Toronto Girlfriends

20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

nntsci

Member
Apr 8, 2011
122
0
16
Science Lorraine Chow

Mar. 09, 2018 12:36PM EST

20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

[/URL]
Thanks for posting it...

It amazes me that even today, there is anyone foolish enough to argue that climate change is not real and is not a serious threat to our future.

Its important to note that scientist are by nature very conservative (real conservative that is, not fake conservative like the republican or PCC kind).

That is they are not likely to accept a view without very strong evidence, so to get 20,000 to come together to warn us of impending disaster means this is very serious... much more serious then they are letting on.

"A leftist conspiracy" how childish some people are.

Science is not left or right... its REALITY!!!
Reality doesn't give a damn about your political views... you don't get to vote on what's true in physics, chemistry, meteorology or any science... you follow the evidence.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Thanks for posting it...

It amazes me that even today, there is anyone foolish enough to argue that climate change is not real and is not a serious threat to our future.

Its important to note that scientist are by nature very conservative (real conservative that is, not fake conservative like the republican or PCC kind).

That is they are not likely to accept a view without very strong evidence, so to get 20,000 to come together to warn us of impending disaster means this is very serious... much more serious then they are letting on.

"A leftist conspiracy" how childish some people are.

Science is not left or right... its REALITY!!!
Reality doesn't give a damn about your political views... you don't get to vote on what's true in physics, chemistry, meteorology or any science... you follow the evidence.
Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!






Clmate warming chart torn apart..lol..



Climate warming chart absoutely torn apart.. This video show how they trick & lied & misled you . You can see what they did to the global warming chart!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,987
23,584
113
Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!
A video about a chart showing atmospheric temperatures?
Not very relevant to those of us who live on the surface of the planet.
All it does is show how easy you are to fool.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,847
8,627
113
Room 112
A video about a chart showing atmospheric temperatures?
Not very relevant to those of us who live on the surface of the planet.
All it does is show how easy you are to fool.
Judging by this comment, which you have reiterated on numerous occasions, you still clearly don't understand atmospheric science.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,987
23,584
113
Judging by this comment, which you have reiterated on numerous occasions, you still clearly don't understand atmospheric science.
Clearly you don't understand that surface global temperature measurements are more important to humans then the temperature in the upper or even lower atmosphere.
This is the temperature reading that matters to humans.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Clearly you don't understand that surface global temperature measurements are more important to humans then the temperature in the upper or even lower atmosphere.
This is the temperature reading that matters to humans.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

All it does is show how easy you are to fool.


.Here an sample what his fellow climate scientist think of the Mann Fraudent Hockey stick.

Mann of the past ONE TREE-RING TO RULE THEM ALL . It is difficult to avoid the impression that the IPCC uncritically accepted scientific work that “repealed” the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age because these two well-known features of the climate record placed Global Warming Theory in doubt, at least for the global public.

DR JEFFREY E FOSS, PHD BEYOND ENVIRONMENTALISM: A PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE (2009) THE HOCKEY stick is what’s known as a “proxy reconstruction”.

There’s only two things wrong with it the proxies and the reconstruction. Other than that, you can take it to the bank. First, the proxies: The hockey stick is generally believed to show global (actually Northern Hemisphere) temperatures for the last millennium. But Mann does not, in fact, have any temperature readings for, say, the year 1143. That’s because your average medieval peasant village did not have a weather station, and neither Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit nor Anders Celsius had yet been born.

So Mann has to divine his 12th century thermometer readings from “proxy data”. What is a proxy? Well, it’s something like an ocean coral or an ice core or some lake sediment from which one can “reconstruct” the temperature history. In Mann’s case, it was mostly tree rings. Much of the world isn’t terribly forested, and most of the parts that are can’t tell you the temperature for 1143. For a shot at that, you need a thousand-year-old tree, and there are only a few of those around, here and there in Siberia, in parts of Canada, in California. That was his first mistake:

His proxy reconstruction uses the wrong proxy. To a kid, a tree ring is simple: Jack counts in and finds out whether his tree is older than Jill’s. But, if you’re trying to figure out the temperature, it’s more fraught. “The original ‘hockey stick’ graph figured strongly in the IPCC 2000,” Professor Anthony Trewavas told the British House of Commons. “But it is an artifice… The size of the tree ring is determined by everything that affects all aspects of plant development. These are: soil nutrients and structure; light variations; carbon dioxide; competition from other trees; disease; predators; age; rainfall; previous developmental activity as well as temperature. Temperature, for which it supposedly acts as a proxy, is just one contributor amongst many and of course reflects local conditions only. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ failed,” he continued, because “tree rings on their own are not a reliable proxy.” Oddly enough, boreholes and other proxies disagree with tree-rings when it comes to the temperature record. Mann had a few alternative proxies in his mix, but just a soupçon , so he could claim to have included them if anybody asked. And then he further refined the process:

Having chosen the wrong proxy trees he took the additional precaution of using the wrong kind of tree. Those ones in the American west, for example, are bristlecone pines. They’re certainly old: There’s a bristlecone pine in California’s White Mountains that has been precisely dated 5,064 years old in 2015 and is believed to be the oldest tree on earth. Unfortunately, the guys who know bristlecones including the very scientists who collected the data Mann used say they’re unreliable as thermometers. Those California bristlecones are sensitive to higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of whether the temperature’s going up or down. Mann knew this. As Hans Erren observed, Mann’s North American trees did not match the North American temperature record. Yet he decided that, even if they couldn’t reliably tell you the temperature for the bit of sod they were planted in, they could reliably tell you the temperature for the entire Northern Hemisphere. Even the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences bristled at the cones:

For the earliest part of the 1999 analysis, Mr Mann’s group relied heavily on bristlecone pines from western North America. The original study noted that there were some difficulties in using such trees because of peculiarities in their recent growth, but Mr Mann and his group attempted to quantify those problems and to work around them.

The National Research Council suggested that researchers avoid using trees that are the most difficult to interpret . The NRC can “suggest” all they want: for years, Mann and his Hockey Team continued to rely on bristlecones as failsafe treemometers. Yet, even when you decide to apply the wrong example of the wrong proxy to the wrong part of the planet, repealing the Medieval Warm Period is harder than you think. So Mann additionally decided to apply the wrong weighting to his wrong example of the wrong proxy to the wrong part of the planet by giving tree-ring data that produced a hockey-stick curve over 300 times the value of tree-ring data that didn’t. Wrong proxy, wrong tree, wrong location…

But what else do we need? Ah, yes, the wrong method. Put aside the bristlecones in MBH98 and Mann’s hockey-stick curve for the entire Northern Hemisphere up to 1421 comes from just one tree, and from thereafter to 1447 from just two trees both from Québec’s Gaspé Peninsula . (And from 1400 to 1403 from zero trees: he just extrapolated the 1404 reading.) By contrast, reputable dendrochronologists won’t use data sets with fewer than five trees on the grounds that one or two (never mind zero trees) might not be that representative. But Mann did and then he made them even more mega-representative by double-counting that pair of Gaspé trees in two separate data sets.

And suddenly you can’t see the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period for the trees or tree. Wrong proxy, wrong tree, wrong location, wrong method = right answer: LIA( liitle ice age) equal to MIA( Missing in Action) . MWP( Medieval Warm Period) becomes RIP ( Retired in Peace).
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0



All it does is show how easy you are to fool.



.Here an sample what his fellow climate scientist think of the Mann Fraudent Hockey stick.

Mann of the past ONE TREE-RING TO RULE THEM ALL . It is difficult to avoid the impression that the IPCC uncritically accepted scientific work that “repealed” the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age because these two well-known features of the climate record placed Global Warming Theory in doubt, at least for the global public.

DR JEFFREY E FOSS, PHD BEYOND ENVIRONMENTALISM: A PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE (2009) THE HOCKEY stick is what’s known as a “proxy reconstruction”.

There’s only two things wrong with it the proxies and the reconstruction. Other than that, you can take it to the bank. First, the proxies: The hockey stick is generally believed to show global (actually Northern Hemisphere) temperatures for the last millennium. But Mann does not, in fact, have any temperature readings for, say, the year 1143. That’s because your average medieval peasant village did not have a weather station, and neither Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit nor Anders Celsius had yet been born.

So Mann has to divine his 12th century thermometer readings from “proxy data”. What is a proxy? Well, it’s something like an ocean coral or an ice core or some lake sediment from which one can “reconstruct” the temperature history. In Mann’s case, it was mostly tree rings. Much of the world isn’t terribly forested, and most of the parts that are can’t tell you the temperature for 1143. For a shot at that, you need a thousand-year-old tree, and there are only a few of those around, here and there in Siberia, in parts of Canada, in California. That was his first mistake:

His proxy reconstruction uses the wrong proxy. To a kid, a tree ring is simple: Jack counts in and finds out whether his tree is older than Jill’s. But, if you’re trying to figure out the temperature, it’s more fraught. “The original ‘hockey stick’ graph figured strongly in the IPCC 2000,” Professor Anthony Trewavas told the British House of Commons. “But it is an artifice… The size of the tree ring is determined by everything that affects all aspects of plant development. These are: soil nutrients and structure; light variations; carbon dioxide; competition from other trees; disease; predators; age; rainfall; previous developmental activity as well as temperature. Temperature, for which it supposedly acts as a proxy, is just one contributor amongst many and of course reflects local conditions only. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ failed,” he continued, because “tree rings on their own are not a reliable proxy.” Oddly enough, boreholes and other proxies disagree with tree-rings when it comes to the temperature record. Mann had a few alternative proxies in his mix, but just a soupçon , so he could claim to have included them if anybody asked. And then he further refined the process:

Having chosen the wrong proxy trees he took the additional precaution of using the wrong kind of tree. Those ones in the American west, for example, are bristlecone pines. They’re certainly old: There’s a bristlecone pine in California’s White Mountains that has been precisely dated 5,064 years old in 2015 and is believed to be the oldest tree on earth. Unfortunately, the guys who know bristlecones including the very scientists who collected the data Mann used say they’re unreliable as thermometers. Those California bristlecones are sensitive to higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of whether the temperature’s going up or down. Mann knew this. As Hans Erren observed, Mann’s North American trees did not match the North American temperature record. Yet he decided that, even if they couldn’t reliably tell you the temperature for the bit of sod they were planted in, they could reliably tell you the temperature for the entire Northern Hemisphere. Even the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences bristled at the cones:

For the earliest part of the 1999 analysis, Mr Mann’s group relied heavily on bristlecone pines from western North America. The original study noted that there were some difficulties in using such trees because of peculiarities in their recent growth, but Mr Mann and his group attempted to quantify those problems and to work around them.

The National Research Council suggested that researchers avoid using trees that are the most difficult to interpret . The NRC can “suggest” all they want: for years, Mann and his Hockey Team continued to rely on bristlecones as failsafe treemometers. Yet, even when you decide to apply the wrong example of the wrong proxy to the wrong part of the planet, repealing the Medieval Warm Period is harder than you think. So Mann additionally decided to apply the wrong weighting to his wrong example of the wrong proxy to the wrong part of the planet by giving tree-ring data that produced a hockey-stick curve over 300 times the value of tree-ring data that didn’t. Wrong proxy, wrong tree, wrong location…

But what else do we need? Ah, yes, the wrong method. Put aside the bristlecones in MBH98 and Mann’s hockey-stick curve for the entire Northern Hemisphere up to 1421 comes from just one tree, and from thereafter to 1447 from just two trees both from Québec’s Gaspé Peninsula . (And from 1400 to 1403 from zero trees: he just extrapolated the 1404 reading.) By contrast, reputable dendrochronologists won’t use data sets with fewer than five trees on the grounds that one or two (never mind zero trees) might not be that representative. But Mann did and then he made them even more mega-representative by double-counting that pair of Gaspé trees in two separate data sets.

And suddenly you can’t see the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period for the trees or tree. Wrong proxy, wrong tree, wrong location, wrong method = right answer: LIA( liitle ice age) equal to MIA( Missing in Action) . MWP( Medieval Warm Period) becomes RIP ( Retired in Peace).
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,987
23,584
113



All it does is show how easy you are to fool.
I love this type of reaction from the deniers.

Why? Because it shows that they can't actually enter into real discussions, that all they can do is repost what they read somewhere else. Kirk D doesn't actually understand why posting charts of atmospheric temperature isn't relevant to a discussion about climate change on the surface. Similarly Pornaddict doesn't understand the science or issues enough to post a rebuttal, instead just reposts the next denier claim down on the list.

None of them can actually discuss the science or answer to rebuttals of their claims, instead they just move on to the next thing they read somewhere else.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
I love this type of reaction from the deniers.

Why? Because it shows that they can't actually enter into real discussions, that all they can do is repost what they read somewhere else. Kirk D doesn't actually understand why posting charts of atmospheric temperature isn't relevant to a discussion about climate change on the surface. Similarly Pornaddict doesn't understand the science or issues enough to post a rebuttal, instead just reposts the next denier claim down on the list.

None of them can actually discuss the science or answer to rebuttals of their claims, instead they just move on to the next thing they read somewhere else.


Are you stupid! Did you realized the climate alarmist chart was & used / created and presented by Obama's Science Advisor in the video to justify the global warming!! It was created & used by the so called climate alarmist ! This show how stupid you are! You change the subject by posting surface temperature when Obama own science advisor used his atomospheric chart in the video to justify global warming rebranded as "climate change" to present his case to the American public!

Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!






Clmate warming chart torn apart..lol..



Climate warming chart absoutely torn apart.. This video show how they trick & lied & misled you . You can see what they did to the global warming chart!!



PS. I expected this type of reaction from climate alarmist! You cannot debunked the chart because the chart was created by Obama science advisor & presented by Obama own science advisor and you cannot enter a real debate! This chart in the video was not created by the
so called " climate deniers" it was created by climate alarmist!!
All I am saying why did Obama science advisor created and used this atmospheric chart to justify global warming in the first place if it is wrong!!! Please explain me the reason why Obama science advisor Rick Holden created this chart in the first place and used this chart on the video to present his case for global warming???

PPS Bottom line you try to deflect this chart by blaming climate alarmist even though this chart was presented and created by Obama science advisor!
This show how stupid you are and you cannot debate at all. !!!
!

!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,987
23,584
113
Are you stupid! Did you realized the climate alarmist chart was & used / created and presented by Obama's Science Advisor in the video to justify the global warming!!
Dude, can you read the header on your chart?
Mid-tropospheric atmosphere trends.

Why are you so fixated on the temperatures in the clouds? Of course it doesn't change as much as surface temperature, but so what, we don't live in the clouds.

Tell me again, why do you think its so important to note that the mid-troposphere hasn't increased as much as the surface temperature has?
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Dude, can you read the header on your chart?
Mid-tropospheric atmosphere trends.

Why are you so fixated on the temperatures in the clouds? Of course it doesn't change as much as surface temperature, but so what, we don't live in the clouds.

Tell me again, why do you think its so important to note that the mid-troposphere hasn't increased as much as the surface temperature has?
Dude answers my questions!! Why did Obama science adviser use this mid -troposphere chart to present his case in the first place !!! If it was not valid at all or weren't importantly all then he shouldn't had use it in the first place !! This chart was not created my the climate alarmist!!
PS. BottomLine he got caught cheating and you change the subject and deflect the subject when PAt & Stu point out the errors & deception in the Obama's science advisor own charts!


What a loser you are!!

PS . You act like you know everything but in reality you know nothing!!
I going change the subject by adding also YOu Do not don't even know the differences between civil law and criminal law also !

I will help you out by telling the differences between civil law & criminal law! So next time Someone in terb like Phil C. McNasty criticized your stupidity in law!! And ask what is criminal law or civil law ?? Here is the answer dimwit!!
1) civil law ... Guilt or Not guilty verdict Proof is base on the balance of probabilities. And can only be sue for montary damges!

2) Criminal law verdicts is base on Guilty beyond reasonable doubts! And if you found guilty you go to jail!

Example: OJ Simpson criminal cases: He was found not guilty beyond reason doubt glove don't fit on nicole Simpson murder criminal trial !
OJ Simpson civil case he was found guilty . ( evidence was base on balance of probabilities he committed the crime and can only award montary damage and cannot serve jail time).
What a fool you are!!
 
Last edited:

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Why are you so fixated on the temperatures in the clouds? ?
The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access".
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388




GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
'Could explain recent disagreements'






A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:

Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.

Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.

"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.

VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."

With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.

The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access".
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Dude, can you read the header on your chart?
Mid-tropospheric atmosphere trends.

Why are you so fixated on the temperatures in the clouds? ....... but so what, we don't live in the clouds.
?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...rm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies
Here is why clouds is important to greenhouse effect!
Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies
By Tim WoganMay. 25, 2016 , 2:45 PM
Clouds need to condense around small particles called aerosols to form, and human aerosol pollution—primarily in the form of sulfuric acid—has made for cloudier skies. That’s why scientists have generally assumed Earth’s ancient skies were much sunnier than they are now. But today, three new studies show how naturally emitted gases from trees can also form the seed particles for clouds. The results not only point to a cloudier past, but they also indicate a potentially cooler future: If Earth’s climate is less sensitive to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise as quickly as predicted.

"It's been long thought that sulfuric acid is really the key player [in cloud formation]," says atmospheric chemist Chris Cappa of the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the research. The studies “show pretty convincingly that we don't need sulfuric acid around to allow new particles to grow.”

Scientists, who agree that CO2 and other gases from human activities are warming Earth, disagree widely about how sensitive the planet's climate is to these changes. One contentious point is the effect of sulfur dioxide, a pollutant that has risen nearly sevenfold in the modern era. Sulfur dioxide reacts with oxygen and water to form sulfuric acid, which helps form the aerosol particles that seed cloud droplets. Since clouds reflect sunlight back into space, any extra clouds could have offset a portion of greenhouse gas warming.



The new research, however, suggests that the past may have been cloudier than scientists realized. To simulate ancient atmospheric conditions, one research group used CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets), a controlled chamber at CERN, Europe’s particle physics facility near Geneva, Switzerland. Nearly as big as a bus, the chamber was filled with synthetically produced air, allowing precisely controlled chemical conditions. Jasper Kirkby, a CERN particle physicist, and his colleagues introduced a mixture of natural oxidants present in the air and an organic hydrocarbon released by coniferous plants. The hydrocarbon was rapidly oxidized. The only other ingredient allowed in the chamber was cosmic rays, high energy radiation from outer space, which made the molecules clump together into aerosols. Sulfuric acid was not required. In fact, even when the researchers introduced low concentrations of sulfuric acid to the chamber such as might be found in unpolluted air, the aerosol formation rate was unaffected. In a second CLOUD experiment published simultaneously in Nature, researchers showed these same oxidized molecules could rapidly grow the particles to sizes big enough to seed cloud droplets.

In search of a pristine atmospheric environment, a second group of researchers made atmospheric measurements of aerosol formation at the Jungfraujoch high altitude research station, 3500 meters up in the Swiss Alps to confirm that this process really occurs in nature. Over the course of a year, they measured the changing concentrations of sulfuric acid and organic molecules in the air. They found more aerosols formed with more organic molecules around, and—crucially—observed formation of organic particles without sulfuric acid. They used exactly the same instruments as at CLOUD to analyze the aerosols: "The clusters were formed mainly by organics," says atmospheric chemist Federico Bianchi of the Paul Scherrer Institute in Villigen, Switzerland, who led the Jungfraujoch research published today in Science.

All the researchers stress sulfuric acid is still a major contributor to cloud formation on Earth today. "Today the purely plant-based pathway is much less important than it was preindustrially," Kirkby explains. Crucially, however, the result means climate modelers can't assume that the ancient past was much less cloudy simply because there was less sulfur dioxide. If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions, says Urs Baltensperger of the Paul Scherrer Institute, who was an author on all three papers. He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable." The researchers are currently working toward more precise estimates of how the newly discovered process affects predictions of the Earth's future climate.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Great, another copy and paste from a denier site.
Ok, please tell us how this article on clouds relates to the claims in the video about the mid-troposphere.

If you can't, then I'll assume you don't understand anything of what you post.
Fair?
You are so stupid!! See read this peer review journal on Clouds.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...rm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies
Since clouds reflect sunlight back into space, any extra clouds could have offset a portion of greenhouse gas warming.
Also ...A new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) ...
VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds.

[COLOR="#000FF"],So therefore, Clouds is an important part of Earth's planetary greenhouse gas.
Aerosols reflect sunlight. They also help clouds form by serving as "nucleation sites" around which water droplets grow. The increasing numbers of aerosols will cool the planet. Yet unlike greenhouse gases, sunlight-reflecting clouds also have a cooling influence on the planet... . Low thick clouds cast a refreshing shadow and reflect sunlight back into space. They cool the planet and the people beneath them.[/COLOR]


In a second CLOUD experiment published simultaneously in Nature, researchers showed these same oxidized molecules could rapidly grow the particles to sizes big enough to seed cloud droplets.


PS Answers my question!! WHy did Obama Science advisor use this chart in the video!!


Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!




Clmate warming chart torn apart..lol..



Climate warming chart absoutely torn apart.. This video show how they trick & lied & misled you . You can see what they did to the global warming chart!!



You cannot debunked the chart because the chart was created by Obama science advisor & presented by Obama own science advisor and you cannot enter a real debate! This chart in the video was not created by the so called " climate deniers" it was created by climate alarmist!!
All I am saying why did Obama science advisor created and used this atmospheric chart to justify global warming in the first place if it is wrong!!! Please explain me the reason why Obama science advisor Rick Holden created this chart in the first place and used this chart on the video to present his case for global warming???

Checkmate... You lose!! Your such a loser!! Cannot debunk this!!
What a fool you are!!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,987
23,584
113
Dude answers my questions!! Why did Obama science adviser use this mid -troposphere chart to present his case in the first place !!!


Why don't you show us the original presentation by the Obama science advisor, then we'll see whether a) they used this chart at all, b) whether your lobbyist changed it or c) whether it was to highlight some other point about climate change.

Next, explain why you think that VOC's, which stay in the atmosphere for only short durations and have been measured for quite some time, are going to change the climate. The IPCC has measured this output for years, this new study only identifies the source that they measured. So this isn't a new process or any new changes to the climate, this is all part of what has been measured and modelled for years.

Check it out.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/140.htm

Your claims are very ignorant.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
......

Why don't you show us the original presentation by the Obama science advisor, then we'll see whether a) they used this chart at all, b) whether your lobbyist changed it or c) whether it was to highlight some other point about climate change.

The IPCC has measured this output for years, this new study only identifies the source that they measured. So this isn't a new process or any new changes to the climate, this is all part of what has been measured and modelled for years.

Check it out.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/140.htm

Your claims are very ignorant.
I did my part on the chart... You show me proof that The chart by Obama science Holden's chart is changed by the climate denyier lobbyist!

Why don't you show me the proof that Obama science advisor chart is Doctored by PAT & STU ! Why should I go wasting my time looking for the actual original chart! The video is already showing the chart and if they ( Pat& STU) were to changed the chart they would have been sue!!

YOur claim is extremely ignorant!!
IPPC Has been wrong before!!
The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access".
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.

Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.


PS First you posted in your post saying I shouldn't post about the effect of on global warming and clouds because.. You think I don't understand the relationship between clouds and globe warming & temperature! Already answered your first stupid question about clouds!!

PPS. All your computer climate model is inaccurate based on this new research!!
Checkmate loser!

Run for your life ... Chicken little (Frankie) the sky is falling!! What a dimwit!!
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Why don't you show us the original presentation by the Obama science advisor, then we'll see whether a) they used this chart at all, b) whether your lobbyist changed it or c) whether it was to highlight some other point about climate change.

Next, explain why you think that VOC's, which stay in the atmosphere for only short durations and have been measured for quite some time, are going to change the climate. The IPCC has measured this output for years, this new study only identifies the source that they measured. So this isn't a new process or any new changes to the climate, this is all part of what has been measured and modelled for years.

Check it out.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/140.htm

Your claims are very ignorant.

Yup Frankfooter get crushed in a debate on global warming ... He tried to derail the thread with bullshit claims!!

Every time Frankfooter is getting crushed in a debate on this topic, he tries to derail the thread with his bullshit claim that 0.13 is a larger number than 0.15.

It was bullshit in January 2016. It's bullshit today -- just like Franky's claim in another thread that I fabricated a Kathleen Wynne quote that can still be found on Wynne's Twitter feed:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...an-collapses&p=6084825&viewfull=1#post6084825

https://twitter.com/Kathleen_Wynne/status/972902584670392320
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Great, another copy and paste from a denier site.
Ok, please tell us how this article on clouds relates to the claims in the video about the mid-troposphere.

If you can't, then I'll assume you don't understand anything of what you post.
Fair?
Let look at your posting history on climate change .... This proved that you don't understand anything you post! And here what Moviefan proves on your posting history that you are full of shit!!
Now why don't you admit your wrong for once!!
For the benefit of anyone who's never seen it before, here is a collection of some of Frankfooter's greatest hits on the topic of man-made global warming. As preposterous as many of these statements are, all are supported by links to the original source, so that anyone who is skeptical can confirm they're all perfectly accurate descriptions of Frankfooter's posts.

Man-made global warming: Frankfooter's greatest hits

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

- Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He said the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A gem. He said the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said the NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991

- Feb. 20, 2016 -- He said it was a "blatantly false claim" that the difference between 0.74 and 0.84 is 0.10: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780

- March 3, 2016 -- He said it's "not possible" for 0.89 to equal 0.89: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5489838&viewfull=1#post5489838

- March 27, 2016 -- He said it was "incredibly stupid" to conclude that half of 2ºC is 1ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Early-April&p=5509136&viewfull=1#post5509136

- April 23, 2016 -- He tried to claim that 0.75 and 0.87 are the exact same number: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531128&viewfull=1#post5531128

- April 23, 2016 -- He claimed the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990 is a "different baseline" than the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531216&viewfull=1#post5531216

- May 1, 2016 -- He said that a climate researcher who thinks warming is 99% due to natural causes believes that "anthropogenic" climate change is happening: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5537250#post5537250

- May 11, 2016 -- He said all of the warming since 1850 was caused by humans (even the IPCC doesn't support him on this one): https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5546112#post5546112

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "still fits" Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,173
2,700
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Let look at your posting history on climate change .... This proved that you don't understand anything you post! And here what Moviefan proves on your posting history that you are full of shit!!
Now why don't you admit your wrong for once!!
you are dealing with somebody who don't know what a metaphor is
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts