3X2: You listed my statement (…)

Bob, sorry if my question appeared to be blunt or critical. It was certainly not intended that way.

I was just trying to get a grip in my own mind of what SST anomalies represent. I directed the question your way simply because I would put more trust your view.

Albert Einstein proposed a hypothesis. It was confirmed repeatedly with empirical measurements. But now you admit that AGW will never be proved or disproved empirically.

That confirms the fact that AGW is simply a conjecture, not a hypothesis. Alarmists claim that AGW exists, but they can’t provide data based evidence. They can not measure AGW. But based on their belief system, they say we should raise taxes sky high, and spend $Trillions on something that they can’t show even exists.

That situation demonstrates the value of skepticism in the scientific method. All skeptics are saying is: prove it. Or at the very least, provide strong, real world evidence that AGW exists.

Show the data that measures the temperature change caused specifically by human activity, versus natural global warming caused by the planet emerging from the LIA. The fact that no such data exists means that AGW is speculation.

If AGW can not be falsified, then it is not science… as stated by the same Karl Popper you refer to, who states:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

We can see the CO2=AGW conjecture between the lines throughout Popper’s rules — confirming the fact that the AGW conjecture may be many things, but scientific isn’t one of them.

So how would you prove empirically that more CO2 gives a temperature rise? Problem being you can’t SEE a radiation balance… If that is your argument – you can’t SEE it – then I hope you trust your computer, as it functions on the basis of a lot of physics you can’t see.

Hey, this really is like physics! You have a theory, you have phenomena behaving according to that theory, you call these phenomena ‘empirical evidence’, well, and that’s it. Never was a theory relying on emperical evidence ever proved mathematically! This means you can never know there is no planet whose gravitation operates horizontally over the surface. And that is true. So, Smokey, no-one will ever be able to prove the AGW-hypothesis. And no-one will ever be able to disprove it. I mean, mathematically. See Popper for a reference.

Thank you for showing that you have zero data to back up your AGW conjecture. But don’t feel too bad about it, no one else has data measuring AGW either.

Your “sound physics theory” is not data. And speculating that the ‘only principal driver’ of temperature is CO2 is ridiculous. As CO2 has been steadily increasing, the planet’s temperature has been flat to declining. You are still trying to blame a tiny trace gas for global warming that isn’t even happening.

Face it, the CO2=AGW conjecture isn’t based on empirical data. Without real world data, skeptics will continue to question the increasingly absurd claim that natural warming is a result of changes in a tiny trace gas.

Alarmists have the burden of showing, through empirical measurements, that CO2 is causing [currently non-existent] global warming. So far, they have failed.

You concede the fact of the ‘hockey stick’. Okay. As to the cause of this figure, I think it can only be that ‘A’ and you don’t.

Raw data?
1. It is getting warmer. This warmth is superposed on existing cycles and this warming is accelarating, slowly blotting out the significance of those cycles.
2. There’s a sound physics theory on what CO2 does with certain radiation.
3. The only principal driver of world temperature that is changing with sufficient amplitude and velocity, is the concentration of a couple of GHG’s of which CO2 is the main.

You believe this set of data is coincidence (there is simply no other ‘theory’ you can come up with!). Well, as a realist, I don’t. When I’ve seen enough swallows, I call it summer. Even if a day may still be spoilt by rain.

“As talk about an ‘alarmist crowd’ is entirely off topic, I cannot answer you on that.”

It is exactly on topic. The topic is climate skepticism. The other side of that coin is climate alarmism. You should take it easy on that ‘prize winning’ Dutch wine.

To repeat my comment above:

“I understand exactly why the alarmist crowd is so desperate to undermine the history of Greenland. They must keep the hokey stick alive, which requires that no natural climate change can ever be admitted.”

And of course the hokey stick I referred to is Michael Mann’s debunked fabrication. The fact that natural global warming has taken place does not prove that human activity is the cause.

Trying to re-frame the argument to show that natural climate change is caused by humans is a scientifically baseless claim. If human activity caused the most recent warming cycle, provide the raw data backing up that conjecture.

Of course, the article DOES show the hockeystick (simply because it exists) -> http://climate4you.com/images/GlobalMAATvs1961-1991since1850.gif

There are a number of fine Dutch wines today and wine industry is strongly on the increase in our country. This is in locations that are cooler than SW-Britain up to 53 degrees North. But warm enough and more lucrative than other agriculture nowadays. Prize winner example http://www.vanflevolandsebodem.nl/index.cfm?pid=1373 .

As talk about an ‘alarmist crowd’ is entirely off topic, I cannot answer you on that.

Your speculations on Greenland are riddled with misinformation. I suggest you get up to speed on the topic if you’re going to comment on it. Here’s a good place to start:

http://climate4you.com

Click on the climate history tab in the left column.

I understand exactly why the alarmist crowd is so desperate to undermine the history of Greenland. They must keep the hokey stick alive, which requires that no natural climate change can ever be admitted.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Wouldn’t SST also include energy being input (shortwave and longwave radiation), upwelling of waters from lower levels, changes in evaporation due to variations in surface winds, etc.?

Why is it these facts are so hard to understand?

Because they are disputed.
Because there never were more than two small settlements on the southwestern tip of Greenland, which had a very hard time surviving (partly because for some reason the Vikings didn’t learn anything from the local Inuit specialists). In this area it could still be possible to culture some grains of wheat, by the way, but I wouldn’t bet on making a living from it (as the Inuit never, but never! did).
Trade between Vikings and Inuit for some reason was nil. Other trade can never have been much (why trade with far off Europe instead of with the locals?).
Because the ice sheet isn’t a couple hundred years old, but a couple hundred thousands.

Is there some source online ref the written docs on shipments you refer to?

E.M.Smith (18:17:45) :

RR Kampen (01:13:04) :
Nemetz, Greenland never was green. How come this myth is so tough??

Additionally, among the written records are records of wheat and flax shipments from Greenland to Iceland and Denmark over a period of about 150 years. The colonists produced enough surplus to be able to trade it for things they could not build/obtain in Greenland.

The colony had been economically viable enough that when the western Greenland settlement “disappeared”, the King of Denmark sent an expedition to find out what happened.

Why is it these facts are so hard to understand?