Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Uhuh. You forgot to post your source. Don't want to be caught stealing someone else's research.
Arctic sea ice enters the spring melt season « Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Here's some stuff, too:
Arctic sea ice loss unprecedented in 1,450 years - Technology & Science - CBC News
Ice loss minimal in Antarctica, Greenland, and Himalayas - Wry Heat
But loss is still loss and this may just be a temporary slowing of the loss. It still doesn't indicate anything about the warming period stopping any time.
Bering Sea Ice Extent Breaks Records
The Arctic has crossed the threshold from winter into spring. Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent on March 18 and is slowly beginning its summer retreat.
Uhuh. You forgot to post your source. Don't want to be caught stealing someone else's research.
.
More cute ****! NSIDC Press Room: Thawing permafrost 50 million years ago led to global warm events
yep. So are you denying that carbon dioxide has anything to do with warming? Or what?
CO2 increases lag behind warming. Well known fact.
Speaking of facts got any IPCC peer reviews that quantify AGW yet?
Speaking of facts got any IPCC peer reviews that quantify AGW yet?
EVERYTHING you are bringing up right now all hinges on IPCC bull**** so either **** or get the **** off the pot.
Show the peer reviews quantifying everything you are trying to say is quantifiable and you'll get a nod of approval from me.
Show the peer reviews quantifying everything you are trying to say is quantifiable and you'll get a nod of approval from me.
I did. You never read what you posted which BTW wasn't peer reviews. It was a blog.
Post some peer reviews. Come on Les, you can do it..... or can you?
Post some peer reviews. Come on Les, you can do it..... or can you?
I don't think you did. Or else you didn't click on the one I referred to.
Do you even know what the peer review process is? Or what perr review means?
Here is the process that the journal Nature uses;
Editorial process : Nature Climate Change.
Editorial process : Nature Climate Change.
It's a typographical error, moron.
Sure it is. They examine the literature available, which real scientists do when they publish new results. Real scientists also publish review articles, and they don't come close to the level of discussion in an IPCC review.
You're just blatantly ignorant about what real science is, and what the IPCC does. That much is clear. The best example of your ignorance is your reference to a NASA study on jet contrails and the effect on global warming. When I showed you what their results meant with math, you immediately changed your tune about the validity of the findings. Poor math challenged Petros...
I can see why you don't actually read the papers you refer to. It's very inconvenient when it doesn't support your outlandish claims.
A failure of quality control in the review process. Working Group II, assessing socio-economic factors, impacts, and adaptations does not have nearly as much literature to review, as the impacts are only now becoming significant enough to rise above simple noise. The authors of that group should not have published that very specific claim.
Real science misses stuff like this too. If you'd like I can point you to a blog that documents such mistakes across all fields of science:
Retraction Watch
I never said IPCC is perfect...far from it. But, it does have a more thorough review process than submitting a paper to a journal. Did you know some journals allow you to pick your reviewers? The model of Elsevier and Wiley and Sons where you pay ludicrous amounts for subscriptions is failing, and I say good riddance. I welcome open-access.