Yet more proof.

[Nick]

So the rise in Co2 we see (slowly rising from 1880 then faster from 1950) is due to some event 800 years ago?

If we take that as true for the moment, that would imply that the rise of co2 and temperature would have happened even if humans ceased to exist 750 years ago.  IE the rise in Co2 is entirely due to natural processes like tundra melting, oceans off gasping etc.

Is that a fair summary?

Not totally natural, we have obviously added a fraction of a percent, but... so you accept that the oceans have an integral time of about 800 years and that any warming we are seeing is from a sustained change that started centuries ago?

[Scott777]

Given less than 1% of scientists are denying AGW,

But let's weigh up the possibilities.

A) the scientists who compiled that section decided to fake a graph by simply flipping it and hoping the IPCC and everybody else wouldn't notice.

B) there was a mistake outputting the graph and the scale was flipped.

C) Nikolov made a mistake outputting his graph and his scale was flipped.

All are possible, but I'd venture B) is far more probable.  I will be interested in what the IPCC rebuttal to this will be.

How did you discover only 1% of scientists are denying AGW?

Your options are conveniently selective.  Why did you not include the possibility of deceit by the IPCC?

[Scott777]

In reality the central figure is closer to 1C

But you don't know this.  That's the whole point of margin of error.  So it MIGHT be 0.5C.  So in that scenario, over 140 years, how could you possibly know it's not down to all the other factors, sunspots, volcanoes, orbital trajectory, Gulf Stream....?  

[BeElBeeBub]

But you are relying only on those scientists who keep their jobs, who get media coverage, and you don't know if their science is correct as you are not a climate scientist.  You rely on the IPCC and NIST for your "science".  You ignored my post about the IPCC misrepresenting data.  So I would like to see debates, rather than what the media and corrupt scientists say.  Did you want to comment on the IPCC being exposed yet?

https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1804197585143447870

Given less than 1% of scientists are denying AGW, they seem to get a disproportionate amount of media coverage.  When you have media debates you might get a scientist who has worked their entire lives on the subject out up against Nigel Lawson for balance.

You probably lose your job if you are bad at your job. Not many surgeons who deny germ theory get to stay surgeons. Not many pilots who ignore aerodynamics and air traffic control gets to stay pilots (or alive).
It's perfectly fine to believe in outlandish things if they don't affect your job.  Your hair dresser can believe 9/11 was an inside job and still being a great hairdresser.

I used to work with a guy who was one of the UK's most experienced and skilled engineers in a particular field of nuclear engineering who believed the book of genesis was the absolute literal truth and the earth was only 5,000 years (or something) old. Still kept his job.

If you are a climate scientist and you want to say AGW is a hoax, you had better have really solid evidence.  Not cherry picked, elective data that, if you squint just right and ignore the other stuff, supports your case.

As for the IPCC graph "exposed!

All I can see is one graph's scale is inverted from what Nikolov claims it should be..

Now if the IPCC (or mare accurately the scientists who compiled that section) actually just inverted the graph to make it fit - that would be a big thing.

But let's weigh up the possibilities.

A) the scientists who compiled that section decided to fake a graph by simply flipping it and hoping the IPCC and everybody else wouldn't notice. 

B) there was a mistake outputting the graph and the scale was flipped.

C) Nikolov made a mistake outputting his graph and his scale was flipped.

All are possible, but I'd venture B) is far more probable.  I will be interested in what the IPCC rebuttal to this will be.

[BeElBeeBub]

But allowing for margin of error, as you said, then it could be only half a degree.

That was the absolute lowest rate, if you:

1) took the warmest year pre 1900
2) the coldest year post 2000
3) assumed the pre 1900 temp was 0.15C higher
4) assumed the post 2000 temp was 0.05C lower
5) rounded down

If you did all those things you would still get 0.5C a century

But if you did all those things it would be as selective.

In reality the central figure is closer to 1C

I'm sure you would have cried foul if I had taken the lowest temps, then assumed the errors the opposite way, then rounded up (1.6C in a century) or even just picked the the steepest gradient, which gives us about 7C per century.

[Scott777]

We're risen twice that. Over 1C sincen1850's and our current rate (since 1980's) is considerably higher, 0.2C a decade or 2C per century.

If you sit understand how bad that is because "it's just 1C" - you don't have the necessary understanding to really comment on climate change.

But allowing for margin of error, as you said, then it could be only half a degree.

[Scott777]

You cont find them because you appear to be looking for a rap battle.

Science works by a scientist(s) submitting a paper outlining an idea.

Maybe they had spotted some odd data, maybe they have a theory.

The publish it, other scientists read it and then respond - maybe they write a paper with data confirming or denying the original idea. Maybe they present a theory explaining some observation another scientist made.  Maybe they present a paper corroborating another paper.

If you look at the weight of evidence, the modeling, the checking of data, refining readings, investigating anomalies etc, it all points to climate change being real and man made.

But you are relying only on those scientists who keep their jobs, who get media coverage, and you don't know if their science is correct as you are not a climate scientist.  You rely on the IPCC and NIST for your "science".  You ignored my post about the IPCC misrepresenting data.  So I would like to see debates, rather than what the media and corrupt scientists say.  Did you want to comment on the IPCC being exposed yet?

https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1804197585143447870

[BeElBeeBub]

Ok, in that case, if the planet warms half a degree in 140 years, as Beelzebub suggests as a possible interpretation, then I think it's pedantic to worry about such a tiny thing.  🤣

We're risen twice that. Over 1C sincen1850's and our current rate (since 1980's) is considerably higher, 0.2C a decade or 2C per century.

If you sit understand how bad that is because "it's just 1C" - you don't have the necessary understanding to really comment on climate change.

[Scott777]

Pedant.

Ok, in that case, if the planet warms half a degree in 140 years, as Beelzebub suggests as a possible interpretation, then I think it's pedantic to worry about such a tiny thing.  🤣

[BeElBeeBub]

That is how science works, can you find any peer review papers for the Models that this cult is based on?

Review of models to evaluate how well they matched reality

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

It found that then models were generally quite accurate and the majority of the errors in their projections were due to incorrect input assumptions eg the rate of CO2 output was different from assumed at the time

[BeElBeeBub]

The CO2 is rising due to what happened 800 years ago. CO2 has a very long integral time, temperature doesn't so Temperature responds to the comparatively short term Sunapot cycles, CO2 needs a very prolonged episode to have any effect. This is due to the capacitive nature of icecaps, tundra and obviously the oceans.

So the rise in Co2 we see (slowly rising from 1880 then faster from 1950) is due to some event 800 years ago?

If we take that as true for the moment, that would imply that the rise of co2 and temperature would have happened even if humans ceased to exist 750 years ago.  IE the rise in Co2 is entirely due to natural processes like tundra melting, oceans off gasping etc.

Is that a fair summary?

[BeElBeeBub]

Will be in the air en-route to Atlanta in about 1 minute so I'll catch up later.

Safe travels

[Nick]

Will be in the air en-route to Atlanta in about 1 minute so I'll catch up later. 

[Nick]

Let's focus on this for one second.

Is it your contention that the rise in Co2 we have seen is due to the rising temperature (let's put aside how the temperature might rise)?

The CO2 is rising due to what happened 800 years ago. CO2 has a very long integral time, temperature doesn't so Temperature responds to the comparatively short term Sunapot cycles, CO2 needs a very prolonged episode to have any effect. This is due to the capacitive nature of icecaps, tundra and obviously the oceans. 

[Nick]

You cont find them because you appear to be looking for a rap battle.

Science works by a scientist(s) submitting a paper outlining an idea.

Maybe they had spotted some odd data, maybe they have a theory.

The publish it, other scientists read it and then respond - maybe they write a paper with data confirming or denying the original idea. Maybe they present a theory explaining some observation another scientist made.  Maybe they present a paper corroborating another paper.

If you look at the weight of evidence, the modeling, the checking of data, refining readings, investigating anomalies etc, it all points to climate change being real and man made.

That is how science works, can you find any peer review papers for the Models that this cult is based on?