Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[futurecurrents]

Quote from stu:

But piezoe, neither does it take a scientific background to understand there is no proxy. None of any kind except a phantom one.

There is no proxy because there is nothing standing in for the measurement of CO2. CO2 is exactly what's being directly measured. Greenhouse gases themselves in a precise record of atmospheric concentration.
It might as well be argued multiplication is a proxy for math.

Diffusion correction techniques are standard procedure in ice core sampling. Diffusion processes are a well known part of the science.
In my opinion, one should be extremely skeptical of people like Salby who want to make a completely unexplained and totally incompatible "correcting" of science for the purpose of giving themselves the appearance they have an argument.


"...it was Dewar's empirical calculations.." is what you say. Salby hasn't presented any!! His proxy is , as he states, only a belief, not his empirical calculations based upon science. If he had any empirical calculations, then it would be another matter entirely . On the contrary, he is making assertions, not backed by any scientific evidence or empirical fact.

As far as I am aware there is no sign of a paper whatsoever. He appears more occupied with a lecture tour, a video and a book than scientifically establishing his claims . But maybe that's just his way of building up to writing one.


Seriously piezoe? If a paper never comes out , what will that most likely tell you?

Could it not be that, as his claims are not being supported by any scientific evidence outside of a non-existent paper, then it is highly unlikely there is any scientific merit on which a paper can stand?
Or is no paper merely going to stand-in as proxy for a conspiracy theory against him?

Salby isn't challenging conventional thinking. He's putting up an unsubstantiated claim against scientific evidence he does not refute.
At the moment, he's making a living from it .

Well done stu.

And as I said before and piezoe agrees, it's something of a red herring anyway because it does not change the fact that CO2 has gone up 40% over the last two hundred years concurrent with the ind rev. The more recent proxies all mesh well with the ice records.

 

[jem]

ricter you are throwing softballs.

.06% is inside the statistical margin for errors... hence why we said no statistical warming when citing the temp record last year.

Quote from Ricter:

"Global mean surface temperature
over the past 20 years (1993–2012)
rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C
per decade (95% confidence interval) 1.
This rate of warming is significantly
slower than that simulated by the climate
models participating in Phase 5 of
the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project (CMIP5)."

Mismatch between the warming and the models. So... the warming is wrong? Lol.

 

[jem]

who wouldn't believe we have warmed since the little ice age and that cutting down forests and congregating in urban areas, and eating cows, and going from a few hundred million to billions of people would not do something.

Quote from Ricter:

Good article. It's clear that most scientists (including the skeptics) acknowledge the warming, and believe Man is contributing.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Ricter:

Good article. It's clear that most scientists (including the skeptics) acknowledge the warming, and believe Man is contributing.

LOL. Man is contributing. No shit! That's like saying ants contribute to erosion. Sure they do, but how much? You'd have a much stronger argument if there was never any climate change prior to industrialization. Sadly, for you, an argument you can't make.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

LOL. Man is contributing. No shit! That's like saying ants contribute to erosion. Sure they do, but how much? You'd have a much stronger argument if there was never any climate change prior to industrialization. Sadly, for you, an argument you can't make.

The tacit admission there is warming is progress.

 

[jem]

Is stu arging the ice cores are not proxies?
or just that they are not proxies of co2?

if the later what is he trying to argue?
that the ice cores capture 100% of the co2 in the air and and tagged it to its particular year?

finally stu realizes that the antartic ice cores seem to record lower levels of co2 when compared to greenlands?

Quote from futurecurrents:

Well done stu.

And as I said before and piezoe agrees, it's something of a red herring anyway because it does not change the fact that CO2 has gone up 40% over the last two hundred years concurrent with the ind rev. The more recent proxies all mesh well with the ice records.

 

[jem]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/



Ice cores and GEOCARB provide continuous long-term records; while plant stomata records are discontinuous and limited to fossil stomata that can be accurately aged and calibrated to extant plant taxa. GEOCARB yields a very low frequency record, ice cores have better resolution and stomata can yield very high frequency data. Modern CO2 levels are unspectacular according to GEOCARB, unprecedented according to the ice cores and not anomalous according to plant stomata. So which method provides the most accurate reconstruction of past atmospheric CO2?

The problems with the ice core data are 1) the air-age vs. ice-age delta and 2) the effects of burial depth on gas concentrations.

The age of the layers of ice can be fairly easily and accurately determined. The age of the air trapped in the ice is not so easily or accurately determined. Currently the most common method for aging the air is through the use of “firn densification models” (FDM). Firn is more dense than snow; but less dense than ice. As the layers of snow and ice are buried, they are compressed into firn and then ice. The depth at which the pore space in the firn closes off and traps gas can vary greatly… So the delta between the age of the ice and the ago of the air can vary from as little as 30 years to more than 2,000 years.

The EPICA C core has a delta of over 2,000 years. The pores don’t close off until a depth of 99 m, where the ice is 2,424 years old. According to the firn densification model, last year’s air is trapped at that depth in ice that was deposited over 2,000 years ago.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Ricter:

The tacit admission there is warming is progress.

Yeah, and? The left has done a really good job in painting the right as a bunch of deniers based from a few lunatics when in truth there are very few people denying the change. What we're questioning is A. The data and how it's compiled. B. How much are we contributing in the overall scheme of things? and C. What can we do about it short of reverting back to the 17th century?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

LOL. Man is contributing. No shit! That's like saying ants contribute to erosion. Sure they do, but how much? You'd have a much stronger argument if there was never any climate change prior to industrialization. Sadly, for you, an argument you can't make.

\


This is how much man has caused global warming...right here

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

Is stu arging the ice cores are not proxies?
or just that they are not proxies of co2?

if the later what is he trying to argue?
that the ice cores capture 100% of the co2 in the air and and tagged it to its particular year?

finally stu realizes that the antartic ice cores seem to record lower levels of co2 when compared to greenlands?

He is saying it is not a proxy because it is not. It's a direct measurement of captured air.

I say that it's indisputable that CO2 has gone up 40% over the last two hundred years due to man's burning or fossil fuels.

But of course you deny this simple fact because you are a crazed righty with no real interest in the actual truth, only with maintaining your blindered and stubborn ideological stance.