Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

So to sum up, every climate scientist and every science organization on the planet expressly says the man made global warming is true http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ and jem cannot ONE scientist that says that man made global warming is not true.

Actually such a scientist would be famous and very notable. One would not have to make up stuff like jem is doing and put words in their mouth that they did not say.
 
go ahead link us to a list of scientists who state man made co2 is causing global warming.
We have 31000 skeptics.

I doubt you can even link to 100 scientists who state man made co2 causes warming. No bodies influenced by funding and politics... but real scientists wiling to put that name to something not proven.
 
futurecurrents said:
So to sum up, every climate scientist and every science organization on the planet expressly says the man made global warming is true http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ and jem cannot ONE scientist that says that man made global warming is not true.

Actually such a scientist would be famous and very notable. One would not have to make up stuff like jem is doing and put words in their mouth that they did not say.
More...

Yadda Yadda Yadda..... same nonsense over & over. All you can do is post the url of a website maintained by graduate students at the California Institute of Technology. A website which involves no NASA employees. A website that astronauts and scientists who work for NASA have been demanding to be taken down.

You have posted this url over 300 times - each time with the same nonsense about looking at a list of scientific organizations.

Let me make it very clear that this continual re-posting is abusive to the forum.
 
gwb-trading said:
Amusing that Jem and others provide peer reviewed paper after paper and scientist after scientist including the highly-respected heads of university climate departments ....
More...

Amusing maybe then to provide a peer review on the paper presented from the same source.....




“The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim

Highlights

Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.

Abstract

Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1.
 
Last edited:
jem said:
go ahead link us to a list of scientists who state man made co2 is causing global warming.
We have 31000 skeptics.

I doubt you can even link to 100 scientists who state man made co2 causes warming. No bodies influenced by funding and politics... but real scientists wiling to put that name to something not proven.
More...


So to sum up, every climate scientist and every science organization on the planet expressly says the man made global warming is true http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ and you cannot name ONE climate scientist that says that man made global warming is not true.

Actually such a scientist would be famous and very notable. He would be very easy to find.

Not

even

one.

I'm done arguing with you on this. It's like arguing with the shopping cart lady that wanders the streets yelling at no one in particular.
 
anyone who has done some work trading... realizes that your critique is silly.

The differentiation used by Humlum et al was to remove seasonality form the data. You can see that in the many charts I presented here in the past.

The diff was used to compare Jan to jan, then feb to feb, march to march. Everyone one of us knows temperature changes by season. It is entirely appropriate to take the seasonality out of the data in order to see the year over year trend. Just like we do with jobs data.

Comparing season to season is an excellent way to see the long term trends of the data when the data is seasonal.

The guy who wrote that critique is a nut.

==

The conservation of mass argument is tried by nutters all the time.

It makes multiple incorrect assumptions.

The first glaring one is that it assumes we are in a closed system and gas can not escape into space.

2... almost all nutter arguments about how co2 works in our environment make an assumption about how long CO2 lasts in our environment. This assumption is called the bern convention. There are many indications showing the Bern convention is not accurate. One particularly interesting challenge to the bern convention is this...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07...or-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/


Guest essay by Gösta Pettersson

The Keeling curve establishes that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has shown a steady long-term increase since 1958. Proponents of the antropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis have attributed the increasing carbon dioxide level to human activities such as combustion of fossil fuels and land-use changes. Opponents of the AGW hypothesis have argued that this would require that the turnover time for atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 100 years, which is inconsistent with a multitude of experimental studies indicating that the turnover time is of the order of 10 years.


stu said:
Amusing maybe then to provide a peer review on the paper presented from the same source.....




“The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim

Highlights

Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.

Abstract

Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1.
More...
 
Last edited:
in short you refuse to answer the question because you have no peer reviewed papers showing man made co2 causes warming (that don't rely on failed models)

and you don't have a list of 100 or even 10 scientists who state man made co2 causes warming.



futurecurrents said:
So to sum up, every climate scientist and every science organization on the planet expressly says the man made global warming is true http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ and you cannot name ONE climate scientist that says that man made global warming is not true.

Actually such a scientist would be famous and very notable. He would be very easy to find.

Not

even

one.

I'm done arguing with you on this. It's like arguing with the shopping cart lady that wanders the streets yelling at no one in particular.
More...
 
I give you credit for actually going one step deeper than your usual troll and at least posted something resembling "content" not manufactured in your own brain.

so I will accept the fact that you have now returned to form.



stu said:
ok, then the guys who wrote the paper are all nuts.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top