Climate and Weather

 
Last edited:
So, you are making the case that temperatures have fluctuated by a much larger degree than what was suggested in the graph I posted? Is that your stance?
 
Sorry, help me out, please explain how those graphs change what's being discussed?

Some points apparent in those graphs --

Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 and methane) drive up temperature .

Vostok ice core data ends over 100 years ago.
 
Sorry, help me out, please explain how those graphs change what's being discussed?
All of these graphs show something that looks nothing like the cartoon you posted.
Either all of them are wrong, or your cartoon, "homoginized", the data it felt didnt represent its theory.
 
Its not my stance.
It just is.

So your scientific opinion is that the graphs you posted prove the graph I posted is wrong? If I can link you peer reviewed data that proves it right, would you change your opinion?

I have more questions, but let's get those answered first. You are looking for data that proves Global temperature averages have fluctuated by much larger degrees then what is presented in the graphic I posted, I intend to change that narrative.
 
So your scientific opinion is that the graphs you posted prove the graph I posted is wrong? If I can link you peer reviewed data that proves it right, would you change your opinion?

I have more questions, but let's get those answered first. You are looking for data that proves Global temperature averages have fluctuated by much larger degrees then what is presented in the graphic I posted, I intend to change that narrative.
Mann's "hockey stick" was "peer reviewed".
The actual data is something else.
Your homogenized cartoon smoothed all the spikes and valleys and turned them into barely discernable gradients.
To run in 500 year blocks, and then throw in a 16 year slice at the end is hilarious.

I would also contend, as would others, that the medieval warm period was warmer than today.
 
The last 40 years we actually have satellite data.

I'm not sure 30-40 year old satellite data is relied upon by most scientists. Just making the point that our Earth Science technology has gotten a ton better in the last 20 years... not that it changes the discussion much.
 
So your scientific opinion is that the graphs you posted prove the graph I posted is wrong? If I can link you peer reviewed data that proves it right, would you change your opinion?

I have more questions, but let's get those answered first. You are looking for data that proves Global temperature averages have fluctuated by much larger degrees then what is presented in the graphic I posted, I intend to change that narrative.
Nothing has been proven in regards to the actual effect of anthropogenic co2 on climate.
 
I'm not sure 30-40 year old satellite data is relied upon by most scientists. Just making the point that our Earth Science technology has gotten a ton better in the last 20 years... not that it changes the discussion much.
Satellites can read the global average more accuratly than averaging of limited weather station data.
 
Mann's "hockey stick" was "peer reviewed".

 
Can you point me to the proof of anthropogenic co2 induced global warming?
Im short on time.
 
Nothing has been proven in regards to the actual effect of anthropogenic co2 on climate.

Nothing is not the right word to use. Can we say for sure what the overall impact is, no. I've said from the very beginning, a rational discussion on the topic of AGW should not involve any absolutes. Good Science evolves and changes as new information comes to light.

The important thing is to discuss what is reasonable based on what we currently know.

If we have to argue about what we currently know, for political and profiteering reasons, then we can't have a discussion and that's what's going on here.
 
Back
Top