lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:47pm:


They didn't Lose it.

Your making another unsupported assertions(again based on a report you say is flawed)

Get your own evidence or shut up.

Doesn't the fact that you are only able to reference one simplified page Sentence random words from from a report you refuse to acknowledge as having any credibility imply that you don't have a leg to stand on?

Here you are again, no evidence to support you assertion a that climate change is primarily driven by anything other the GHG emmisions.

Again, you want to stuck into into arguing about minutiae. On a report that you have repeatedly stated is flawed.

So please, find some credible data that isn't flawed, and supports your opinion. Then post.

that could take a really really rrreeeaaallllyyy long time though!

Its not so much the temperature levels which justify my opinions, rather its the rate the temperature is increasing.

During historical warming periods the temperature increased at a rate of .8-1.4 ddC per thousand years.

In the last 100 years the RECORDED average temperature has increased .7 dgC

This is 5-10 times faster than has been recorded at ANY time in the past.

Given that instead of a since the system is heating up at a speed an order of magnitude greater than any in all of history, maybe something slightly different is happening.


Derived from.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html






The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm




There you go.

Three totally separate peer reviewed articles, supporting two clear concise statements.

Please note, all these papers are based on empirical data.

I'm sure you are going to say that there were flaws in the papers I have quoted,

And i'm equally sure that your not going to provide ANYTHNG credible that supports any viewpoint counter my stated opinion.

Prove me wrong(not that proving is your strong suite!)

That's what it means. That they have uncertainty in their measurements.
There are two studies which repeated the experiment and confirmed their results but I lost the link somewhere. (if you bug me ill find it but please don't, I so CBF and you never provide any evidence for your claims)


SO..................

Given that I posted my evidence for the increase in temperature and you couldn't fault it i'm just going to assume that your aware of the rapid rate of cooling and agree that it is confirmed.

You wont admit it, But hypothetically(given your total lack of evidence and my mountain of empirical data) you should consider thinking about how to account for that which doesn't make you look like.........Lee.

Good to see your reading them!
The first line anyway.........

Would you consider that their is a limited amount that a paper can focus on before it become to unwieldy.

Seeing as it has been shown the current rate of warming can't be natural variation is reference to the lack of any other coherent explanation for the behavior of the climate. (including natural variation dumbass)


Scientist discount things that can be disproven. The only Causal factor for our climate's atypical behavior which cannot be disproven is GHG driven global warming.

It is "the null hypothesis"

That's why it is assumed. You among all people should understand that!

Ah,
Here is a list of things that I would like you to disprove.
Scientifically.

Mermaids.
Unicorns.
Dragons.
Fairies.
Pixies.


Just for starters.

Now this should be easy. Im asking you to disprove things that everybody knows do not exist.



But, I am aware that the lump of meat in my head works better than the lump of meat in your head, so I will hobble myself.


You disprove, scientifically the existence of ONE of my mythical beings.

And I will disprove your natural variation.

You have made a claim.
You have claimed that AGW is instead natural variation.

You have stated that it is my responsibility to disprove your theory.

I'm just pointing out to you that disproving anything beyond a doubt is impossible.

I assume that you know this, which is why your trying to get me to do the impossible, rather than you doing the impossible and providing credible evidence to prove your position.