A statistically representative climate change debate

It's speculation that temps lead CO2. . On the other hand, there is science proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it's level controls the earth's temperature. Once you understand what a greenhouse gas is you will understand how rising CO2 levels must cause temps to rise. Grasshopper. Until then you will continue to look like a troll.

Unless you want to say that ALL science is speculation, because your little paper is no different than the science showing that rising CO2 also leads temps higher and is doing so now.

But one does not call science speculation. Maybe you do.


finally you accept facts. that is a first..
CO2 lags warming and cooling. once you accept that fact... you are on the road to understanding man made global warming is speculation not fact.

When you understand that man man co2 causing global warming is just speculation... you are not longer a troll...
in your imagery... you have taken the pebble from the master... grasshopper.
 
you are a troll clown fool liar...

this is fact not speculation... you can get the data from your favorite data source yourself and plug it into a spreadsheet.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.


It's speculation that temps lead CO2. . On the other hand, there is science proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it's level controls the earth's temperature. Once you understand what a greenhouse gas is you will understand how rising CO2 levels must cause temps to rise. Grasshopper. Until then you will continue to look like a troll.

Unless you want to say that ALL science is speculation, because your little paper is no different than the science showing that rising CO2 also leads temps higher and is doing so now.

But one does not call science speculation. Maybe you do.
 
Crap study that does not show what you think it shows. You have no science. However, over 9000 authors do have the science proving man made global warming while only one, yes ONE, deny it.



Jan12014piechart.png


you are a troll clown fool liar...

this is fact not speculation... you can get the data from your favorite data source yourself and plug it into a spreadsheet.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.
 
and from looking at the database 99% of the authors did not support the idea man made co2 causes warming either.

In fact in a wider database only 41 of over 11000 papers support your notion that man made co2 is causing warming on earth.


Crap study that does not show what you think it shows. You have no science. However, over 9000 authors do have the science proving man made global warming while only one, yes ONE, deny it.



Jan12014piechart.png
 
Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
Peter Christoff, writing in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[14] The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[17
 
Solar output changes have NEVER had a large influence on the earth's climate cycles. It has been orbital variations.
As you did with the above shining example of your stupidity. :D

Google Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum. Even the Muslim outreachers/pro-AGW zealots at NASA admit solar variations have a significant impact.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny [solar] variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
 
On the other hand, there is science proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it's level controls the earth's temperature.
According to you the sun's irrelevant ("Solar output changes have NEVER had a large influence on the earth's climate cycles") but CO2 making up 1/2500th of the atmosphere "controls the earth's temperature" despite ALL other physical, chemical and biological processes that govern the planet and despite the fact that warming's paused for 16 years and "climate scientists" can't explain it. OK moron. :D
 
Back
Top