Death knell for AGW

Grievous

Time Out
Jul 28, 2014
1,009
0
36
Whitby
Science doesn't agree either. During a interglacial period in an ice age, climate change is a given.



Sure, happened before right?


Although the current drivers tend to say.....according to science....points to Anthropic sources.


Unless there is another driver I'd say increased C02 with a anthropic imprint has something to do with it.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver

Joe Bastardi ‏@BigJoeBastardi

Bill Gray destroys the agw argument


http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf …



must read for those with eyes, ears, minds, hearts and souls

He doesn't destroy anything. Right at the start he says that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere should raise the temperature about 0.3 deg C. How does that "destroy AGW"? On the contrary, sounds like he's a proponent of AGW. His issue is that he predicts a 0.3 deg C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, wheras the IPCC predicts around 3 deg C. The former would be a nuisance, the latter would be very serious.

The NOAA said June was the hottest ever so the ice is just a mirage.

More like cherry picking. Here is the long term trend since satellite measurements began in 1979. If you focus on the big uptic, it looks like impressive growth, but over the period from 1979 you can see the decadal trend.

 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,182
13,094
113
Low Earth Orbit
I take it you never did find the NOAA conclusions in the IPCC reports that state CO2 and warming lose corellation and go there own ways thanks to vapour?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,182
13,094
113
Low Earth Orbit
No. The IPCC reports are huge. If you provide a link I'll look.

Too huge to get facts so you'll ramble pimping the CO2 molecule and man as villain?

How can everyone be so damn sure when the IPCC can't prove nor do they claim without caveat that man is behind the current state of the Holocene?

You have plenty of time to spread myth but ....
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Too huge to get facts so you'll ramble pimping the CO2 molecule and man as villain?

How can everyone be so damn sure when the IPCC can't prove nor do they claim without caveat that man is behind the current state of the Holocene?

You have plenty of time to spread myth but ....

That's a swing and a miss. You can't even present the evidence of your claims and then launch into a tirade instead.

And no offence, but your argument against climate change requires a refutation of some of the fundamental laws of physics. You hold that the greenhouse effect is not real because CO2 does not absorb light in the infrared spectrum. Let's be clear: that is a crackpot viewpoint. It is not held by any reputable scientist. Not the least of which because the entire science of spectroscopy, and the basis of quantum physics, are based on the notion that molecules abosorb quanta of EM radiation.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,182
13,094
113
Low Earth Orbit
I can't or it's just too huge?

I made those clams? When and where?

I said corellation falls apart with CO2 and temperatures in past interglacials.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,182
13,094
113
Low Earth Orbit
Right back to the one horse arguement?

Didn't bother to go through any of IPCC paleoclimate source materials yet? The oxygen isotope material? How about varying geomagnetics inducing climate changes? Any changes in geomagnetiics lately? No GPM swings recently indicating how fast life on earth changes from one incident?

There is no big picture, it's all CO2 isn't it or is the big picture too huge?
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Right back to the one horse arguement?

Didn't bother to go through any of IPCC paleoclimate source materials yet? The oxygen isotope material? How about varying geomagnetics inducing climate changes? Any changes in geomagnetiics lately? No GPM swings recently indicating how fast life on earth changes from one incident?

There is no big picture, it's all CO2 isn't it or is the big picture too huge?

I've looked into the geomagnetic thing quite a bit. It could certainly induce climate change to some extent I would imagine. Hard to say to what magnitude and in what direction though.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,182
13,094
113
Low Earth Orbit
Put geomagnetic pole shift timeline up against the AGW timeline over the past 40+ years. Follow ice sheets in the paleoclimate and paleomagnetics. During the last continental glaciation magnetic north sat waaaaaay down in James Bay right along with the ice.

Last winter we saw what happens when geomagnetism that keeps circumpolar vortex and the nasty cold mesosphere in place takes a pounding from the sun.

We've seen a 20% decrease in the strength of the magnetosphere over the past 150 years as well.

The picture is a huge puzzle with CO2 being but a handful of pieces. All these pieces are part of the IPCC material which include CO2 in generalized statement of "we don't know enough to conclude".

Dig beyond CO2. IPCC does and they have plenty to shift through but it's all there.

It was the one trick pony and the rampant fears espoused that made me take a second look for more

Chronological correlations established at different time scales among the lake-level fluctuations in the Jura and French Subalpine ranges, glacier movements in the Swiss and Austrian Alps, and the atmospheric 14C record during the last 7 millennia show coincidences between lake-level rises, glacier advances, and high 14C production and vice versa. These correspondences suggest that the short-term 14C variations may be an empirical indicator of Holocene palaeoclimates and argue for possible origins of Holocene climatic oscillations: (1) The varying solar activity refers to secular climatic oscillations and to major climatic deteriorations showing a ca. 2300-yr periodicity. (2) A question is raised about a relationship between the earth's magnetic field and climate. First, the weak-strength periods of the earth's dipole magnetic field (between 3800 and ca. 2500 B.C.) coincide with higher climate variability, and vice versa
.

Just one of many.

Even coral bleaching blamed on man and emissions are present in Pleistocene laminations. Atlantian time travellers?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
We're ill-prepared if the iceman cometh -- Earth Changes -- Sott.netWe're ill-prepared if the iceman cometh

What if the warmth the world has enjoyed for the past 50 years is the result of solar activity, not man-made CO2?

In a letter to the editor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, IG Usoskin et al produced the "first fully *adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity". They found that during the past 3000 years the modern grand maxima, which occurred between 1959 and 2009, was a rare event both in magnitude and duration. This research adds to growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,182
13,094
113
Low Earth Orbit
We're ill-prepared if the iceman cometh -- Earth Changes -- Sott.netWe're ill-prepared if the iceman cometh

What if the warmth the world has enjoyed for the past 50 years is the result of solar activity, not man-made CO2?

In a letter to the editor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, IG Usoskin et al produced the "first fully *adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity". They found that during the past 3000 years the modern grand maxima, which occurred between 1959 and 2009, was a rare event both in magnitude and duration. This research adds to growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans.

And the magnetosphere produced by the electric core of Earth.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
What gets me boiling in this whole debate is that anyone could possibly look to an agent other than the goddamn Sun as responsible.

If it were just the sun, then the surface temperature of every planet and satellite could be computed via distance from the sun.

The moon and teh earth, although almost the same distance from the sun, do not have the same climate.