While the official number for June 2008 global temperature anomaly from UAH is not out yet, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit reports it to be -0.114 for the global number.
Click for a larger image
A number of commenters there are puzzled as to how Steve might have this “inside information” when it has not yet been published. Normally you’d find that data here
Steve left a clue in comments at CA when Lucia asked:
Did you get Roy Spencer to email you the data? I cleared cache and I don’t see June.
Steve: No.
Knowing Steve, I’m guessing he wrote a script to scrape data from this page http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ (or a page like it) and then calculated the June global UAH numbers from it. Steve McIntyre is careful and cautious about such things, so I would trust his number even though UAH has not officially released it yet.
Congratulations to Steve on getting the “scoop”!
BTW, the NASA FORTRAN dump (read “digital caltrops” ) doesn’t “count” as legit code release!
A curse on auto-smileys!
Fixed~done for the night jeez
I note with interest the use of passive voice here.
I can’t comment on the costs of Kyoto, but the IEA has estimated the cost of reducing CO2 emissions by half by 2050 to be from $17 tril. (Scenario A) to $45 tril. (“Scenario B”). And they are all in favor of making those expenditures.
Thanks, jeez. And for the time before this. I keep forgetting to space before parens.
Gary Hladik argues that increased temperatures are of no concern because the warming after the Little Ice Age was an unmitigated good. I question your claim, Gary, on two points. First, your claim that warming after the Little Ice Age was an unmitigated good. It does appear to have been beneficial to those regions that were saddled with extreme cold. But what about regions that had no such problems? Do you have data on agricultural output in Mesopotamia during the period in question? What about India? Africa? Southern China? Can you demonstrate that all these areas benefitted from the increased temperatures? I rather doubt it, but I’d like to see your data.
Mr. Hladik then argues that there is no rational basis for prediction of future climate: Who knows? Not Hansen, not the IPCC, not anybody. His error here is to confuse uncertainty with lack of knowledge. The information available to us at this time gives us a rational reason to believe that climate will change in undesirable ways over the next century. No, we have not established this conclusion with a high level of certainty. But we have established this conclusion at a low level of certainty, and we are now increasing the degree of certainty.
He then observes that To get even a “second-order approximation” of the earth’s climate system, one would need something far more complex than the primitive GCMs the IPCC uses. Well, gee, if they’re so primitive, then surely a hotshot like you could easily tell us how to improve them. What is the single most important alteration you would suggest? (And if you can’t suggest an improvement, how can you call the models ‘primitive’? )
Next comes a real eye-popper; I had to re-read this twice to convince myself that it was real:
Other than the observation that the earth has warmed perhaps 0.3 to 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last century while atmospheric carbon dioxide probably increased about a third, what is the observational evidence for AGW, and especially for catastrophic AGW?
This can be logically reworded as “Other than the observational evidence for AGW, what is the observational evidence for AGW?”
Next comes one of the most common logical errors I have seen in skeptic writing:
Bear in mind that climate change (e.g. Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc) has occurred without significant carbon dioxide changes and was therefore caused by “something else”.
The notion here is that, since climate change has occurred naturally, it is impossible for it to be induced by human actions. That’s a non-sequitur. The fact that forest fires occur naturally (triggered by lightning strikes) does not mean that it is impossible for humans to cause forest fires. In fact, the existence of naturally-caused forest fires does not in any way logically impact the question of whether humans can start forest fires.
Christopher Elves, thanks for the link to the work of Roy Spencer. I skimmed over it and it looks interesting. I’ll put it on my reading list.
Evan Jones writes, I would therefore expect temperatures to “recover” to Medieval Warm Period levels (or even the Roman Warm Period, believed to have been even warmer).
But WHY should they recover? Was it just accident? Is the earth’s temperature springy, so that any excursion in temperature is always followed by a bounce back? If so, where does the springiness come from? I see no justification for the concept of temperature recovery.
BTW, I am not claiming CO2 has no effect. I am saying that, in the absence of positive feedback, it’s effects are relatively minor.
I agree that without the positive feedback, the effects are minor. I believe that the models for positive feedback are sound, but they are the most vulnerable part of the whole AGW hypothesis.
However, one must bear in mind that the Ocean carbon sink (Acc. to DoE) is 38,000 Bil. Metr. Toms . We are only adding c. 3 BMTC to the oceans per year. That isn’t going to upset any applecarts. (By comparison, the Atmospheric sink is a mere 750 BMTC.)
Absolutely! The ocean sink is nowhere near saturation, so there’s plenty of capacity there. The limitation is the rate of absorption, not the capacity for absorption.
I’m actually sympathetic to good faith requests for information, and I agree that some of the refusals to share information are made in bad faith. However, I caution that there are some counterpoints here. First, there are bad-faith requests for information: fishing expeditions in which the outsider is demanding mountains of data that is not easily converted to presentable form. Second, I can guess why some scientists don’t want to release their code: it could well be that, given the horrid state of scientific programming, the algorithms in question are scattered through many different code modules, are poorly documented, and are intertwined with other factors. Releasing the code in such a case would then provoke demands for detailed documentation — and nobody likes to document their code so that others can read it.
I do not defend the refusals to share information for invidious reasons — and I acknowledge that some of the refusals are suspicious. But I caution all that there can be good reasons for refusing to release data until it’s ready. I’ve been involved in one project in which we generated mountains of data, and it took us eight years to get the data into a form that could be released. We had gotten funding to obtain the data, but no funding for making it available to other scientists, so we had to temporize. I cobbled together some surplus equipment out of my own pocket, spent the time writing code to automate the process, and we had a summer intern babysitting the machines.
Lastly, I’d like to thank Evan Jones for his numbers on the costs of halving CO2 emissions by 2050 (between $17 and $45 trillion). And I’ll point out that the cumulative costs of not halving CO2 emissions could easily exceed these numbers. Note that I write “COULD” — until a proper economic analysis is carried out, we’re still just guessing. But we’re in the right cost/benefit ballpark.
45 trillion would be enough to replace all world’s current power with nuclear. But our AGW friends hate that. At current prices, solar would exceed 200 trillion. That they like…
* – Other than the observation that the earth has warmed perhaps 0.3 to 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last century while atmospheric carbon dioxide probably increased about a third, what is the observational evidence for AGW, and especially for catastrophic AGW? – *
– This can be logically reworded as “Other than the observational evidence for AGW, what is the observational evidence for AGW?” –
If that is the observational evidence for AGW, it doesn’t really jive with your earlier comment: ‘There’s an enormous amount of observational evidence in support of the basic AGW hypothesis, and as yet there is no compelling evidence against it.’
If this is the only evidence, then it is not ‘enormous’ and should be a question of correlation/causation.
Ophiuchus (15:01:19) : “Gary Hladik argues that a different climate might be better than the one we now have. It’s true that some areas might benefit from climate change, but it is irrefutable that some areas would suffer from increased temperatures. ”
For someone who claimed to want to talk about the wiggle room in feedback strength you certainly have allowed yourself to wander (or be led).
Yes, good weather is nice and bad not so much. But talking about the weather is sidestepping the issue which is (basically): mankind is affecting the
weatherclimate (regardless the implied negative connotation).As with any hypothesis, there should be testable predictions.
So why not get down to it? What are the predictions springing from the AGW hypothesis and how have they been (or going to be) tested?
Let CO2 causes warming be a given.
1) CO2 has varied much in the past without any help from humans. What evidence supports the idea that what we are seeing today can’t be attributed to the continuing natural variation? (I say “continuing” but do you have any evidence that natual variation has stopped?)
2) CO2 is increasing as we speak yet temperatures appear to have tanked. How does the AGW hypothesis account for this? If you want to go into the “loose” coupling argument how about stating, for the record, how loose “loose” is? NB: if you can’t, it amounts to hand waving — give us something testable.
3) Since the LIA, temperatures have been rising. Just because Evan (I think) used the word “recover” it doesn’t mean there’s a necessarily “standard” state (except perhaps in the average). So what evidence is there that what we see today is nothing more than a natural progression?
4) The argument that our CO2 production just HAS to have an effect is gratuitous. Pouring a glass of water into the ocean has an effect on the ocean level, salinity and temperature (if only briefly) but the effect would be barely detectable if it is detectable at all. So, the question is: “What evidence is there that the CURRENT increase in CO2 has actually had an effect and CANNOT be attributed to non-human causes?
No need to dump terabytes of data. Simple concise answers and pointing to the data will suffice. Try to avoid answering the questions by simply turning them around. We’re not the one(s) defending an hypothesis (a la of the “why should they recover” flavor).
Because of time lag, you may have answered the questions (which aren’t necessarily all inclusive). If so, just point to the answer.
Hopefully, your answer doesn’t boil down to “well we can’t prove the hypothesis but we can’t take the chance!” That’s not science — it’s politics. The AGW crowd claims they have science on their side so let’s see how that science has been tested.
—
BTW: interesting name. Snake-holder?
Dav, you raise a well-reasoned set of questions, so let my try to offer equally well-reasoned answers.
What are the predictions springing from the AGW hypothesis and how have they been (or going to be) tested?
The basic prediction is that, over lengths of time appropriate to climate change (roughly, 10**2 years) we should see significant increases in global temperature (greater than 0.1ºC).
What evidence supports the idea that what we are seeing today can’t be attributed to the continuing natural variation?
There are two primary lines of evidence. The first is the fact that alternate mechanisms have been eliminated from consideration. For example, increases in solar radiation are too small to explain the increase in temperature.
The second line of evidence is the rate of change of temperature, which is greater than the rate of change of temperature that we have seen for most previous climate changes. This anomaly suggests an anomalous causal agent — and CO2 emitted by humans is an historical anomaly.
CO2 is increasing as we speak yet temperatures appear to have tanked. How does the AGW hypothesis account for this? If you want to go into the “loose” coupling argument how about stating, for the record, how loose “loose” is?
The AGW hypothesis has ALWAYS accounted for this by linking CO2 to temperate on time scales of roughly 10**2 years. The deviation you cite is insignificant in climatological terms. You are assuming that the AGW hypothesis predicts temperature increases on a time scale of roughly 10**1 years. I have never read either the IPCC or the NAS asserting any such thing. In effect, your reasoning constitutes a straw man argument: you are attacking AGW for a prediction that it does not make.
Since the LIA, temperatures have been rising. Just because Evan (I think) used the word “recover” it doesn’t mean there’s a necessarily “standard” state (except perhaps in the average). So what evidence is there that what we see today is nothing more than a natural progression?
Natural phenomena don’t happen randomly; they happen because some mechanism CAUSED them to happen. There is no causal mechanism that explains this increase in temperatures as well as human CO2 emissions. If you have a better mechanism, present it and the evidence that supports it.
BTW: interesting name. Snake-holder?
I got tired of using “John Smith”.
Ophiuchus (07:25:47)
“The basic prediction is that, over lengths of time appropriate to climate change (roughly, 10**2 years) we should see significant increases in global temperature (greater than 0.1ºC).”
Greater than 0.1ºC? I thought “catastrophic” GW was based on greater than 2ºC for doubling of CO2.
And with regard to 100 years, are you saying that the pre-1950 temperature increase was predominantly caused by CO2?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html
Ophiuchus: I don’t think you’ll find much argument with the basic concept of CO2-generated warming of 0.1-1’C per century here, Some people might suggest the low end of that scale, and even worry that very long term natural cycles might overwhelm it and push us into cooling, but that’s kind of in the noise.
The idea that we have a major problem believing is the Hansen/Gore/Lovelock 6’C-sometime-before-2100 which is causing all the alarm. Would you support such an idea, and what evidence would you offer for it?
Sorry, but I challenge you to point to even a single valid instance of observational support of CO2 causing global temperature increase.
Ah, the NAS, and the appeal to authority. Because an organization puts out a policy statement it must follow that all the members of said organization agree with that statement. Hate to bring the real world crashing down on your head, but that simply isn’t true. Any more than you, as a citizen of your country, agree with every statement expressed by your government. And of course such a statement is necessarily vague. So even if there is a miniscule amount of warming due to human activity (of which CO2 emissions are one small portion), their statement is technically correct, but useless on it’s face.
Right now it’s 60 f north of Seattle, on July 4. Usually this time of year we’re extremely dry and warm, and fireworks are a severe fire hazard. Not this time. It’ll probably rain again today as it has the last three days. It’s definitely gotten colder, and local crops are suffering. So far this spring/summer, we’ve had maybe a week of temps above 70, that I’ve experienced. I sure wish some GW would come our way.
Ophiuchus, I am paraphrasing to shorten the text. Let me know if I’ve somehow misrepresented what you have said. Hopefully, as well, I haven’t missed
(07:25:47) : The basic prediction is … increases in global temperature (greater than 0.1ºC).
One of the real headaches has been the confusion between GW and AGW. This is apparent in nearly every press release, e.g., “Look at the melting icebergs! See GW is real!” implying AGW but completely ignoring the question of how that proves AGW.
So, if I understand you correctly, the Anthropogenic GW theory just predicts temperatures will rise? Isn’t that just a bit like predicting night will follow day? Temperatures have been rising since the mid-1700’s, IIRC. I would think an anthropogenic theory would give predictions that can be linked specifically to human actions. E.g., if humans are causing climate change, we should see X instead of Y. I’m specifically asking for the X’s and Y’s.
—–
There are two primary lines of evidence [climate today cannot be attributed to the continuing natural variation] [1] alternate mechanisms have been eliminated from consideration [2) the greater rate of change of temperature than previously]
[1] Yet change has happened in the past without any conceivable mechanism akin to the modern proposed mechanism (i.e., an effect of technology). Lack of known mechanism does not make the case for you. What if I say “It’s all because the gods are having fun with us?” Could you prove me wrong? You will go with your idea just because you think it’s more scientific?
I’m asking for testable predictions. Lack of better explanation isn’t a testable prediction.
[2] This is probably the closest you’ve come to giving me what I asked for.
Just because an observation is different doesn’t mean it’s unnatural. You can’t simply use the past as your Y then claim that the present difference is your X. I would expect a fairly specific prediction of how much something like extra CO2 would have then show that it’s happened. The problem, though is that no one can seem to do this before looking at the data. The current models seem to be far better at predicting the past instead of the future. In statistics, that’s called “overfit.”
—–
The AGW hypothesis has ALWAYS accounted for this by linking CO2 to temperate on time scales of roughly 10**2 years. The deviation you cite is insignificant in climatological terms. You are assuming that the AGW hypothesis predicts temperature increases on a time scale of roughly 10**1 years
So, does that mean AGW can’t be tested for another 100 years or so? A bit convenient. A ten year hiatus should be enough to support doubt IMO. If we are actually in the beginnings of what happened between 1940 and 1980, that wouldn’t count either? The cliff is there but always conveniently over the horizon, eh? For that matter, the 1940-1980 cooling was just noise?
—-
Natural phenomena don’t happen randomly; they happen because some mechanism CAUSED them to happen. There is no causal mechanism that explains this increase in temperatures as well as human CO2 emissions.
The ancients went very far in assuming sun position was the key to timing growing seasons. They really didn’t know why, in fact, they didn’t need to know why. Just because a mechanism isn’t known or understood is not a reason to assume its effect isn’t real. The ancients attributed the interactions with the sun as interactions with gods. Just because they had an explanation doesn’t mean the explanation was close to correct.
—-
If you have a better mechanism, present it and the evidence that supports it.
Sorry but that’s not my job. I’m not advocating AGW — you are. The ball is still in your court. In fact, asking for alternate explanation is effectively turning the question around. I’m asking for predictable (and therefore, testable) effects directly rising from AGW — not more hypothesis. Any evidence against AGW should come in the form of failed predictions.
I believe the solar mechanisms are out there, but using radiance is not a key measurement. It is other solar and galactic measurements that interact with our atmosphere and Earth cycles that coincide with temp fluctuations. At solar maximum, when UV light is at its strongest, thank goodness the magnetic shield of the Sun prevents this light from penetrating Earth. It also prevents ozone-eating cosmic rays from giving us multiple direct hits. However, before and after big maximums (on the slopes), UV light can and does fall on Earth creating a thick ozone layer (our insulating blanket). On the down side, it also created the scar on my lip where a cancerous growth was removed. When the Sun is particularly bright (which it has been this century), we get lots and lots of UV light and a nice build-up of our insulation. We get all toasty warm like the inside of a greenhouse. CO2 builds up because warm waters kick it back into the atmosphere and besides, we don’t have enough sinks to hide all the extra CO2 we are producing because we live in a greenhouse. But when the Sun turns into a sleepy object, UV light is no longer available to create ozone, and cosmic rays beat down on us and our ozone. The blanket begins to look like a worn out sheet with holes. We literally have no protection from the whims of the terribly quiet Sun. It heats us up during the day, and leaves us shivering at night. It produces freezing temperatures during a longer Winter with copious amounts of snow but leaves us with short, dry, hot summers.
I believe sunspot numbers are indirectly telling us that UV is present to create and keep our Earth blankie snugly wrapped around us, protecting us from the Sun’s direct heating and cooling influence and creating a nice greenhouse affect. Thank God we warmed up! I LOVE Oregon, Washington, and Idaho wines! It is also telling us that the Sun itself is protecting us from the intergalactic cosmic ray gun.
When the Sun is busy and we are warm, we should be having Sun festivals (in Oregon we call them Wine Festivals), not wringing our hands that the Earth is in a greenhouse mode. That is way I always use the phrase “the terribly quiet Sun”.
Jeff Alberts doesn’t like Congress’ law creating the NAS as the institution specifically tasked to advise the government on scientific issues as they affect public policy. Apparently he thinks that Congress goofed. Jeff, you’re entitled to your poor opinion of the NAS, but their track record is perfect. I think they deserve a lot of credence because of that.
Right now it’s 60 f north of Seattle, on July 4. Usually this time of year we’re extremely dry and warm, and fireworks are a severe fire hazard. Not this time. It’ll probably rain again today as it has the last three days. It’s definitely gotten colder, and local crops are suffering. So far this spring/summer, we’ve had maybe a week of temps above 70, that I’ve experienced. I sure wish some GW would come our way.
Weather isn’t climate.
Dav, you raise some good points, but I’d like to zero in on what I believe to be a fundamental logical error that underlies most of your writing here. It’s best expressed in this statement of yours in response to my statement:
If you have a better mechanism, present it and the evidence that supports it.
Sorry but that’s not my job. I’m not advocating AGW — you are. The ball is still in your court. In fact, asking for alternate explanation is effectively turning the question around. I’m asking for predictable (and therefore, testable) effects directly rising from AGW — not more hypothesis. Any evidence against AGW should come in the form of failed predictions.
The error here is the belief that science proves things in an absolute sense. It doesn’t, and it never has. All scientists can do is demonstrate that one hypothesis is better than another hypothesis. The Copernican model of the solar system has never been proven to be true; it has instead been shown to yield results that match observational data better than the Ptolomaic model.
In the same way, when we observe the phenomenon of temperature increase since the 18th century, and inquire into its causes, we go with the best hypothesis. Two of the competing hypotheses are the AGW hypothesis and the “natural relaxation” hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis easily beats the natural relaxation hypothesis because the natural relaxation hypothesis makes predictions that are easily shown to violate observational evidence. (I’ll explain that in detail if you wish). So our best hypothesis is AGW and that’s what we go with for the nonce. If you have a better hypothesis, present it and your evidence.
Ophiuchus (11:56:45)
I’ll ask again, are you saying that pre-1950 warming is due to CO2?
“In the same way, when we observe the phenomenon of temperature increase since the 18th century, and inquire into its causes, we go with the best hypothesis.
An essay of less than 500 words will do.
I’ll ask again, are you saying that pre-1950 warming is due to CO2?
Yes, some of that warming is likely due to CO2.
Oph: If you wouldn’t mind, do you have published research on GW or are you working off of other’s endeavors? As an advocate for AGW you have brought salient points to the discussion. Mind you I still think we are in the theoretical testing stage. Which makes me wonder why some scientists (they shouldn’t be either solar or AGW driven researchers, they should be just plain old fashioned investigators) are using the one-model design (IE AGW due to CO2) to test a theory.
Pamela, I do not understand your point here:
Which makes me wonder why some scientists (they shouldn’t be either solar or AGW driven researchers, they should be just plain old fashioned investigators) are using the one-model design (IE AGW due to CO2) to test a theory.
Ophiuchus (12:40:33):
“Yes, some of that warming is likely due to CO2.”
Thanks.
The key question of course is “how much.”
Again, I’m not interested in debating whether CO2 causes warming, I’m interested in how much. And since you seem to be of the opinion (I’m still not absolutely sure) that the only explanation for warming since the LIA is CO2, I take it that the by “some” you must mean “most”?
Let me try that last sentence again.
…I take it that by “some” you mean “most””?
I take it that by “some” you mean “most
Yes. There are undoubtedly many factors at work here, and it is plausible that in the earliest stages other factors may have been more important, but our most compelling hypothesis is that CO2 was responsible for much or most of the warming.
Ophiuchus (13:44:09) :
“…but our most compelling hypothesis is that CO2 was responsible for much or most of the warming.”
Sorry to keep harping on this, but you are still being a bit vague. Your argument (I think) seems to contrast with most Climate Scientists, as summarised at Weather Underground here.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=62&tstamp=200802&theprefset=BLOG&theprefvalue=1
The only reason I keep drilling at this is that you have persisted, without any quantitative argument, in denigrating anyone who thinks there is a natural warming since the LIA, and who thinks such a natural warming can help to explain more recent events.
Unless you have a team consisting of something other than the Climate Scientists who participated in the IPCC, I’m not sure where “our” understanding is coming from.
And this all gets back to your other argument that100 years of data (or 10^2 if you prefer) are needed to discern a trend. That is why pre-1950 is key. If the pre-1950 warming is not due “mostly” to CO2, then Hansen was basically using a 10-20 (10^1 – 2×10^1 if you prefer) year trend in his famous 1988 testimony.
“…but our most compelling hypothesis is that CO2 was responsible for much or most of the warming.”
Sorry to keep harping on this, but you are still being a bit vague.
What do you want from me? A table showing exactly how many degrees of temperature anomaly in any given year are due to CO2? The problem here is that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere was released after 1950, so the biggest effect should be in the past half-century. The anthropogenic increment in CO2 prior to 1950 was small, so we would back-project that its contribution was small — but then, the temperature increase was also small. So I don’t see a lot of useful information prior to 1950 for evaluating the AGW hypothesis. My statement is based on back-projection.
You accuse me of denigrating anyone who thinks there is a natural warming since the LIA, and who thinks such a natural warming can help to explain more recent events.
I don’t recall attacking any person; I definitely attack the idea that “natural warming” explains anything. It’s an undefined term; it doesn’t refer to any mechanism. You might as well say “magic” or “god made it happen”. If you have a mechanism to propose, by all means, let’s hear it! Without a mechanism, though, you’re not addressing the question.
Ophiuchus (11:56:45): “The error here is the belief that science proves things in an absolute sense. It doesn’t, and it never has. All scientists can do is demonstrate that one hypothesis is better than another hypothesis”
Yeah I know that. The problem though is that until you can start providing supportive proof for an hypothesis it is no different than any other with the same level of support with aesthetics as the only guideline. So
“angels make it happen”
“the gods make it happen”
“we make it happen”
“happens on its own”
Are all equally valid. Sure, you may argue there aren’t any angels or gods but that’s just a judgement call (aesthetics).
“The AGW hypothesis easily beats the natural relaxation hypothesis because the natural relaxation hypothesis makes predictions that are easily shown to violate observational evidence. ”
Yes I very much wish you to do so but only if there is no fundamental difference between “happens as a naturally occurring cycle: and “natural relaxation.” I suspect they aren’t the same. Mostly, because temperature and CO2 have varied in the past sans any possible influence from humans. So any observation that contradicts this doesn’t sound possible. If “natural relaxation” doesn’t equate to “naturally occurring” (i.e., is just some special case of “naturally occurring”) then it’s effectively a strawman because it doesn’t rule out naturally occurring from as yet unknown reasons.
My point is that just because no one comes up with an alternate cause that doesn’t mean such a cause is non-extant. AGW is still under the gun to show itself to be a valid theory. It’s not kosher for it to win by default. An hypothesis’ utility lies in its predictive power. If AGW can’t predict successfully then it’s no better than “climate is at the mercy and whim of the gods” regardless of how much more scientific it sounds.
So can it pass this test or not? If it can, I want to see the evidence of successful prediction.
I note with some amusement that every time I ask these questions of a believer, I either get conspicuous retreat, circumvention or assurance that the proof is abundant. So far, all I’ve seen from you amounts to circumvention. If I’m wrong about that, please show me how.
If you have a better hypothesis, present it and your evidence is precisely the circumvention I mean. I ask you to prove your belief in AGW and all you can come up with is “I can’t think of anything better how about you?” Sheesh, I rest my case,