Is it common for warming and cooling trends to occur that aren't driven by CO2 or orbital forcing?

[westwall]

Chuckle chuckle chuckle

Here are a few articles that you will not read but that you will dismiss out-of-hand without providing an iota of evidence to refute any of their contentions.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9NHRhaX99wIVAhmtBh23EgdCEAAYAiAAEgIeDfD_BwE

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

<p>Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of...

skepticalscience.com

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

More computer derived fiction.

It ain't real.

Dummy.

 

[Crick]

More computer derived fiction.

It ain't real.

Dummy.

Thanks. EXACTLY what I said you would do.

 

[Billy_Bob]

More computer derived fiction.

It ain't real.

Dummy.

That would be exactly correct. Modeling that empirical verification can never happen on as all of those models fail.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Chuckle chuckle chuckle

Here are a few articles that you will not read but that you will dismiss out-of-hand without providing an iota of evidence to refute any of their contentions.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9NHRhaX99wIVAhmtBh23EgdCEAAYAiAAEgIeDfD_BwE

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

<p>Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of...

skepticalscience.com

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

1. Consensus is not a term used in science. Political statements are not proof of anything...

2. IPCC... political junk again, not scientific in any way

3. SKS- Echo chamber Blogg of cultists, again worthless

4. Carbon Brief- Another echo chamber Blogg of cultists


Every single one of your sources are from the same group of about 100 people who pat each other on the back for telling each other they are right.. There is no objective point of view or assessment of these peoples work.

 

[Crick]

1. Consensus is not a term used in science. Political statements are not proof of anything...

The References listing of Wikipedia's article on Scientific Consensus on Climate Change identifies 17 different published scientific studies that use the term "Consensus" in their title. A survey of the conclusions of published scientific studies is not a political statement.

2. IPCC... political junk again, not scientific in any way

The IPCC is an organization whose chartered fuction is to assess scientific literature. It has no political function at all.

3. SKS- Echo chamber Blogg of cultists, again worthless

Skeptical Science is manned by people with orders of magnitude more qualifications to speak to this topic than you or anyone you know.

4. Carbon Brief- Another echo chamber Blogg of cultists

You're awfully brave with that stuff. Who needs to argue about what they actually say when you can just diss them by edict.

Every single one of your sources are from the same group of about 100 people who pat each other on the back for telling each other they are right.. There is no objective point of view or assessment of these peoples work.

The IPCC employs and makes use of the works of a great deal more than 100 published, degreed scientists. And compared to the number of actual working scientists on your side of this argument they might as well be infinite. And just as I said Westwall would do, you have attempted to dismiss all of this hard evidence of AGW without one, single, fucking SHRED of your own evidence. You haven't countered ANYTHING those hundreds of experts presented. Nothing. Why? BECAUSE THAT"S PRECISELY WHAT YOU'VE GOT.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The References listing of Wikipedia's article on Scientific Consensus on Climate Change identifies 17 different published scientific studies that use the term "Consensus" in their title. A survey of the conclusions of published scientific studies is not a political statement.



The IPCC is an organization whose chartered fuction is to assess scientific literature. It has no political function at all.



Skeptical Science is manned by people with orders of magnitude more qualifications to speak to this topic than you or anyone you know.



You're awfully brave with that stuff. Who needs to argue about what they actually say when you can just diss them by edict.



The IPCC employs and makes use of the works of a great deal more than 100 published, degreed scientists. And compared to the number of actual working scientists on your side of this argument they might as well be infinite. And just as I said Westwall would do, you have attempted to dismiss all of this hard evidence of AGW without one, single, fucking SHRED of your own evidence. You haven't countered ANYTHING those hundreds of experts presented. Nothing. Why? BECAUSE THAT"S PRECISELY WHAT YOU'VE GOT.

The same hundred or so people who slap each others back side.. That is the definition of an echo chamber. Thanks for conceding my point...

 

[Crick]

The same hundred or so people who slap each others back side.. That is the definition of an echo chamber. Thanks for conceding my point...

My statement doesn't concede any point of yours. It REFUTES your claim that "consensus" is not a term used in science.