Notice how the graph depicting earthquakes is like the graph showing global warming?

[otto105]

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Ooooo, he posted something that sounds scientific.

 

[ding]

Still Inscrutable.
There is some hint of Pig Latin in there tho.

`
`

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[otto105]

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Oooo he pounding on the keyboard now!!!

 

[ding]

Ooooo, he posted something that sounds scientific.

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[otto105]

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Oooo, now he’s found a fellow denier paper.

Peer reviewed by fellow deniers and posted to lord muckington’s website.

 

[ding]

Oooo he pounding on the keyboard now!!!

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was his point about CO2.

 

[abu afak]

You did.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

This is a PLAGIARIZED CURRY PIECE. (and then there is a SECOND one above as well discussing what Curry said.)
NO QUOTE MARKS, NO LINKS.

That is obvious as well for a Second reason.
You say you are a member of the Curry Forum, as if this is something you have to qualify or take credit for.

But in fact you can't discuss, or explain, or refute, anyone except to call them Leftists.
To be concise you Can't/DON'T Discuss anything Topical.
You post Curry and call people leftists who disasgree.

You are 100.0% NON-CONVERSANT on the topic: reason for/mechanics of.. warming.. or Not.
A waste of time Fraud.
`

 

[ding]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

And here are two pieces debunking that non Peer reviewed, nonscientific article by two non scientists.

Climate denial published by Statistics Norway

A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of climate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

blog.indecol.no

Dagsvik silent on the detection limit of their instrument

The suitability of their method to investigate the presence or absence of global warming has not been demonstrated.

blog.indecol.no

 

[ding]

And here are two pieces debunking that non Peer reviewed, nonscientific article by two non scientists.

Climate denial published by Statistics Norway

A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of climate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

blog.indecol.no

Dagsvik silent on the detection limit of their instrument

The suitability of their method to investigate the presence or absence of global warming has not been demonstrated.

blog.indecol.no

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 859183


https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Oh look, a link you didn't read.

So do you think you debunked one of the most robust scientific theories in history by posting a discredited article you don't understand anyway?

I promise you did not.

 

[ding]

Oh look, a link you didn't read.

So do you think you debunked one of the most robust scientific theories in history by posting a discredited article you don't understand anyway?

I promise you did not.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 859186
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Oh look, another article you didn't read and don't understand.

 

[ding]

most robust scientific theories in history

I promise you it's not. When the AMOC collapses it will be all over for AGW. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I promise you it's not.

But who cares about the opinions of some uneducated slob? I will defer to the scientific community.

 

[ding]

Oh look, another article you didn't read and don't understand.

I read it. I've been studying the paleoclimate for the past 20 years. There's nothing new here at all. I've been saying the same exact stuff here since 2016.

 

[ding]

But who cares about the opinions of some uneducated slob? I will defer to the scientific community.

I have full confidence that they will correct their errors soon enough. It's just a matter of time.

 

[otto105]

View attachment 859186
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Geezsus christ dude.

Basically, a Swedish denier site.


Fucking hilarious.

 

[otto105]

I have full confidence that they will correct their errors soon enough. It's just a matter of time.

Hilarious

You have full confidence that will do no such thing and continue to put out their bullshit.

A civil engineer website Sven