Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

here is another... on this page.. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#AIT

Abstract
Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation. Physical bases for the TSI-EPTG relationship are discussed with respect to their connections with large-scale climate dynamics, especially a critical relationship with the total meridional poleward energy transport. Overall, evidence suggests that a net increase in the TSI, or in the projected solar insolation gradient which reflects any net increase in solar radiation, has caused an increase in both oceanic and atmospheric heat transport to the Arctic in the warm period since the 1970s, resulting in a reduced temperature gradient between the Equator and the Arctic. We suggest that this new interpretative framework, which involves the extrinsic modulation of the total meridional energy flux beyond the implicit assumptions of the Bjerknes Compensation rule, may lead to a better understanding of how global and regional climate has varied through the Holocene and even the Quaternary (the most recent 2.6 million years of Earth's history). Similarly, a reassessment is now required of the underlying mechanisms that may have governed the equable climate dynamics of the Eocene (35–55 million years ago) and late Cretaceous (65–100 million years ago), both of which were warm geological epochs. This newly discovered relationship between TSI and the EPTG represents the “missing link” that was implicit in the empirical relationship that Soon (2009) recently demonstrated to exist between multi-decadal TSI and Arctic and North Atlantic climatic change.
 
its not tripe. Its a database of peer reviewed papers. of course the database will have some link rot as webmasters change pages... but... there are still hundreds of skeptical papers...

I suggest you give it a try...

I just clicked two links and found this.
This is cutting edge in the field.
There are dozens or perhaps hundreds of peer reviewed papers..
yet your side can't produce one.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1019331613030015

The author associates the recently observed climate warming and carbon dioxide concentration growth in the lower atmospheric layers with variations of solar-geomagnetic activity in global cloud formation and the significant decrease in the role of forests in carbon dioxide accumulation in the process of photosynthesis. The contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant.

Original Russian Text © S.V. Avakyan, 2013, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2013, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 425–436.

Sergei Vazgenovich Avakyan, Dr. Sci. (Phys.-Math.), is head of the Laboratory of Aerospace Physical Optics at the Vavilov State Optical Institute and a leading researcher of the RAS Central (Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory.

'My' side can't produce one?

From your very own linked site

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17010-7_1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-016-9501-z

Try searching for things that you don't agree with, that's science.
 
your first paper seems to be about carbon capture technology. so without providing the whole paper you can't really say it provides science stating man made co2 causes warming...

here is the abstract...

This topical brief summarizes the various options available for carbon capture and presents the current strategies involved in CO2 reduction. The authors focus on current CO2 capture technologies that facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions and reduce global warming. This short study will interest environmental researchers, teachers and students who have an interest in global warming.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17010-7_1

your second papers...

is uses analogical reasoning not science... and does not seem to stand for what you wish it would.



Greenhouse Effects in Global Warming based on Analogical Reasoning

Using an analogy in science and everyday life is a double-edged sword because they are accompanied by alternative ideas, in addition to scientific concepts. Schools and public education explain global warming by making a common analogy between this phenomenon and greenhouse effects (Chen in Philos Cogn Sci 105–114, 2012). Unfortunately, this analogy sometimes produces various incorrect explanatory mental models. To construct a correct understanding of global warming, it is necessary: first, to investigate the attributes of analogical reasoning; second, to understand these features by restructuring the greenhouse analogy; and third, to explore the problems and benefits of the greenhouse analogy. The characteristics of relations, rather than objects, must be mapped according to the principle of systematicity, but the public tends to preserve the attributes of the base domain, which is mapped relatively easily. In conclusion, certain facets of the prevailing greenhouse analogy cause a distorted public view of climate change. We must use the greenhouse analogy and yet simultaneously emphasize the relations and attributes highlighted and hidden in the analogy during evaluation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-016-9501-z
 
yes... your side has yet to produce a peer reviewed scientific paper stating man made co2 causes warming not based on failed models.

ever.
 
yes... your side has yet to produce a peer reviewed scientific paper stating man made co2 causes warming not based on failed models.

ever.

Try the search function on the site you linked.

And by the way, your paper uses models too but that's ok right? Because 1 in a 1000 paper agrees with your narrative means nothing else matters.
 
I have used the search function on google many times and so have all the agw nutters.
No one can find a peer reviewed papers stating man made co2 causes warming that does not rely on now failed models.

So... I will let you do the searching.
 
yes... your side has yet to produce a peer reviewed scientific paper stating man made co2 causes warming not based on failed models.

ever.

So you quoted a study that specifically talked about greenhouse gases and here you are whining about CO2 again as if it's the only greenhouse gas. I have linked PLENTY of peer reviewed studies that prove the opposite, it seems you are blind to facts.

'My' side can't produce one?

From your very own linked site

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17010-7_1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-016-9501-z

Try searching for things that you don't agree with, that's science.
 
There is no science stating man made co2 causes warming outside of failed models.
I have searched for it. so have many others.

I know its not there... because when it shows up that person will win a Nobel prize. If you have you will be famous.

Stop being a dishonest troll.




So you quoted a study that specifically talked about greenhouse gases and here you are whining about CO2 again as if it's the only greenhouse gas. I have linked PLENTY of peer reviewed studies that prove the opposite, it seems you are blind to facts.
 
There is no science stating man made co2 causes warming outside of failed models.
I have searched for it. so have many others.

I know its not there... because when it shows up that person will win a Nobel prize. If you have you will be famous.

Stop being a dishonest troll.

So you could use a paper that talks about greenhouse gases and uses models to disprove global warming BUT others can't?

LOL
 
why don't you produce produce some papers which state man made co2 causes warming.
then we will have something to discuss.

I pointed to a database of 1350 papers being skeptical. no one would expect everyone to be prefect.

You don't have one paper from a legitimate peer reviewed journal which states man made co2 causes warming.




So you could use a paper that talks about greenhouse gases and uses models to disprove global warming BUT others can't?

LOL
 
Back
Top