lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 6:48pm:


The null hypothesis cannot be represented as the position of null intelligence.

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 10:55am:

The burden of proof is an age ol' obfuscationary trick but it doesn't work when business confidence is involved!

Governments live off a tax base and that means business confidence rules!

All models are incorrect! All applied science i.e your whole civilised world, knows this!!

This is why Turnbull and his Abbott inspired voters are left eating a shite sandwich: because they don't even know what they don't even know!

Fm this is embarrassing times for the clever country who built the Asian century!

The global embarrassment of copper Internet surrounds this mediocrity on climate change politics: PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIED FOR THIS 

Ajax wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 7:11pm:


I'm interested to know where you got your graph from. I've NEVER seen any claim that there hasn't been any warming since 1980. Not even your most hardened denialist has claimed a hiatus that goes back to 1980.

As for CO2, that is a scientifically proven greenhouse gas. Even Lee accepts that increasing CO2 will increase temperature

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:


So I'm afraid you are on your own Ajax

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 9:55am:


You're a dip stick and one of those nutters that would burn witches at the stake.

Yes the Earth is warming and yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to this warming.

But to claim that man's emissions of CO2 are solely responsible for the current warming trend, is like saying pigs can fly....!!!

Do some research dude and stop believing the hearsay.

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale

(NO)

,

(11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO)

, It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING !

This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale

(NO)

,

(millions of years)

Graph-3

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 11:34am:


Do you always revert to personal abuse when you have lost a debate?
Please, no more graph spamming. They have all been discredited.




Ajax wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 7:11pm:


Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 11:34am:


So one minute you are saying there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature and the next minute you are saying there is.

If you can't make up your mind it is no wonder that the denialists have to resort to dishonest arguments to try and reject AGW

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

lee wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 11:11am:


Relative Humidity is actually irrelevant in the upper atmosphere. What is important is the absolute concentration.

You might have to do some book larnin' after all if you want to keep up.  They avoid topics like that in the blogs.