Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

No but peer review can separate the **** from the diamonds

 

Just proved you wrong. “Nuh uh” isn’t a rebuttal.

This is very basic grade school level science lol
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect


Feel free to prove NASA, physics and chemistry wrong lol. Your Nobel prize awaits.

 

Why wouldn't they? This is the idea behind peer review. What is different these days is that major scientific study no longer has to go through the gate keepers and can be published independently and not be arbitrarily isolated so the public doesn't hear the conflicting messages.

Many of us have been making this observation for years. The man made contribution to the overall CO2 production is fractional. And of course, that means that as a function of levering the actual climatic mechanism of change is also entirely fractional. The fact that now we have real science here, seems to beg the question of what now happens to the faithful? What happens to those who are so wedded to their erroneous Malthusian cataclysmic apocalypse world? I'd say many will now find themselves having their faith pulled out from under them. I have found that they will be violent. I expect this will play badly now.

 

This new study does seem to have true believers in a panic. Comments on blogs and the poster in this thread who copies and paste blog comments and claims autorship seem absolutely frantic.

 

Yes, it does.

No, I'm not. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

No, we don't. Government agencies come up with random numbers and act like they are actually measuring such things, when they aren't. They are rejecting logic, science, and mathematics... even philosophy...

We truly don't have near enough instrumentation, though... The Earth has about 197 million sq miles of surface area. If I recall correctly, NASA makes use of some 7,500 thermometers (NOAA uses somewhere around 6,000 I think, but let's use the higher number since it is to your benefit)... Let's also make the assumption that these thermometers are all uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (they AREN'T, but again, I will make this assumption to your benefit, and for sake of argumentation).

That means that we have ONE thermometer for approximately every 26,000 sq miles of surface area. That comes out to about ONE thermometer for an area a couple thousand sq miles larger than the state of W. Virginia... Can a single thermometer accurately measure the temperature of the state of W. Virginia? The obvious answer is no, but let's note a couple more things anyway...

Temperatures on Earth have been recorded as low as -128deg F and as high as 134deg F, which yields a possible temperature range of 262deg F. Temperature variations on Earth of 20deg F per mile are not uncommon, and a 49deg F temperature swing over a two minute period has been recorded. Using this information, in order to reduce the margin of error down to +-10deg F, we would need approximately 200 million thermometers, which would be about one thermometer for every square mile.

No, those biases are NOT accounted for. Thermometers are not uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer.

See above.

Irrelevant. You are denying mathematics, science, and logic in order to be a Church of Global Warming member...

 

I would simply point out that their work isn't wrong, but your understanding of the outcomes from their work is entirely bogus and the conclusions of the cited study offer an entirely new understanding of what actually happens. So now what? Do you become the deniers? I bet, yes.

 

Huh? I clearly showed his claim that CO2 and other green house gasses do not increase temperature was complete nonsense. This is basic grade school science.

 

Fair point. Even if they WERE accurate, there weren't near enough of them. There still aren't. A big issue with why that is is because it is not uncommon for temperatures to vary by as much as 20deg F per mile, and it has even been recorded to vary by as much as 49deg F over a two minute period. I doubt that level of variation is a fairly common occurrence, but the point is that it HAS happened before, and to a lesser extent, it does happen on a fairly regular basis.

Yup. And even magickal satellites are not capable of measuring global temperature, as they don't measure absolute temperature. They measure light. That light then needs to be converted to temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The issue with that is that we don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. We don't know how much light is the result of emission of Earth nor how much is the result of other things such as the reflection of sunlight/starlight/etc... Thus, the result is a "chicken and egg" issue... We can't measure the temperature of Earth using satellites unless we already know the temperature of Earth... We need to know the temperature of Earth before we can figure out the emissivity of Earth.

People who think they know the temperature of Earth (or global CO2 content, or global sea level) with any sort of reasonable accuracy are kidding themselves for the sake of their religious dogma.

 

Precisely. "Group consensus" is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

Gladly...

Glad you're entertained.

We don't know Earth's temperature. We have no way of accurately measuring it...

 

That thought crossed my mind as well. If this new hypothesis gains a following who will the "deniers" be?

 

Funny, interesting attempt to run towards specificity. in this case, you're still failing to understand the holistic perspective. Yup, in a small controlled experiment, you are absolutely correct. As pointed out in the research cited, many additional factors are at play so your simplistic demonstrable experiment isn't applicable to the rest of the atmosphere as a whole.

 

As so many of us have maintained all along the AGWers are more religious than most religions are. I suspect we'll see the flood of denials coming soon.

 

And the pattern continues. Faith based alarmists have no interest in the truth.

The conspiracy theory is hilarious.

BTW your last statement is false.

 

Nice cartoon.

 

Of course it is, as I showed with 2 separate citations. He claimed climate change is a hoax because CO2, nor any other gas can raise the temperature. That is laughably and demonstrably false.

Like I said. This is basic grade school science.

 

And yet in all the previous 9 Holocene warming periods half of which showed a greater increasing temperature rate took place without CO2 changes.

 

Which doesn’t contradict a thing I said.

 

It certainly does.

 

As noted, your assertion isn't correct. If, as the cited study points out, that only .1C that is 1/10th of a degree Celsius is attributable to all of the CO2 production world wide, and of that .01 C meaning 1/100th of a degree is attributable to man, your assertion is still misguided. The current theory of AGW suggests that ALL warming is currently attributable to ONLY CO2 contributed by man. That, is laughable. It is also demonstrably false. So, when you say "he" you should qualify that with the actual person because this isn't the conversation that was created by the study cited. Clearly. So if you were referring to another poster, you comments don't otherwise effect the veracity of the actual conversation about the study or it's findings.

 

Yup... Well, more fundamentalist in their religion, anyway... The sad thing is that they must reject logic, science, and mathematics in the name of "settled science"... All hail "The Data"!!!!

 

It does not, in any shape or form.

 

I quite clearly showed you it is. With 2 citations.

 

You were given the science which directly refutes your assertion. Lol

 

Our current warming (and subsequent cooling) is the same as the 9 other in the Holocene. These 9 occurred at constant CO2. And you claim that the cause of current warming period is 100% caused by increasing CO2 ?? That's absurd.