/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10246090
>The maximum forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels, absent feedbacks, is +1.2C.
"Absent feedbacks" is a pretty artificial constraint.

>Observation suggests a weak or non-existent one.
It really doesn't. Observation suggests something near +3C.

>AGW scientists refer to the temperature record of the 21st century thus far as being in a global warming "pause."
The entire "pause" boiled down to three things:
1) 1998 was an unusually warm year.
2) 2012 was an unusually cool year.
3) The UAH dataset had a flaw that produced spurious cooling.
In retrospect, and with the flaw removed, the pause clearly was a non-event.

>>9821793
>so that means we can ignore all of the people that were talking about global warming suddenly calling it climate change
Except you've still not shown that actually ever happened. Do you have any evidence at all?

>John Christy has disputed claims that the satellite data he collected validates AGW.
That's fine, but just because he collected the data doesn't automatically make his interpretation of it correct.

>It is the very people whose work is disputed by Christy's original satellite data that claim the data is in error and that the "corrections" they made proves them correct.
The corrected UAH data clearly shows a global, multi-decadal, warming trend. I don't really see how that's open to debate.
Also, stop putting quotation marks around "corrections", it just makes you look silly.

>BTW: this how skepticalscience.com treats any climatologist that differ from their global warming gospel including John Christy.
That all seems above board, though? They're not insulting him or demanding he be removed from his position, they're listing a bunch of stuff he's said and why they disagree with him.