EnviroLink Forum

The claims have held up because they are supported by actual evidence rather than assumptions based upon ignornace. Predictions based on science are always based on conditions such as all other things remaining stable. Have you honestly looked at the predictions or are you just drinking the kool-aid provided?



I would say so. distractions, such as the ones you have presented here, are nothing more than an attempt to delay any action through confusion, which will be destructive in the long term. If they were not merely distractions you would be providing real evidence to support them.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Wot???

That climate varies naturally is utterly obviuos to any one with any sort of open mind and any historical knowledge.



NO!! They are not.

I can see why you are paniced by the slight increase in temperature between 1978 and 1998.

Try the idea of "within normal variability".

Yes, but that is not what you are wanting to discuss. You were speaking of predictions based upon changes brought about by human action.



Care to give us an example of a scientific prediction which does not contain such a cavate?



Why is that?



That would not involve a prediction, but it woud include the study of previous climate trends, which does indicate the current situation is outside of the normal variation according to the base factors.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Temperatures are no uniform, thus the use of averages for comparison of total or even regional variations.

Global sea temperature



Total global temperature



Total hemispheric



Total in bands

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

1880 is not all that long ago.

A prediction which takes into account things other than the factor being discused and allows for them.....;

Well any multi-variable experiment.

Any decent high school experiment. Let's try this extreemly simple one;

Take a test tube half filled with seeds and stopped at the top with a rubber stopper which has a tube of glass in it which has a section of water in it. The water will move in or out depending on the seeds using or expelling air/gas.

Leave it a week and see what result you have.

Answer NONE AT ALL!!!!! The experiment needs a control to compair it to. Atmospheric pressure or temperature of the test tube will cause the water to move as well.

All weather predictions have to take into account lots of factors. All economic predictions also do this.

It's very basic science!!!

If there is some means to accurately predict those other factors, yes. If there is no way to accurately predict the others factors. For example volcanic eruptions will affect a climate model as will particulate emissions and even economic up or downturns.



Where do you propose we get a control planet with which to use in our experiments?




Yes, WEATHER predictions can do so for a short term because the factors different directions become unpredictable at a certain point. The ten day weather prediction limit is very short term compared to climate prediction of decades or century levels. What will be the ecnomic activity during the next century? What will be the total carbon emission of humanity per year during that time? Those are two factors which will impact any climate predictions. If you cannot give an accurate prediction both would have to be kept stable for the prediciton.

What is the global economic prediciton for the year and the next decade? How accurate have these predictions been in the past for comparison?



Yes and basic climate predictions have to maintain certain factors as constant because they cannot be predicted accurately due to their being impacted by other unpredicted factors. That is very basic science too.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The remarks you made would never be made by a scientist.

When you discount everything else as a cause or coral loss and only look at CO2 you have again left your science head off.

Sure they would and have been. The fact I am a scientist and said it refutes your claim.



You should look at the causes listed for you have missed a lot. That strawman approach does not work.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Carbon dating isn't very accurate.

That would depend upon the age of the object being dated. There is a maximum and minimum point. To approach either limit will result in a greater inaccuracy, but there is a calibration which may be applied to assist.

http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.e ... 1058_v.pdf

ABSTRACT. A new calibration curve for the conversion of radiocarbon ages to calibrated (cal) ages has been constructed and internationally ratified to replace IntCal98, which extended from 0–24 cal kyr BP (Before Present, 0 cal BP = AD 1950). The new calibration data set for terrestrial samples extends from 0–26 cal kyr BP, but with much higher resolution beyond
11.4 cal kyr BP than IntCal98. Dendrochronologically-dated tree-ring samples cover the period from 0–12.4 cal kyr BP. Beyond the end of the tree rings, data from marine records (corals and foraminifera) are converted to the atmospheric equivalent with a site-specific marine reservoir correction to provide terrestrial calibration from 12.4–26.0 cal kyr BP. A
substantial enhancement relative to IntCal98 is the introduction of a coherent statistical approach based on a random walk model, which takes into account the uncertainty in both the calendar age and the 14C age to calculate the underlying calibration curve (Buck and Blackwell, this issue). The tree-ring data sets, sources of uncertainty, and regional offsets are discussed here. The marine data sets and calibration curve for marine samples from the surface mixed layer (Marine04) are discussed in brief, but details are presented in Hughen et al. (this issue a). We do not make a recommendation for calibration beyond 26 cal kyr BP at this time; however, potential calibration data sets are compared in another paper (van der Plicht et al., this issue).

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein