So?
Both pictures show significant ice loss, what's your point old boy?
Btw a little note on your hero Anthony Watt's.
Both pictures show significant ice loss, what's your point old boy?
Btw a little note on your hero Anthony Watt's.
I agree. Peersonally, I don't think there is any 1 cause.Sure but likewise, anyone who thinks carbon is the cause is also an idiot.
Thing is, no one is saying it's the only cause, but it is the primary one.
Only an idiot doesn't know this.....or a stubborn jackass.
I've already said this before and have never ever said that carbon was the only cause and I have also stated what the other causes were.
Perhaps instead of getting all hysterical you should have paid attention.
If that were true then why do you suppose non of the models demonstrate it? Why do you suppose Science magazine is even questioning that rhetoric now? In fact they straight out say "oops.."
I already quoted it in a past post. I don't have a link.
I'm quickly loosing interest in this topic anyway. I've concluded that GW is a faith based belief system. Except for destroying our economy I really don't think it's zealot adherents are going to cause much harm. Thankfully the majority of Canadians are able to figure GW out as the myth it is.
What Have We Done?
Global climate is warming rapidly, and has been for more than 150 years, since around the start of the Industrial Revolution. Climate models suggest that most of the rise is due to greenhouse gas emissions, but the accuracy of the models is not entirely certain, and there have been numerous high-profile disagreements about their credibility.
An alternate way to estimate the magnitude of human influence on global temperatures is to look at the observational record. Lean and Rind found that only four factors--ENSO (El Nio-Southern Oscillation), volcanic activity, solar activity, and anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases--are required to explain 76% of the variance in the temperature records. Furthermore 90% or more of the warming trend of the past 100 years can be explained by invoking anthropogenic effects, and solar forcing can explain a negligible percentage of the rise in temperature over the past 25 years. Finally, the zonal temperature response to natural and anthropogenic forcing does not increase rapidly with latitude from mid- to high latitudes, as it does in models, and anthropogenic warming effects are more pronounced in the latitudes between 45S and 50N than at higher latitudes.
Source: Science October 10, 2008 vol 322
Gee, I knew that :roll:
Can you even comprehend English? What do you think this quote actually says? It starts out with a Science editor rightly claiming that there has been high profile disagreements between climate models and observations. Then, it says that models are getting the causes right, while getting things like spatial distribution wrong. You can read the study this editors pick is based on, I'll post it below.
Add to those observations a decreasing delta T in the diurnal cycle, and a cooling stratosphere, and the observations are really, really starting to back up the models.
By the way, this article didn't appear in the Journal Science. This study was in Geophysical Research Letters. The authors work for NASA GISS, so you can freely access their work from the website.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf
See, you think you get it because you read some crap on the net. You don't have a clue...
I quoted Science magazine not the internet as I said.
So? What's your point?"The anthropogenic forcing is the net effect of eight different components, including greenhouse gases, land use and snow albedo changes, and (admittedly uncertain) tropospheric aerosols."
Who said it was a new model?And this isn't a new model ...
Umm, wrong. It means that only 4 factors are needed to explain 76% of the variance. Nowhere did I see they could only measure 4 factors to explain variance. You fail again....found that only four factors--ENSO (El Nio-Southern Oscillation), volcanic activity, solar activity, and anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases--are required to explain 76%" Which leaves 24% unexplained! Enough to invalidate the model and any findings!
You're skipping the part that says:So where one cause was claimed to be the reason we now have four and in what you posted there are eight!!! "The anthropogenic forcing is the net effect of eight different components..."
No, but you're trying hard to put words in peoples mouths here, and looking like a fool which is your standard fare...And we are still left with 24% of temperature unaccounted for!
No, what we have is more proof of your serious shortcomings in the cognitive department...So, in other words, the models and the data demonstrate conclusively that carbon isn't the reason for warming. In fact just the unknowns are enough!