Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[orogenicman]

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't think the issue is that whether global warming is actually happening; it's quite obvious that it's happening and anyone with a brain knows it is.

The issue is whether it's caused by human activity or not. That's up to debate and more research needs to be done on the topic.

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

The appeal to authority and the lie of a 97% consensus is laughable but not unexpected.. Using 77 papers after throwing away over 11944 others which did not express that view was a hell of a away to get a lie going..

Legates Et Al showed the fallacy and lie rather well.

 

[orogenicman]

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

When natural sources are 96X greater... What man places into the atmosphere has little or no consequence.

30+ billion tons additional ghgs emitted into the atmosphere each year is not an insignificant amount. And don't think I have noticed that not a one of you deniers have ever addressed that issue.

Equating someone as a Holocaust denier is what a fool who has no science to provide any proof does.. Nice to see you stoop right to adhoms and admit you have no empirical evidence to prove anything with..

Well, dude, since we know you are wrong, and your actions are causing delays in remediation, one could consider your actions at least as bad as the holocaust deniers, or worse.

 

[orogenicman]

When you say "global warming" do you mean MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? .

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

The appeal to authority and the lie of a 97% consensus is laughable but not expected.. using 77 papers after throwing away over 11350 others which did not express that view was a hell of a away to get a lie going..

Legates Et Al showed the fallacy an dlie rather well.

You have it backwards. But you knew that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

The appeal to authority and the lie of a 97% consensus is laughable but not expected.. using 77 papers after throwing away over 11350 others which did not express that view was a hell of a away to get a lie going..

Legates Et Al showed the fallacy an dlie rather well.

You have it backwards. But you knew that.

LOL you really are clueless...

here, let me help you pull your head out of your ass..

Link

 

[jc456]

Now, don't you global warming nuts feel just a little silly?

New Study Is A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria The Daily Caller

First of all. let me say that I find it amusing that conservatives who have ranted on and on about the invalidity of climate models have apparently latched onto a model that they believe agrees with their politics. Secondly, I don't believe this paper says what they claim it says. Perhaps you folks should re-read it (after, of course, taking a primer on climate science so you can understand the big words).

I don't want the same class you took sorry I'll go to my school

Fine. Just go to school, dopy.

I did, learned how to see through bullshit. You should have gone to my school

Well, guy, if you weren't so full of bullshit, you wouldn't need to learn to see through it.

Well if you left here one piece of bullshit would be gone. You're so lost right now I'm laughing

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, I do not. There's not much research done on the subject in terms of whether it's man-caused, mainly because it's hard to. There are a shit ton of different sources that produce greenhouse gases, some of which are naturally caused.

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

When natural sources are 96X greater... What man places into the atmosphere has little or no consequence.

30+ billion tons additional ghgs emitted into the atmosphere each year is not an insignificant amount. And don't think I have noticed that not a one of you deniers have ever addressed that issue.

Equating someone as a Holocaust denier is what a fool who has no science to provide any proof does.. Nice to see you stoop right to adhoms and admit you have no empirical evidence to prove anything with..

Well, dude, since we know you are wrong, and your actions are causing delays in remediation, one could consider your actions at least as bad as the holocaust deniers, or worse.

You have no proof yet you would kill millions "just in case"... Maybey you should get in line to be one that is removed from the earth or is that only reserved for people you disagree with?

 

[jc456]

no we're right when the facts support our claim. When you can present the facts and evidence that proves us wrong let us all know and we will gladly bow our heads, until then, talk about something you actually know.

Sure thing you can just go ahead and look at the studies of practically every reputable weather or environmental foundation in the world since they all concur.

You can bow now btw

They can all kiss my ass as you can!

typical conservative response when they're proven wrong

Ha, got ya, then post up that experiment that shows what 120ppm of co2 does to temperature

I don't have a study because I don't know of any, this is the first study I've heard of at all that deals with this issue on either side. It doesn't matter much because CO2 is only one of 10+ greenhouse gases. Watervapor is a greenhouse gas, for christ's sake. Apparently Water Vapor accounts for between 36% and up to 70% of the greenhouse effect. I don't know why the range for that is so high. Methane is also closely behind CO2.

So then don't you think that's important?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you believe that emitting 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere each year does nothing, that they are somehow inert once they are emitted?

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

The appeal to authority and the lie of a 97% consensus is laughable but not expected.. using 77 papers after throwing away over 11350 others which did not express that view was a hell of a away to get a lie going..

Legates Et Al showed the fallacy an dlie rather well.

You have it backwards. But you knew that.

LOL you really are clueless...

here, let me help you pull your head out of your ass..

Link

So, you prefer a post it from an unknown, unpublished source over a known, published one. Thanks for proving my points. Moreover, the question was not whether or not CO2 caused most of the global warming since 1950. The question was whether or not the current global warming is manmade. And the answer to that question is resoundingly, yes it is.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

No, the argument from you deniers has been that ALL models are false. And yet here you are supporting - a model. And by the way, the model that you support doesn't say what you think it says. Congratulations.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't think either way, really. If this argument were as simple as that then it wouldn't be an argument.

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

The appeal to authority and the lie of a 97% consensus is laughable but not expected.. using 77 papers after throwing away over 11350 others which did not express that view was a hell of a away to get a lie going..

Legates Et Al showed the fallacy an dlie rather well.

You have it backwards. But you knew that.

LOL you really are clueless...

here, let me help you pull your head out of your ass..

Link

So, you prefer a post it from an unknown, unpublished source over a known, published one. Thanks for proving my points. Moreover, the question was not whether or not CO2 caused most of the global warming since 1950. The question was whether or not the current global warming is manmade. And the answer to that question is resoundingly, yes it is.

Legates Et Al is a published and peer reviewed work. Funny how when your show to be a liar you project... and again you will try with knowing that legates meets the alarmist drone on of "but it needs to be peer reviewed"...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

No, the argument from you deniers has been that ALL models are false. And yet here you are supporting - a model. And by the way, the model that you support doesn't say what you think it says. Congratulations.

Your Models FAILED.... and still do today..

Graph Source: Dr. J Spencer

 

[orogenicman]

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

The appeal to authority and the lie of a 97% consensus is laughable but not expected.. using 77 papers after throwing away over 11350 others which did not express that view was a hell of a away to get a lie going..

Legates Et Al showed the fallacy an dlie rather well.

You have it backwards. But you knew that.

LOL you really are clueless...

here, let me help you pull your head out of your ass..

Link

So, you prefer a post it from an unknown, unpublished source over a known, published one. Thanks for proving my points. Moreover, the question was not whether or not CO2 caused most of the global warming since 1950. The question was whether or not the current global warming is manmade. And the answer to that question is resoundingly, yes it is.

Legates Et Al is a published and peer reviewed work. Funny how when your show to be a liar you project... and again you will try with knowing that legates meets the alarmist drone on of "but it needs to be peer reviewed"...

Then post a link to the published, peer reviewed work that supports your claim.

 

[orogenicman]

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

No, the argument from you deniers has been that ALL models are false. And yet here you are supporting - a model. And by the way, the model that you support doesn't say what you think it says. Congratulations.

Your Models FAILED.... and still do today..
View attachment 39983

And not a one of them, from your graph, shows anything other than what climate scientists have been saying all along.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

Lets take this one at face value.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim a runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

That is Empirical evidence using the IPCC's own goal posts. By their own rules CAGW does not exist, CO2 attribution does not exist, the alarmist world comes crashing down. And now we have 18 years and 4 months of a zero trend or 12 years 4 months of a cooling trend all the while CO2 continues to show it is not coupled with temperature in any way.

The Null Hypothesis lays the premise waste..

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, the argument from you deniers has been that ALL models are false. And yet here you are supporting - a model. And by the way, the model that you support doesn't say what you think it says. Congratulations.

My Bull Shit meter just pegged...

IF a model can predict the future for more than 36 hours you have a model that is as good as they get today. ALL of today's models can not predict the future with any reliability or certainty but some fools want to kill economies and people because of what these unreliable pieces of crap say and they believe knowing that they fail inside 36 hours.

Models do not have the precision to be making any policy matter decisions based on them. When you can produce a model which can predict the stop in warming we have observed for the ;last 18 years and 4 months and the cooling or warming to follow, with accuracy, then we can start talking about policy decisions.

The Farmers Almanac, which uses natural cycles for its predictions, is far superior to any model.

 

[lake avenue]

Sure thing you can just go ahead and look at the studies of practically every reputable weather or environmental foundation in the world since they all concur.

You can bow now btw

They can all kiss my ass as you can!

typical conservative response when they're proven wrong

Ha, got ya, then post up that experiment that shows what 120ppm of co2 does to temperature

I don't have a study because I don't know of any, this is the first study I've heard of at all that deals with this issue on either side. It doesn't matter much because CO2 is only one of 10+ greenhouse gases. Watervapor is a greenhouse gas, for christ's sake. Apparently Water Vapor accounts for between 36% and up to 70% of the greenhouse effect. I don't know why the range for that is so high. Methane is also closely behind CO2.

So then don't you think that's important?

of course I do. I'd love the scientific community to come to a consensus over this instead of jerking off into each other's mouths all day, or at least that's what I assume these guys do instead of getting these studies done

 

[lake avenue]

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

Lets take this one at face value.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim a runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

That is Empirical evidence using the IPCC's own goal posts. By their own rules CAGW does not exist, CO2 attribution does not exist, the alarmist world comes crashing down. And now we have 18 years and 4 months of a zero trend or 12 years 4 months of a cooling trend all the while CO2 continues to show it is not coupled with temperature in any way.

The Null Hypothesis lays the premise waste..

proposing an idea and playing devils advocate here.

what if we were in an ice age currently, and it's simply supposed to be getting colder but GHG are keeping it at a level temperature? I don't know the answer to this so I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

Lets take this one at face value.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim a runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

That is Empirical evidence using the IPCC's own goal posts. By their own rules CAGW does not exist, CO2 attribution does not exist, the alarmist world comes crashing down. And now we have 18 years and 4 months of a zero trend or 12 years 4 months of a cooling trend all the while CO2 continues to show it is not coupled with temperature in any way.

The Null Hypothesis lays the premise waste..

proposing an idea and playing devils advocate here.

what if we were in an ice age currently, and it's simply supposed to be getting colder but GHG are keeping it at a level temperature? I don't know the answer to this so I'm just throwing it out there.

The problem is, were not going into a warmer climactic time. According to history we are at the end of the current warm period called the Holocene. when we drop into the next glacial cycle we will not be prepared because of the alarmists.

A drop of 6-10 deg C in just 20-50 years will be abrupt and no one unprepared will be spared.. even those prepared will take heavy losses.