Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Evangelicals are losing ground to the AGWCC alarmists in the nut job rankings and they have more to go on than a GHG input formula.
How about the Scientologists?
Truthers should be all over that one - 'science' and religious fanaticism all rolled into one
Pack the alarmists onto a 707 along with them and crash it into the forest moon of Endor. Win win.
Why would I be kidding?
I don't have any support groups. Why would I need support?
Do you need support or are you capable independent analytical thought?
I don't have any support groups. Why would I need support?
Do you need support or are you capable independent analytical thought?
You will see more and more of this as AGW theories fail to live up to any scrutiny. It's not 'Slower' warming rates they are worried about.. Its the entire corroded structure of warming period.. much less the completely fabricated anthropogenic carbon based warming... that is collapsing. Which is why the inner organs of AGW.. who KNOW it is a fraud have become so fanatical.. and will become increasingly isolated and vindictive.
Because it's better to be joking about something than to be in a state of denial.
It's called tongue in cheek. I have no idea why the site deniers need or want to carry on with irrelevant dialogue after the original story is shown to be bunk.
Fully capable, it's you and your support group that have problems with: OP title-->Newspaper headline-->Site deniers swallow story uncritically-->Scientist at center of the story refutes newspaper take on reality and thus the OP and subsequent comments-->Site deniers continue to swallow story uncritically.
I'm sorry for your loss of a talking point, but it's clear you're all in denial. The study wasn't published because it didn't pass the test of peer review. The science carries on, and the deniers happily have a new myth to repeat.
I could give a rats as$ about the OP, lobby groups or piano tuners.
What do you alarmists have to go on that proves AGW without doubt?
In your own words please.
What do you alarmists have to go on that proves AGW without doubt?
In your own words please.
That's all that's left then, eh?... Bitter little tears from one that is just beginning to realize that AGW (opps - climate change) was nothing but a flimsy house of cards
Easier solution is to encourage the belief within their ranks that the Mother Ship will soon be arriving to whisk them away to Utopia.... Quick, brew-up a batch of rat poison kool-aid for the true believers!!!
De Nile isn't a state; it's a river in Egypt
(Man, do I crack myself up)
Just 99.83% of the peer reviewed science papers.
Global Warming fraud on the other hand runs on hundred of millions of dollars constantly pumped in by the oil and tobacco corporations.
It's 97%. Those 97% of "climate scientists" who wrote AGW papers are in consensus.
Does that make the entire opinion of bonafide scientists who do hands on work in earth sciences or just the handful of random people who dub themselves climate scientists?
There is a table of surveys that do not give a 97% consensus amongst non published scientists.
That is one of the falsehoods Alamists like yourself use to justify your jaded reality.
If I asked 100 beer drinkers if they like beer what do think would be their level of consensus?
Keep trying young man.
Does that make the entire opinion of bonafide scientists who do hands on work in earth sciences or just the handful of random people who dub themselves climate scientists?
There is a table of surveys that do not give a 97% consensus amongst non published scientists.
That is one of the falsehoods Alamists like yourself use to justify your jaded reality.
If I asked 100 beer drinkers if they like beer what do think would be their level of consensus?
Keep trying young man.
I'm a scientist. There is always uncertainty. You've been told this before. Scientific advancements in knowledge don't stand still until something is known without doubt. I'll freely admit that the content that follows could be wrong. But someone has to show that to be true to change the story that the data is telling.
Now, if you want to know why anthropogenic is the best candidate given the evidence, well then that's a different story, and here is why:
A) We know that some gases absorb and re-emit radiation. Experimental evidence, lots of it, going back over 150 years. There's no reason to believe that thoses gases don't behave in the same fashion in our atmosphere. In fact we have satellites measuring the effect from space. Causal relationship.
Selected References:
The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
Phys. Rev. 41, 291 (1932) - The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide
Optics InfoBase: Journal of the Optical Society of America - Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths
Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | Global Characterization of CO2 Column Retrievals from Shortwave-Infrared Satellite Observations of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 Mission
Measurements of the downward longwave radiation spectrum over the Antarctic Plateau and comparisons with a line-by-line radiative transfer model for clear skies - Walden - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Onli
B) We know that the majority of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to human activities. This can be confirmed with known inventories of fuel consumption, and the chemistry that happens with combustion of those fuels. Additionally, the isotope fraction confirms where the carbon dioxide comes from. We also know how much of the emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentration is less than the yearly contributions of human activity. We know the source of the increases.
Selected References:
Annual Energy Review - Energy Information Administration
Linking emissions of fossil fuel CO2 and other anthropogenic trace gases using atmospheric 14CO2 - Miller - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library
Observations of radiocarbon in CO2at La Jolla, California, USA 1992–2007: Analysis of the long-term trend - Graven - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library
Atmospheric observations of carbon monoxide and fossil fuel CO2 emissions from East Asia - Turnbull - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
http://www.ehleringer.net/Jim/Publications/349.pdf
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
C) The radiative feedback expected from the contribution to the atmosphere has been confirmed. The absorption spectra where the radiation is being trapped has been measured from the ground and from orbiting satellites. The dominant bands are spectra where the principal greenhouse gases we're emitting are most active. We know which gases are absorbing, and we can quantify the effect.
Selected References:
http://ga.ifac.cnr.it/images/stories/niro_2005b%20jqrst.pdf
http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~inez/MSRI-NCAR_CarbonDA/papers/Bibliography%20-%20Miller/GRL%2032,%20%20L22803%20(2005)%20-%20Chahine%20-%20vanishing%20partial%20derivatives%20with%20application%20to%20CO2.pdf
Satellite remote sounding of mid-tropospheric CO2 - Chahine - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
D) The planet has a net radiative imbalance, less energy escapes than the amount arriving from the sun. If less energy is escaping than is coming in, then something must be impeding the radiation from the surface. A fundamental first principle of enhanced greenhouse effect is a net energy imbalance. Concomitant with a net energy balance is a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere. This has been confirmed by observations, including the skeptic friendly microwave sounding unit satellites. We have confirmation of first principles.
Selected References:
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Reprintsyly/A_RecentPapers/Zjunk/Feldman05.pdf
https://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf
SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/3006745/paper.pdf
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf
E) We have measured the influence of all other known factors, and we know the planet is accumulating heat. Until such time as all of the above is overturned, the only conclusion supported by these facts is that human activity is the major contributor to the accumulating heat on this planet. And we know that the pace of changes and direction of the change is not consistent with Milankovitch cycles. The lag in temperature and carbon dioxide is due to the long response of the oceans, and the oceans are acidifying.
Selected References:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/08/21/1311433110.full.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Zelinka_Hartmann10.pdf
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_GlobalTemp.pdf
http://www.benlaken.com/documents/GRL_LakenCalogvic11.pdf
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epn/pdf/2010/01/epn20101p27.pdf
A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations | J. Space Weather Space Clim.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~smeyers/pubs/Meyers_et_al_2008.pdf
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Pelejero%20et%20al%202010%20Paleo%20perspectives%20on%20ocean%20acidification.pdf
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Acidification%20Pacific%20Byrne%202010.pdf
More energy is being trapped on Earth every year. We have experimental and observational confirmation of a causal mechanism. We have confirmation of the effects expected given our industrial activities. We have quantified the effects from spectroscopic measurements in the atmosphere. We have fingerprints that cannot be explained by the natural factors. The amount of uncertainty left in the radiative forcings is small.
That's called comprehensive. Enjoy the reading.
You're welcome to try reading this stuff too. :lol:
Derpy Pete has moved on from denial to anger. Next step is bargaining. Faggy smiles. :lol:
I don't need to read them as the truther models, in principle, have no capacity to explain the past or predict the future. We have seen the many projections, all of which I have seen have fallen flat.
You can call it comprehensive, it's also called selective inputs that are designed to generate a skewed view.
I see no anger in his statements.. What I do see from certain, select posters that are true believers is a preponderance of circular arguments founded on flawed science that even the (former) supporters are now abandoning.
Like I said earlier, you've backed the losing horse... Hell, even Flossy is relegated to posting opinion from bloggers as there are few legit sources left that still support AGW
You wrote all those? That's f-cking amazing.
Which one undeniably confirms AGW?
What anger? Why would you being a programmed make me angry?
Yeah, I was alive in the mid 1800s and have written under tens of different pseudonyms over the centuries.
None, obviously. I already told you, there is no such thing. If you understood how science works you would know why that is a ridiculous question.
The kind of anger that drives little boys on playgrounds to call something faggy.
So we're clear then, you don't actually care about what the science does say, though you like to wrap yourself in it's cloak when it suits your purpose. Carry on with your hobby then of pointless questions.