Except that the political nature of it DOES stop any research that might suggest otherwise. And that’s the death of any true research.
If you’re arrogant enough to say the models are inclusive of all data affecting weather than that’s on you. I’m not.
You have not producing any examples of that, chances are that the ones you think are valid are only made by made by deniers that are omitting information.
Good thing that I’m not, and neither are the scientists, read the article, do not willfully ignore it.
BTW what Patric Moore did was to get a graph (a model if you will) of paleo data that others did use on reconstructions, unlike serious scientists however Patric Moore got his misleading graph by omitting important factors.
Not holding my breath on seeing you condemning him for the very same thing that you accuse scientists that did no such thing.
Geez, for a second I thought this was about Sir Patrick Moore, science popularizer, monocle afficionado, (unfortunately) UKIP supporter and Worlds Best Varys Cosplayer Without Even Trying. And my first thought was “He can’t be commenting on AGW, he’s dead!”
Sir Patric would slap the Moore in the OP right away just for lying about Green Peace right away in that video, that Moore was not a co-funder, and then of course he did lie about the graph he presented, the pause that is no longer there, and he even denied that the oceans did warm during the misleadingly called “pause”. He also even had the balls to claim that we should not use the word “denier”. A guy like Sir Patric would mention that the Oxford Dictionary reports that it is an appropriate word to use for people that denies something, in this case what the evidence is showing us.
I’m surprised that with the large amounts of money sponsoring the denialist movement from businesses with vested interests, there isn’t enough left to fund actual scientific research. Unless you’re saying that the poor underdog in all this - petrochemical companies, insurance firms, etc - are being silenced by a sinister environmental elite?
What do politicians have to do with this question at all? This is not a political matter. Why bring up politicians in a thread that has nothing to do with them?
Well then, we’re in agreement that the science behind global warming claims is far from definitive.
What it is clear is that the FUD Patric Moore and other deniers that influence politicians bring was a false one.
Again what you are doing is only exaggerating the doubts, we know already enough to act.
[QUOTE] It's true that Earth's a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works. [/QUOTE]-Richard Alley (American geologist and Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.)
Moderator Warning
Magiver, you’ve been around long enough to know that political jabs are not permitted in General Questions, particularly as a first response. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Moderator Instructions
If that’s the extent of your factual contributions to the thread, then it’s really unnecessary for you to continue to post in it.
To everyone: let’s keep this focused on the factual aspects of the OP. If you want to dispute the factual nature of climate change, start a new thread in GD (if you must) or else take it to the existing thread in the Pit.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Moderator Instructions
If that’s the extent of your factual contributions to the thread, then it’s really unnecessary for you to continue to post in it.
To everyone: let’s keep this focused on the factual aspects of the OP. If you want to dispute the factual nature of climate change, start a new thread in GD (if you must) or else take it to the existing thread in the Pit.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Just a note to clarify that bad first line on my previous post, Patrick Moore in his video from the OP is misguiding many.
Sticking to subject, besides the myths already mentioned coming from him, leave it to P. Moore to overuse the #1 climate change myth that he used during the whole video. That is not what researchers are telling us:
Indeed, climate does change, and science reports what are the lost likely reasons that made those changes take place in the past, it turns out that nowadays it is thanks to our actions that a lot of CO2 is being released into the atmosphere, and we need to control this ASAP.
What deniers like Moore are doing is like declaring that excess water will not kill you or drown you, even though it does to many. Or like in this myth, Moore is like a manager of a consumer water system that deals with a problem with water quality by declaring that “the contents have changed and they always will”. :smack: Everyone will not be glad by the acumen of the manager, almost all would denounce him to the authorities.
I’m going to ignore most of that irrelevant string of gibberish and just focus here on refuting your incorrect claim about tree rings and further clarifying my response to the OP in post #12. The OP asked “Is it possible that ice core data shows a false correlation between the two [temperature and CO2]?”. My response was, “No, because ice core data is corroborated by many other temperature proxies, like tree ring chronologies and marine sediment deposits.”
This is correct. And let’s disabuse ourselves of the ridiculous notion that the entire field of study in which dendroclimatologists are engaged is useless because tree growth only responds to rain. No, tree growth reflects changes in whatever the predominant limiting factor is to their growth. In some locations they’re a good proxy for precipitation. In high latitudes or high elevations where their growth is limited by temperature, they’re a good proxy for temperature.
I should add to this that a thorough temperature reconstruction like the most recent one done by Michael Mann et al. incorporates over 1,200 different proxies from all over the world: ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, cave mineral deposits called speleothems that can be mined like ice cores, coral formations, and others. There are also alternate proxies for historic CO2 like plant fossils. And as a matter of fact a recent study based on western hemlock needles as a high-resolution CO2 proxy for the last 1200 years tracked global temperature reconstructions extremely well.
The power of multiproxy reconstructions of temperature records is that the different proxies plus the instrumental record all have different properties, with different accuracies and different spatial and temporal coverage, but with sufficient overlap that it provides for strong corroboration.
So yes, OP, the causation of warming by CO2 is well established by theory and physics and well corroborated by observation of both present and historical climate. The ice-core graph you posted shows this very well. The first one involves far too many tectonic-scale factors over hundreds of millions of years to demonstrate a useful correlation, the data is very inaccurate anyway, and it’s very badly presented, as several of us have already said.
For what it’s worth, this is a much more competent long-term reconstruction. FYI, the line marked “anthropogenic peak” is the CO2 level we would reach around the year 2400 without serious mitigation. This corresponds to a period around the mid-Eocene when there were virtually no polar ice caps and sea levels were several hundred feet higher.
Wow.
such a long string of misunderstandings and untruths. Clearly MacGiver has never done any modeling or data analysis. If the world actually followed his attitude we would all still be squatting in caves wondering why the sun goes down in the evening…
When I first read it, I thought the Time Cube guy had another alias 
Actually I have done modeling before. Anyone who ever has knows have fast it spins out of control with bad data and missing parameters.
Starting with the basics, anyone who deals with thermal measuring devices knows how inaccurate they are. The thermometers used by the weather service varied greatly on their accuracy. That’s compounded by placement. It matters greatly if it’s put on top of a 4 story building in a city or in a meadow in the country. That alone makes the data worthless before any modeling is done. This is where Gigo jumps in with a barrage of cites on how that’s compensated for in the models.
putting the worthless data aside, the idea that weather and temperature can accurately be forecast 50 or 100 years from now with any degree of certainty falls under the category of hubris. The parameters that control weather and temperature are so varied it’s mind boggling that rational people don’t at least entertain the idea that it’s FAR from an exact science.
But that’s not the case. It has become politicized to the point that discussion of it on any rational level is shut down and anyone who disagrees with the data is childishly called a denier. The only solution is to stop using fossil fuels. It doesn’t matter how inefficient and unreliable the alternatives are or that the companies camping out on the white-house lawn are the purveyors of those alternatives. Don’t look at the man behind the curtain.
None of that is correct – those are all simplistic and absurd denialist talking points and they have nothing to do with the OP’s questions. They’ve all been thoroughly refuted in AGW discussions elsewhere. They keep getting repeated ad nauseum by the denialist camp because apparently they have no better arguments. Indeed in this entire thread you have yet to make a comment that is either scientifically correct or on topic.
And the men behind the curtain have an Exxon and Koch industries logos on them.
Leaving that aside it is clear that you are really ignoring that paleo climate is not relying on models, but on empirical data, the modeling comes later to see if what a proxy does on one location, compare it to other geological evidence and then the models are applied to see if warming is the best explanation for the evidence found or if cold conditions are depending on the era being analyzed.
As a demonstration that you are not aware of how the models of climate are being used you have to realize that your objections can not explain how is it that climate models can be applied to other planets and give results that are useful to researchers of Mars, for example.
So where does politics come into this? As pointed many times before it was thanks to powerful fossil fuel interests that politics was corrupted, and even the frame of the discussion was affected and by the same groups.
Nuh uh is not a good response and no, the inaccuracies used for global warming predictions have not been refuted.
You are an example of the politics involved. That you would use something as childish as the term “denier” to shut down discussion is typical of the political mindset.
