Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

No, that's just false. Temperature change has been unsteady, cyclical, and shows no sign of acceleration since the end of the LIA.

I don't. You have to not only guess, but make $#!+ up.

Nope.

Joke.

 

Well, I hear with fake news, I see no chart.

 

That’s laughable.....you don’t even include the industrial revolution in the same scale. Seriously, do you know what scale comparison is ? Do you know what rate of change is ?

 

Here is a rescaled chart that shows that no temperature changes are as rapid as those during the industrial revolution.
Yours is fallacy in comparison of these rates. The horizontal Time scale is obviously much shorter indicating the rate of change is much greater. This is a simple math concept you can’t or won’t acknowledge.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

 

No it doesn't.

If that meant anything, it would be wrong.

No, that is unscientific gibberish. There is just greater resolution in the instrumental than in the proxy record: invalid commingling of different types of data.

I acknowledge that your "simple math concept" is gibberish and your chart is irrelevant garbage.

 

Nope. Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012 and has now returned to near the multi-decade average.

Maybe that one was to hard for you to read.

 

You really don’t know the slope and rate of change relationship on a graph do you ? This is HS math, it’s not complicated.

And, you can’t compare rates on different graphs drawn to different scales visually. It can only be done as a rate using the simple slope formula.

 

It’s HS math. It’s not just science. Any college bound math student knows how to read a graph and interpret rates.

 

Of course it did, lol

 

One other thing. Look at the insert in the upper right corner in your own reference graph of global temps. Your own graph has been rescaled to reveal at the very end around the last couple hundred years, a dramatic increase in global temps.

Upon close inspection, your own illustration shows you are wrong. The most dramatic “changes in temps” occur during our own industrial revolution.

There are no legitimate global temp graphs that support your bogus assertions.....

 

Ha ha.
Well thought out rebuttal.

 

Unless they get your jollies by having dolphins swim between their legs, ideologues will have to defer to reality.

Dogma, no matter how slavishly embraced, will succumb to sensible folks taking pragmatic measures.

That necessary, practical approach is underway.

 

Where's the 60-year cycle there?



The Mk. 1 eyeball is very good at picking out trends. If there was strong statistical support, you'd clearly see the sixty year cycle. You don't. You just made that story up.

And yet the CO2 theory explains it perfectly.

Occam's Razor. The simplest theory that explains all of the observed data is most likely to be correct. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data.

Why do you think Occam's Razor shouldn't be applied here? Why do you want to throw out a simple theory with a stunning success record and substitute in your complex garbage with a perfect failure record?

If all of the data didn't say you were wrong, you wouldn't have to push that conspiracy theory. But it does, so you do.

I never said or implied that, so that's more of your usual dishonesty. I said that theories which provide no mechanism at all, like yours, are invoking magic, because that is the case.

His predictions were correct. Scaffetta's climastrology predictions failed completely. Bit of a difference there.

If you just fake enough stories about the temperature record, your debunked climastrology theory will become true. Yeah, good luck with that.

This isn't a debate. Your theory said temps should stall or decline. Instead, they kept warming strongly. Your theory was debunked by reality, so it is wrong. Raging at reality won't change that.

 

Huh?? It's self-evident: 1880-1910, down. 1910-1940, up. 1940-1970, down. 1970-2000, up. The cycle is overlaid on the secular up-trend caused by the sun being more active than at any time in the last several thousand years (i.e., temperature rebounding from the LIA).

Wrong again. Anyone can see it clearly in the above graph, and it has not only been remarked in the peer-reviewed literature, but was known to the ancients:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlan...ia/File:Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlan...n#/media/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg

VISUALLY OBVIOUS.

No it doesn't, not even close.

Garbage. It not only doesn't explain all the observed data, it is flatly contradicted by the observed data, which have had to be massively and systematically falsified to preserve the theory from being laughed out of the journals.

I'm the one applying it: natural factors caused all previous century-scale warming and cooling trends. Why introduce a new factor to explain a warming that is perfectly in line with all previous Holocene warmings?

It has a stunning failure record.

It most certainly does not.

You most certainly did.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

No it is not. For example, Mendel's genetic theory provided no mechanism -- no mechanism was known for decades -- but did not invoke magic.

No, the 60y cycle is robustly confirmed, and was even known to the ancients. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

It's the data supporting AGW that has to be faked, as already proved.

By faking data.

My theory has been, continues to be, and will continue to be confirmed by reality. Just not by systematically faked temperature data.

 

But not as dramatic as at the end of the last Ice Age.

False.

False.

I posted one.

 

Then quote it.

 

So you aren't college bound. I get it.

 

It's obviously beyond you....

Which you clearly don't know how to do.

 

I see you avoid any response having directly to do with math. I’d be happy to explain it to you.

 

Go ahead.

So, you don’t even see the scale change in the upper right hand corner of your own graph. ? Dig out your bifocals.
Even your own graph illustrates your math illiteracy.

 

Read the citation I gave you

 

And then 2000-2020, up. Oops. 60-year cycle go boom. That's visually obvious to anyone looking at the graph.

It wasn't overloaded on the previous down trends from 1880-1910 and 1940-1970, so it shouldn't be overloaded now, so the current 2000-2020 fast warming disproves your theory.

The fact that the AMO exists does not mean it runs on 60 years cycles, or that the whole climate follows.

Whether you actually believe the fraud you're peddling there is immaterial. What matters is that nobody outside of your cult believes it. We know with 100% certainty that you're peddling fraud there. You can't fool us by repeating your fraud at an ever-increasing volume.

And those natural factors are trying to slowly cool the earth now. You leave out those natural factors. We take them into account, which is one reason we know that the current fast warming isn't natural.

Your theory fails to account for the current fast warming, the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. There are no natural causes that can explain such directly measured things. Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong.

In contrast, AGW theory accounts for all of the observed data. It is the simplest theory to do so, therefore it is the accepted theory.

You can kick and scream and put forth more deranged conspiracy cult theories, but nobody cares. Until you can offer a theory that isn't contradicted by the hard data, you'll continue to be laughed at.

 

Nope. Flat.

Only the graph of systematically falsified temperatures. Actual temperatures have been quite flat, as shown by the return of arctic sea ice and the absence of any actual physical events that would indicate significant warming.

If that fast warming were real, and not fabricated.

The cycle is chaotic, so its length can vary. 60y is close enough, and the graph of temperatures shows the whole climate DOES follow.

You are makin' $#!+ up again. Your ONLY evidence is the falsified temperature record.

Content = 0.

Oh? Then please identify them all, and show that they are all trying to cool the earth.

Thought not.

Nope.

There is no current fast warming, so you are right that it isn't natural: it is created by fraudsters systematically altering temperature data.

Because it does not exist. There is self-evidently and indisputably no climate crisis, no climate emergency, and no significant warming. It's all hysteria based on made-up data.

Those are all explained by the increased CO2 in the stratosphere, where there is almost no water vapor. But that is irrelevant at ground level, where water vapor dominates the CO2 greenhouse effect.

It will continue to be proved right by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS.

No. AGW theory is flatly contradicted by the observed data, which has to be systematically falsified to preserve the theory.

I will continue to be proved right by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS like the return of arctic sea ice, which flatly refutes your claims.

 

<yawn> I already told you I read it. Thank you for agreeing that you can't provide a quote from it that supports your claim.