Global Warming: For Experts Only
- Thread starter julianVGS
- Start date
nice try einstein. your dodge is pathetic. Acting like you possess more info is such a typical response from lying lefty with an inflated self opinion.
I got the physics correct. I looked it up to make sure. Your statement sounded newtonian but of course you will make up some bullshit with a word jungle of misused terms to try and pretend you meant something you did not say. (as you frequently have done in the past when you were caught lying about science.)
there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming (that does not rely on now failed models) in part because it will be very had to show because changes in co2 trail changes in temperature. But, I note billions of dollars paid out to researchers each year to try and find it.
arguing the absence of peer reviewed science means its an established fact
is criminally stupid.
You are arguing that science is the antithesis of the scientific method.
I got the physics correct. I looked it up to make sure. Your statement sounded newtonian but of course you will make up some bullshit with a word jungle of misused terms to try and pretend you meant something you did not say. (as you frequently have done in the past when you were caught lying about science.)
there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming (that does not rely on now failed models) in part because it will be very had to show because changes in co2 trail changes in temperature. But, I note billions of dollars paid out to researchers each year to try and find it.
arguing the absence of peer reviewed science means its an established fact
is criminally stupid.
You are arguing that science is the antithesis of the scientific method.
It is very unlikely you'll ever understand what a ridiculous response that is , or how much you managed to pull off such a gigantic WTF??!!moment by totally making and missing my point both at the same time.
Let me try that
"you might not be seeing it in peer reviewed papers because anthropic co2 has been superseded by climate change."
Nah, somehow you just say something absurd and then make it even more so!
Last edited:
I love the way lefty trolls make unconditional statements about the sun and it contribution to warming.
No real scientist could ever say its not the sun. They could only say that their investigations did not find a connection.
However, if you were not a lefty troll liar you would understand there might be science out there showing it still could be the sun. Here is just one of the recent studies...
This is how science works. you create experiments...
This is from CERN not some paid whores with soft degrees in agw "science".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...obal-warming-its-the-sun-stupid/#13c10e5266c2
Sorry, But With Global Warming It's The Sun, Stupid
....
Failing to raise any significant research support, Svensmark managed to conduct a boot-strap-funded experiment in 2007 at the Danish National Space Center that yielded convincing validation. Using a particle accelerator, he demonstrated that cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the atmosphere can, in fact, cause gaseous water vapor to condense into cloud-forming droplets. Again, he received little scientific applause for this accomplishment.
But fortunately, at least one person took the Danes' early observations seriously. Following their presentation at the Birmingham conference, CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby*, a British experimental physicist, told the scientific press in 1998 that the theory "will probably be able to account for somewhere between half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."
Furthermore, he too, set out to obtain more proof. But his plan to do so wasn't an easy sell. It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to create a stainless steel cloud chamber to precisely replicate the Earth's atmosphere and conduct independent experiments.
It worked! As reported in the Aug. 25 issue of the journal Nature, Jasper Kirkby and his 62 co-authors from 17 institutes in Europe and the U.S. announced that the sun indeed has a significant influence on our planet's temperature. Their "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" (CLOUD) experiment proved that its magnetic field does, in fact, act as a gateway for cosmic rays that play a large role in cloud formation. The report stated "Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere]." In other words, the big influence exists, yet hasn't been factored into climate models.
No real scientist could ever say its not the sun. They could only say that their investigations did not find a connection.
However, if you were not a lefty troll liar you would understand there might be science out there showing it still could be the sun. Here is just one of the recent studies...
This is how science works. you create experiments...
This is from CERN not some paid whores with soft degrees in agw "science".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...obal-warming-its-the-sun-stupid/#13c10e5266c2
Sorry, But With Global Warming It's The Sun, Stupid
....
Failing to raise any significant research support, Svensmark managed to conduct a boot-strap-funded experiment in 2007 at the Danish National Space Center that yielded convincing validation. Using a particle accelerator, he demonstrated that cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the atmosphere can, in fact, cause gaseous water vapor to condense into cloud-forming droplets. Again, he received little scientific applause for this accomplishment.
But fortunately, at least one person took the Danes' early observations seriously. Following their presentation at the Birmingham conference, CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby*, a British experimental physicist, told the scientific press in 1998 that the theory "will probably be able to account for somewhere between half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."
Furthermore, he too, set out to obtain more proof. But his plan to do so wasn't an easy sell. It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to create a stainless steel cloud chamber to precisely replicate the Earth's atmosphere and conduct independent experiments.
It worked! As reported in the Aug. 25 issue of the journal Nature, Jasper Kirkby and his 62 co-authors from 17 institutes in Europe and the U.S. announced that the sun indeed has a significant influence on our planet's temperature. Their "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" (CLOUD) experiment proved that its magnetic field does, in fact, act as a gateway for cosmic rays that play a large role in cloud formation. The report stated "Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere]." In other words, the big influence exists, yet hasn't been factored into climate models.
For goodness sake.
Didn't I say it's very unlikely you'll ever understand what a ridiculous response you've made?
I was right!
and you've doubled down.
Of course there is peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming , just as there is peer reviewed science showing gravity causes motion.
For every bit of bullshit that says there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming, there is an equal amount of bullshit that says there is no peer reviewed science showing gravity causes motion.
Arguing against fact is what you are doing. If anything that is the antithesis of science, that is what's 'criminally stupid'..
For goodness sake.
Didn't I say it's very unlikely you'll ever understand what a ridiculous response you've made?
I was right!
and you've doubled down.
Of course there is peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming , just as there is peer reviewed science showing gravity causes motion.
For every bit of bullshit that says there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming, there is an equal amount of bullshit that says there is no peer reviewed science showing gravity causes motion.
Arguing against fact is what you are doing. If anything that is the antithesis of science, that is what's 'criminally stupid'..
And yet you cannot dig up a single peer reviewed scientific paper demonstrating that AGW causes global warming that is dangerous to man. Yep, not a single paper you can present on this, eh?
If it is so obvious, I would think that you would at least be able to find a single peer reviewed paper with this scientific summary, just one.
It does not conform. You are wrong.
Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences.
DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2007.0347
Lockwood / Fröhlich
"[..] all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987. "
"The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about,"
"The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about,"
The way Shaviv and Salby ignore and handwave away peer reviewed science with fancy presentations and ideas not in line with science itself, will be the main reason they choose to make youtube presentations and don't publish as thousands of other scientists have.
Fact is, science finds no natural causes that can account for the extreme global temperature change being recorded.
One single glaringly obvious scientifically evident verifiable reason is known greenhouse effects from measured man made CO2 in the atmosphere.
Again your confusing conventional studies of solar radiance with shaviv's work. You'll have to read his papers, or at the very minimum watch his entire youtube presentation, and pay attention, to see that his hypothesis is entirely different from what you apparently think it has to do with..
Shalby's work is unrelated. Shalby has not shown what warming is due to, but only that anthropomorphic atmospheric CO2 content is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis. All scientists agree that doubling of CO2 will cause a rise in mean temperature. However Salby, based on his studies, believes the rise will not just be much smaller that originally projected, but negligible.
Shalby's work is unrelated. Shalby has not shown what warming is due to, but only that anthropomorphic atmospheric CO2 content is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis. All scientists agree that doubling of CO2 will cause a rise in mean temperature. However Salby, based on his studies, believes the rise will not just be much smaller that originally projected, but negligible.
Last edited:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is full of them.
They also cover Evolution and Physics too but not moon landings. In your world that must mean there is no single peer reviewed scientific paper demonstrating moon landings cause men to land on the moon.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is full of them.
They also cover Evolution and Physics too but not moon landings. In your world that must mean there is no single peer reviewed scientific paper demonstrating moon landings cause men to land on the moon.
Just post the link to one paper. One paper as an example is all we are asking for.
What the hell difference is me posting one to you going to make!?
Go find one yourself for fks sake.You've just been given one source and the place is full of 'em.
If I post one on gravity in a flat earth forum, what do you think the response would be?
Exactly! Same as yours.
What you won't find in that home of peer reviewed science is one peer reviewed paper demonstrating that AGW is not going to cause global warming .
Last edited: