Global Warming and sunshine

The links he's posted prove exactly what I've said which is, although there has been much research - essentially, they can't pinpoint without a doubt what variances cause GLOBAL climate change.
 
Could you dazzle me with more ignorance?

The IPCC is exactly correct. You do not understand what you quoted. The amount of TSI is known and calculated just as is the increased in greenhouse gasses and their heat retention. You repeatedly want to challenge physical hard science with breathtaking displays of ignorance.

This is just silly.

And you seriously need to read my links and quit wasting bandwidth.
 
How about a chart:

Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif


Do you understand this chart?

rolleyes.gif
 
The links he's posted prove exactly what I've said which is, although there has been much research - essentially, they can't pinpoint without a doubt what variances cause GLOBAL climate change.

Oh and,

attachment.php
 
Why does the bottom chart show an increase of approximately 0.65 degrees in 1990 while the upper chart shows approximately a 0.2 degree increase in 1990?
 
different zero points (the anomaly is set at a different point) - the overall and relative change is the same

In the first chart, the zero point is 1980 (to better demonstrate the divergence) whereas in the second chart it is set at 1900. The overall rise from 1900 to 2000 is the same in both charts (at least by my rough eyeball test of about .9 of a degree Celsius).
 
I see that now. It looks like one of the groups wanted to normalize to 1980 to adjust for the natural increase in temperature from 1910 to 1980. Interestingly, 1980 is when the global warming initiative began in England. Why did the divergence between solar and natural begin in 1980 when in general there has been a steady increase in C02 output since the 1900s?
 
They have studied this. There was a portion of the early rise attributable to CO2, but a large portion was offset by aerosols (ie SO4 pollution primarily).

I also do not believe there has been a steady increase in CO2. The rate of increase (and amount) was less earlier in the 20th century. It also mirrors economic activity and the rate of increase has increased slightly over the last 30 years.
 
Instead of temperature change based on some arbitrary standard why not graph the actual global average over time. That would help me understand the true magnitude. They could be adjusted means. It would just be helpful to see the actual scale.

And the 2nd chart you show I did look at on your linked paper. I think it shows that GHG COULD be the sole factor in the temperature increases. However, the comparison is in models with and without the estimated GHG effects compared to actual temperature. I think it is definitely evidence that GHG COULD be doing this, but a strict causation isn't shown in that chart. I say that because it all assumes that the models completely represent natural climate factors and human caused factors of climate change.

Now the longer this correlation is demonstrated the more convincing it is. I agree. But I do think there is still room for "wait and see".
 
Dodging facts, name calling, and finally, a failed attempt at humor.. classic & bona fide pathetic. It's the ONLY thing you've proven in this thread smarty
 
I tried a substantive response. I am running an experiment with you guys. So far the dancing chihuahua appears to get more science.

wink.gif
 
As soon as you read and comprehend a link of mine (which will be your first), you can comment. Until then, you get dancing chihuahuas!

2294071_o.gif
 
keep proving my point. don't forget to go to confession for not buying your carbon indulgences!
shocked.gif
 
pasotex - it's Monday, just a reminder to get your welfare check in the mail. Maybe you can buy some witty cliffnotes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top