Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

You did an IPCC trick cover the lines with more trend lines to hide the point, if 1910 warmed at the same rate as 1980, how is one man made and one natural variability, instead you covered the chart in garbage. They did this with their first hockeystick

Answer the question maybe, if temp can increase at a rate, naturally , then do the same later on after a cooling, how do you distinguish?

Explain to me how much warming from 1980 is man and how much is natural, how do you separate them? Pseudo science.

Are you saying ALL warming from 1980 is man caused? If not all, then quantify. Cos all warming pre then was natural 100%.

That "natural oscillation line is pure nonsense" It doesn't fit the data if you go back a little further, in short you are creating a sine wave fiction, no basis in science or anything else. It's just a sine wave you slapped on the chart a visual trick starting from a suitable point

You can create anything with a sine wave trick.

You are as clueless as the others

 

Do you have an update on this ?
I seem to remember you posted something that showed two similar periods of warming in a similar timescale, am I right in that? if so any chance of another look?

also why are people assuming that the 1910 warming period was natural and not man made?

 

@astroturfnaut Do your sine wave trick on Greenland data

please log in to view this image

 

Or here, sine wave this.

please log in to view this image

You have a pathological approach to discussing science astro
Astro using his statistical analysis tricks #fraud

 

There is evidence of a cycle of up and down, until the mid 1900s after which it is only up

3 questions you will not answer:
Why did the warming turn on in 1910?
Why did the warming turn off in 1940?
Why did the warming turn on in 1970?

 

please log in to view this image

Any update on this yet or an explanation of the cycle that it apparently clearly shows we are in?

 

You or whomever made that chart drew an arbitrary sine curve going opposite of temps, nature does not follow a yellow line someone drew

Solar activity was left out of your little chart manipulation, strange that, fact by omission? Solar activity dictates that curve should curve up toward temp, but nope, lets just draw an imaginary line backed by nothing

You have not answered a thousand questions, and then expect answers and then if they are not ones you can do your stupid dance with you run off and hide for a week or two to recharge your stupid arguments .

 

Someone else told you, go to science for kids to figure it out and no one called that whole chart a cycle, except you

but thankyou for showing that we are not eve as warm as the MWP right now.

 

I see. And the sun turned off between 1940 and 1970. Cheers

 

What I find beyond belief is the 'logic' behind the argument that claims that the entire premise of global warming is some huge multi national conspiracy.

It's laughable, as global warming is a massive inhibitor to continued industrial growth, the cornerstone of capitalism.

It creates cost. Both in terms of generating 'clean' energy and in funding the carbon credits that the West has come up with in order to offset some of their CO2 targets. That's before you consider the impact on the oil industry, which has always had a huge influence on the US political system.

For this supposed conspiracy to be correct then dozens of agencies would have to be part of the #fraud. Thousands of scientists and the Govts of nearly 200 countries.....and for what purpose?

Makes the 9/11 conspiracy sound like a doddle

 

No, please wake up, I have showed you think so many times and here you are repeating arguments already owned AGAIN
This is why the sun was left out of your little fiction, this is why it cooled

please log in to view this image

This is why your little sine was a fraud

 

Back again to 9\11 and conspiracy. A sure sign of meltdown

 

No answer then....

Hardly a surprise.

 

So no update then? And you claim it shows we are in a cycle so where is that cycle taking us. ?

 

Yes this is from one paper in 1991 which has never been repeated, has been refuted by follow up work, and even the author has backed away from it

They got to him! #conspiracy

 

A more recent version to provide some balance

please log in to view this image

 

Said who, what alarmist site did you read than from because you certainly went looking for it. So what paper you are talking about and the paper that disagrees, save your conspiracy nonsense for yourself.

Svensmark and Christiansen, 2 scientists

please log in to view this image

I answer your question and you come back with #conspiracy.

#retard

 

That is irradiance, again you know nothing

Who did that paper come from btw seeing as you "know" what you are talking about

Willie Soon solar astrophysicist disproved this btw, stated amateur mistakes were made, if it is from Gavin Schmidt's paper I'll piss myself laughing, he's no solar physicist

 

They got the calculations wrong. If they had been using this as evidence for AGW you would call them a #fraud but I guess somehow they are still right even though they couldn't add up properly and the #fraud is to follow the rules of actual mathematics

please log in to view this image

If you ignore the mathematical errors you see the warming #ouch

please log in to view this image

 

This is the sisu fanboy thread right.

sisu sits here and his fans come and worship at his feet concerning theories of mega conspiracies right?