Single father, scientist, & engineer. Managed medical studies & NASA GISS project. I only respond to intelligent life. 馃拤I don't take experimental Medicine!
Joined August 2021
- Tweets38.2K
- Following5K
- Followers5.5K
- Likes69.8K
No. Certainly you have heard this before right?
Temperature proxies are just as biased where the difference creates a persistent causality problem.
I've shown that I can un-bias proxies and raise the temperature by serveral degrees in the recent past.
Do you not see the bias here? Unchanged stomata shows variation up to 400 ppm, I can un-bias that data and get it upwards of 500 ppm during the RWP. It also shows up during the MWP.
I can't be the first person to be showing you how proxies actually work right?
馃槀
"Mine comes from NOAA/NASA surface stations and CO2. If you think they are wrong, provide your version." - Jim
Your evidence is a log-concentration equilibrium equation graph with some temperature thrown on top.
This comes from the CERES instruments abord Terra, Aqua, Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (S-NPP) and NOAA-20 satellites.
It literally tells you the amount of absorbed energy compared to the loss of energy in terms of cloud variation.
Sorry if this is offensive, but one can't compare nonsense to observational facts and think they have a winning argument unless they are mentally deficient.
No, that's not how it works Jim. You're graph is made-up make believe nonsense whereas my graph comes from a direct reconstruction of the data for the last 20 years.
Any correlation to log is nothing but your wistful perception.
There's no room for forcing and feedbacks. Just because CO2 is increasing, doesn't mean it's the cause.
There's nothing more ridiculous and tiresome than attributing cause to coincidence while ignoring direct observational instrumental measurement.
