New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.
Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis's findings basically eliminate "the possibility of catastrophic climate change--that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up."​
A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

more

New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria | The Daily Caller

h/t sda
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
I do what I can. *humble bow*

yes, yes... you are quite proud of your C&P wizardry! :mrgreen: But wait, Locutus, I'm completely taken back that your linked reference to the "Daily Howler" would take such an emphasis (/snarc)

of course, this is just more of the denier predilection toward the single scientist/single study syndrome. Oh wait now, this particular study scientist is one of your so-called alarmists; a prominent IPCC lead author/editor. So youse guys really likee this "alarmist" all of a sudden, hey! Equally, there is no shortage of publication (past/recent/ongoing) that supports the IPCC 'most likely' positioning for sensitivity... regardless of how the Daily Howler linked article chooses to quote the interpreted findings from renowned deniers, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger... they of the libertarian Cato Institute.

and what does the study author have to say in regards the denialsphere's typical "AGW killer" scenario played out against this/his single paper/study:


 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
yes, yes... you are quite proud of your C&P wizardry! :mrgreen: But wait, Locutus, I'm completely taken back that your linked reference to the "Daily Howler" would take such an emphasis (/snarc)

of course, this is just more of the denier predilection toward the single scientist/single study syndrome. Oh wait now, this particular study scientist is one of your so-called alarmists; a prominent IPCC lead author/editor. So youse guys really likee this "alarmist" all of a sudden, hey! Equally, there is no shortage of publication (past/recent/ongoing) that supports the IPCC 'most likely' positioning for sensitivity... regardless of how the Daily Howler linked article chooses to quote the interpreted findings from renowned deniers, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger... they of the libertarian Cato Institute.

and what does the study author have to say in regards the denialsphere's typical "AGW killer" scenario played out against this/his single paper/study:



More crap from the village idiot. Still being paid by the post for your scare mongering?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
More crap from the village idiot. Still being paid by the post for your scare mongering?

village idiot? Are you sure this is the type of response/labeling that this board's moderator's are looking for - say yes! :mrgreen:

please speak to the "scare mongering" you're interpreting from my post?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Typical behavior of a religious fanatic who doesn't like having the fallacies of his myths pointed out.

"religious fanatic"??? Is this the type of summary assessment you attach to anyone you disagree with?

please speak to "the fallacies" being pointed out? Can you actually string something together beyond your usual/typical drive-by insults?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
village idiot? Are you sure this is the type of response/labeling that this board's moderator's are looking for - say yes! :mrgreen:

The result of the consistent actions you have continually represented

please speak to the "scare mongering" you're interpreting from my post?

Maybe scare mongering isn't the right phrase... Denial of reality is perhaps more appropriate.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
"religious fanatic"??? Is this the type of summary assessment you attach to anyone you disagree with?

please speak to "the fallacies" being pointed out? Can you actually string something together beyond your usual/typical drive-by insults?

You have been told numerous times. Not really worth the effort to repost old news since you just deny facts anyway.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Funny how weirdo et al have taken on the role of denier on this issue.

The facts seem to baffle them in terms of how to digest these ongoing studies

"wierdo"??? Why must you resort to this juvenile tactic? As well, do you believe this is the type of member labeling you believe the board moderator's are looking for... are encouraging? Say yes! :mrgreen:

you speak of facts! Are you identifying this single paper's findings as "facts"? Really... is the level of your interpretive capabilities?

You have been told numerous times. Not really worth the effort to repost old news since you just deny facts anyway.

not old news... stick to this post... c'mon, speak to the "myth fallacies" you're drawing reference to... from this single paper/study from this single scientist? As well, are you now accepting to this scientists full beliefs in regards to AGW/CC... you sure likee this latest paper of his! As well, are you also taking the guy off your "alarmist" designation?

and again, to you, very pointedly: to you, what is an alarmist?

Yep, another nail in the coffin for the truther sect.

oh wait now... again, NOW you really likee this paper's author... are you now removing him from your typical denier "alarmist/truther" labeling. Of course, it begs the same question I often ask of you denier types; a question always ignored/runaway from. To you, just what is an "alarmist"... a "truther"?

and after I went to the trouble of presenting the author's own statement on the incorrect interpretations of his paper; notwithstanding his own cautionary emphasis on inferring too much, too soon, from the findings of a single scientist, within a single paper. But then again, as I stated, deniers really likee that "single paper syndrome"... cause there's always the next one... the next "AGW killer" waiting in that single paper!

since the author emphasizes in his statement that, even factoring his latest paper, he doesn't view ECS as being less than 2... does this mean you denier types are now off the ultra-low climate sensitivity bandwagon? :mrgreen:

you did read the scientists's statement I put forward... right? You did read it, right?

I wonder if they will have the balls to address this conclusive data in Paris?

oh my! Is that what you think goes on at COP meetings? :mrgreen:
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
"wierdo"??? Why must you resort to this juvenile tactic? As well, do you believe this is the type of member labeling you believe the board moderator's are looking for... are encouraging? Say yes! :mrgreen:

you speak of facts! Are you identifying this single paper's findings as "facts"? Really... is the level of your interpretive capabilities?



not old news... stick to this post... c'mon, speak to the "myth fallacies" you're speaking to... from this single paper/study from this single scientist? As well, are you now accepting to this scientists full beliefs in regards to AGW/CC... you sure likee this latest paper of his! As well, are you also taking the guy off your "alarmist" designation?

and again, to you, very pointedly: to you, what is an alarmist?

Anyone that believes in AGW is an alarmist. ANd thinking that a massive transfer of wealth from have rich to poor countries will cure the problem makes one an idiot as well.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Anyone that believes in AGW is an alarmist. ANd thinking that a massive transfer of wealth from have rich to poor countries will cure the problem makes one an idiot as well.

the scientist referenced in this thread's paper/study most categorically believes in AGW. How does your hypocritical denier self positioning allow you to puff-up over his (single) paper findings on this singular focused aspect... but completely otherwise dismiss his more broadly held positions on GW/AGW/CC? Oh wait... I already said/emphasized hypocrite... didn't I?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
You don't have to keep proving you are an idiot.

again, do you believe your overt insults are conducive to positive member relationships and respect for each other as members of this forum? Again, do you believe your overt insults are what this board's moderators are wanting... are encouraging - again, please say YES! :mrgreen:

oh nooos!!! DaBear is peppering my posts with more of his reddies! :mrgreen:
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
If someone said.

We are causing global weather instability. I'd believe them. We jigsaw back and forth more dramatically then befor. But the average weather is still the same.