Global Warming: The coldest Spring in 50 years.

AGW Total fraud. Temps regulated by PDO AMO and Solar

<img src=http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/pdo.gif width=400 height=251>

<img src=http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/global-temperature-solar-activity-sunspots-last-400-years.jpg>

Not CO2

<img src=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daleo-cru-msu-co2.png?w=640>
 
temperature-vs-co2-vs-sunspots.gif
 
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
 
Indeed. While the alarmists become ever more shrill with their forecasts of imminent doom, one of the foremost proponents of the AGW theory, the MET Office, was just forced to admit under questioning in the UK house of commons that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is not statistically significant”.


http://www.acting-man.com/?p=23668
 
how can it be real if temperarture rise is not outside the margin for error for the data collection.

In short there is no measurable global warming outside natural variation.


hence your arguments have no science.
no warming therefore no proof co2 causes warming.

Quote from futurecurrents:

The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
More...
 
The 97% number is bullshit for a number reasons. One the person who wrote that excluded groups of anti agw scientists... 2 further study has shown less that 50 percent of scientists think man causes warming. 3. the survey spoke of mans influence, no co2.

and now 4...


it mis labled the scientists positions... putting them in the pro agw column when they were not....


for instance...

--
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a
 
Since the deniers think they are experts at everything, I suggest they try brain surgery, on each other. It's a simple process called a lobotomy. Insert an ice pick into the nostril and upward and shove it in. Then move it around in circular motion to destroy the forward lobes. Since they control the higher intellectual processes they will not miss them. And the world would be a better place for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top