This is laughable, RG.
STUDY CONFIRMS GLOBAL WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY NATURAL
c-o-n-f-i-r-m-s
Confirms
Did that Monkton got ever publish his paper that was going to prove it mathematically impossible?
You ing idiot.
They do not make the same clam that the pundits say they do.
Read the god-damn paper!
Convo with WC about global warming?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-25-2017 at 03:51 PM.
Lol
Neither of those two support your position. Tamsin's whole deal is that the confusion she is referencing gives shills such as yourself the ability to confuse the issue for the common man. She finds models useful which is anathema to your dogma.
Tyson got served some cold cuts
I see you have me in the crushing grip of reason.
Why should I read the paper? Take a breath, and use your words.
You are going to believe the word of a pundit, who is no better than a political operative, rather than read the actual papers...
Wow...
He's asking you to make an argument about the paper as opposed to asking him to make your argument for him, dim.
Please do. You've been afraid to talk actual science here for years now.
I bet you go back to calling us stupid without explaining that either.
I have read and posted what those papers actually mean vs. what the pundits claim in the past.
Instead of me cherry picking the paper, how about either of you pick one of these several papers. Find one that you like and can be linked for all of us to see, and I will tell you why the 97% isn't as advertised.
I have shot them down before. Why must I do this again?
We've responded to your rebuttals in the past, dim.
You acting like you have won past arguments is laughable in light of your reputation as the village idiot.
What I think is you are too stupid to recall the argument because your memory is . Coupled with laziness, you are not going to look up again the arguments that you are too stupid to come up with on your own.
If you want to leave it as it is then fine. We both know what the board sentiment is towards you and your arguments, partschanger.
You really should stop looking in the mirror when you have a thought to reply.
No evidence from the coward. Typical.
Your word is meaningless.
"I'm rubber, and you're glue"?
Okaaay.
Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.Climate Myth...
Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)
But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.
The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions.[/quote]
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...termediate.htm
To say we're currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is ac ulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are ac ulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
Church et al 2011 extends the analysis of Murphy 2009 which calculated the Earth's total heat content through to 2003. This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to ac ulate heat through to 2008.
Figure 1: Total amount of heat from global warming that has ac ulated in Earth's climate system from 1962 to 2008, from Church et al. (2011). Also see this graphic that shows the ocean heating in two layers, 0-700 meters and 700-2000 meters deep.
Figure 1: University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) temperature chart from January 1979 to November 2010. This chart is shown with no trend lines so the viewer may make his own judgment.
Below is the same temperature chart, showing how skeptics manipulate the data to give the impression of 'Global Cooling'. First they choose the warmest most recent year they can find. Then, in this case, they exclude 20 years of previous temperature records. Next they draw a line from the warmest year (the high peak) to the lowest La Niña they can find. In doing this they falsely give the impression that an ordinary La Niña is actually a cooling trend.
What do the past 30 years of temperature data really show? Below is the answer.
Figure 3: Trend lines showing the sudden jump in temperatures in the 1995 La Niña (Green lines) and the 1998 (Pink lines) El Niño events. Brown line indicates overall increase in temperatures.
Let's pick one at (HA) random.This graphic summarises the studies into scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, that look at expert opinion of either climate scientists who have published peer-reviewed climate research, or peer-reviewed climate papers.
Verheggen 2014
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998eResults are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. The respondents’ quan ative estimate of the GHG contribution appeared to strongly depend on their judgment or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols. The phrasing of the IPCC attribution statement in its fourth assessment report (AR4)—providing a lower limit for the isolated GHG contribution—may have led to an underestimation of the GHG influence on recent warming. The phrasing was improved in AR5. We also report on the respondents’ views on other factors contributing to global warming; of these Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC) was considered the most important. Respondents who characterized human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having had the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (16), pp 8963–8971
DOI: 10.1021/es501998e
Publication Date (Web): July 22, 2014
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
