Snow on the ground on April 15

Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences..........waaaaaaahahaha.....talk about an appeal to authority!

So let’s summarize:

Firstly we have the media horrors......shrinking ice, rising sea levels, declining  glaciers, worsening hurricanes and tornados, extinction of species. But  hold on, most of this stuff has been going on for centuries....300 years in the case of the sea level.

And for every polar bear colony  that’s in decline there is one that’s prospering. Face it all this stuff is so......to use a word the left has suddenly fallen in love with....anecdotal.

Nope we can skip past all this nonsense because it’s all about temperature isn’t it? If the temperatures aren’t increasing dramatically none of this stuff can be motivated by CO2.

So what is agreed about the temperature record? Well all the Followers appear to believe it’s a 1.2 degree increase since the IR. Fine, let’s work with that.

So it’s also posited by the Followers that a 0.5 degree increase has occurred since 1990. That of course means for the rest of the 20th century and 80 or so years before there is a 0.7 degree increase.

Let’s attribute that all to the 20th century just to make the strongest warming case. But we also know the sun was considerably hotter at the end of the century than the beginning....the number I have seen attributed to solar is a 0.3 degree increase.

Subtracting solar we are now at a 0.4 degree increase 1900 to 1990, but we are not done yet. There is the NASA data fiddling which the Followers claim is justified, but admit had an effect of 0.3 degrees of additional warming.

Nothing in their arguments rings true and I am prepared to accept that this was just rampant data fiddling. So take that 0.3 degree increase away and we are left with a 0.1 degree increase for the 90 years.

 But hold on, we are not done yet. The Finish and Japanese Climate scientists have proven that the effect of cosmic rays on low level clouds have added to warming. And of course there was an increase before 1900 which we blithely discounted.

So it might be  fair to say even that 0.1 degree increase is dubious.

But here I have to put my foot down, there simply has to be some man made warming. After all we have increased the greenhouse effect by 1/1000 that has to count for something doesn’t it?

And glory be, we have the hockey stick. The famed 0.5 degree increase from 1990 to 2020. That’s unprecedented right? But frustratingly there was a 0.45 degree increase from 1910 to 1940. Almost the same and that earlier increase didn’t even benefit from 2 of the 3 strongest El Niño’s on record which the period after 1990 did.

Sadly for those of us trying to help the Followers feel a bit better, the data just keeps throwing up road blocks. 

So what of 2100? We can accept the Followers model output of a 3 degree increase...admittedly a lot less than the 5 to 7 degree increase some Followers were predicting in the late nineties.

Or we could simply do a linear projection of what they themselves have called the strongest warming period 1990 to 2020.......that gets you a 1.8 degree increase. 

Or we could accept that we are projecting off a point well above the long term trend, using a growth rate that is well above the 20th century average ....and pare that down to something like 1 degree. Still well ahead of the 20th century increase, a period ‘aided’ by very dramatic percentage increases in CO2.

Nope the real issue we are facing is the Wuhan virus. Which is why you can expect to see increasing efforts from the Followers to blame the virus on....you guessed it...Global Warming.

Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences..........waaaaaaahahaha.....talk about an appeal to authority!

Any evidence that shows its not a credible organization. What about the other 197.

Firstly we have the media horrors......shrinking ice, rising sea levels, declining  glaciers, worsening hurricanes and tornados, extinction of species. But  hold on, most of this stuff has been going on for centuries....300 years in the case of the sea level.

How many times do I have to say it, just because something has occurred naturally before does not preclude the possibility that is can occur due to man made influences. Even a small child would understand this by now.

And for every polar bear colony  that’s in decline there is one that’s prospering. Face it all this stuff is so......to use a word the left has suddenly fallen in love with....anecdotal.

Once again can you provide any evidence to back up that claim?

Nope we can skip past all this nonsense because it’s all about temperature isn’t it? If the temperatures aren’t increasing dramatically none of this stuff can be motivated by CO2.

Okay, so why did you bring those topics up?

So what is agreed about the temperature record? Well all the Followers appear to believe it’s a 1.2 degree increase since the IR. Fine, let’s work with that.

The ’vale’ of American oil?  I told you before Followers never subtract solar effects or data tampering or cloud effects:

1.2 - 0.5 (1990 to 2020)- 0.3 (solar)- 0.3(data manipulation) =0.1

Not even including Cloud effects and warming from 1820 to 1900 of approximately 0.4 degrees.

Case closed!

1.2 - 0.5 (1990 to 2020)- 0.3 (solar)- 0.3(data manipulation) =0.1

Not even including Cloud effects and warming from 1820 to 1900 of approximately 0.4 degrees.

Case closed!

They don't include solar or cloud effects because the data/research shows neither of them are having any significant effect on the current level of climate change.

Case closed!

Only trouble with that logic is there wasn’t enough CO2 increase to drive the 0.45 degree temperature increase between 1910 and 1940. The only candidate was the sun.

Good so you agree.....of the 1.2 degree increase since the industrial revolution ......0.45 degrees was the sun. And of course 0.3 degrees was the data fiddling at the end of the century, where a 100 year old record was suddenly changed to create warming.

That leaves 0.45 degrees that could have been modest man made global warming, but probably includes cloud effects and more data fiddling.

As for being brainwashed .....that would be you. Right or wrong I interpret the data. You just google the topic and regurgitate  what approved ‘scientists’ say. A Follower.

No I don't agree with that,  the data only indicates the sun can account for about 0.1 degree of warming since the 1870's.

I've already debunked your data fiddling claim so I'm not going over that again.

You have nothing to back up your claim that 0.45 degrees of heating is caused by clouds or more data fiddling.

You wrongly interpret data and ignore the vast volumes of data/evidence against your arguments, I fact check what the peer reviewed scientific research says (aka doing ones homework), but your own ideological biases render you incapable of doing the same and in desperation you have to try to come up with a disparaging label to try to discredit the other side because you know you don't have a valid argument .

You debunked nothing,..,you just quoted another Follower. Nobody knows the details of how the data was manipulated except those who did it.

But you are backtracking. If temps went up 0.45 degrees  from 1910 to 1940 and sun was a 0.1 degree factor .......what pray caused the increase? This  from  Skeptical Scientist your favorite Follower source:

The climate at any one time is affected by several factors which can act independently or together. The main factors include solar variability, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, ocean currents and changes in the Earth's orbit.

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

1. Increasing solar activity; and
2. Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun).

Actually I used to participate on Skeptical Science when there was still some willingness to debate. But in this case I’d prefer you to explain it....go ahead.

Let me guess, you stopped posting because you preferred living in fantasy land with the Unicorns?

You want me to explain?

Okay, first explain the following.

1. How does a snowy day in April in Chicago goes in anyway to disprove global warming?

2. How a small or trace amount of something cannot be responsible for significant consequences?

3. How the sun is the driver of current global warming when solar activity has remained static or even slightly declined during the same period of warming?

4. Explain why the Russian climate models are the most accurate?

5. Explain the flaws in the Russian climate models the modellers themselves acknowledge?

6. Explain the flaws in the Finnish non peer review document on cloud cover effects on climate change?

7. Explain how flaws in certain models specific to one region, prove all climate models predicting warming are wrong?

8. Explain why the researchers who's modeling showed up the flaws did not come to the same conclusion as you?

9. Explain how Patrick Michael's has any credibility when he admits to being part funded by the fossil fuel industry and he's been showing to misrepresent other climate scientists work?

10. Explain your lack of evidence against Nasa when claiming they are in on a conspiracy to promote climate change?

11. Explain how laughing at the credibility of the Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences goes in anyway to discredit them other the 197 Scientific organizations listed that support the theory of man made climate change

12. Explain the lack of evidence to support the claim for every polar bear colony dying, there is on thriving?

13. Explain how if something can occur naturally it precludes man from being able to replicate the occurrence?

Nice dodge...but answer the question, explain how temps went up 0.45 degrees from 1910  to 1940 with in significant carbon increase and with less than 0.1 degree of  solar effect.

Frantic Googling ensues.........

You're accusing me of dodging, that's all you have done for this entire discussion is evade and move the goal posts. You ain't fooling nobody .

Hahahahahahaha poor Stav Anger stumped! 

Except Beeno, you're definitely fooling Beeno!

And still no answer....it’s beginning to get embarrassing. As for HasBeen he warned that the fatality rates for the virus  were wrong ......can’t say I saw any insight from you two mop es.

Absolutely...right on Trump’s election, right on Brexit, right Boris, right on the Virus death rate, wrong about Dud Toit . HasBeen is his own man, not a cookie cutter Follower.

"Losers call successful people lucky."

I think that applies here.

...Or perhaps it just grates on you that people you deem stupid are able to correctly interpret information into consistently reliable predictions. 

And as a final refuge you're forced call it luck.

Questions is, how lucky have you been? And how many of those 50/50s did you land o n the right side of?

Russia-gate much?