250 Peer Reviewed Papers in 2015 Alone Cast Doubt on AGW Hypothesis

[SSDD]

There were 250 peer reviewed papers in 2015 alone that cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis. How many might there be in 2016?

Interesting reading there....skeptics enjoy....

Warmers...rant.....gnash your teeth.....deny....denounce....drag out your favorite logical fallacies...but most of all, be afraid....be very afraid. The decades of deception are drawing to a close and there is a piper who must be paid.

http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.ukq4tPzX.X7HkUFIE.dpbs

 

[defcon4]

I see your sig line. Yes, cricket is your ticket. He will show up soon, I hope...

 

[Old Rocks]

What bullshit. Hardly any of those papers cast doubt on the fact that GHG's create warming. Those fools are incapable of actually understanding what a scientific paper states.

 

[rightwinger]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

 

[elektra]

What bullshit. Hardly any of those papers cast doubt on the fact that GHG's create warming. Those fools are incapable of actually understanding what a scientific paper states.

How about linking to something Old Crock, and try reading it before you post.

Old Crock is very knowledgeable when it comes to gases, Old Crock experiments with methane gases, daily.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

Actually, NO!

With the recent proving of magnetic waves and thier influence on earths climate, primarily the oceans heat uptake, it lays it waste. Now the amount of warming that might be attributed to mans influence has dropped to below all physically measurable thresholds.

 

[rightwinger]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

Actually, NO!

With the recent proving of magnetic waves and thier influence on earths climate, primarily the oceans heat uptake, it lays it waste. Now the amount of warming that might be attributed to mans influence has dropped to below all physically measurable thresholds.

The confluence of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation along with static flux created during solar maximum conditions maximizes the differences between the Icelandic Low and Azores High increase, while the Greenland High decreases supporting the hypothesis of manmade climate change with a 86.2 % probability at 80% confidence levels

 

[Billy_Bob]

Bee-pocaclypse called off, bees doing OK, global warming was never a cause

In 2012, I published a post saying global warming is off the hook for the issue, due to the discovery of a phorid fly parasite that had been spreading through colonies due in part to the commercial trucking of bees on demand.

Now in a new set of data from USDA, publicized in a story from the Washington Post today, it turns out bee colonies are now at a 20 year high, and that beekeepers have basically solved the problem on their own.

The paper that supports this is very interesting and is one of over 250 papers showing that CAGW is crap pseudo-science.

http://www.perc.org/sites/default/files/ps50.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

Actually, NO!

With the recent proving of magnetic waves and thier influence on earths climate, primarily the oceans heat uptake, it lays it waste. Now the amount of warming that might be attributed to mans influence has dropped to below all physically measurable thresholds.

The confluence of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation along with static flux created during solar maximum conditions maximizes the differences between the Icelandic Low and Azores High increase, while the Greenland High decreases supporting the hypothesis of manmade climate change with a 86.2 % probability at 80% confidence levels

LOL....

Read the rest of the paper and get back to me... The probabilities are based on flawed hypothesis, which their own paper shows are invalid.. Yet they use them anyway knowing they are crap... One must wonder why they would do that?

Agenda? Funding? pleasing the powers?

 

[rightwinger]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

Actually, NO!

With the recent proving of magnetic waves and thier influence on earths climate, primarily the oceans heat uptake, it lays it waste. Now the amount of warming that might be attributed to mans influence has dropped to below all physically measurable thresholds.

The confluence of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation along with static flux created during solar maximum conditions maximizes the differences between the Icelandic Low and Azores High increase, while the Greenland High decreases supporting the hypothesis of manmade climate change with a 86.2 % probability at 80% confidence levels

LOL....

Read the rest of the paper and get back to me... The probabilities are based on flawed hypothesis, which their own paper shows are invalid.. Yet they use them anyway knowing they are crap... One must wonder why they would do that?

Agenda? Funding? pleasing the powers?

Solar activity (SA) has non-linear characteristics that influence multiple scales in solar processes (Vlahos and Georgoulis, 2004). For instance, millennia-scale solar oscillations have been recently detected, like those of about 6000 and 2400 years, by Xapsos and Burke (2009) and Charvátová (2000), respectively

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What bullshit. Hardly any of those papers cast doubt on the fact that GHG's create warming. Those fools are incapable of actually understanding what a scientific paper states.

^ AGWCult Loon

Yes, we know, the CO2 molecule is all knowing and all powerful

 

[Crick]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

Actually, NO!

With the recent proving of magnetic waves and thier influence on earths climate, primarily the oceans heat uptake, it lays it waste. Now the amount of warming that might be attributed to mans influence has dropped to below all physically measurable thresholds.

The "recent proving (sic) of magnetic waves and thier (sic) incluence on earths (sic) climate, primarily the oceans (sic) heat uptake..."

Please, I am dying to learn about the proving of magnetic waves and ocean heat uptake. I am all ears. Please fill me in,

 

[Crick]

What bullshit. Hardly any of those papers cast doubt on the fact that GHG's create warming. Those fools are incapable of actually understanding what a scientific paper states.

^ AGWCult Loon

Yes, we know, the CO2 molecule is all knowing and all powerful

But you do NOT seem to understand that what he is saying is correct. Those papers do NOT refute AGW or even cast doubt. They are a collection of climate-related papers that talk about other forcing factors. Well, Frank, guess what? No one has ever said there were no other forcing factors or that CO2 was responsible for every warming event in the Earth's history.

For god's sake don't be such a moron.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting to hear from Billy Boy about the "recent proving of magnetic waves" affecting ocean heat uptake. Billy? Where've you gone laddie?

 

[flacaltenn]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

Actually, NO!

With the recent proving of magnetic waves and thier influence on earths climate, primarily the oceans heat uptake, it lays it waste. Now the amount of warming that might be attributed to mans influence has dropped to below all physically measurable thresholds.

The confluence of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation along with static flux created during solar maximum conditions maximizes the differences between the Icelandic Low and Azores High increase, while the Greenland High decreases supporting the hypothesis of manmade climate change with a 86.2 % probability at 80% confidence levels

LOL....

Read the rest of the paper and get back to me... The probabilities are based on flawed hypothesis, which their own paper shows are invalid.. Yet they use them anyway knowing they are crap... One must wonder why they would do that?

Agenda? Funding? pleasing the powers?

Solar activity (SA) has non-linear characteristics that influence multiple scales in solar processes (Vlahos and Georgoulis, 2004). For instance, millennia-scale solar oscillations have been recently detected, like those of about 6000 and 2400 years, by Xapsos and Burke (2009) and Charvátová (2000), respectively

You MIGHT be getting enough to realize that there ARE other elements of the Climate system other than CO2. And that's all this OP says. That not every paper has to pay homage to the superpowers of CO2 and that scientists are free to study and speculate on other significant drivers of climate change.

For awhile there -- that kind of thinking could get you in trouble with your sponsors and publishers you know..

 

[flacaltenn]

What bullshit. Hardly any of those papers cast doubt on the fact that GHG's create warming. Those fools are incapable of actually understanding what a scientific paper states.

^ AGWCult Loon

Yes, we know, the CO2 molecule is all knowing and all powerful

But you do NOT seem to understand that what he is saying is correct. Those papers do NOT refute AGW or even cast doubt. They are a collection of climate-related papers that talk about other forcing factors. Well, Frank, guess what? No one has ever said there were no other forcing factors or that CO2 was responsible for every warming event in the Earth's history.

For god's sake don't be such a moron.

They don't refute. They MAY cast doubt. But when included in the big picture analysis -- they most definitely will open the climate change conversation to OTHER considerations and factors that have been ignored or short-changed. AND --- maybe Climate science will stop focusing on Carbon emissions and start figuring out how the Climate system really works before they create new models to prove that CO2 is all you need to know about.

 

[bripat9643]

Changes in solar irradiance over the North Atlantic would be amplified through atmospheric feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which would in turn affect the formation of persistent atmospheric blocking events. The latter factor would also affect the predominant circulation patterns (i.e. NAO), with the consequent differential regional influence for heavy precipitation. Less interaction between cosmic rays and the ozone in the stratosphere during periods of maximum solar activity would increase ozone presence, diminish UV radiation arriving on the Earth’s surface, and increase the stratospheric temperature in some regions, with a consequent impact on the dynamics of the high atmosphere. -

Which proves beyond doubt the existence of manmade global warming

Actually, NO!

With the recent proving of magnetic waves and thier influence on earths climate, primarily the oceans heat uptake, it lays it waste. Now the amount of warming that might be attributed to mans influence has dropped to below all physically measurable thresholds.

The confluence of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation along with static flux created during solar maximum conditions maximizes the differences between the Icelandic Low and Azores High increase, while the Greenland High decreases supporting the hypothesis of manmade climate change with a 86.2 % probability at 80% confidence levels

You don't have the slightest clue as to what that means.

 

[Crick]

I suspect he has a much better idea than do you - and your comment only supports the idea.

 

[bripat9643]

I suspect he has a much better idea than do you - and your comment only supports the idea.

We both know she's too stupid to understand what she posted. Your comment supports the idea that you're a liar.

 

[Crick]

Then tell you what Paddie ol' boy: pick one of those papers and show us how it throws doubt on AGW.