The flat earth types selling the snake oil of man caused global warming have told and published so many lies on the subject they can't even keep their own stories straight.
Are you another one somehow in on the scam? The scam artists get big bucks through education, government grants, shakedowns, government bids and on and on. Are you in on it?
Ahem... m'kay? Let's file this statement under the files "no ****, Sherlock."Each of those periods you listed are averages. Averages include values greater than and values less than the average. Any decade with the highest average, will statistically have most of the highest temperatures as well.
Each decade since the dawn of the industrial age has proven to not only be warmer, but doing so at a faster rate. I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I don't know how to put it any simpler. Facts are facts, not matter how much you try to deflect.The stock market often uses language like "past performance does not guarantee future performance." Well guess what. Typically, we can expect such trends to continue, but only if we understand the trend we are looking at.
Speaking of pre-conceived notions. Why is it you think it's a fantasy? What makes you so conifdent you're right?There have been three distinct increases on solar activity. I normally only mention two, the ones from about 1713 to 1780, and from about 1900 to about 1950. however, following the first increase, was a decrease from about 1790 to about 1810, and another increase from about 1820 to about 1840. Now any effects the sun has also has lag times of at least 4 decades to see the majority of change it causes. I will suggest you do not discount the possibility that the last increase ending about 1950 has finally run it's course. The whole basis that temperatures will continue is based on the fantasy that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change. If the primary driver of temperature change is the sun, then counting on CO2 increases is wrong...
"There is a lot of talk coming from CitiGroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect, So let me say this to anyone listening at Citi —I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces." -- Elizabeth Warren
Finally admit? I have stated this same thing before, that record decade will have record spikes compared to non record decades. To claim I have changed my mind on this point I have been solidly consistent od means you are either confusing me with someone else, or you are being intellectually dishonest.Originally Posted by Middleground
So? It doesn't mean CO2 is the cause. we haven't even talked about the inaccuracies of land sites due to urban growth/heat islands. Have we. Nor have we talked about the changes in satellite monitoring being close or inside the error of measurements and calibration drift. That's another different discussion, but just keep in mind temperatures vary by method, and we can't even be certain of the changes.Originally Posted by Middleground
Yep...Originally Posted by Middleground
So why do you guys keep harping on the record temperatures, as if it's unusual?
Does correlation equal causation?Originally Posted by Middleground
Does correlation also equal causation?Originally Posted by Middleground
For several reason. For one, it is accepted in physics that a doubling of CO2 equals a change in spectral absorption by 2.7 watts per square meter. However, that is in a laboratory condition with no other gasses competing for the same spectra CO2 absorbs. For the IPCC's claim that the 1750 to 2004 changes to equal 1.66 W/m^2 means that a doubling would be 3.56 W/m^2 making this impossible. They then explain this claiming positive feedback of water vapor, but such a small change would be insignificant. Water vapor is already trapping over half the spectra that CO2 can, so any increases by CO2 can be no where near the 2.7 W/m^2 for a doubling.Originally Posted by Middleground
There is more, but I don't feel like typing several paragraphs right now.
The complexity of global climate models or general circulation models comes from the effort to model how energy is distributed over the earth's surface with time and how this affects precipitation, temperature, and other factors.
However, the core issue for our debates about global warming is summarized in terms of average annual global temperatures. The complexity of these models isn't needed for that. A simple summation of thermal forcings with a lag factor duplicates the models relied on by the IPCC almost exactly (see link below). (Unfortunately, this has not proven to have very good predictive power when compared to real world data, but the more complex models being run on supercomputers are no better. Agreement with real world data is much much worse when we get down to specific regions of the earth which just goes to show that the supercomputer time is mostly wasted.)
Willis on GISS Model E « Climate Audit
Interestingly enough, average annual global temperature is about the only thing the models agree on. Everything else, including the distribution of precipitation and changes in local climate, show wide divergences from one model to another. This issue was brought up in the journal Science recently (see link below).
So it's pretty obvious that the models suck.
What Are Climate Models Missing?
Certainly, there are situations for all of us where reliance on experts is unavoidable, but I always make a note of it to know as much as I can about any issue that's important, most especially my health. Also, it is important to know something about the reliability of the experts in question.
There is no "conspiracy", there is only the need to get funded and the constraints applied by funding agencies, which may all be well intended even if wrong.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.