You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Quote from Haroki:
You're insane cuz after repeatedly saying that just a single year, or only a few years means nothing, you pull up numbers from the VERY recent past.
Sample sizes need to be thirty or greater to be valid. Preferably greater.
Only a moron or a liar would do that and not look at the bulk of the situation.
Stating that the current CO2 levels are higher than the last 2.1 million years (or 800,000 years) is looking at the bulk of the situation.
But this is exactly what you do ALSO when it regards MMGW.
When asked about long term temp trends that clearly show that today is cooler than the MWP, you pull graphs from the last 500, or 50, or 25 yrs that support your position
You're accusing me of cherry picking, which I have not done.
cuz they exclude that period. You avoid looking at all available data that can be agreed upon as accurate. Again, the IPCC in 1990 clearly showed the MWP, and the LIA. This is also confirmed by earth borehole measurements that also clearly show higher temps during the MWP, and lower temps during the LIA. [/b]
Repetition is not an argument. Show where the IPCC changed its stance.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Okay, this is just getting embarrassing. Why do you guys need to quote everyone from astrophysicists, to engineers and now economists rather than climatologists?
It is inescapable that at the very least, you must admit that at one time, the IPCC agreed that there were warmer temps during the MWP, and that to base your temp trends starting during the LIA is deceptive at best.
There were warmer temperatures in Europe, not globally as I've already posted multiple times.
Face it, the IPCC decided to take a political stance about using fossil fuels.
False, and baloney. It doesn't take more than ten seconds to look at the graph of global temperatures or the Keeling curve to realize that's not true.
So, bottom line is, they used as a proxy trees which are an unusual species living in a highly unusual climate, where growth would not tend to follow the pattern seen in forests located in truly Continental or Maritime climates such as is the case of Gaspe and Arkansas. Let me say that using Bristlecone proxies is utterly ill advised under any normal rules of selection of proxies broadly representative of conditions affecting a broad areal distribution of flora."
More baloney. Tree rings as far away as Mongolia support the same conclusions. (Ignoring bore holes, ice cores, coral records, etc. etc. etc.)
But it's not your fault Dave. You just don't know any better.
I feel sorry for you.
I must be very naive to believe the actual numbers and not astrophysicsts and economists.
Quote from bigdavediode:
However it is not a "forcing" gas because it rains out at increased concentrations.
It's temp dependent Dave.
At higher air temps - from increased solar activity - water vapor concentrations will be higher.
Only by artificially increasing RH%, as in the experiment, does this hold true.
Your assertion means nothing.
Quote from bigdavediode:
1) Greenland is not part of Europe.
2) Regional climate changes are possible depending on the climate and surrounding terrain and has little or nothing to do with Global Warming.
3) Europe is not the globe and the discussion is about global temperature averages.
Okay, let's try this once again: regional climate changes are not global ones. Tasmanian is not the globe. The "tropics" is not the globe.
Once again, repeat after me, global climate change requires global climate data.
Another example:
The MWP and the tropics/Tasmania warming were at the same time.
Dave says that the MWP is northern hemisphere only and means nothing.
And that the tropics/Taz aren't either.
True, but a rational person would look at the time line and notice that they're happening at the same time.
IOW, it's global.
Dave doesn't get this.
Quote from bigdavediode:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Okay, this is just getting embarrassing. Why do you guys need to quote everyone from astrophysicists, to engineers and now economists rather than climatologists?
Why are only climatologists allowed to comment?
If someone is schooled in say, economics, and uses statistics every day in their field, and sees where the statistics given isn't good methodology, why are they NOT allowed to comment on the statistical relavence of a study?
What you're doing is called poisoning the well.
And it's dishonest.
Quote from bigdavediode:
More baloney. Tree rings as far away as Mongolia support the same conclusions. (Ignoring bore holes, ice cores, coral records, etc. etc. etc.)
If you would have actually read the article, you would have read that the only way that they could get the "hockey stick" graph was by heavily weighting anomolies.
When correct methodology was used, the hockey stick disappeared.
The guy that did the original work refuses to this day to release his computer code used to get his graph.
And yet, you're not suspicious at all, eh?
Quote from bigdavediode:
Sample sizes need to be thirty or greater to be valid. Preferably greater.
Then you violated your own rule by quoting how many US troops are in UN assignments, rather than reflecting what they've done since the UN's inception.
Dishonest representation.
Wotta surprise
Quote from bigdavediode:
You're accusing me of cherry picking, which I have not done.
When asked about temps today vs temps during the MWP, you say "it's been warming up" and use graphs that don't include that time period to make your point.
That's cherry picking.
Which makes you dishonest about your cherry picking.
Quote from Haroki:
It's temp dependent Dave.
At higher air temps - from increased solar activity - water vapor concentrations will be higher.
Yes, it is temperature dependent, as I've already written. However, solar activity is only one factor that can increase temperature (and since we're at a solar minimum we can see that something else is causing it, so please, stop grasping for the lifebuoy of solar activity.)