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

[lake avenue]

done some research. all of these are facts.

most scientists agree that climate change is human-made source 1 and source 2

there are no current scientific bodies of national or international standing (most if not all credible scientific bodies fall under here) that disagree with this source 1 and source 2

this is causing glaciers to retreat earlier and faster than they typically do and causes our oceans to gradually become more acidic source 1 and source 2

particulates in the air cause the stratosphere to become colder while making surface air hotter. this difference results in depletion of the ozone layer

warming causes food growth to slow or stop in the lower hemisphere source 1 and source 2

 

[Valerie]

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

interesting assumption... very scientific

 

[lake avenue]

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

interesting assumption... very scientific

they're studying proteins

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

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

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

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.

Really?

What's the total mass of Earths atmosphere?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

"
Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing:
These findings suggest that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed." -- hmm, seems the Daily Caller and the OP are the ones engaging in hysteria

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

So every scientists who says there is scientific consensus on a scientific topic is in a cult?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is like the crazy debate of years past over does HIV cause AIDS. I remember reading news reports and the deniers would jump on every little snippet of NEWS and draw correlations to support their nutty science.

Nowhere does the science suggest what the headline states

 

[lake avenue]

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

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

- said the blind man

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

View attachment 39986
View attachment 39987

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.

Wonderful graphs. From the same guy that stated the water molecule is ten time bigger than the carbon dioxide molecule. 96 picometers for water, 235 pc for carbon dioxide. Billy Boob will post or state whatever lie he can to support his twisted views. He has zero credibility. And never posts links to check on the lying graphs he put up. Here is the real temps for the immediate past from many sources.
AOL Search

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperaturereconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicateuncertainty.

Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothemreconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).

Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average ofHadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

 

[jc456]

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.

to which you have no evidence. Prove it dude, show the experiment that shows what 10 PPM of manmade CO2 does differently than 10 PPM of natural CO2. Your answer will be that it does absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!!

 

[jc456]

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.

it isn't that they are false, it is that empirical data makes them wrong. And no attempt has been made to correct them. That sir is the argument. Get with what the argument is. BTW, still no experiment.

 

[jc456]

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.

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

 

[jc456]

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

but you don't seem to understand that consensus is already established on the warmers side. No proof of anything, yet consensus. Now, I'm no scientist, and never made a claim on here otherwise, but I need proof to believe in a myth. And right now, there is zero evidence. I do have history, and history says that before humans CO2 in the atmosphere was in the thousands and there was no runaway heat phenomenon. IMO, the warmers are merely tired of an opposing view and wish to take money from humans to kill them. That's all I can come up with since not a one of them can produce their evidence.

 

[jc456]

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.

View attachment 39986
View attachment 39987

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.

Wonderful graphs. From the same guy that stated the water molecule is ten time bigger than the carbon dioxide molecule. 96 picometers for water, 235 pc for carbon dioxide. Billy Boob will post or state whatever lie he can to support his twisted views. He has zero credibility. And never posts links to check on the lying graphs he put up. Here is the real temps for the immediate past from many sources.
AOL Search

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperaturereconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicateuncertainty.

Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothemreconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).

Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average ofHadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

more stupid graphs from reconstructed datasets that prove only one thing, cheaters are cheaters and manipulators are manipulators. liar!!!!

 

[jc456]

done some research. all of these are facts.

most scientists agree that climate change is human-made source 1 and source 2

there are no current scientific bodies of national or international standing (most if not all credible scientific bodies fall under here) that disagree with this source 1 and source 2

this is causing glaciers to retreat earlier and faster than they typically do and causes our oceans to gradually become more acidic source 1 and source 2

particulates in the air cause the stratosphere to become colder while making surface air hotter. this difference results in depletion of the ozone layer

warming causes food growth to slow or stop in the lower hemisphere source 1 and source 2

how can you have facts without evidence? Please explain.

 

[jc456]

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

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

So every scientists who says there is scientific consensus on a scientific topic is in a cult?

yes!!! Did we studder?

 

[jc456]

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

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

- said the blind man

no, the one who actually understands science.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"100 Authors against Einstein". His response was "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

It is amusing to see deniers use this out of context and misread what exactly it was all about. There was a building consensus around Einstein's ideas.

very funny posts:
martin shields said...

Hello Gordon, I just stumbled across this, and it is wrong on so many level. The "100 authors" document was basically Nazi propaganda designed to discredit Jewish scientists and, of course, Einstein was a major target. Einstein had already received widespread recognition for his work before this was published (he received the 1921 Nobel Prize). By the 1920s Einstein's fame was growing.

So what we have in the 1931 document is a minority arguing against the developing scientific consensus on Einstein's work for quite unscientific reasons. If we're going to draw parallels, I think you have things the wrong way around here!

-------

Gordon Cheng said...

I acknowledge what you say about the context, Martin, which I indicate in my post by noting the year in which the tract was published. The quote applies to the climate change debate, in my opinion, but for different reasons. And the analogy to the speed of light issue works, surely. Before Einstein, there was a settled consensus that was subsequently overturned by the appearance of new theories that better explained the observed data, which in any case was less complete than it was after the solar eclipse that proved Einstein's theories.

Perhaps quoting quotes is a practice more honoured in the breach than the observance ;-)

(to quote another quote that has burst the bounds of its original context)

28 July 2007 at 08:10

Gordon Cheng s blog Scientific consensus and Einstein​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

- said the blind man

no, the one who actually understands science.

says the idiot who mistakes idiocy for genius