just one more of the many factors in climate variability where the climate models miss the mark. Why anyone would believe the IPCC projections based on such deeply flawed models is beyond me Multiple spectral and statistical analyses of a 700-year long temporal record of groundwater recharge from the dry lands, Badain Jaran Desert (Inner Mongolia) of North West China reveal a stationary harmonic cycle at ~200 ± 20 year. Interestingly, the underlying periodicity in groundwater recharge fluctuations is similar to those of solar induced climate cycle Suess wiggles and appears to be coherent with phases of the climate fluctuations and solar cycles. Matching periodicity of groundwater recharge rates and solar and climate cycles renders a strong impression that solar induced climate signals may act as a critical amplifier for driving the underlying hydrographic cycle through the common coupling of long-term Sun-climate groundwater linkages. source - R.K. Tiwari1,* and Rekapalli Rajesh2 (2014) Imprint of long-term solar signal in groundwater recharge fluctuation rates from North West China. Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060204
Because if there is one thing global climate models fail to consider, it's the sun. Influence of the Schwabe/Hale solar cycles on climate change during the Maunder Minimum, Miyahara et al. 2010 Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection, Camp & Tung 2007 Physical Interpretation of Solar Cycle Length Connection To Global Climate Changes, Shumilov et al. 2002 A GCM study of climate change in response to the 11-year solar cycle, Haigh 1999 Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change, Lean et al. 1995
climate models are programmed to exaggerate the effects of CO2 so that the politicians and corporations funding the politicians can sell expensive green energy and impose a tax on carbon
how about the proof that the IPCC which is only concerned about reducing CO2 emissions and bases its predictions on models has been wrong on every prediction of doom for 20 years
How about you showing "absolute proof" that the IPCC " is only concerned about reducing CO2 emissions"? Should be easy to do; just go to the mitigation section of AR5.
your debate skills seem limited to attacking me and issuing challenges to prove this that and the other instead of holding a discussion and adding evidence to refute. I am beginning to find your posts boring and tedious, if you don't have a decent reply then don't bother to post [
so you are denying that the IPCC's temperature predictions of 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2005 were wrong ? It aint real complicate, take the IPCC reports predictions and put em on a graph, then take the observed temperatures and graph them. As far as the skeptics predictions that just shows the uncertainty of anyone thinking they have mother nature figured out. You wouldn't have the dates of the skeptic papers cook used for those graphs would you ? I just wonder when the were made and or if he just made them up. Honest science sites link to the data or at least give credit to the paper they pull the data from
Not in the least. Science is not about right and wrong as our knowledge of the world around us will always be incomplete. The goal of science is to find the best possible explanation for what we observe. It's not enough to say that a given theory is wrong, you must produce a competing theory that does a better job of explaining the phenomena in question. So far, the skeptics of anthropogenic global warming have been far worse at projecting global temperature than the IPCC. That's exactly what the chart I posted does. The graph was actually produced by Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area, and you can find everything about the data he used here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html And good science reporting doesn't misrepresent the data they use either. The chart from Der Spiegel looks a lot like one from a leaked copy of the AR5 report, not the report itself. Tamino explains the problem with this graph, specifically the flaw in aligning all of the projections at 1990. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/
