The below, there is a 0.1 degree difference between 1997 and 2013. That may sound arbitrary but the point is 16 years and 0.1 degree change. If that isn't a flat line or stall in rising temperatures than I don't know what is, sorry it couldn't be a perfect flat 0 degree change we'll have to live with 0.1 degrees, as temperature fluctuates

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:


showing graphs for 8 years is not a model

Where are your predictive theories and models that show cooling or static temperatures as CO2 increases in the earths atmosphere

*crickets*

This is the Easterbrook projection I'll post a second version of this projection and that's it for now.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

Do you get paid by the post?

same debunked trickery

Go and publish your pseudo scientific graph compressions and cropping as well as your analyses and conclusions in the peer reviewed scientific literature

*crickets*

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:


lol

what is the mechanism for this cooling period

let me guess - its independent of CO2 concentration and due to a natural CAUSE

outline the mechanism in detail

Or are you making up data points in the future based upon selected data from the past

they have a name for this quackery don't they vuk11

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:



Lol you're asking me to predict the future when I have said I/nobody can. AGW skepticism is the null-hypothesis, do you know what that is/means? I only need to disprove your theory, that's the whole point of being skeptical/devil's advocate.

Though you asked for some more realistic predictions that aren't in line with the AGW theory I have provided. Think what you want but I have nothing to prove, the burden of proof lies with those that seek to fear monger and control, all I need to do is disprove.

I owe you nothing You should feel privileged that I am even entertaining your questions. As it is we who ask you questions because it's you that proposes the end of the world. (so to speak don't take it all literal again -.-)

Wrong and wrong. I don't predict, Dr Akasofu and the other bloke/s predicted those graphs, I was just sharing their predictions which I think are more in line with the data than the IPCC.

I do not dispute the greenhouse effect, though I'm open to arguments against it, what I dispute that raising c02 is a black and white answer of increased c02 = increased warming, because the earth isn't a controlled environment, unlike the lab the earth has many external factors that contribute to changes. So far the Solar activity is on a downward trend and the significane of carbon sinks was underestimated, put 2 and 2 together and what do you get? Two reasons why c02's impact will be lowered or even reversed on the empirical side of things. (not theoretical but in actual practice). This is further evidenced by failed predictions using the simplistic black and white form of AGW theory.

The theory must be adjusted to include the relationship climate drivers have with each other and the effects of human produced c02 re-examined. That is all I dispute nothing but the current/future impact due to complexity and evidence against.

The IPCC can come back when they adjust the theory to match the facts rather than skew the data to match their theory.