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, Lovejoy’s 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 ...
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.
That's private.
Uh huh.
Same old BS.
New set of perps.
Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
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.
Bookmark
“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....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.