Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

[basketcase]

More so than the propaganda machine Groggy / Frankfooter

Then why don't you prove it (or is this going to be another thread where you think opinion is more important than facts to defend your claims)?

And I know you don't like real discussions but you might have noticed that I didn't dismiss the paper but just said that their past work being funded by groups that profit on CO2 emissions means it deserves greater scrutiny.


And I wonder if you or cutandpasteman realize that the paper doesn't deny the impact of CO2 on climate change but simply is arguing about the magnitude of the impact. The paper predicts ONLY a 3.4 C increase . Considering the scientific community sees a 2 C as having a significant negative impact, I don't think a difference between 3.4 C and 4.5 C is going to make much of a difference.

 

[basketcase]

Sorry but that argument is nothing but a red herring. Judith Curry is about as honest a broker on this subject as anyone on the planet. Great blog https://judithcurry.com/

Do you realize her latest paper is saying AGW is real and only argues that other predictions are slightly higher than her own?

 

[Frankfooter]

My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction
However, blah blah blah
So when a blah blah blah

Similarly when blah blah blah
Renewable's are blah blah blah
By all means blah blah blah


It is one thing to criticize and question a scientist's work, challenging their hypothesis, data collection, testing methods and any assumptions made
It is quite another to dismiss their conclusion because it opposes your view and start to look for dirt on them. ie. Frankfooter

Edited for clarity on content.

Larue, I gave you links to credible science and all you brought to the table was hot air.
You accuse me of 'propaganda', but I"m linking to the most credible scientific agencies in the world.
You got zilch.
Nothing.
Not even a clue.

 

[JohnLarue]

Then why don't you prove it (or is this going to be another thread where you think opinion is more important than facts to defend your claims)?

And I know you don't like real discussions but you might have noticed that I didn't dismiss the paper but just said that their past work being funded by groups that profit on CO2 emissions means it deserves greater scrutiny.


And I wonder if you or cutandpasteman realize that the paper doesn't deny the impact of CO2 on climate change but simply is arguing about the magnitude of the impact. The paper predicts ONLY a 3.4 C increase . Considering the scientific community sees a 2 C as having a significant negative impact, I don't think a difference between 3.4 C and 4.5 C is going to make much of a difference.

The paper has merit and slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.
You are apparently willing to concede that it may have merit, although it may not change the expectations for the final outcome.
I do not have an issue with that

Frankfooter dismissed it outright, not because he feels the scientist's work, hypothesis, data collection, testing methods or assumptions made are invalid
He dismisses it outright because it does not support his propaganda spew
I have a huge issue with that

 

[JohnLarue]

Edited for clarity on content.

Larue, I gave you links to credible science and all you brought to the table was hot air.
You accuse me of 'propaganda', but I"m linking to the most credible scientific agencies in the world.
You got zilch.
Nothing.
Not even a clue.

You are a propaganda machine
You have been proven wrong sooo many times both as the idiot Groggy and then as the fool Frankfooter

Dismissing a paper you do not understand for the simple reason it conflicts with your agenda
Stupid and slimy is no way to go through life son

Your posts are a running joke, only you do not get it
You honestly think people take what you write seriously?
Your reputation and integrity have been destroyed and you did it all on your own

 

[basketcase]

The paper has merit and slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. I...

I'm glad you say that because the paper predicts a global temperature increase of 3.4 C in the coming years due to causes including human produced CO2. I guess your scientific knowledge has caused you to accept global warming due to human activity is real.

 

[JohnLarue]

I'm glad you say that because the paper predicts a global temperature increase of 3.4 C in the coming years due to causes including human produced CO2. I guess your scientific knowledge has caused you to accept global warming due to human activity is real.

I have never said global warming was not due to human activity
I also have never said global warming was due to human activity

My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction
However, the planet and its climate have been evolving for 4.5 B years & the amount of recorded data relative to that historicity is insignificant, so the complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
So when a scientist puts forward a study and it is automatically dismissed by an idiot (Frankfooter) who has a long history of being wrong and misrepresenting himself, I say "hold on, not so fast"

 

[canada-man]

You are a propaganda machine
You have been proven wrong sooo many times both as the idiot Groggy and then as the fool Frankfooter

Dismissing a paper you do not understand for the simple reason it conflicts with your agenda
Stupid and slimy is no way to go through life son

Your posts are a running joke, only you do not get it
You honestly think people take what you write seriously?
Your reputation and integrity have been destroyed and you did it all on your own

frankfooter expect people to read his sources many of which are partisan biased sources one of which is linked to Rockefeller foundation who are runned by traitors but refused to read anything that disagrees with him

 

[basketcase]

I have never said global warming was not due to human activity
I also have never said global warming was due to human activity

My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction
However, the planet and its climate have been evolving for 4.5 B years & the amount of recorded data relative to that historicity is insignificant, so the complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
So when a scientist puts forward a study and it is automatically dismissed by an idiot (Frankfooter) who has a long history of being wrong and misrepresenting himself, I say "hold on, not so fast"

Ah, the good old "we don't know everything so lets ignore what we do know" argument.

Even the authors of the study CM is crowing about predicts a significant increase in global temperatures which we know will be seriously detrimental to human society.

 

[basketcase]

frankfooter expect people to read his sources...

Did you even read the source discussed in the OP or did you just skim the sound-bites you liked out of it? because if you did actually read it you would see it completely undermines your viewpoint.

 

[Frankfooter]

Dismissing a paper you do not understand for the simple reason it conflicts with your agenda
Stupid and slimy is no way to go through life son

Curry has a history of shoddy work and papers.
This one is no exception.

But first, this paper still finds that climate change is happening, the only thing that the deniers like about it is it suggests that warming will be a little less then IPCC numbers.
They do this through a simplistic model that doesn't account for non-linearity and tries to minimize TCR.
There are multiple and detailed criticisms of this paper, really the only interesting thing is that an out and out denier like Curry is now coming out with a paper that confirms climate change is upon us and she and Lewis only try to argue that its really, really bad, not really, really, really bad.

What is funny is that you claim to understand this paper and think it actually refutes the science when in fact it confirms the planet is warming and just tries to fudge the numbers a bit to make it look not quite as bad as it is.

So if you're backing this paper, you're admitting climate change is happening and that its going to drastically change the planets climate.
You should have tried to read it, though I'm pretty sure you couldn't understand it if you did.

 

[PornAddict]

Curry has a history of shoddy work and papers.
This one is no exception.

But first, this paper still finds that climate change is happening, the only thing that the deniers like about it is it suggests that warming will be a little less then IPCC numbers.
They do this through a simplistic model that doesn't account for non-linearity and tries to minimize TCR.
There are multiple and detailed criticisms of this paper, really the only interesting thing is that an out and out denier like Curry is now coming out with a paper that confirms climate change is upon us and she and Lewis only try to argue that its really, really bad, not really, really, really bad.

What is funny is that you claim to understand this paper and think it actually refutes the science when in fact it confirms the planet is warming and just tries to fudge the numbers a bit to make it look not quite as bad as it is.

So if you're backing this paper, you're admitting climate change is happening and that its going to drastically change the planets climate.
You should have tried to read it, though I'm pretty sure you couldn't understand it if you did.

Frankfooter have absolutely no credibility at all ! Your are a fool ! Why did you change your handle from Groggy to Frankfooter? Was it because Grooggy was permanently bannned from terb?

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter have absolutely no credibility at all ! Your are a fool

Hey FAST, nice try.
But after you repeatedly posted a fake Time magazine cover and kept pushing it even after it was pointed out to you, to the point where you had to delete the thread, I think you're the one with credibility issues.

 

[JohnLarue]

Ah, the good old "we don't know everything so lets ignore what we do know" argument.

You prick!
The only thing being ignored is a study which predicts the end of the world may not be a done deal

I am trying to keep an open mind about this , however the more enviro warriors insist they know it all, the more I doubt

Even the authors of the study CM is crowing about predicts a significant increase in global temperatures

Less than you thought, so how can you be certain of anything ?

which we know will be seriously detrimental to human society.

Quite possibly, however you do not know for certain.
The complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
The planet and its climate have been evolving for 4.5 B years & the amount of recorded data relative to that historicity is insignificant

 

[JohnLarue]

Hey FAST, nice try.
But after you repeatedly posted a fake Time magazine cover and kept pushing it even after it was pointed out to you, to the point where you had to delete the thread, I think you're the one with credibility issues.

too funny
Once again the man who mis-represents himself has the nerve to question another persons credibility
You had zero credibility as Groggy and you had none as Frankfooter

What makes you think you have any now?

You stlll do not get it
Your a laughing stock, the punchline to a joke, a source of amusement.... a clown, a court jester and winner of the Bullshit spewing award

What you are not, .......is a credible source for anything when evaluating an important issue
Your opinion has the same value as toilet paper ... used toilet paper

 

[Frankfooter]

too funny

Ok, smallcock, enjoy your little game.
Your tiny, little game.

I'll just sit here and note that you can't answer to any of the points I raised, so instead have to start some conspiracy theory instead.

 

[K Douglas]

Do you realize her latest paper is saying AGW is real and only argues that other predictions are slightly higher than her own?

40% is slightly? She has testified before Congress that she believes that by 2100 there will be less than 2C of warming increase, whereas many of the models are predicting reaching that level by 2040. Furthermore, she goes on to say that there is no evidence of a link between extreme weather events and human induced climate change.

 

[PornAddict]

Hey FAST, nice try.
But after you repeatedly posted a fake Time magazine cover and kept pushing it even after it was pointed out to you, to the point where you had to delete the thread, I think you're the one with credibility issues.

Here a real time cover...Plus no rebuttal on this real Time Cover!

Monday, Jan. 31, 1977
WEATHER: The Big Freeze
Why had the rain turned white? Startled millionaires wintering in their baronial mansions in West Palm Beach, Fla., peered closer last week at the miracle that was falling from the skies and discovered—could it be?—yes, the substance was snow, the first ever reported there. Since mid-November, pedestrians in Dallas, unaccustomed to such hazards, have been slipping on sleet-slicked sidewalks. Meanwhile, a series of blizzards has smothered Buffalo this winter with an astonishing 126.6 in. of snow.

From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down...
http://time.com/vault/year/1977/
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601770131,00.html


http://time.com/vault/year/1973/

Look at dec3, 1973. !!

You lost ...checkmate!!

Called " The Big Freeze " In the mid 70's where all the so called expert climate scientist says CO2 will cause the ice age!


Peer review and publish recognized journal " Science" . GO to any university you can look up this International recognize "Science" journal ! saying gobal warming will bring on ice age!!

Here a peer review Science journal in the 70's

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. Rasool1, S. H. Schneider1
See all authors and affiliations
Science 09 Jul 1971:
Vol. 173, Issue 3992, pp. 138-141
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138

Abstract
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Below article written in time magazine.
This article was written in time magazine June 24, 1974

PS. Here a quote to sum it up perfectly!

When it’s it, it’s global warming
When it’s cold it’s global warming
When it’s dry, it’s global warming
When is wet, it’s global warming

When sea levels don’t rise as much as predicted, it’s the sea floor sinking

I’m not a scientist and I’m not questioning the science. The politics of this is true believers running around with a hammer pounding in screws and riviots.

 

[PornAddict]

Ah, the good old "we don't know everything so lets ignore what we do know" argument.

Even the authors of the study CM is crowing about predicts a significant increase in global temperatures which we know will be seriously detrimental to human society.

Here another peer review study show how the climate model temperature is over estimate!!
This back up what Judith curry says!



https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388



'



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



30 Sep 2015 at 11:28, Lewis Page

As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

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

 

[basketcase]

You prick!
The only thing being ignored is a study which predicts the end of the world may not be a done deal...

First the study isn't being ignored. It is published in a peer reviewed paper.

Second, the paper doesn't deny the impact of anthropogenic global warming. It simply says that the temperature variation will be only 400% the current levels instead of the 500% others suggest.

And if you're going to use a paper to deny scientific research, you should at least try to find one that actually contradicts it instead of this one that supports it.