Leaderboard

Troy I bet you posted it without even looking at the data. Because the first thing it says is some of the data is missing. @Mel Hopkins it could be cycles. That are tens of thousands of years long. I don't have that data. My informed opinion is that the numbers don't support the argument. And using 30 years of adjusted data is not science its propaganda. However we should reduce emissions. Since an ecosystem is robust up to a point.

@Mel Hopkins I wanted to decide for myself. I thought that I would look at the statistical model. Since the scientist keep mentioning the projections. I couldn't find one. I looked in reports from Australia, the United States and the UK. Nothing. That was at least five years ago. I had a look the other day. The models aren't shown just their projections and adjustment of the variables. There are about 20 different models only a handful have significant projections. The significant projects are high lighted in red. There isnt one model that has a significant number across all the drivers of weather. So they cherry pick the numbers from rhe 20 models and make that the composite. Since I couldn't find the non-existent model. I decided to create my own. Temperature and climate are different. Getting average temperature is also complicated not just because of location and seasonal differences over time (some regions not only have different seasons the times wuth varying lengths (which makes comparisons difficult )) but there are different ways of taking the temperature: Air, Ocean, ground, high altitude, just above the ground, there may be more but I can't remember. Then i had to read about the drivers for weather: Solar output, Wind, clouds, volcanic activity, again there are others but i can't remember. The hardest thing to predict is wind movement which also effects cloud movement. There are different levels of wind currents. Which is why you will notice that some clouds are stationary while others are moving at a fast clip. Also Volcanoes spew smoke that's miles long that blocks the suns rays. Then i had to find an output measure. That was in use from 1750 to 1980. So i used a few proxies. GDP GNP , i think tried fuel usage but the data wasn't sufficient. Then CO2 emissions which did go back to 1750. But i couldn't find the methodology. So i created the model. A few things struck me as odd. There aren't any spikes in carbon emissions. The industrial revolution had legendary pollution yet no spike in emissions. Also if it is due to production it should drop when economic activity slows. Even if there's a lag you should see a drop. Finally emissions tracked better to population than production. Which leads me to believe that emissions is a formula not a measurement. Recently i found out that all of the projections are based on 1980 - 2005 data. Which may have been altered by GISS in New York from 1980 onwards. GISS is a division of NASA. I believe I also saw an article that said weather on other planets in our solar system was more extreme. But i can't find that either. At the time i tried to present some of my arguments for discussion. People just parroted what they read, without thinking about it. And the people who thought it wasn't man made couldn't discuss it either. I give th same challenge five years later. There are twenty models show me one regression formula.

@Delano, the charts you've posted and what you've stated; indicate to me that you don't believe people (and their subsequent actions) are contributing to CO2 emissions . I just wanted to be clear of what argument you're presenting. It's my understanding Global Warming is a rise in the earth's temperature - and Climate Change is the slow moving "disaster" that has befallen the earth again. I wanted to know what was exactly your argument... is it that you don't see evidence of humans and their activities contributing to climate change? ... Do you think Pangaea affected climate change, as it did millions of years ago? There's evidence of Climate Change happening now, as it has happened in the past, hundreds of thousands of years ago after the ice age is allegedly the reason many of us left the African continent.. we were in search of water since some places experienced drought and other spots were experiencing floods... But I too doubt that "industry" and fossil fuel created carbon dioxide emissions had an affect on earlier warming.

Think about this. If its man made how come you have never seen a regression model. Because population is a stronger prediction than economic activity. You can use whatever search you like and you won't find one predictive model. But no one will tell you that you have to find out for yourself. I have gave this challenge almost 8 years ago. @Mel Hopkins let me know if you still have questions. Also see if you can find even one statiscal model showing the link numerically. Heres a model from the Austalian Government. Have a read and tell me what you think. https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/explore-data/about-data/data-availability/ Here are the technical details. Let me know when anyone wants to discuss it. https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/about/modelling-choices-and-methodology/model-evaluation/ I am prepared ro read and discuss any all parts if the tecnical report. Notice how the modellinf starts in the 80's just like i said from looking at the data. Because you can try ti lie but the numbers tell a story. If you know where ri look. I have the time skill and motivation to read and understand the 200+ . It is possible I will change my mind. Since in a two minute scan shows them modelling one 30 - 50 year period. Any rational debate has been silenced by grant recipients.