HAHAHA. Physical laws are often linear. Not that the climate modelers would know anything about the laws of nature

Not true as I stated. Crystals prove the statement to be wrong. Even a crystal lattice can be viewed as a straight line because of its regularity.

Even so, this has nothing to do with the fact that the trend line is straight. Trend lines are always straight because they are drawn through two endpoints. That doesn’t mean the data is a straight line, just the trend.

What makes this particular trend line unique is how flat the trend is. It isn’t even out of the signal noise. The Antarctic climate is in about as steady a state as climate can get. Steig and the Team are frauds.

Thanks for focusing on issues of reconciling differences between geoscience and engineering disciplines, important in solving
serious problems related to global warming and climate change.

There is no discussion of the issue you speak of on this page, if you would like a page for that discussion you should talk to Anthony about a guest posting. Attempting to talk over Mr Id with your own issue is rude and as a professional you should be able to give him the professional courtesy of the space for the discussion that he (not you) has earned here.

However,
your assumption that I am not, along with others, a fool. an imbecile or dishonest it totally gratutitous. This important and very detailed subject under discussion is being monitored by responsible professionals for relevance, substance and style. My comments have been in response to a number of inapproprate remarks made about me and my credibility. In my opinion, your comments have succeeded in raising doubts about judgment and objectivity, as well as insulting the monitors.

My comments were in danger of being gratuitous up to the point that you persisted in your off-topic discussion after Anthony asked you to remain on topic. My assessment of your complete disinterest in the legitimate topic and obsession with your own topic has been vindicated by your own actions. Even so I must admit my comments were very harsh, so I must apologize in so far as I have gone too far with the bite of my comments, but I stand by the sentiment wholeheartedly.

I hope you find a forum for the important issues you were hoping to discuss here. If/When you have been granted that forum you will be entitled to the same professional courtesy that should have been afforded to Mr Id and I would be glad to read it with complete objectivity. To be absolutely clear I mean that sincerely, not mockingly.

Cheers~

REPLY: That’s total BS, please don’t insult my intelligence. You made your entry here with this. You brought up the subject that is not the topic of this thread, sending the discussion OT:

Jack Century (22:06:08) : edit

Several reasons why deniers of anthropogenic global warming are so rigid and uninformed are : (1) they have little understanding of the differences between geologic and human time scales and processes, (2) Svante Arhennius proved over 100 years ago that CO2 changes in the atmosphere are the driving mechanisms of global temperature changes and (3) Norman Newell proved in 1987 there is a near perfect statistical correlation of 0.9985 between CO2 measured in the atmosphere on top of Mauna Loa and the growth of human population, rigorously calculated by others. There are no current, natural phenomena that come remotely close to Newell’s statistical proof. We are now living in the Anthopocene Epoch as defined by the Geological Society of America. Period. Full Stop.. End of discussion.

Since you’ve said: End of Discussion and now End of Story, can you keep your word?

(2) Norman Newell published work proved there are no current natural phenomena such as (a) volcanic and tectonic activity (b) sun spots and solar variability, (c) changes in earth’s orbits and (d) tilts in the earth’s axis that come remotely close to the nearly perfect statistical correlation of 0.9985 between CO2 measured on top of Mauna Loa by Charles Keeling and the growth of human population, rigorously calculated by others.

(3) Therefore, the sum total of CO2 emitted by all human activity is directly correlated with and the dominant cause of increasing global temperature.

(4) Since the educated world gets it, the apparent reason why this is so hard for engineers to understand the above, is a lack of appreciation or background in geoscience. If there are other reasons, please explain.

REPLY: This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Please focus your comments to the discussion on the Steig Antarctic issue, if not, future posts will be deleted. – Anthony

Lucy Skywalker,
Have you ever read a book that took you to a beautiful faraway land, to a place that you know you would recognize if you stumbled upon it in your travels?
That is how I think about math. Mathematics contains the adjectives of reality. And just as the written word is a poor substitute for that real glorious sunset, the language of math can only approximate the beauty and complexity of the universe.
Still I take your point,
Mike

Isn’t it bad form to rob the warmth from Gaia’s nurturing belly?

“Cut and run”? My humble apologies. Next time I’ll ask your permission before avoiding the internet for a weekend.

I also apologize for not providing you enough Google food. But hey, I’m an obliging guy so I did the searches.

This first site is a good introduction to the 2001 Vostok ice core data and the macro cycles it indicates: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_8a.htm

Unfortunately, the charts omit the critical data I referred to on unedited versions of the temp and CO2 charts (edited charts are used by naysayers to “prove” there was no CO2 change due to the Industrial Age). But that’s easily remedied:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

As some have pointed out, CO2 increases tend to lag the temp increases, but they still corellate. This strongly suggest that there is a common cause, of course. So I agree that hyperfocusing on reduction of CO2 in and of itself is disingenuous… but for anyone to suggest that there’s no problem here is equally so IMO *because* the CO2 shoots up significantly in modern times after following a fairly regular pattern (from a previous high of about 290 ppmv to 360!). Thus the human contributions of the Industrial Age to the environment cannot be so cavalierly dismissed (note: I am not accusing YOU here, just speaking generally). This dramatic increase in CO2 will surely have *some* effect, and it may not be so good for us when all is said and done…

No he most certainly did not “prove” any such thing. He suggested it might have a small effect.

“Norman Newell proved in 1987 there is a near perfect statistical correlation of 0.9985 between CO2 measured in the atmosphere on top of Mauna Loa and the growth of human population, rigorously calculated by others”

1. so what?
2. Even if true, which it isn’t, it doesn’t prove anything of cause and effect of CO2 and population much less CO2 and temperature.

Because the data doesn’t fit the predictions perhaps? Maybe because the theory doesn’t explain the observations and ignores data that doesn’t fit?

I sometimes wonder how anyone can still take the dramatic predictions of CO2 causing rapid climate change seriously.