I can go better than that. We have been in a global warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1750.
ROTFLMAO!
Does this mean you now think we are still in that trend, your prior nonsense about 1998-2008 not withstanding? Or have you now decided that you can see trends in the century scale data, and in the decade scale data (err... at least in ONE specific decade!), but not anything in between? LOL!
There are other theories, by equally accredited climatologists, that say the co2 is having minimal effects and that solar activity is the main driver of climate variations.
There are speculative theories along those lines with no good data. If you think otherwise, please do provide some links. I'll warn you in advance that some very goofy graphical nonsense has been advanced by some of these clowns, where they delete years as needed, invert correlations just where needed, etc, to produce graphs which look compelling, provided you are happy to stay ignorant.
I'll point out that THERE ARE ZERO NUMERICALLY DETAILED THEORIES WHICH ATTRIBUTE THE WARMING SINCE THE LIA TO THE PRESENT AS BEING PRIMARILY SOLAR RELATED. Please do find any such theories "by equally accredited climatologists" where they have produced models with reasonable skill showing such a result. There are none, I can tell you that without looking. There are plenty of half-assed claims, and plenty of people such as yourself who repeat them while knowing nothing of what they speak.
If the AGW crowd want me to believe their models, they had better get more data on their side. Every model I have seen does posit a positive feedback loop between increased co2, water vapor, and therefore greenhouse effect, so they predict temperature rising with increased co2 - monotonically.
BS. You continue to be clueless. You seriously think climatologists don't know about numerous shorter term effects that we typically call weather? Absolutely no climate scientist thinks that global yearly temps should show a monotonic trend. Your claiming so is laughable.
If the temperature stops rising, they need to explain why. Two or three years can be a blip. Ten years starts to need an explanation.
As the graph I linked showed, you can find cherry pick all sorts of decades to get anywhere from double or triple (actually up to about 7x) the warming rate, to even slightly negative rates for a decade. I'm hoping this is starting to sink in a bit.
There are all sorts of ocean cycles (ENSO, NOA, etc) which range from 2 or 3 years to 11-13 years (solar cycle matches) to 20 years or so. These are not climate.
So once again, please do take a shot at what the curve of climate projection uncertainty vs time would look like and explain why it has the general shape you claim it has. Or stop spouting nonsense. |
