to be recalculated because when it was given a number in the 70's, they used cause and effect for that number, not understanding all the variables.

 

There are plenty of studies every year that recalculate CO2 sensitivity.

A 2008 literature review:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html

A 2012 survey found that the best performing climate models were the ones using the high-end of CO2 sensitivity:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121108142746.htm

Why would you assume a value ballparked in 1970 had never been revisited?

 

So, that must be why the IPCC had to lower the sensitivity value.

 

You need to actually read those studies, as they all use past studies for their foundation.

 

LOL! Unbelievable.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*). Really? That's because they were surveys of the available literature. They each reviewed multiple studies, all of which are way more recent than the 1970s.

FFS, why do people so obviously ignorant of the basics of climate science feel qualified to make judgements about it?

 

Did you read and understand the two links?

The first says no such thing. It effectively says the lower bounds is easier to determine than the upper bounds. That's it. It does say in the abstract:

Whoop-t-do...

Now there is an editorial about it that isn't paywalled:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/pdf/ngeo1206.pdf

I must point out something that really loses integrity for tehse publications. They say in the editorial:

However, if you go to that source, it says:

It becomes deceptive to leave out qualifiers like less than and more than!

Now all the second one states is that temperatures are expected to be at the high end of modeling, and they refer to clouds, humidity, etc. which I say are more solar induced than CO2.

The full article is not paywalled:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/Science-2012-Fasullo-792-4.pdf

What ever preacher of AGW you are listening to, you need to verify what they say. Stop using faith in their words like in religion.

Neither of these articles recalculated CO2 sensitivity.

 

OMG...

Seriously???

I state that these sensitivity studies need to be redone. What you come back is studies assuming all feedbacks from CO2 sensitivity, and the range is too wide to be useful. CO2 itself before feedbacks needs to be looked at far more accurately.

- - - Updated - - -

Please stop speaking into the mirror.

 

I don't know. You obviously have some experience with this so let us in on the secret.

 

how recent is recent in your time frame?

scientists concerned about climate change have been looking at this for years, and it has been discussed in first year environmental science courses for well over a decade.

and it is warming. You need to look at better sources. Scientific american had an article on it only last week.

 

Try the last two decades of no warming has them scrambling for an explanation.

 

ignorance is often associated with dogmatism

 

You would know.

 

What I know is that you don't know much about science.

I have never met a scientist who hates to admit there are unknowns. Science is about finding unknowns, and making them knowns .... and then moving on to the next set of unknowns opened up by new knowledge.

Scientific Knowledge is not fixed. The more we learn, the more we find there is to learn.

Scientists don't take things for granted. One thing the issue of global warming has done is give us far greater knowledge of how the earth works in recent decades, and this knowledge is constantly being added to.

variables that impact climate, such as those you mention, do not negate AGW, they just explain natural variations.

the trend however is unmistakable. The relationship between the rise in CO2 emissions and in global temperatures is well understood by science, and knowledge of other variables impacting on temperatures enables them to fine tune their calculations, so they have a better picture of our impact.

the more they understand natural cycles, the clearer their understanding of AGW.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I do. I have observed the correlation odten enough.

 

Then you should be very well aware how badly the climate science community has screwed itself with the CO2 alarmism meme, yet you seem to have no clue.