Climate Alarmists Own Words Debunk Their Science

Quote from sle:

Maybe I was not clear. Do you have any references from any peer reviewed publications that (a) denies increase of the mean temperatures and (b) proves an alternative hypothesis to human industrial/agricultural activity being a major contributor to this increase? Not investors.com nor forbes.com, but a real scientific journal.

PS. Yes, I have downloaded the data from GISS and it looks pretty convincing to me.
There are tons of links to articles and there are over 1000 peer reveiwed papers you can locate that disprove the AGW science. I suggest you read those threads and the competing science. You will find what you need if you are truly looking for the facts and the truth.

But a number are linked peer reviewed papers can be found here. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

BTW, Hanson has a problem with slanted data and analysis. Here is just one mention of it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
 
Quote from sle:

My approach to these things is always to look at the data which I did for this particular case and the numbers were pretty compelling.

The numbers are only compelling when you are looking at fraudulent data sets. To please their funding masters, the scientists unfortunately have created fraudulent data sets by removing data stations that do not support their pre-determined conclusions and have 'fixed' data in many cases to support their arguments. To best example is outlined in the leaked East Anglia emails involving the activities climate change promoter Penn State Professor Michael Mann.
 
Quote from pspr:

Wrong monkey brains.

Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. And, thank God becasuse with out it we would still be Snowball Earth.

Here's another inconvenient truth for you monkey brains. Man hasn't released that much CO2. Some day you really need to get a clue and quit posting all your bull shit.

Although water vapor has a greater greenhouse effect, CO2 is the more important greenhouse gas for long term climate changes and global warming. Water vapor is self limiting and does not accumulate like CO2 .

"So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regardless, the fact that CO2 is responsible for twenty percent of immediate greenhouse effect means that when it goes up 35% from man as has been proven the GE is going to go up around 7%. But that is amplified by higher temps causing more vapor and clouds.


Why is this simple common sense thing so difficult for Republicans?
 
Quote from sle:

Maybe I was not clear. Do you have any references from any peer reviewed publications that (a) denies increase of the mean temperatures and (b) proves an alternative hypothesis to human industrial/agricultural activity being a major contributor to this increase? Not investors.com nor forbes.com, but a real scientific journal.

PS. Yes, I have downloaded the data from GISS and it looks pretty convincing to me.

Start here...

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

All the other ET threads on global warming contain plenty of references to peer reviewed resources demonstrating the actual facts regarding climate change.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

Go read the other theads. In the 1970s there was plenty of panic about global cooling that was going to cause the next ice age by year 2000. This was constantly covered in the media with plenty of scientists predicting calamity unless action was taken immediately (meaning to fund them more). In the 1970s global cooling was taught as an 'accepted fact' in K-12 science classes and at universities. In my case, 'global cooling' was part of the New York State Regents agenda and taught as a certain fact in our earth science classes.

Do you see the similarities...

Once again you simply wrong and deluded. The vast majority of climate scientists in the seventies predicted global warming.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

Start here...

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

All the other ET threads on global warming contain plenty of references to peer reviewed resources demonstrating the actual facts regarding climate change.

The first key issue is that CO2 lags warming by 800 years. The following url outlines this in charts and includes links to many peer reviewed papers by leading scientists on the subject.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

The CO2 level in the atmosphere today is reflective of the peak of the warming period that ended in 1300AD.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Once again you simply wrong and deluded. The vast majority of climate scientists in the seventies predicted global warming.

LOL
 
Quote from pspr:

There are tons of links to articles and there are over 1000 peer reveiwed papers you can locate that disprove the AGW science. I suggest you read those threads and the competing science. You will find what you need if you are truly looking for the facts and the truth.

BTW, Hanson has a problem with slanted data and analysis. Here is just one mention of it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

Oh yeah Watts. A meteorologist with just one peer reviewed paper that he co wrote and that was about the siting of weather stations. I wonder how the Koch bros are paying him? The man's a hack.

No Pisspoor, he was asking for something from a reliable science source. Try NOAA. You have nothing but tabloid science and fringe pseudo climate scientists employed by the denier industry. Whereas we have far above 90%, no matter how you look at it, consensus from climate scientists and 97% of the elite climate scientists.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

The numbers are only compelling when you are looking at fraudulent data sets. To please their funding masters, the scientists unfortunately have created fraudulent data sets by removing data stations that do not support their pre-determined conclusions and have 'fixed' data in many cases to support their arguments. To best example is outlined in the leaked East Anglia emails involving the activities climate change promoter Penn State Professor Michael Mann.
If you go and look at historical temperature sets from the universities outside of the sphere of the US influence (e.g. Moscow State University), you will find a similar trend. The upward trend in the global temperature are very hard to deny (and the intelligent critics do not go there) and the impact is fairly real - forget about the hurricanes, simply take a look at Maldives and Venice. The real question is if there is a compelling link between human activity and the particular phenomenon and I think the jury is still out.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Although water vapor has a greater greenhouse effect, CO2 is the more important greenhouse gas for long term climate changes and global warming. Water vapor is self limiting and does not accumulate like CO2
Your posts are just getting more humorous by the day. You have nothing to support your uninformed beliefs. Here's a little chart that puts your lie in perspective and shows how stupid your argument is.

<img src=http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif>
 
Back
Top