The experiments have been done so many time over the last 150 years, textbooks no longer cite them. They have become science fact. which of course makes it a tad bit hard to talk to you about them. the two most basic statements are "atmospheric greenhouse gases effect climate" and " Humans effect atmospheric greenhouse gas levels" We spent the 30s and 40s debating those. But all the studies were reproduced numerous times and almost no one involved disagreed.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:14:24 PM
You or I can read what others have reported ...except that scientists who disagree with the global warming orthodoxy cannot get funding for their research or get their papers published. It's a Catch 22.
You have about as much chance of publishing a paper that disproves AGW as you would have getting an article that disproves the divinity of Christ published in a Catholic diocese newspaper. Actually, you would have EXACTLY the same chance: none.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:56:31 PM
Whoops, hit reply by accident. I blame my phone.
Underwater trees are only used pre submersion. Etc.
High latitude trees diverge from the othe 90% of data collected. They are an obvious anomaly. Unlike other bad data sources though, we havent figured out why they diverge. Until we can account for that the data is unusable.
The decline does not refer to temperature. It refers to tree growth. Just like a forest burned by wildfires would stop growing and correlating, these trees effect the average.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:50:30 PM
@CAT5 Incorrect. They left out a sub sample of tree ring data that did not reflect the majority of tree ring data. It did not hide temp change as tree ring data was being shown as correlating to temp not being used to prove temp (for the last few hundred years, tree ring data is being used as of many indicators of prehistoric temperatures.)
There are plenty of other tree samples that have bern marked as unusable for a variety of reasons. Petrified forests in modern day deserts are not used in their later years due to drought. Uunderwater trees
Tuesday, September 3, 2013 6:57:52 PM
You or I can read what others have reported, read through their methods, and repeat their experiments. @Musuko42: FALSE! The original AGW Crew HID THEIR DATA for several years! Only after the "big leaks" did ANY of it come out. NO ONE who "plugged in" their original data got a "hockey stick" graph. NOT ONCE.
[quote]1. we still use tree ring data post 1950s.[/quote] @kree_ That's the WHOLE POINT! the original AGW crew did NOT use it! They left it OUT because it DID `lower the temps` on their precious "hockey stick"! Now it`s also true that it`s "under debate" since it SEEMS odd. But that`s NO EXCUSE to falsify their data.
"3. it did not hide a decline in temperature" Um, yes it does? I`ve seen the charts and LO! the temps (according to tree rings) go DOWN! Which is NOT what`s being measured, which IS INDEED odd... but still valid DATA.