Poirot,

You don't like empirical evidence from the NOAA? ( http://www.noaa.gov/ )

Or the data?

http://www.c3headlines.com/datasets-temperature-climate.html

You only like modelling from the warmists' sites?

Forget the science...... play the man!

Geoffrey Kelley

Speaking of empirical evidence Geoffrey, I was wondering about the graph you discussed and the one shown by qanda, that was published by the IPCC.

Your graph purportedly shows no correlation of CO2 with temeprature, and also has average global temperature remaining stable (i.e. flatlining) for timescales on the order of 100-150 million years.

The other graph of empirical measurements of gases trapped in ice core samples seem to show another story, in that CO2 is very closely correlated with temperature.

Now, how do you as a trained scientist reconcile these two differing pieces of 'empirical' scientific information?

Is one of them wrong? How do you decide?

Bugsy,

I'm not sure Geoffrey is capable of answering your inquiry.

Check out the "C3 The Skeptic" in this link -

http://www.c3headlines.com/

(Could be a whole site full of Homers!)

Bugsy,

Sorry but your comments are just plain silly. I did not say the first graph, going back 600,0000 years, was based on empirical observations. That is a ludicrous assertion you make. The last graph I referred to is based on empirical evidence over about 130 years and evidence based on studies by the NOAA.

Please nominate the peer reviewed studies that were offered up by qanda. You do know how to cite a reference don't you?

So far you ALP supporters have not offered up references for one piece of peer-reviewed data. Not one journal article.

Poirot, don't snipe from the sidelines like a clown. Join the conversation and hit me hard with your science :-)

Geoffrey Kelley

Ok Geoffrey,

The graph that qanda linked to that is in the IPCC reports comes from:

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica (1999), Petit, JR (Petit, JR); Jouzel, J (Jouzel, J); Raynaud, D (Raynaud, D); Barkov, NI (Barkov, NI); Barnola, JM (Barnola, JM); Basile, I (Basile, I); Bender, M (Bender, M); Chappellaz, J (Chappellaz, J); Davis, M (Davis, M); Delaygue, G (Delaygue, G); Delmotte, M (Delmotte, M); Kotlyakov, VM (Kotlyakov, VM); Legrand, M (Legrand, M); Lipenkov, VY (Lipenkov, VY); Lorius, C (Lorius, C); Pepin, L (Pepin, L); Ritz, C (Ritz, C); Saltzman, E (Saltzman, E); Stievenard, M (Stievenard, M)
Source: NATURE Volume: 399 Issue: 6735 Pages: 429-436 DOI: 10.1038/20859 Published: JUN 3 1999

I'm sure you can find it somewhere. Now, if these empirical observations don't seem to match what you are calling non-empirical observations, how do you weigh the evidence presented to you?

And are you calling me an ALP supporter?

Seriously?
Just because I like actual science?

Yeah, Geoffrey - who cooked up your graph - reference please.

Strangely enough, this "NOAA" link is in complete disagreement with you and your denialist cronies:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Funny that : )