Off Topic Climate Change

Who said what?

now shut up and pay your renewable levies on your leccy bills, and prepare for carbon taxes that will increase the cost of everything (cos you wont do what the French did, France just suspended canceled the carbon tax )

and it's all to stop bad weather don't you know

"Give us money and control over your life and economy, and we can control the weather" #witchcraft

 

70s you say.

 

30 year old research when more recent is available, why would you do that?

Oh!!
Because we've now digitized the paper record observations and included them in the dataset

please log in to view this image

Alekseez didnt use observations of sea ice, his paper was to use available air temperature records as a proxy to calculate what the extent was likely to be.
So why then quote Connolly 2017 without showing everyone their conclusion from combining observations with the Alekseev dataset?


Because it doesn't fit the narrative perhaps?
or perhaps because you have posted spoonfed information without actually looking at the research itself.

 

You are obviously a ****** who went looking for the first thing he could find.

1. "30 year old research" is not an argument of scientific merit.
2. You cant read, or see, papers from 2016 and 2017 are not 30 years old.
3. Your alarmist source was referring to the department of energy's reconstruction from decades ago, which I did not post.

please log in to view this image

@Tobes has no business even having an opinion on this topic, he never read either post or understood either, he has no idea what a reconstruction is, he is "dopamine hit" liking.

@DerekTheMole has almost as much of a lack of understanding of the basics as @Tobes



When you eventually figure out 2016 and 2017 are not 3 decades ago, let me know.

Importantly
Lastly, your reconstruction posts are bogus, and use selective screening methods and have no actual evidence to support them

My cited reconstruction, has a wealth of evidence to support it, from global temperatures, to scientific press releases and media reporting from those periods

#smashed

 

What a failure.
I quoted Walsh 2016 and Connolly 2017

You quoted IPCC 1990 and a proxy reconstruction.

 

@Diego @Looney Leftie As I said before, only when you choose to deny the existence of plenty of evidence, can you claim arctic melting is humans' fault

As we can see above, Loony's Sept graph is complete and utter bollocks

I was at work earlier and had not the time to respond properly.
Gotta do better than SKS loony

and, if you somehow think AGW is validated by Arctic ice extent, you know nothing, especially when you actually claimed "Greenland" is just one place.. concerning temperature reconstruction.

Now, if you have a shred of evidence for AGW? I am all ears You only have "97%" of "climate scientists" to lean on here, for evidence, so it should be easy.. yet... you've never posted any at all

 

It’s not my graph.
It’s the conclusion from the 2017 paper you quoted as evidence of no reduction of sea ice extent.

You are starting to look very desperate.

 

tut tut

From the lad who says "Greenland is just one place", you now try show the arctic, is evidence that human emissions are causing doom, even though sea ice decline has decreased since 2000 (year 2000, 1\3rd of total human emissions have occurred since that year)
AGW does not stand or fall on reconstructions, no matter how many ice hockeysticks you post, as essentially that is what you post. Sadly, reconstruction results are utterly dependent on how you handle the data, which proxies you select, which you screen out, and this goes for all, not just the ones you post. Reconstructions are not real evidence for or against AGW

So, with one 3rd of all emissions happening after 2000, how come temperature increase has declined since as well as sea ice decline?

Alarmist logic, less CO2 caused more warming and more sea ice loss than more CO2 has caused

I never claimed AGW has been disproved, and I dont have to, the null hypothesis is, "climate change is natural, and is within natural variability", and unless one can disprove that, then the null hypothesis still stands.

 

Yep definitely desperate to avoid the fact that his source of evidence disproves his claim but he was unaware because he’d only read whatsupwiththat and not the actual paper.

 

Keep the funding faucet turned on. No doom, no funding

NSIDC, changed maps. Deleted all old maps going back to 1985, in 2015


#deleteMultiYearIce

 

@Looney Leftie
Holocene sea ice cover reconstruction, and below, I flipped GISP2, the "one place" you mention
Both 10k yrs


If only CO2 can cause this, how come we have this for 10,000 years...at half the CO2 levels of today.

easy, temperatures are not driven by CO2, never has been, neither has climate

 

Still no trend in the last decade,
Just the last four years in the six lowest extents at current date.

Now who was it that claimed no trend?

please log in to view this image

 

Stein 2017, as in your first chart.

“Based on a proxy reconstruction, ice-free summers also occurred during a late Miocene warm climate with simulated atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 450 ppm, a value we also might reach in the near future. “

[emoji23]

 

This’ll cause fume in Finland.

 

@Looney Leftie is the cause of global warming.

 

He'll cherry pick from the conspiracy sites and show me more charts from scientists whose research in their field has led them to the conclusion that recent warming is not solely from natural causes.

Then he'll deny that the mounting evidence proves him wrong.