Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    25 Sep '19 00:08
    @soothfast said
    You acknowledge a positive correlation between atmospheric temperature and CO2 content.

    I note you claim the dynamic is the other way around relative to the consensus (and there is a consensus). That is, CO2 is increasing because temperature is increasing. Partially true, as things stand.

    All you have described is well-known to scientists. There are many instances ...[text shortened]... trust?

    So the next question is: What has caused the air temperature to rise in the first place?
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    "Water warms more slowly than air. Increased atmospheric CO2 has caused a sustained elevated mean global atmospheric temperature"

    I'm glad you brought that up. You can see on the long term graph that sea levels have been rising as far back as 1880. Since you acknowledge a lag time from temp rises to sea level rise then temps must have been rising prior to 1880.

    What caused temps to rise before 1880? Simple question. If it is not natural causes what is it?
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    26 Sep '19 11:15
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    29 Sep '19 20:11
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    30 Sep '19 04:12
    @humy said
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs
    I post a peer reviewed article and you post a you tube video?

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

    Try posting a peer reviewed article. That is the standard, right?
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    30 Sep '19 06:244 edits
    @metal-brain said

    Try posting a peer reviewed article.
    I have on many occasions. You don't accept any peer reviewed article that contradicts your moronic delusional opinions.
    The scientific facts stated in that video have all come from peer-reviewed research elsewhere (else they wouldn't be the scientific facts).
    And, WOW, what HYPOCRISY by you! -after YOU, in the past, gave countless number of NONE-peer-reviewed youtube links and NONE-peer-reviewed articles!
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    30 Sep '19 11:501 edit
    @humy said
    I have on many occasions. You don't accept any peer reviewed article that contradicts your moronic delusional opinions.
    The scientific facts stated in that video have all come from peer-reviewed research elsewhere (else they wouldn't be the scientific facts).
    And, WOW, what HYPOCRISY by you! -after YOU, in the past, gave countless number of NONE-peer-reviewed youtube links and NONE-peer-reviewed articles!
    Peer review is the standard. I don't accept climate model predictions just because they passed the scholarly peer review process because climate model predictions are always wrong. You proved that with the last article you posted from 7 or 8 years ago. The prediction was way off.

    As long as it doesn't involve climate models go ahead and post peer reviewed articles that you like. I don't think you can find one that contradicts this one:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492
  7. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8348
    30 Sep '19 19:13
    @metal-brain said
    Peer review is the standard. I don't accept climate model predictions just because they passed the scholarly peer review process because climate model predictions are always wrong. You proved that with the last article you posted from 7 or 8 years ago. The prediction was way off.

    As long as it doesn't involve climate models go ahead and post peer reviewed articles that ...[text shortened]... that contradicts this one:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492
    Doesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change.

    Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change and built upon those findings you presented, while citing your reference. For example:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

    "the rate of GMSL rise during the last two decades represents a more significant increase than previously recognized"

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025826

    "A large portion of the twentieth-century rise, including most GMSL rise over the past quarter of the twentieth century, is tied to anthropogenic warming."
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    01 Oct '19 01:50
    @wildgrass said
    Doesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change.

    Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change and built upon those findings you presented, while citing your reference. For example:

    ht ...[text shortened]... ng most GMSL rise over the past quarter of the twentieth century, is tied to anthropogenic warming."
    "Doesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change."

    What are you trying to say?

    "Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change"

    Updated how?

    "the rate of GMSL rise during the last two decades represents a more significant increase than previously recognized"

    How much?

    Your last link looks like it is based on climate models. Junk!
  9. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8348
    01 Oct '19 02:51
    @metal-brain said
    "Doesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change."

    What are you trying to say?

    "Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change"

    Updated how?

    "the rate of GMSL rise during the last two ...[text shortened]... reviously recognized"

    How much?

    Your last link looks like it is based on climate models. Junk!
    What is ICE-4G from your study? (hint: it's not not a model)
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    01 Oct '19 05:41
    @wildgrass said
    What is ICE-4G from your study? (hint: it's not not a model)
    I don't know. Never heard of it.
  11. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Rollin Down Imperial
    tinyurl.com/y6s4tugw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    25330
    06 Oct '19 21:52
    @metal-brain said
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    "Water warms more slowly than air. Increased atmospheric CO2 has caused a sustained elevated mean global atmospheric temperature"

    I'm glad you brought that up. You can see on the long term graph that sea levels have been rising as far back as 1880. Since you acknowledge a lag time from temp rises to sea level rise th ...[text shortened]...

    What caused temps to rise before 1880? Simple question. If it is not natural causes what is it?
    Industrial Revolution
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    06 Oct '19 23:01
    @athousandyoung said
    Industrial Revolution
    Evidence? Show the CO2 levels and correlating temp increase.
  13. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    86468
    07 Oct '19 14:56
    @metal-brain said
    Evidence? Show the CO2 levels and correlating temp increase.
    You seem to be asking for evidence that has been presented several thousand times in this forum.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52996
    07 Oct '19 16:22
    @DeepThought
    If presented with that evidence once again,, he will just say Fake news.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    07 Oct '19 17:12
    @deepthought said
    You seem to be asking for evidence that has been presented several thousand times in this forum.
    Climate model predictions do not count. You have presented no evidence and you know it. Stop making stuff up.
Back to Top