So do you lack all conviction, or are you full of passionate intensity?
Yes, I fully understand that.
Question for you:
What do you think the chances are that the various levels of the atmosphere are completely independent/uncoupled?
It’s an unknown and the scientists are beginning to try model it. I feel strongly the current models will be considered substantially incorrect in the future due to current lack of knowledge about how the system works and lack of measurement data.
According to the article that you are shared, the magnetic field also causes warming. Details are given in the last five paragraphs.
It’s unclear what point you are trying to make, can you explain please?
According to the fourth-to-the-last paragraph, the magnetic field causes cooling in parts of North America but warming in other parts of the world.
Yes, “bullshit” is the correct word since the warmists don’t actually know if what they are saying is correct.
But anyway, there’s a pretty simple test. If the warmists understand the major drivers of the climate and how they work, then they ought to be able to make interesting and accurate predictions about the future climate. Perhaps those predictions would need to be conditional (e.g., “assuming 1 to 2 major volcanic eruptions in the next 10 years”) but they should be do-able.
If they are unable to do that, it means they don’t have sufficient understanding of the climate to ascribe isolated climatic fluctuations to any particular cause.
So far, the warmists’ predictions have not been very impressive, to say the least. Which tells me that they do not understand the major drivers of the climate and how they work.
Exactly, it’s additional complexity that needs to be part of the models.
I’m not sure, but I think Fig. 8 refers to Watts/m2:
There are more details in the caption.
For Fig. 14, the caption refers to “ice age/interglacial cycles,” with more details in the caption:
Apparently, the magnetic field, like CO2, both cools and warms. Meanwhile, surface temperature anomaly continues to rise.
No, that is completely false. Surface and SSTs are not rising, in fact the trend is negative since 1995, or 1998, that is what the instruments show.
It’s the deep ocean heat content that is claimed to be still rising.
I can’t help but find it a little ironic that someone this anti-science gets to spread his stupidity using a mechanical box that is one of the crowning achievements of science.
Would you say that refusing to define your hypothesis falls more on the pro-science or anti-science side of things?
Repost:
The pauses or declines refer to the blue lines.
Each blue line, though, is higher than the previous one. The line that fits them is the red line, which describes global warming.
Yes, you need to learn what a “Watt per square meter” means. The chart shows the solar output at around +0.1 W m[sup]-2[/sup], whereas published values for this is closer to +1,100 W m[sup]-2[/sup]. Completely baffling is the positive value on the CO[sub]2[/sub] contribution. Solar output is positive because of thermonuclear reactions, but CO[sub]2[/sub] isn’t known to partake in such while in our atmosphere. I’m sorry, this value is normally published at around -100 W m[sup]-2[/sup].
Thank you for the explanation of Figure 14, it does specify interglacial cycles.
Both the red and blue lines are substantially below the data set when extended to 1880, when the data set begins. How were these lines calculated? They look like someone just drew them in. I’ve got y = sin x fitting the data set better.
Sorry to pick on you, but we’re sick of people throwing out data that makes no sense and the poster can’t explain.
In Figure 14 … what physical process caused CO[sub]2[/sub] levels to drop? Again, throwing out data that can’t be explained.
Well, the raw data provided by ralfy clearly shows 1998 as a high point. FX is just making fun at the ridiculous notion that somehow the ocean automagically started holding more energy these past 16 years. If the ocean was made of water before, and it’s made of water now, then it holds energy at the same rate … what the hell did you people think the ocean turned into? To me, it’s anti-science to say the ocean isn’t made of water anymore.
I call it Myth with a capitol M. I bought a used magazine last summer from 1978 and it had an article decrying that people just didn’t believe their Babble. People believe in astrology, but when we tell them that the sea level will rise by 3 meters before the turn of the century they don’t believe us. Why not? was the gist of the article. And I haven’t seen those same guys apologizing any more than those who predict the end of the world apologize for their fantasies not coming true.
But they are still putting out the same babble.
I read recently that the CO2 level is now as high as it has been in 2000 years. So if it is our fault it is this high now was it Jesus’ fault 2000 years ago?
Dare I ask; cite?
Cite? Where did you read that? I would like to read it also.
I am not sure how the source leads to the conclusion “that ALL carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by man-kind.”
Also, I think what is referred to is radiative forcing:
It’s in the caption accompanying the chart.
Please read the links in the article, especially the one in the last paragraph, as well as the resources listed at the end of the page.