Global warming and causality.

It is becoming apparent that he is playing a game here since he keeps asking the same question after you give him reasonable replies while he doesn't address what you posted in detail at all.

I am waiting for something more from this alleged retired scientist.

 

Very polite, but he doesnt even try to address criticism of his view.

 

We're in an 8,000 year cooling trend since the Holocene Climate Optimum.



The cause of why we can't exit this long period of Ice Age and return to Warm Earth conditions is likely the current configuration of the continents.

 

Which right wing conspiracy nut theory site did you get that twaddle from? “Ice age Bob on Twitter?

 

But no one has actually presented usable data to validate stupid claims like “it’s the sun”

If it is the sun - show me the research

 

Where is your data validating that claim?

 

Yes because if they didn’t they would be accused of “only funding people who agree with them”

But none of this negates the fact you are using ONE dataset to make a claim. Why not HADCRUT or Berkeley Earth?

 

I believe HADCRUT and Berkeley Earth show the same cooling since 2016.
As for NASA and NOAA, they fund UAH because the data are valuable.

 

Please see #3.

 

I just searched for it. This common knowledge, you can find the same information for hundreds of different sources. It's the reality of the historical scientific record and shows up in a vast number of proxies.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=8,000+year+cooling+trend+holocene+optimum&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http://grauonline.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/earthtemperature6.jpg

Are you seriously unaware that the Holocene Climate Optimum was 8,000 years ago?

 

For a person to be retired he sure is slow to participate in his own thread.

 

It's not "forgetting." It's deliberate underestimation:

See?

 

Please quote the exact page and report

 

It most certainly is.

Wrong. The earth's magnetic field also has a cycle. We don't know what causes it. But claiming that the recent weakening and movement of the field has been caused by human activities like iron working or electric power generation rather than the same forces that caused all the previous variations is clearly anti-scientific and indeed idiotic. Until there is clear evidence of some other cause at work -- which in the case of climate change there is not -- the scientifically credible and responsible approach is to assume the same causes that caused all the previous similar events are also responsible for the most recent one.

Yes, well, economists claim to be scientists, too...

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It is YOUR link YOU quote it.

 

<yawn> Please quote any climate realist claiming that any exponent of CO2-centered climatology "forgot about" the sun.

 

No. The question is: is there any credible reason to attribute the most recent changes to causes different from the ones that caused all the similar changes in the past?

And we know the answer to that is, No.

 

I see. So, data that are consistent with actual physical events are somehow "problematic," while data altered retroactively to conform to a proved-false theory are not?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

 

Many people have.

Many people have. You just post the same "naive" -- i.e., fraudulent -- graph that falsely shows monotonically increasing recent temperature vs a measure of solar variation deliberately chosen because it can't cause significant effects on climate.

 

The graph was from NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

 

Can be - which is why the most accurate is an amalgam of data from various sources

 

Says the person who has not read the IPCC reports

 

Ha! Called your bluff!

 

And is as I described.

 

No. The most accurate is the data obtained most impartially and carefully.