• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

Okay. Show me conclusive proof that this warming period is man-made and not just another incidental warming period like the MWP.
 
The MWP had ~0.4 deg C worth of warming over 300 years. We’ve had that in the last 25, what we are seeing now is nothing like the MWP.
 
lomiller said:
The MWP had ~0.4 deg C worth of warming over 300 years. We’ve had that in the last 25, what we are seeing now is nothing like the MWP.
Click to expand...

And that is conclusive proof? Sounds more like conjecture to me.
 
lomiller said:
The perhaps you should look up the word conjecture. Those are two simple statements of fact based on the best available peer reviewed research.
Click to expand...

Unacceptable. The issue of "peer-review" is now quite up in the air based on latest developments as you already know. Show me hard data proving that it is man-made.
 
This is called "moving the goalposts" because no matter what standard of proof is proffered, it will be rejected as "inconclusive."

This of course flies in the face of the fact that most science is exactly as sound a basis as AGW - no proof is actually ever conclusive. All results can be attacked by new data and new analysis, and all we can ever achieve is consensus.

What we have here for AGW is an especially strong case;

1. The effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 was predicted 182 years ago by the French mathematician Joseph Fourier. (You've heard of him, correct?)

2. We see this effect in the atmospheres of other planets, and it agrees with predictions in those cases.

3. We have excellent results that show that atmospheric CO2 is regularly increasing, and that this rate of change is increasing.

4. We have excellent isotope data to show that the carbon entering the atmosphere was from a fossil source. So much so that recent radiocarbon age measurements have to be scaled on a table that takes this into account.

5. We have an observed warming trend that matches theoretical predictions for this amount of CO2 rise.

6. We have glaciers melting worldwide at rates that agree with those observed warming trends.

7. We are seeing the range of certain plants move steadily towards the poles.

So, not "conclusive" but that is an improper standard for scientific debate.
 
So? Provide me sources on all of this and then we'll talk.

ETA: I should also add that you shouldn't use any source that can potentially be traced back to HADCRUT3.
 
Last edited:
I'm leaving the day job and I have to go to my bar for a few hours. I'll be back later.
 
Sparky said:
So? Provide me sources on all of this and then we'll talk.

ETA: I should also add that you shouldn't use any source that can potentially be traced back to HADCRUT3.
Click to expand...

There are a zillion (OK, I'll be honest, only 0.87 zillion) sources.

Google is your friend.

I gave you three sources for #5 that are not HADCRUT3 related at all, see graphs above.

The rest of this is not dependent on temperature data at all. (The critters can't read temperature data, and the ice is dumb.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom