A database with irrelevant and non-existing papers is meaningless
And here's just one of the papers you keep asking for
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047<0475:CCATMA>2.0.CO;2
Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
A database with irrelevant and non-existing papers is meaningless
And here's just one of the papers you keep asking for
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047<0475:CCATMA>2.0.CO;2
at least you tried to respond. better than the vast majority of drone lefties.
but its a model.
and it did not say anything about man made co2 causing warming.
why is there no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming other than now failed models.
I will tell one reason its so hard to find.
co2 levels follow but trail changes in ocean temps.
so keep looking.
but its a model.
and it did not say anything about man made co2 causing warming.
why is there no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming other than now failed models.
I will tell one reason its so hard to find.
co2 levels follow but trail changes in ocean temps.
so keep looking.
because the only papers I found were about 20 years and missed by miles and those models had to be revised or abandoned.
Most of the the "models" that they are using today are not even real models in my book.
If you read the footnotes to the IPCC reports they are really projections...
they presume a certain of climate sensitivity and they project various temperatures.
In my opinion those are not even close to be useful for stating man made co2 causes warming.
They assumption is just built into climate sensitivity. It seems most scientists understand this... that is why there are no papers stating man made co2 causes warming... if top co2 nutters refer to IPCC statements about climate sensitivity rather than saying it themselves as a scientist.
its all carefully orchestrated bullshit. you are either part of the lie or a drone for believing there is some science behind it. Saying man made co2 causes warming is simply conjecture at this point.
Most of the the "models" that they are using today are not even real models in my book.
If you read the footnotes to the IPCC reports they are really projections...
they presume a certain of climate sensitivity and they project various temperatures.
In my opinion those are not even close to be useful for stating man made co2 causes warming.
They assumption is just built into climate sensitivity. It seems most scientists understand this... that is why there are no papers stating man made co2 causes warming... if top co2 nutters refer to IPCC statements about climate sensitivity rather than saying it themselves as a scientist.
its all carefully orchestrated bullshit. you are either part of the lie or a drone for believing there is some science behind it. Saying man made co2 causes warming is simply conjecture at this point.
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Global-Warming/Sorokhtin-Evolution-Earths-Global-Climate-2009.pdf
“According to the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect (see below), besides the Sun’s radiation, the main determining factors of the Earth’s climate are the Earth’s atmosphere pressure and its composition. The denser the atmosphere (i.e., the higher the atmospheric pressure), the warmer the climate. Thus, the high surface temperature at the ocean level during the Archaean time, at a low Sun’s luminosity, may only be a result of higher atmospheric pressure. The gradual decrease in the oceanic water temperature with a smooth increase of Sun’s luminosity may only be a result of a gradual decrease in the atmospheric pressure.”
“According to the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect (see below), besides the Sun’s radiation, the main determining factors of the Earth’s climate are the Earth’s atmosphere pressure and its composition. The denser the atmosphere (i.e., the higher the atmospheric pressure), the warmer the climate. Thus, the high surface temperature at the ocean level during the Archaean time, at a low Sun’s luminosity, may only be a result of higher atmospheric pressure. The gradual decrease in the oceanic water temperature with a smooth increase of Sun’s luminosity may only be a result of a gradual decrease in the atmospheric pressure.”
http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/10/...-is-negligible/#sthash.lnFALBco.Ph0aGT5C.dpbs
Adiabatic Theory: Textbook Science
Drs. John Robertson and George Chilingar, professors of geology and environmental (petroleum) engineering, have authored 12 textbooks, 70 books, and 575 scientific papers between them. Both are verifiable experts in heat transfer physics.
Their latest joint effort, a 416-page university-level textbook published in June (2017), includes a section on the adiabatic theory that precludes a significant role for CO2 in determining planetary temperatures. In fact, after explaining the details of the theory and its validation with respect to the atmospheric temperatures of Venus, Robertson and Chilingar conclude:
“The anthropogenic impact on global atmospheric temperatures is negligible, i.e., 5%.”
“From the above estimates, one can conclude that even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere practically do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime.”
In the textbook, the authors explain the theory in meticulous detail (pgs. 197-204). Below is a summary of their conclusions from page 204.
Adiabatic Theory: Textbook Science
Drs. John Robertson and George Chilingar, professors of geology and environmental (petroleum) engineering, have authored 12 textbooks, 70 books, and 575 scientific papers between them. Both are verifiable experts in heat transfer physics.
Their latest joint effort, a 416-page university-level textbook published in June (2017), includes a section on the adiabatic theory that precludes a significant role for CO2 in determining planetary temperatures. In fact, after explaining the details of the theory and its validation with respect to the atmospheric temperatures of Venus, Robertson and Chilingar conclude:
“The anthropogenic impact on global atmospheric temperatures is negligible, i.e., 5%.”
“From the above estimates, one can conclude that even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere practically do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime.”
In the textbook, the authors explain the theory in meticulous detail (pgs. 197-204). Below is a summary of their conclusions from page 204.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1119117372.html
John O. Robertson, PhD, is the owner of Earth Engineering, Inc. and an adjunct professor at ITT Tech in National City, CA. He has over 50 years of experience in petroleum and environmental engineering and geology and is the author of over 12 textbooks and 75 articles.
George V. Chilingar, PhD, is an Emeritus Professor of Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA. He is one of the most well-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry. He has published over 70 books and 500 articles and has received over 100 awards over his career.
The increasingly corroborated atmospheric mass pressure (gravity) explanation for variances in planetary temperatures – which precludes a significant role for CO2 concentration changes – has now advanced from peer-reviewed scientific journals to university-level textbooks.
The “adiabatic theory” of the greenhouse effect (adiabatic: “the constant decline in temperature of an air parcel as it rises in the atmosphere due to pressure drop and gas expansion”) is capable of explaining the variances in temperatures on planets like Earth, Mars, and Venus using each planet’s atmospheric pressure gradient – and without reliance on the traditional greenhouse effect theory that assigns a governing role to CO2.
As a simplified example, Mars has an atmosphere made up of about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2 compared to the Earth’s 400 ppm (0.04%), and yet Mars’ average surface temperature is about -75°C colder than Earth’s. Venus also has an atmosphere with about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2, but its surface is +447°C warmer than Earth’s. In addition to each planet’s variable distance from the Sun, the difference in temperature for Mars, Venus, and Earth can be calculated by considering its atmospheric mass (pressure) gradient. Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s. Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times heavier (pressurized) than Earth’s. The CO2 concentration of each planet may therefore be insignificant in determining surface temperature relative to factors (a) distance from the Sun and (b) atmospheric density.
John O. Robertson, PhD, is the owner of Earth Engineering, Inc. and an adjunct professor at ITT Tech in National City, CA. He has over 50 years of experience in petroleum and environmental engineering and geology and is the author of over 12 textbooks and 75 articles.
George V. Chilingar, PhD, is an Emeritus Professor of Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA. He is one of the most well-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry. He has published over 70 books and 500 articles and has received over 100 awards over his career.
The increasingly corroborated atmospheric mass pressure (gravity) explanation for variances in planetary temperatures – which precludes a significant role for CO2 concentration changes – has now advanced from peer-reviewed scientific journals to university-level textbooks.
The “adiabatic theory” of the greenhouse effect (adiabatic: “the constant decline in temperature of an air parcel as it rises in the atmosphere due to pressure drop and gas expansion”) is capable of explaining the variances in temperatures on planets like Earth, Mars, and Venus using each planet’s atmospheric pressure gradient – and without reliance on the traditional greenhouse effect theory that assigns a governing role to CO2.
As a simplified example, Mars has an atmosphere made up of about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2 compared to the Earth’s 400 ppm (0.04%), and yet Mars’ average surface temperature is about -75°C colder than Earth’s. Venus also has an atmosphere with about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2, but its surface is +447°C warmer than Earth’s. In addition to each planet’s variable distance from the Sun, the difference in temperature for Mars, Venus, and Earth can be calculated by considering its atmospheric mass (pressure) gradient. Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s. Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times heavier (pressurized) than Earth’s. The CO2 concentration of each planet may therefore be insignificant in determining surface temperature relative to factors (a) distance from the Sun and (b) atmospheric density.
you are talking nonsense.
your counter to the reasonable to the graph of how badly the current models missed or are missing...
was just some other persons choice of what he considered a better graph. If you did the research as I did ... you learned his bands... were a very subjective choice even thought they looked important and they looked like legitimate standard deviation bands.
I believe the issues is that when you are projecting... instead of real modeling you can't really have true standard deviation measurements.
its just an input with a plus or minus band.
project temps when climate sensitivity is set to x plus or .25 of x.
Those are projection bands... but not bollinger or standard deviation bands.
In short... your cited critique was just subjective nutter preference plus some baloney added to a graph.
your counter to the reasonable to the graph of how badly the current models missed or are missing...
was just some other persons choice of what he considered a better graph. If you did the research as I did ... you learned his bands... were a very subjective choice even thought they looked important and they looked like legitimate standard deviation bands.
I believe the issues is that when you are projecting... instead of real modeling you can't really have true standard deviation measurements.
its just an input with a plus or minus band.
project temps when climate sensitivity is set to x plus or .25 of x.
Those are projection bands... but not bollinger or standard deviation bands.
In short... your cited critique was just subjective nutter preference plus some baloney added to a graph.