Comment: Wrong

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What are you talking about? (see in situ)


Sorry but you're just wrong on nearly everything you just wrote.

Valid predictions include Arctic and Antarctic ice melting, ocean acidification, Himalayan ice melt (switching rivers from steady all summer to flood and drought) and extreme weather (both unusually strong and unusually mild). You saying none a dozen times is laughable as an attempt to validate your point.

If global warming is complete circumstantial, please explain to me how the Earth remains 33 degrees C warmer than it would without an atmosphere. Given (proven and accepted) that the Earth's temp is 100% determined by how much energy received vs. how much it re-radiates to space, the makeup of the atmosphere acts as it's thermostat. If you mess with that makeup (even a tiny bit), you affect the temp.

If you don't understand how noise is dealt with in any graph, I can't explain it to you. It's an elementary grade level concept. It does not cause predictions of the trend to change but it does cause differences in predictions of specific events (like a 1 or 2 year period) to be affected.

Are you trying to equate a meteorologist working on a statistically random theory to a global body of scientists doing research, publishing papers, getting them peer-reviewed and then combining them into each others work?