Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
clearly you are retarded, and a liar, since scientific polling does exist.
that's not how scientific polling works, moron.
hope NOAA is good enough for you.
and just to piss you off, some skeptical science.
CO2 and temps move in basically lockstep.
and you are a retarded white supremacist.
wow, you brought some substantive claim to the table.
amazing.
well lets examine this shit:
co2 levels have been rising
the temp has been rising in fits and starts over a long period of time
if these two are related, then when co2 rises, temps should rise, and as your grap demonstrates that appears to be the case.
BUUUUT
in the past, it has been much hotter and much colder than it is now.
co2 levels during the little ice age were not much different than the "pre-industrial baseline" yet despite this, it got cold as fuck , then after it got colder, co2 levels dropped a little, but just a little cuz the even was short
look: graphs:
little ice age temp chart:
from the Right Wing Think Tank PBS: http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/timeline.htm
lookit that. between 1400 and 1700 it got cold as fuck!
what was CO2 doin during this period?
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
NOT causing warming apparently
right in the middle of the event, co2 concentrations fell off, yet despite shockingly low Co2 levels, it started getting warmer again
if the assumptions are correct, then co2 levels should have fallen BEFORE the cooling, and risen BEFORE the warming
they clearly did not, ergo, co2 didnt cause the last large shift in climate.
co2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, during times when it was cold as fuck, and warm as fuck , and co2 didnt lead any of these events. it followed them
lets try a new theory:
water vapour is 5x more powerful at trapping heat than co2
water vapour is found in the atmosphere 100x more abundantly than co2
water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere are fairly consistent
changes in co2 seasonally, annually and over the long term are following temperatures, not leading them
thats what dr salby was arguing but you didnt bother to listen to his presentation.
also it turns out...
the sun has been putting out more energy every year, year after year since the end of the little ice age
mars has now begun experiencing "global warming" despite it's terribly thin atmosphere and much greater distance from the sun
the sun, for the last 100 or so years, has been putting out 1-2% more BONUS energy ever year, in addition to the maunder predictions
maybe the SUN is causing some, or even most of the warming we are experiencing, and maybe co2 isnt involved much at all.
but the primary assumption of the IPCC is that co2 is doing it, previously it was doing all of it, now they say it is doing "~51%" and the more "confidence" you need in their claims, the lower that "~51%" gets.
whats the confidence in the "More Than Half" assertion? 75-90%
whats considered statistically valid in a research trial? +/- 0.05
Edit: not 0.05%, but +/- 0.05 which is 5%. fucking typos
so their numbers dont meet the expectation of confidence to be valid, they are at best, educated guesses.
and if the primary assumption is wrong, the whole premise for their models, which led to the conclusions are wrong.
Last edited:
