http://www.skepticalscience.com/pre-1940-warming-causes-and-logic.html
This is a quote from that 'scientific' journal, "Although humans were not burning very large amounts of fossil fuels or emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the early 20th Century, relative to the late century, CO2 emissions were non-negligible and did play a role in the early century warming." Ha! Ha! Did they even consider what they wrote? Let me translate that into plain English.
"Even though the temperature recently has declined and yet CO2 production has risen, we believe that CO2 plays an important part in temperature rise. Let us go back to pre 1940 where the CO2 rise was insignificant in measurement but had a major effect in temperature rise."
Ha! Ha! And there are some softheads who eat that garbage up. These are not real scientists.
Not really. The fact that my apartment is warm today is because it's sunny outside. The fact that it was warm last winter is because I had the heating on. The warmth of my flat in two different seasons doesn't imply the same cause.
Hey, PA2 forgot how to read cited and linked peer-reviewed articles, namely these used by Dana in his Skeptical Science article:
GERALD A. MEEHL, WARREN M. WASHINGTON, T. M. L. WIGLEY, JULIE M. ARBLASTER, AND AIGUO DAI National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, “Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century,” Journal of Climate 16 (2002).
GERALD A. MEEHL, WARREN M. WASHINGTON, CASPAR M. AMMANN, JULIE M. ARBLASTER, T. M. L. WIGLEY, AND CLAUDIA TEBALDI, “Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate,”
Journal of Climate 17 (2004).
Gunnar Myhre et. al. “New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 25 Issue 14 (July 1998)
Simon Tett, et. al. “Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 107 D 16 (2002)
Y.-M. Wang, J. L. Lean, and N. R. Sheeley, Jr., “MODELING THE SUN’S MAGNETIC FIELD AND IRRADIANCE SINCE 1713” The Astrophysical Journal, 625:522–538, May 20, 2005.
Edit to Paul: Anyone who cares to can easily find tons of exposés demolishing Wattups massive
MISinterpretation and DISTORTION of peer-reviewed science (and of non-peer-reviewed pseudo-science). Dana's pieces are not error-free but there is no comparison, scientifically.
Hey Gryph, you posted a link to something that was NOT peer reviewed. You seem to have forgotten your peculiar affection and need for peer review.
At least you did not make an typos!
edit
"Hey, PA2 forgot how to read cited and linked peer-reviewed articles"
You are like a caricature of yourself. Are those "peer reviewed" articles free of typos? Do tghey avoid "homophobic" differential equations.
Furthermore, even if one takes peer review seriously, CITING peer reviewed articles does not make an article that was not peer reviewed into a peer reviewed article. If it did then Anthony Watts' articles, being that they cite peer reviewed articles, would be in the holy class of peer reviewed.
No, not at all.
Skeptical Science can fill you in ...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pre-1940-warming-causes-and-logic.html
