He lost his funding?
A Great Victory - Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate agreement
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
He finished the study, no more major funding needed
there is peer reviewed science there saying man made co2 causes warming.
there is a guess on your link that says warming can be explained by volcanoes and mans actions.
and a statement saying they don't think its the sun.
that is very far from science showing man made co2 causes warming.
it is important to not that science that work was done there has been peer reviewed science showing temperature and changes in the sun and changes in ocean temps do lead co2 levels.
there is a guess on your link that says warming can be explained by volcanoes and mans actions.
and a statement saying they don't think its the sun.
that is very far from science showing man made co2 causes warming.
it is important to not that science that work was done there has been peer reviewed science showing temperature and changes in the sun and changes in ocean temps do lead co2 levels.
Last edited:
I'm skeptical.
Who is stopping you from doing the research just like that guy?
"The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis"
No, no,no that's fine. If it's good enough for Royal Dutch Petroleum it's good enough for me. I'm sure they wouldn't do anything to slow down economic growth and that's what matters most to me.
there is a massive difference.
the science shows that throughout history of the planet and long before man the earth has been cycling. first temperature goes up and then co2 levels go up and then after the cycle finishes temperature drops and co2 levels drop. (this is all natural co2.)
Chaikin and other scientists have speculated that once the warming starts out of ice age then co2 gets released and the co2 amplifies the warming. Why this is speculation it makes sense to me.
I suspect the intial released of co2 do keep some warmth in.
However there is science showing that as you more co2 the warming co2 can do would decrease in power geometrically.
I therefore believe and NASA studies show CO2 is a thermostat at first it helps the earth warm..A nasa study showed that CO2 also blocks warming rays. NASA said co2 acts as a thermostat. Its possible that as you started adding more co2 it works more as a shield than an blanket and that when combined with a change in cycle the co2 starts helping the earth cool.
We know. co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps up and down in all the accepted data sets... ... we have that science.
See chaikin and humlum peer reviewed studies.
2. We don't have any proof man made co2 makes a difference to our natural cycles.
In part because we don't know that our earth is a closed system. We don't know that our natural sinks do just eat or realease co2 based on temperature.
CO2 levels may be set by temperature of change in ocean temps... similar to the way humidity follows temps.
3. Its possible that in the the end of the cycle co2 amplifies cooling.
4. Much of the science in determining what is causing warming or cooling is point to cloud and cloud formation. We believe high clouds keep warmth in. low clouds in the tropics cause cooling. It is very hard to even develop models showing whether its sun, solar flares, co2 or other factors which impact clouds. So until we figure out clouds it seems no real scientists is going to be able to say anything conclusive about man made co2.
So yes man made vs natural co2 is different. .. if the science could ever figure out how co2 levels interact with clouds and come to a conclusion that co2 really does amplify warming (or cooling) that would be useful. But then it would take another huge scientific effort to show that man made co2 is augmenting that amplification.
the science shows that throughout history of the planet and long before man the earth has been cycling. first temperature goes up and then co2 levels go up and then after the cycle finishes temperature drops and co2 levels drop. (this is all natural co2.)
Chaikin and other scientists have speculated that once the warming starts out of ice age then co2 gets released and the co2 amplifies the warming. Why this is speculation it makes sense to me.
I suspect the intial released of co2 do keep some warmth in.
However there is science showing that as you more co2 the warming co2 can do would decrease in power geometrically.
I therefore believe and NASA studies show CO2 is a thermostat at first it helps the earth warm..A nasa study showed that CO2 also blocks warming rays. NASA said co2 acts as a thermostat. Its possible that as you started adding more co2 it works more as a shield than an blanket and that when combined with a change in cycle the co2 starts helping the earth cool.
We know. co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps up and down in all the accepted data sets... ... we have that science.
See chaikin and humlum peer reviewed studies.
2. We don't have any proof man made co2 makes a difference to our natural cycles.
In part because we don't know that our earth is a closed system. We don't know that our natural sinks do just eat or realease co2 based on temperature.
CO2 levels may be set by temperature of change in ocean temps... similar to the way humidity follows temps.
3. Its possible that in the the end of the cycle co2 amplifies cooling.
4. Much of the science in determining what is causing warming or cooling is point to cloud and cloud formation. We believe high clouds keep warmth in. low clouds in the tropics cause cooling. It is very hard to even develop models showing whether its sun, solar flares, co2 or other factors which impact clouds. So until we figure out clouds it seems no real scientists is going to be able to say anything conclusive about man made co2.
So yes man made vs natural co2 is different. .. if the science could ever figure out how co2 levels interact with clouds and come to a conclusion that co2 really does amplify warming (or cooling) that would be useful. But then it would take another huge scientific effort to show that man made co2 is augmenting that amplification.
listen? ... I have read almost everything that has come out.
that is part of the reason why I can tell you there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming. (that did not rely on now failed models)
to state this is a very simple manner...
if you understood the scientific process you would know, that no serious scientist would rule out the sun or solar flares or anything else right now.
science does not work that way.
they would have to say... that ______________ shows a 90% correlation with warming or cooling or whatever they found. Using the null hypothesis I just don't see how they could rule out the sun or tides or clouds or methane or solar flares or aerosols or any other natural causes. Clouds make the process far too complex right now.
if you read the peer reviewed studies they state the sun contributes or the tides contribute... but they don't state they understand 100 percent of the cause.
here are 1350 peer reviewed papers which are skeptical... enjoy
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
that is part of the reason why I can tell you there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming. (that did not rely on now failed models)
to state this is a very simple manner...
if you understood the scientific process you would know, that no serious scientist would rule out the sun or solar flares or anything else right now.
science does not work that way.
they would have to say... that ______________ shows a 90% correlation with warming or cooling or whatever they found. Using the null hypothesis I just don't see how they could rule out the sun or tides or clouds or methane or solar flares or aerosols or any other natural causes. Clouds make the process far too complex right now.
if you read the peer reviewed studies they state the sun contributes or the tides contribute... but they don't state they understand 100 percent of the cause.
here are 1350 peer reviewed papers which are skeptical... enjoy
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Last edited:
Again, nobody is disputing that but what they are saying is that the current changes cannot be explained by natural cycles alone - that's what the Berkeley project was all about, it proved conclusively that man made CO2 at least did play a part. And this guy had ZERO reasons to lie about this, he was funded by the Koch's and has been a skeptic for decades till he went out to prove his skepticism. What data sets have you collected or analyzed to prove him wrong?