Why?
What do they say?
Who are they?
1 Like
That was the best part to me as well. It was actually very well put together.
Then individual storms and temperatures of individual sites or even regions should not be used as evidence for global climate change if that is the case. We can’t have it both ways. But we constantly see that being done over and over again. Maybe not by the upper echelon of climate scientists…but that is not a one way problem from my perspective and I think he was reacting to that but goes further.
But the real issue is if enough of these stations and data used is questionable due to UHI or moving thermometers, or poor algorithms filling in gaps…one would have to question how accurate global temperatures really are pre-60s. I think that is a valid scientific issue open to discussion. I am not saying I doubt the warming but GIGO applies to data. I would anticipate warming just on the basis of CO2 levels alone…
Vinnie
Is it for anyone else? Is that why it was used in greenhouses for over a hundred years?
Very helpful Klax. Thanks for taking the time to nitpick.
Vinnie
He’s banned isn’t he?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Period. It doesn’t need your opinion. It got Tyndall’s in 1859.
1 Like
Thanks again for your substantial post. Your gracious dialogue is appreciate.
You’re welcome Vinnie. The devil is in the details. In the tone. I’m sensitive that way.
The data says otherwise.
Computer models have shown us what temperatures would be like without human influence, and they would have been much lower. This shouldn’t be that much of a shocker since we have pumped tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
6 Likes
That graph has TWO BIG FLAWS.
One is to believe the simulation would be FLAT. Historically, these temperatures have gone up and down. So, why would they suddenly flatten out.
Second is the starting point of the graph at 1850. Temperatures had risen by about a degree from the middle of the little ice age in 1850 during a period of little human influence. So, graphs line that are PURE nonsense designed to provide an existential SCARE.
My guess is that it would be possible to go back 25 years and find predictions that ALL of the Arctic ice would be gone by 2025!!!
As for greenhouse gases, be thankful for the major greenhouse gas, water. The presence of water in the atmosphere is what makes the Earth a great place to live.
Please support this claim with data, minding the scale of the x axis.
Data?
That has no relevance to the data that has been presented.
Water has a atmospheric residence time of just a few weeks so it can’t be a long term forcer. Carbon dioxide has a residence time measured in decades, so it can affect long term climate trends. That’s the difference.
You seem to be bringing out the climate denial classics that have been refuted over and over.
6 Likes
About what we expect from science deniers.
3 Likes
Science denier. That graph is sourced. Have you read the paper by Loehle and McCuloch?
Science is not even required to acknowledge the farming in Greenland by the Norse in the year 1000 at the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. Nor see the “ice festivals” in the 1600s on the frozen Themes in London.
It’s a red herring, a tactic many science deniers use.
2 Likes
So, real scientific data or social observables are red herrings???
Irrelevant scientific data are red herrings.
5 Likes
So, the temperature fluctuations over the last 2000 years are irrelevant whereas a simulated flat projection by a model is good data?
Those were measured historical temperatures in the graph. You want to argue about anything other than how the data fits human activity.
4 Likes
Here is a quote from Bonhoeffer;
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless.
Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed — in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical — and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
1 Like