Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

There's a link to the actual study in the article if you are actually interested that have referenced previously in this thread multiple times.

 

Medicine has the most serious peer review issues. That you don't know that is telling.

 

Mate that is NOT a “study” it is a blog

Until it is peer reviewed and published it is unfounded twaddle worse than a room full of homeopathy “cures”

 

Nothing.

 

At the risk of repeating myself the "study" is linked to in the blog and for whatever reason you refuse to accept that fact.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Abstract. InthispaperwewillprovethatGCM-modelsusedinIPCCreport AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature. "

 

Nothing. MBH98 and MBH99 were peer reviewed. Both of these studies are garbage.

 

What you are seeing from the alarmists is any excuse to avoid reading and understanding anything that challenges their beliefs. Alarmism is a religion. It is faith based on a correlation that is no where supported in any of the previous 9 warming episodes in the ~ 10,000 interglacial years of our current Holocene period.

The paper you have linked to indicates a climate sensitivity of CO2 as ~ 0.2 deg C. This is blasphemy to the global warming alarmists who trust the predictions of the GCM's regardless of what actual data indicates.

 

That's exactly what AGW is: a religious belief based entirely on consensus.

 

Sure. In your case it means you'll use it to avoid the fact I presented.

 

Proxies were the basis of MBH98 and MBH99. Regional bristle cone pines were used as a proxy for global temperature and along with a bogus data analysis process dishonestly used to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. All of this was peer reviewed.

 

Yeah it's the "I want to believe in AGW no matter what you say. Here, look at my pine cones."

 

not hardly, climate change is based on science and the fact that we are putting a huge amount of green house gases in the air

 

There is no proof that the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the global warming we are currently experiencing. The nine other global warming cycles of the last ~ 10,000 years which were of similar (half actually had greater warming rates and higher maximum temperatures) all occurred with no change in CO2 concentration. Is the increase contributing ?? Probably but it is not the main driver.

 

most scientist disagree

 

Sure. I mean we only have about 30 years of precise data and satellites to look at long term trends, but we just KNOW that stuff measured in tens of thousands of years can be accurately diagnosed in 30 years.

Real geniuses.

I wonder if phrenology was peer reviewed.

 

so you don't know they are wrong, the thing is, we are dumping tons of green house gases into the air constantly and will be for quite some time

just like little bacteria made our are breathable by doing the same thing, each little one adding just a little to the atmosphere adds up to a lot over time

changing the atmosphere can have huge effects

 

Was the Earth a habitable place when the PPM of CO2 was 6000?

 

I am not a scientist, but sure one could answer that for you, were humans as populated when that happened

sure some creatures will survive climate change

 

Where is the proof of that ??? There is none. There is consensus based on a one-off correlation but no proof that human CO2 emissions are responsible for all of the global warming. There are very many technical people and politicians who make a living from AGW.

 

Exactly. Alarmists claim that data from the last 3 or 4 decades can be used to define climate disregarding the last ~ 10,000 years of the interglacial Holocene.

 

Sure, we just evolved from hominids at 6000 ppm.

"But there weren't as many" isn't an argument that has anything to do with anything. They didn't just survive, they proliferated.

If anything, the increase of CO2 means we can grow even more food. The Earth has visably become greener in just the last 40 years.

But you go ahead and keep banging the CO2 drum.

If everyone in western culture took to wearing loin cloths and living in trees, the rest of the world would still be putting out 85% of the worlds CO2 just like they are now.

You think China and India are going to clean up their act? Good luck with that.

Here's a scientific fact for you: none of the "global warming is going to kill us" predictions have come true, ever.

 

sure it does, storms and such will have better odds of having a huge impact to society now

I do not believe we will change until forced (run out of natural resources) or better options come along, so I hope science advances to give us those cheaper and better options

neither China or the USA will change, too much profit involved and people just are not gonna change buying habits without a benefit to them

or science comes up with a way to correct the problem by cleaning the atmosphere if it comes to that, but that comes with dangers too, so will only be tried as a last resort

 

No, storms are not worse now than they were before.

We'll kill each other off long before we run out of resources.

What do you think happens at 500 PPM CO2 exactly?

How much CO2 is too much, and what happens when there is too much?

P.S. I'll remind you again that none of the global warming predictions have come true.

 

And have been independently verified

Just you saying “it’s rubbish” does not make it so

 

Sites they have. What is the source for that bogus claim.