I need an Explanation of how CO2 Causes Climate Change

Maybe someone can explain how it warmed in the 1870s just as fast as in the 1980s.

 

It didn't. You'll believe anything posted on a denier website, won't you?

What Hoosier8's graph claims about HADCRUT3
1. 1860-1880 trend is 0.163° C/decade.
2. 1975-1998 trend is 0.166° C/decade

What HADCRUT3 really shows (data here; and we use monthly data, as shown in the chart, starting in January and ending in December):
1. 1860-1880 trend is really 0.101° C/decade, some 38% lower than Hoosier's claim.
2. 1975-1998 trend is really 0.177° C/decade, some 7% higher than Hoosier's claim.

Looks like the ayatollahs of Denierstan have suckered another gullible rube. Why do you still believe these guys?

 

ohhh, 7%, the horror. What cause the earlier rise? CO2? LOL

 

In typical denier fashion, ignoring all data not favorable to his case. Like the 38% exaggeration in the previous sentence.

Yes, that and albedo darkening from the soot of coal burning.

 

LOL, you are full of conjecture without facts. You believe hypothesis is fact and make stuff up as you go along then call people names because you somehow think you are smarter than everyone else and think that is an acutal logical argument. You certainly picked the right forum name.

 

Do you assert, then, that CO2 did not rise between 1860 and 1880?
Or do you assert that burning coal does not cause soot?

Or will you simply and honestly admit that both of these thing are facts, and not conjecture?

 

Must have been that massive production of Winchesters.

 

It must be based on scientific method and be truthful.

Hiding the decline is not sound climatology.

[video=youtube;tIQ70is-RPM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIQ70is-RPM[/video]

 

I learned you don't understand what "relative sea level" means. Some denier blog told you a local sea level at a single spot in Israel was the same thing as global sea level, you fell for the scam, and now you're declaring your ridiculous misinterpretation of the data is proof of your conspiracy theory.

My suggestion? Next time, try _reading_ the paper you cite. More than just the abstract. You might especially want to look at the parts explaining why the results are consistent with other sea level calcs, and the part where it says recent sea level rise has been especially rapid.

 

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

 

LOL, so sea level isn't important unless it is sea level that you believe. Got it. There are other studies but then, peer reviewed papers are considered to be blogs now by the true believers.

 

Did that water level stay that high, or did it recede because it was due to weather? Just asking.

 

Somebody hid something? In what peer-reviewed paper? Citation, please.

 

MBH 98, MBH 99 and all papers that cite them as evidence to make their conclusions. And all papers that cite those papers. And the papers that cite those papers, et cetera, et cetera...

It's all nothing but unscientific BS.

Why is it so difficult for you anti-science zealots to understand that?

 

What was hidden in MBH 98, and in MBH 99?

 

That the proxies diverge from temperature post 1960.

 

Yes, the foundation is crumbling.

 

So your expectation is that MBH98, which was submitted to Nature in May of 1997, should have anticipated the not-yet published Briffa et al. 1998?

You think that scientists should be able to read papers not yet published?

The foundation of Denierstand is crumbling.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who thinks MBH is the foundation of global warming theory is too ignorant for this board.

 

First the problem was first identified in the mid 90s. Second you are assuming that Mann didn't see the problem in his own data sets. Hence Mikes Nature trick where he spliced instrumental data to hide the decline.

No it is the foundation of AGW propaganda. You entire credibility has been lost defending one (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), Dr. Mann.

In what world do you think you can beat me on this subject. If you think you are going to get the honest scoop reading SS to which Mann has editorial permissions think again.

 

Only in Alaska. It was not until the publication of Briffa that it was known to be wider.

Take a look at the graph in MBH98, and tell me if you see the divergence there. Because I sure can't. If it's there at all, it's obviously far smaller than the error, and therefore nothing to be concerned about, even if it is visible.

I can always tell when you've lost the argument, Windy, because you've got nothing left but swear words.

And yet oddly enough, you have never pointed to anything in MBH 98 or MBH 99 that would have the slightest effect on its conclusions. All you've got is hot air from the propaganda factories of Denierstan.

 

Those were debunked years ago.

 

By whom? In what paper?

 

You are confusing publicly known with known amongst "the team". Briffa as we see in the climategate e-mails is amongst the most honest of the team. He admitted the divergence problem in his paper. Mann hid it in his. He spliced instrumental data into his reconstruction to hide the decline.

As you asked

That is your answer. Briffa addressed the decline in his paper Mann hid it in his. You attempted arguement that Mann didn't even know about it is nonsensical as Mann's splicing is plain as day.

Your circular logic is awe inspiring.

Its absolutly mindboggling that you would think this is a logical argument.

'What did he hide?'
'That'
'Well I cant see in his paper.'
'Are you fricking serious?'

I dont loose you leave for awhile and lick your wounds. That is not to say you ever admit to yourself that you are wrong. Hell you still think a house warms from the ground up. How is someone supposed to have an argument on climate with someone who cant understand convection and saturation. I'm also waiting on your paper where you show you can get a 20 year resolution deep ice cores. You will be famous when you publish.

Well in the real world we call it confidence. We have no confidence in the claims of the paper that the present is warmer than any time in the past because the proxies fail to detect the present warming. Therefor they could also fail to detect past warmings. When the proxies are updated to the present they reconstruction fails every statistical metric meaning its worthless. You like to use the R2 value of your little excel plot of CO2 vs. temperature yet you seem unphased that MBH 98 and 99 has always failed R2 verification and now when updated also fails RE verification as well.

 

MM05, Stockwell et. al, Burger et. al.

 

The error pointed out in MM05 has no effect on the conclusions of MBH even if corrected, as the NAS report correctly pointed out.

But at least MM05 pointed out an actual error, no matter how trivial it might be. By Stockwell et al. I assume you refer to Stockwell alone (2006) which is so badly flawed he wasn't able to get it past peer-review. He does a great job of writing a program that generates hockey sticks, but so what? It's his method that's flawed and not Mann's. Stockwell assumes that Mann used a process that Mann did not actually use. Therefore Stockwell only invalidated his own imagination, and nothing that Mann did. No wonder he couldn't get it past peer-review: it's crap.

For Berger, I need a citation. And I hope it's to something peer-reviewed.