CO2 benefits

[The Sage of Main Street]

yet, here we are, advancing, in many ways, certainly we are not advancing pursuing inefficient wind and solar

Blooeys Blowing in the Wind

But the Windbaggers are advancing in political, economic, and media power.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Nor is it in Man's control.
The "fight" against the weather is the ruse of the totalitarians.

Stoners Heading Us Towards the Stone Age

Not in the Lefty way, but our creative species would have gone extinct if it had not fought Nature's Way tooth and nail. We can do much more, but the Left and its appeasers have us going backwards to being overwhelmed by a naturally anti-human environment.

 

[Crick]

Stoners Heading Us Towards the Stone Age

Not in the Lefty way, but our creative species would have gone extinct if it had not fought Nature's Way tooth and nail. We can do much more, but the Left and its appeasers have us going backwards to being overwhelmed by a naturally anti-human environment.

Humans have been around 200,000 years. Dinosaurs dominated this planet for almost 200 million years. Do you think they did that by fighting "Nature's Way tooth and nail"?

 

[elektra]

Humans have been around 200,000 years. Dinosaurs dominated this planet for almost 200 million years. Do you think they did that by fighting "Nature's Way tooth and nail"?

What makes you think Dinosaurs dominated the planet, seeings how they did not survive.

And that would be, "Claw and tail."

 

[Crick]

What makes you think Dinosaurs dominated the planet, seeings how they did not survive.

And that would be, "Claw and tail."

Really? What other life forms fill the world's fossil collections from between 230 Ma and 66 Ma?

 

[Woodznutz]

No, even then. Wildfires have been a feature of the landscape for millions of years.

Humans weren't around to be affected by them.

 

[Woodznutz]

crick, your claims about CO2, the climate, are pure bullshit.

Nice colored picture you posted, fiction based on fact, "yes, there is co2", and that is your proof?

I like the part about, "energy balance". I guess crick believes, but where is there proof, that there is any sort of balance of energy? Where is the proof, that things were balanced and man fucked it all up?

Everything was in balance?

the idea that everything is in balance is a statement not related to science

Everything is in balance, after it re-balances.

 

[Crick]

crick, your claims about CO2, the climate, are pure bullshit.

I have thousands of pages of peer reviewed science backing up what I'm saying. You've got your one and only, individual and seriously warped brain.

Nice colored picture you posted

Infinitely better than the complete absence of published science backing up any and all of your claims.

fiction based on fact, "yes, there is co2", and that is your proof?

There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Mainstream science has had a GREAT deal more to say about this than "yes there is CO2". So, that would be another LIE on your part.

I like the part about, "energy balance".

I do not believe I have ever used that term. I think you have me confused with another poster. Or else you're simply lying again.

I guess crick believes, but where is there proof, that there is any sort of balance of energy?

I am quite certain I have never said anything of the kind.

Where is the proof, that things were balanced and man fucked it all up?

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

Everything was in balance?

the idea that everything is in balance is a statement not related to science

One of the reasons I am quite certain I never used the term

I just did a search. The only poster (besides you) to use the phrase "energy balance" in this thread was jc456. So, go fuck yourself you ignorant twit.

 

[Concerned American]

So, go fuck yourself you ignorant twit.

Typical--and you want to put yourself up as an expert. LMAO. Moron.

 

[elektra]

I have thousands of pages of peer reviewed science backing up what I'm saying. You've got your one and only, individual and seriously warped brain

Thousands of pages of peer reviewed science, sounds like you are plagiarizing Mark Lynas.

How about, seeings how you have thousands, how about posting the conclusion or summary of a few. I can not wait to see. hhahahahahahahaha

after you prove you personally have thousands of papers, access to thousands of papers, I will move on to your next point.

If you can not prove your first claim, why would I reply to a filthy liar.

 

[Crick]

Thousands of pages of peer reviewed science, sounds like you are plagiarizing Mark Lynas.

That would be difficult since I've never read a word he's written. And what makes you think I'm plagiarizing anyone?

How about, seeings how you have thousands, how about posting the conclusion or summary of a few. I can not wait to see. hhahahahahahahaha

www.ipcc.ch. Here is a thorough assessment of hundreds of published studies.

after you prove you personally have thousands of papers, access to thousands of papers, I will move on to your next point.

I have the internet you fool.

If you can not prove your first claim, why would I reply to a filthy liar.

Because I have never lied here. I have repeatedly demanded that you identify what statement of mine you believe to be a lie. You've never produced a single thing. That makes you both a liar and a really exceptional asshole.

 

[elektra]

That would be difficult since I've never read a word he's written. And what makes you think I'm plagiarizing anyone?

Thousands of pages of peer reviewed science, sounds like you are plagiarizing Mark Lynas.

Crick is not lying when crick states he has never read a word written by Mark Lynas, one of the authors of the study crick links to the most.

Crick created a thread/OP based on the study by Mark Lynas.

More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change AND https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Abstract While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the...

www.usmessageboard.com

In that OP, cricks opening comment contains the link to an article

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

In the article that crick bases the op on is this comment

“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said

you got me there, crick, you have never ever read a word from your favorite researcher, Lynas!!!

 

[elektra]

In the same OP, crick than links here

In this link of cricks, twice in the same post, beginning crick's Op, crick links to Mark Lynas, crick is right, crick never reads anything crick posts or links to.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

Mark Lynas4,1, Benjamin Z Houlton2 and Simon Perry3

 

[elektra]

Basically Crick is a Crock---

I am just baffled. Whoever crick is, they claim intelligence yet when I mention the author of the research crick has literally linked to and copied and pasted, crick says he/she has never read a thing the author wrote.

The AGW cult thinks they are the scientists they link to. They think a Google search makes them right. These people are so arrogant they don't even read what they post.

I read cricks links, that is why i recognize when crick plagerized the title. I state who crick plagerized and crick is oblivious as to who i am talking about. Crick linked to articles with his name 100's of times.

Crick won't be back this weekend.

 

[Crick]

Crick is not lying when crick states he has never read a word written by Mark Lynas, one of the authors of the study crick links to the most.

At one point I had the word "knowingly" in there. Regret, regret, regret...

Crick created a thread/OP based on the study by Mark Lynas.

More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change AND https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Abstract While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the...

www.usmessageboard.com

That is not quite correct. I created a thread based on an article in the Cornell Chronicle byKrishna Ramanujan

In that OP, cricks opening comment contains the link to an article

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

Yes, by Krishna Ramanujan

In the article that crick bases the op on is this comment

Your comment didn't come across, but it was indeed by Mark Lynas and, more importantly, Lynas was the lead author of the actual study on which the article was based.

you got me there, crick, you have never ever read a word from your favorite researcher, Lynas!!!

The link I posted was actually to an article written by Krishna Ramanujan. I see now that the first author of the study the article was based on was indeed Mark Lynas. You got me there. I have read of numerous studies concerning the positions of the authors of published climate studies and so did not bother to dig deep into the authors of the study behind the article. I did read the beginning of the study but paid no attention to who its authors might have been. But, since you bring it up, let's have a look at the the thing, eh.

The study is open access and may be read at Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

The study was authored by Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry

Author affiliations​

Mark Lynas: Visiting Fellow, Cornell University, Global Development, Alliance for Science, B75 Mann Library, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Benjamin Z Houlton: Cornell University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Simon Perry: Alliance for Science, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

AND, jumping ahead

5. Conclusion​

Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis that—in the words of IPCC AR5—'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' [12], and, most recently in IPCC AR6—'it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land' [13].
Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [14]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.

Feel free to follow the link and read the actual study. A discussion of this really belongs in the other thread and so I will copy this post there.

FINALLY:

1) Are you still accusing me of plagiarism? The complete text of the original article and the Lynas, Houlton and Perry study are fully accessible.
2) If so, we need to see some evidence.
3) If you are unable to find evidence of plagiarism, you should withdraw that charge
4) If you do not find evidence and you do not withdraw the charge, we will know which of us is the liar.

 

[elektra]

At one point I had the word "knowingly" in there. Regret, regret, regret...

That is not quite correct. I created a thread based on an article in the Cornell Chronicle byKrishna Ramanujan

Yes, by Krishna Ramanujan

Your comment didn't come across, but it was indeed by Mark Lynas and, more importantly, Lynas was the lead author of the actual study on which the article was based.

The link I posted was actually to an article written by Krishna Ramanujan. I see now that the first author of the study the article was based on was indeed Mark Lynas. You got me there. I have read of numerous studies concerning the positions of the authors of published climate studies and so did not bother to dig deep into the authors of the study behind the article. I did read the beginning of the study but paid no attention to who its authors might have been. But, since you bring it up, let's have a look at the the thing, eh.

The study is open access and may be read at Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

The study was authored by Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry

Author affiliations​

Mark Lynas: Visiting Fellow, Cornell University, Global Development, Alliance for Science, B75 Mann Library, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Benjamin Z Houlton: Cornell University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Simon Perry: Alliance for Science, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

AND, jumping ahead

5. Conclusion​

Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis that—in the words of IPCC AR5—'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' [12], and, most recently in IPCC AR6—'it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land' [13].
Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [14]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.

Feel free to follow the link and read the actual study. A discussion of this really belongs in the other thread and so I will copy this post there.

FINALLY:

1) Are you still accusing me of plagiarism? The complete text of the original article and the Lynas, Houlton and Perry study are fully accessible.
2) If so, we need to see some evidence.
3) If you are unable to find evidence of plagiarism, you should withdraw that charge
4) If you do not find evidence and you do not withdraw the charge, we will know which of us is the liar.

crick, you come on this message board, full of yourself.

Mark Lynas, I recognized when crick used Lynas's exact words, when I called crick on it, Crick says he never read a word of Lynas.

Crick, in this article is the name Lynas. Okay, one article, one name, who remembers everything.
Crick, you have posted this article, and posted his abstract 100 times.

Crick, if you had read the article, the study you claim proves you right, you would know the name LYNAS

A great example of the AGW nuts pretending they have the knowledge, claiming they have the studiess, claiming science is on their side, while never ever reading what they post.

Crick, you dont know a thing about your side of the argument.

 

[elektra]

That would be difficult since I've never read a word he's written. And what makes you think I'm plagiarizing anyone?

yep, I believe you crick, you never word he has written, now post one of the papers you claim you have thousands of. That is, one of thousands of papers the study is based on. Hell, you got thousands, I want to see 10

Or is that another one of your idiotic mistakes, is it crick, did you make another huge gaffe claiming you have thousands of papers.

How about the parameters that Lynas used to decide if a paper shows the scientists believe in AGW. How about the parameters!

The study has already been shown to be junk by many people. So these simple things I ask for, I ask because I know they are unavailable to you and you are too stupid to be curious enough to seek them.

All Crick cares about is the title, the content and confirming the validity means nothing. After all, Crick has never read a written word that is in the study, crick said so above (but now that I busted crick, crick lies and says, oh yea I read it).

 

[Crick]

How about the parameters that Lynas used to decide if a paper shows the scientists believe in AGW. How about the parameters!

That is clearly laid out in his fully accessible study at Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience. Don't tell me you haven't read it.

The study has already been shown to be junk by many people.

This study? By whom? When? Where? I suggest this is another of your lies.

So these simple things I ask for, I ask because I know they are unavailable to you and you are too stupid to be curious enough to seek them.

You know, it's not my fault that I've embarrassed you so many times. You're the one that keeps posting idiocy.

All Crick cares about is the title, the content and confirming the validity means nothing. After all, Crick has never read a written word that is in the study, crick said so above (but now that I busted crick, crick lies and says, oh yea I read it).

You have no idea what I have and haven't read so you haven't "busted" shit.

As to the papers available to me on this topic: The text below is the first page of the Reference section of Chapter 1 of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis". There are 38 separate studies listed below, originally in two columns. I did some counting and found that over ten such pages, the average was 36.4 studies per page. Throughout all of "The Physical Science Basis", there are 12 chapters whose reference sections contain a total of 455 pages of study listings. At 36.4 studies per page, that comes to 16,562 studies listed. And this is ONLY in Working Group I's "The Physical Science Basis". It does not include studies listed in "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" from Working Group II nor "Mitigation of Climate Change" from Working Group III. Nor does this count included studies listed in the first, second, third, fourth or fifth assessment reports. So when I say I have thousands of climate papers available to me, I am speaking the truth.

---

---

---

1) Abraham, J.P. et al., 2013: A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change. Reviews of Geophysics, 51(3), 450–483, doi:10.1002/rog.20022.

2) Abram, N. et al., 2019: Framing and Context of the Report. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, and N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In Press, pp. 73–129, www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/ chapter-1-framing-and-context-of-the-report.

3) Abram, N.J. et al., 2016: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents. Nature, 536(7617), 411–418, doi:10.1038/nature19082.

4) Abramowitz, G. et al., 2019: ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing. Earth System Dynamics, 10(1), 91–105, doi:10.5194/esd-10-91-2019.

5) Adler, C.E. and G. Hirsch Hadorn, 2014: The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. WIREs Climate Change, 5(5), 663–676, doi:10.1002/wcc.297.

6) Aguilera-Betti, I. et al., 2017: The First Millennium-Age Araucaria Araucana in Patagonia. Tree-Ring Research, 73(1), 53–56, doi:10.3959/ 1536-1098-73.1.53.

7) Ahn, M.-S. et al., 2017: MJO simulation in CMIP5 climate models: MJO skill metrics and process-oriented diagnosis. Climate Dynamics, 49(11–12), 4023–4045, doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3558-4.

8) Air Ministry – Meteorological Office, 1921: Réseau Mondial, 1914: Monthly and Annual Summaries of Pressure, Temperature, and Precipitation At Land Stations. H.M. Stationery Office, London, UK, iii-vii pp.

9) Aitken, J., 1889: I. – On the Number of Dust Particles in the Atmosphere. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 35(1), 1–19, doi:10.1017/ s0080456800017592.

10) Albrecht, B.A., 1989: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness. Science, 245(4923), 1227–1230, doi:10.1126/science.245.4923.1227.

11) Alexander, C. et al., 2011: Linking Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change. BioScience, 61(6), 477–484, doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.10.

12) Alexander, L. et al., 2020: Intercomparison of annual precipitation indices and extremes over global land areas from in situ, space-based and reanalysis products. Environmental Research Letters, 15(5), 055002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab79e2.

13) Alkhayuon, H., P. Ashwin, L.C. Jackson, C. Quinn, and R.A. Wood, 2019: Basin bifurcations, oscillatory instability and rate-induced thresholds for Atlantic meridional overturning circulation in a global oceanic box model. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 475(2225), 20190051, doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0051.

14) Allan, R. et al., 2011: The International Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth (ACRE) Initiative. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92(11), 1421–1425, doi:10.1175/2011bams3218.1.

15) Allan, R.P. et al., 2020: Advances in understanding large-scale responses of the water cycle to climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1472(1), 49–75, doi:10.1111/nyas.14337.

16) Allen, M.R. and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419(6903), 228–232, doi:10.1038/nature01092.

17) Allen, M.R. et al., 2009: Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458(7242), 1163–1166, doi:10.1038/nature08019.

18) Allen, M.R. et al., 2016: New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 773–776, doi:10.1038/nclimate2998.

19) Anagnostou, E. et al., 2020: Proxy evidence for state-dependence of climate sensitivity in the Eocene greenhouse. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4436, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17887-x.

20) Anav, A. et al., 2013: Evaluating the Land and Ocean Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models. Journal of Climate, 26(18), 6801–6843, doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00417.1.

21) Anchukaitis, K.J. et al., 2017: Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews, 163, 1–22, doi:10.1016/j. quascirev.2017.02.020.

22) Anderson, A.A. and H.E. Huntington, 2017: Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598–620, doi:10.1177/1075547017735113.

23) André, J.-C. et al., 2014: High-Performance Computing for Climate Modeling. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(5), ES97–ES100, doi:10.1175/bams-d-13-00098.1.

24) Andrews, T., P.M. Forster, O. Boucher, N. Bellouin, and A. Jones, 2010: Precipitation, radiative forcing and global temperature change. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(14), L14701, doi:10.1029/2010gl043991.

25) Angerer, B. et al., 2017: Quality aspects of the Wegener Center multi-satellite GPS radio occultation record OPSv5.6. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10(12), 4845–4863, doi:10.5194/amt-10-4845-2017.

26) Ångström, A., 1929: On the Atmospheric Transmission of Sun Radiation and on Dust in the Air. Geografiska Annaler, 11(2), 156–166, doi:10.1080/200 14422.1929.11880498.

27) Ångström, A., 1964: The parameters of atmospheric turbidity. Tellus, 16(1), 64–75, doi:10.3402/tellusa.v16i1.8885.

28) Ångström, K., 1900: Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre. Annalen der Physik, 308(12), 720–732, doi:10.1002/andp.19003081208.

29) Annan, J.D. and J.C. Hargreaves, 2017: On the meaning of independence in climate science. Earth System Dynamics, 8(1), 211–224, doi:10.5194/ esd-8-211-2017.

30) Anterrieu, E., A. Khazaal, F. Cabot, and Y. Kerr, 2016: Geolocation of RFI sources with sub-kilometric accuracy from SMOS interferometric data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 180, 76–84, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.007.

31) Anthes, R.A., 2011: Exploring Earth’s atmosphere with radio occultation: contributions to weather, climate and space weather. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 4(6), 1077–1103, doi:10.5194/amt-4-1077-2011.

32) Arnold, J.R. and W.F. Libby, 1949: Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age. Science, 110, 678–680, doi:10.1126/ science.110.2869.678.

33) Arora, V.K. et al., 2020: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences, 17(16), 4173–4222, doi:10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020.

34) Arrhenius, S., 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41(251), 237–276, doi:10.1080/14786449608620846.

35) Arrhenius, S., 1908: Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, NY, USA and London, UK, 230 pp.

36) Asay-Davis, X.S., N.C. Jourdain, and Y. Nakayama, 2017: Developments in Simulating and Parameterizing Interactions Between the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Current Climate Change Reports, 3(4), 316329, doi:10.1007/s40641-017-0071-0.

37) Ashton, T.S., 1997: The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 162 pp.

38) Ashwin, P., S. Wieczorek, R. Vitolo, and P. Cox, 2012: Tipping points in open systems: bifurcation, noise-induced and rate-dependent examples in the climate system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1962), 1166–1184, doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0306.

 

[elektra]

That is clearly laid out in his fully accessible study at Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience. Don't tell me you haven't read it.

This study? By whom? When? Where? I suggest this is another of your lies.

You know, it's not my fault that I've embarrassed you so many times. You're the one that keeps posting idiocy.

You have no idea what I have and haven't read so you haven't "busted" shit.

As to the papers available to me on this topic: The text below is the first page of the Reference section of Chapter 1 of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis". There are 38 separate studies listed below, originally in two columns. I did some counting and found that over ten such pages, the average was 36.4 studies per page. Throughout all of "The Physical Science Basis", there are 12 chapters whose reference sections contain a total of 455 pages of study listings. At 36.4 studies per page, that comes to 16,562 studies listed. And this is ONLY in Working Group I's "The Physical Science Basis". It does not include studies listed in "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" from Working Group II nor "Mitigation of Climate Change" from Working Group III. Nor does this count included studies listed in the first, second, third, fourth or fifth assessment reports. So when I say I have thousands of climate papers available to me, I am speaking the truth.

---

---

---

1) Abraham, J.P. et al., 2013: A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change. Reviews of Geophysics, 51(3), 450–483, doi:10.1002/rog.20022.

2) Abram, N. et al., 2019: Framing and Context of the Report. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, and N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In Press, pp. 73–129, www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/ chapter-1-framing-and-context-of-the-report.

3) Abram, N.J. et al., 2016: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents. Nature, 536(7617), 411–418, doi:10.1038/nature19082.

4) Abramowitz, G. et al., 2019: ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing. Earth System Dynamics, 10(1), 91–105, doi:10.5194/esd-10-91-2019.

5) Adler, C.E. and G. Hirsch Hadorn, 2014: The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. WIREs Climate Change, 5(5), 663–676, doi:10.1002/wcc.297.

6) Aguilera-Betti, I. et al., 2017: The First Millennium-Age Araucaria Araucana in Patagonia. Tree-Ring Research, 73(1), 53–56, doi:10.3959/ 1536-1098-73.1.53.

7) Ahn, M.-S. et al., 2017: MJO simulation in CMIP5 climate models: MJO skill metrics and process-oriented diagnosis. Climate Dynamics, 49(11–12), 4023–4045, doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3558-4.

8) Air Ministry – Meteorological Office, 1921: Réseau Mondial, 1914: Monthly and Annual Summaries of Pressure, Temperature, and Precipitation At Land Stations. H.M. Stationery Office, London, UK, iii-vii pp.

9) Aitken, J., 1889: I. – On the Number of Dust Particles in the Atmosphere. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 35(1), 1–19, doi:10.1017/ s0080456800017592.

10) Albrecht, B.A., 1989: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness. Science, 245(4923), 1227–1230, doi:10.1126/science.245.4923.1227.

11) Alexander, C. et al., 2011: Linking Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change. BioScience, 61(6), 477–484, doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.10.

12) Alexander, L. et al., 2020: Intercomparison of annual precipitation indices and extremes over global land areas from in situ, space-based and reanalysis products. Environmental Research Letters, 15(5), 055002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab79e2.

13) Alkhayuon, H., P. Ashwin, L.C. Jackson, C. Quinn, and R.A. Wood, 2019: Basin bifurcations, oscillatory instability and rate-induced thresholds for Atlantic meridional overturning circulation in a global oceanic box model. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 475(2225), 20190051, doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0051.

14) Allan, R. et al., 2011: The International Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth (ACRE) Initiative. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92(11), 1421–1425, doi:10.1175/2011bams3218.1.

15) Allan, R.P. et al., 2020: Advances in understanding large-scale responses of the water cycle to climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1472(1), 49–75, doi:10.1111/nyas.14337.

16) Allen, M.R. and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419(6903), 228–232, doi:10.1038/nature01092.

17) Allen, M.R. et al., 2009: Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458(7242), 1163–1166, doi:10.1038/nature08019.

18) Allen, M.R. et al., 2016: New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 773–776, doi:10.1038/nclimate2998.

19) Anagnostou, E. et al., 2020: Proxy evidence for state-dependence of climate sensitivity in the Eocene greenhouse. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4436, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17887-x.

20) Anav, A. et al., 2013: Evaluating the Land and Ocean Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models. Journal of Climate, 26(18), 6801–6843, doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00417.1.

21) Anchukaitis, K.J. et al., 2017: Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews, 163, 1–22, doi:10.1016/j. quascirev.2017.02.020.

22) Anderson, A.A. and H.E. Huntington, 2017: Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598–620, doi:10.1177/1075547017735113.

23) André, J.-C. et al., 2014: High-Performance Computing for Climate Modeling. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(5), ES97–ES100, doi:10.1175/bams-d-13-00098.1.

24) Andrews, T., P.M. Forster, O. Boucher, N. Bellouin, and A. Jones, 2010: Precipitation, radiative forcing and global temperature change. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(14), L14701, doi:10.1029/2010gl043991.

25) Angerer, B. et al., 2017: Quality aspects of the Wegener Center multi-satellite GPS radio occultation record OPSv5.6. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10(12), 4845–4863, doi:10.5194/amt-10-4845-2017.

26) Ångström, A., 1929: On the Atmospheric Transmission of Sun Radiation and on Dust in the Air. Geografiska Annaler, 11(2), 156–166, doi:10.1080/200 14422.1929.11880498.

27) Ångström, A., 1964: The parameters of atmospheric turbidity. Tellus, 16(1), 64–75, doi:10.3402/tellusa.v16i1.8885.

28) Ångström, K., 1900: Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre. Annalen der Physik, 308(12), 720–732, doi:10.1002/andp.19003081208.

29) Annan, J.D. and J.C. Hargreaves, 2017: On the meaning of independence in climate science. Earth System Dynamics, 8(1), 211–224, doi:10.5194/ esd-8-211-2017.

30) Anterrieu, E., A. Khazaal, F. Cabot, and Y. Kerr, 2016: Geolocation of RFI sources with sub-kilometric accuracy from SMOS interferometric data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 180, 76–84, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.007.

31) Anthes, R.A., 2011: Exploring Earth’s atmosphere with radio occultation: contributions to weather, climate and space weather. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 4(6), 1077–1103, doi:10.5194/amt-4-1077-2011.

32) Arnold, J.R. and W.F. Libby, 1949: Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age. Science, 110, 678–680, doi:10.1126/ science.110.2869.678.

33) Arora, V.K. et al., 2020: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences, 17(16), 4173–4222, doi:10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020.

34) Arrhenius, S., 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41(251), 237–276, doi:10.1080/14786449608620846.

35) Arrhenius, S., 1908: Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, NY, USA and London, UK, 230 pp.

36) Asay-Davis, X.S., N.C. Jourdain, and Y. Nakayama, 2017: Developments in Simulating and Parameterizing Interactions Between the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Current Climate Change Reports, 3(4), 316329, doi:10.1007/s40641-017-0071-0.

37) Ashton, T.S., 1997: The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 162 pp.

38) Ashwin, P., S. Wieczorek, R. Vitolo, and P. Cox, 2012: Tipping points in open systems: bifurcation, noise-induced and rate-dependent examples in the climate system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1962), 1166–1184, doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0306.

post the paper, having a link is not what you claimed, crick claimed he had papers that prove that particular scientist believes in the catastrophic global warming.

Post the papers crick, I know you cant, you did not know. You are a filthy liar.

 

[Crick]

post the paper

Post what paper? The Mark Lynas paper? That's precisely where the link in my last post goes to you ignorant twat.

having a link is not what you claimed

Yes, it is, you lying asshole.

crick claimed he had papers that prove that particular scientist believes in the catastrophic global warming

I never said anything such thing you lying piece of shit.

Post the papers crick, I know you cant, you did not know. You are a filthy liar.

You are the one who is lying here.