Skip to comments.Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: slim to none [GIGO}
Posted on 04/12/2014 7:01:26 PM PDT by BenLurkin
To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses multi-proxy climate reconstructions developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.
For the industrial era, Lovejoys analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models, he adds.
(Excerpt) Read more at publications.mcgill.ca ...
I have the text of the computer simulation right here:
print "It's Global Warming!"
Yeah, we know just like the world food shortage, Peak oil and acid rain. And what all else. Socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
Dangit, not another headache. Oh well, back to FR.
Somebody been hittin’ da happy smoke.
Anthony Watts has a summary of this paper, a link to a rebuttal, and some choice comments over at Watts up with that:
Odds that the globe is warming significantly: slim to none.
There are an astounding number of factors that they deliberately ignore, I don’t know how they can take themselves seriously.
Don’t tell them that another 5% closer to the sun and we’ll be out of the habitable zone. They’ll be looking for ways to move the earth away.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
You know summer is coming when climate change becomes global warming.
What caused the Ice Age? Why did the ice later melt?
ANYTHING that The Mann has touched is totally bogus.
Oh it must be right because NEVER before in all of recorded history have we experienced global warming or cooling...That mini ice age in the 1700s was all made up and imaginary. Only now are we lucky enough to have one such as Al Gore to tell us the truth.
Was that snarky enough?
I would put the sun and volcanos at the top of the list, but then I’m not a climate scientist.
So how did the Medieval and Roman warming periods happen?
You nailed it morphing! Sun’s effect dwarfs any human factors, but if there is a second influence, volcanic ash would be a strong candidate. The Iceland volcanoes spilled thousands if not millions of times as much particulate matter into the atmosphere in a single year as all of human activity ever did. Media ignoring that, of course.
now I could be wrong, but I’m fairly certain all the global warminig comes from the sun and last i checked, the sun is considered ‘natural’
of course, the flaming libtards know better... via their drug induced haze... so maybe they should babble on some more
oh, I’ll never endorse ANY money for their ‘research’ but they’re more then welcome to babble away
George Bush caused it. He did it in Texas with a fracking...thing
Love Watts. The comments are great too. David l. had it exactly correct when he quoted Rutherford
It would seem that all human effort to curtail warming (when it happens) would pale in comparison to increased solar captivity or a Pinatubo or other large eruption.
I understand the control issue, but they are fighting basic intuition and logic IMO.
Pseudo-science Psychobabble BS.
Translation : We got a new computer simulation, and no, you can't get the coding for it.
Same old BS.
New set of perps.
It was the heat of the friction caused by the clashing of swords in battle, of course.
The term 'natural variability' refers to random fluctuations in the climate. But it leaves out non-random causes of climate change, such as the Sun, changes in volcanic activity, changes in cosmic ray density, changes in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, and other possible causes--some of which we may in fact not even realize could be contributing factors, including human activity having nothing to do with emissions of carbon dioxide.
The Null Hypothesis with respect to AGW is not that climate change is due mostly to 'natural variability,' it is that that climate change is mostly due to natural factors of any sort, whether those are random variations/fluctuations or are something else. And the Null Hypothesis has not been disproven. Had it been, the peer-reviewed paper or papers which presented such disproof would be the most cited paper(s) in all of climate science (and perhaps in all of science for the last many decades.)
GLOBALONEY BULLSHIT is what it is!
“Odds that the globe is warming significantly: slim to none.”
I have yet to get a straight answer as to why it is asserted that Earth’s atmosphere has warmed significantly, and is continuing to get warmer. Are there ostensibly reliable instrument-based measurements? The graphs plotted to illustrate the “estimates” based on 73 different models are all over the page. See
www.thegwpf.org/epic-fail-73-climate models vs. observations.
“According to new studies” there never was a warm period such as led to the extinction of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are still around, just look at Democrats in politics.
That right there warms my global.
In plain English, they don’t know crap about what they just said. Bury the people in psychobabble and gobbledegook, repeat it enough, and they are brainwashed beyond redemption.
Historical precedent: Joseph Goebbels and Joe Stalin’s “Big Lies” campaign. Sadly, they worked too well.
A better term for Co2 emissions should be “Red House gases”, eminating from the “Red House” in DC and the insane asylum in East Anglia and the UN.
I forgot to mention that McGill Un. has been the center of marxist thought in Canada since the late 1960’s. Seems that nothing has changed.
Someone post the “Aw Geez, not this shit again” guy.
... because for the first several BILLION years before mankind made its appearance nature kept the climate steady. ... Er, wait, no. The climate has been, is, and will continue to be in a continual state of flux. In that light the chances of climate change being caused by mankind are virtually zero. The real question is mankind altering the characteristics of this natural phenomenon?
The scientific method is a way of either confirming or disproving a hypothesis. If this latest “evidence” doesn’t confirm the findings of previous models, one must conclude that previous models are invalid, or that this newest one is.
“Statistics?? Well if you have one foot in boiling water and the other in iced water, statistically you should be quite comfortable.”
I thought that was a great quote.
If Glo-Bull warming can’t be because of “natural factors” then I posit that our own existence cannot be due to same natural factors....