Analysis shows climate modeling fraud.. Pal Review by Journals

[westwall]

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.

In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.

There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.

And all the satellite data is also a lie, correct? Ian, you are failing badly. The evidence and data says you are reaching desperately for anything that would support your political beliefs, rather than the clear direction the data and evidence points.

IF and that's a very IF ,climate change is for real than the left has no one to blame but themselves for their inability to convince the general public. The left has lied consistently about anything and everything to advance the globalist agenda [The boy who cried wolf...]. Climate Change is no exception. In the words of Obamas mentor "Never let a good crisis go to waste" ... assuming that it could possibly be for real the leftards are using it in their relentless agenda to drive American and Western exceptionalism into the dirt. My gut feeling is that it is not as there are many many instances of politicized science and skewered numbers that have been exposed. It's so very sad that a pack of delusional dullards lead around like ravenous sheep are doing so much harm to the rest of the world thinking they are doing good ... sadn and sickening

Climate change is very real. Mans contribution to it is what is not real.

So you believe it is natural / cyclical I would assume.

Of course. Climate is never static. Anyone who thinks that is so needs to have their head examined.

 

[SSDD]

The paper lied, SSDD lied, I ripped him apart, and he's weeping uncontrollably now, just like you are. .

My but you do live in a fantasy world hairball...sometimes I wonder what that might be like...to be so divorced from reality.

 

[SSDD]

If your theory requires the premise that the entire planet is conspiring against you, your theory is paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

I often wonder if there might be a test to actually measure how stupid you are hairball. We know that the number of times mainstream science has been wrong have been legion...take stomach ulcers for instance...until recently practically every doctor on earth would have told you that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. Now, do you think the fact that most doctors said this required a worldwide conspiracy? Do you think whenever mainstream science has been wrong, it required a massive conspiracy?

You don't believe that science can just be wrong without a conspiracy? Like I said, you are completely divorced from reality.

If reality doesn't agree with you, you declare that reality is plotting against you.

No hairball, that is you. You have this way of projecting what you believe onto others as if that somehow squares how wrong you are in your head. Reality looks nothing like what climate science has told us it would be.

For example:

In 1990, under the "business as usual" rate of emissions of so called greenhouse gasses, climate science, through the IPCC told us that the increase of the rate of warming during the next century would be 0.3 C per decade...with an uncertainty range of 0.2 - 0.5C

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf (see page XI)

The reality is that since 1990 the rate of warming has been .12 to .19 depending on which database you use...completely outside of the margin of error.

Also in 1990, climate science, through the IPCC told us that under the "business as usual" scenario, the likely temperature increase would be about 1.0C above the temperature then by 2025. (refer to the link above...same page)

In reality, from 1990 to the first 8 months of 2017 the increase in temperature has been .021 to .049C depending on the data base you use...CO2 emissions have tracked the business as usual scenario

In 2001 in AR3, climate science, through the IPCC predicted milder winter temperatures and heavy snowstorms will decrease

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 2014, Dr. John Holdren, the director of the office of science and technology policy for the obama administration said "a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the US as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues"

White House: It May Be Cold, But Climate Change Is Real | HuffPost

In reality, predicting both milder and colder winters is not really science..or is it, in your cult world? The only thing they forgot was to predict no change in winters.

In 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist with CRU said that within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordp...-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf

In 2001 climate science, through the IPCC (AR3) predicted milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 2004 Adam Watson from the Center for Ecology and Hydrology said that the Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left.

Global warming forces sale of Scottish winter sports resorts

In reality, 2014 had the snowiest scottish mountains in 69 years...and the northern hemisphere snow area has shown almost no change since 1967. The 2012-2013 snow season showed us the 4th largest snow extent on record for the northern hemisphere.

How much more would you like to see hairball?

Precipitation Predictions?
Extreme Weather Predictions?
Wildfire Predictions?
Rotation of the Earth Predictions?
Arctic Sea Ice Predictions?
Polar Bear Predictions?
Glacier Predictions?
Sea Level Predictions?
Sinking Nation Predictions?
Food Shortage Predictions?
Climate Refugee Predictions?
Climate Change Casualty Predictions?
Time Running out Predictions?

They are all out there hairball..and they have all failed. And while they were failing all these predictions, they neglected to predict a greener planet, and an increase in biomass, and an increase in carbon sinks, and the slowdown of warming,

If reality doesn't agree with us, we change our positions to match reality.

Well, there you go predicting again...reality has thumped you right on the head and you simply alter your position and make the claim that climate science has been right all along...what a sad and pitiful bunch you are...it is little wonder that you are so f'ing bitter.

That's another reason why it's so good to be part of the reason-based community.

Claiming to be right when practically every prediction has failed is reason in your little world... Unsurprising. You are a top shelf, world class projector hairball.

 

[skookerasbil]

rigging the data is ghey

 

[mamooth]

I often wonder if there might be a test to actually measure how stupid you are hairball.

Stupid, corrupt and butthurt is no way to go through life, son.

...take stomach ulcers for instance...until recently practically every doctor on earth would have told you that stomach ulcers were caused by stress.

Ah yes, I like that example.

Most scientists/doctors instantly changed their minds when the new evidence was presented. Those people were like the mainstream climate scientists, the rational people, the ones who follow the evidence.

However, some doctors had ulcer-treating practices that the new data destroyed, so they denied the new data. Those people were like the deniers, the ones who denied the evidence for reasons of money or ideology.

Thanks for pointing out how well science works, dumbass, and how lying frauds like you are nothing new.

Now, let's get on to your next bit of fraud. You just rehashed yesterday's WUWT article.

Some Failed Climate Predictions | Watts Up With That?

To your credit, you didn't copy it word-for-word. Close, but not quite. It's all you can do, copy from conspiracy blogs.

In 1990, under the "business as usual" rate of emissions of so called greenhouse gasses, climate science, through the IPCC told us that the increase of the rate of warming during the next century would be 0.3 C per decade...with an uncertainty range of 0.2 - 0.5C

No, they didn't say that. You're lying. Or, that is, WUWT is lying, and you're parroting the lie, because you blindly parrot every lie your cult feeds you.

So, how did WUWT lie there?

As the IPCC doesn't control CO2 emissions, they make predictions for various emission scenarios.

The 0.3C prediction you mentioned was for the business-as-usual high-emission scenario, which didn't happen.

What did happen in the real world most closely matched scenario B, the medium-emission scenario, for which the IPCC predicted 0.2C/decade. And that was spot on perfect.

So, WUWT attempted a scenario-switching fraud, for the purpose of lying about the IPCC prediction.

Now that you know, are you going to condemn WUWT for that deliberate fraud? Of course you won't. Instead, you'll suck their ass with even more gusto. All of the deniers here will. None of them has the ethics to renounce frauds, since fraud is all their side has.

The reality is that since 1990 the rate of warming has been .12 to .19 depending on which database you use...completely outside of the margin of error.

No, that's a fraudulent claim as well. This is a plot of the NASA GISS data.

A linear regression from 2000 - 2016 shows .20C/decade, exactly the same as the prediction. Simply taking the difference from 2000 shows 2016 shows a 0.6C difference over 16 years, or about .38C/decade.

How much more would you like to see hairball?

No need to waste time on the rest. After all, your first two claims were fraudulent, so the assumption is that all of them are. You got some 'splainin to do about why you tried to pass off such fraud.

You know, the reason I can always humiliate you losers isn't because I'm that incredibly brilliant. It's because I'm ethical, and because you're corrupt. Unlike you, I don't embrace frauds because a political cult commands it. I pay attention to the actual data, while you embrace what's faked, therefore I can always refute you with the actual data.

 

[SSDD]

Stupid, corrupt and butthurt is no way to go through life, son.

And yet, you continue through life in exactly that state hairball...why?

Ah yes, I like that example.

Most scientists/doctors instantly changed their minds when the new evidence was presented. Those people were like the mainstream climate scientists, the rational people, the ones who follow the evidence.

However, some doctors had ulcer-treating practices that the new data destroyed, so they denied the new data. Those people were like the deniers, the ones who denied the evidence for reasons of money or ideology.

Thanks for pointing out how well science works, dumbass, and how lying frauds like you are nothing new.

Yes, that is how science works...that is not, however, how climate science works...when their hypotheses fails and produces predictions that don't happen, when their doom and gloom predictions fail, when their models fail spectacularly, when new research continues to trend the climate sensitivity to CO2 towards zero, what to they do?....Do they scrap the failed hypothesis and begin working on a new one that produces results that fall closer to reality as happens in real science?...of course not...they double down on their failure and predict even more doom and gloom which is what happens in religion and pseudoscience..

In 1990, under the "business as usual" rate of emissions of so called greenhouse gasses, climate science, through the IPCC told us that the increase of the rate of warming during the next century would be 0.3 C per decade...with an uncertainty range of 0.2 - 0.5C

No, they didn't say that. You're lying. Or, that is, WUWT is lying, and you're parroting the lie, because you blindly parrot every lie your cult feeds you.

So, how did WUWT lie there?

You know hairball...I gave you a link to the IPCC site and even gave you a page number...are you to stupid to look? That is precisely what they said. Here is a direct cut and paste from the ipcc site.

Based on current model results, we predict:

• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors

So yes hairball, they did say that and you either lied, or are just either to stupid, or to lazy to bother to go look at the failure of your cult leaders.

The 0.3C prediction you mentioned was for the business-as-usual high-emission scenario, which didn't happen.

What did happen in the real world most closely matched scenario B, the medium-emission scenario, for which the IPCC predicted 0.2C/decade. And that was spot on perfect.

Again, you prove that you are a waste of a human being. Of course the business as usual scenario happened..and it happened in spades. Here are the CO2 increase predictions based on the various scenarios as stated in 2011.

In 2016 CO2 from global industry and energy production were 35.8 gigatons and that is the third year of flat CO2 growth...Now, if you have the basic skills required to read a very simple graph (highly doubtful) you will se that the 35.89 gigatons that industry and energy production produced in 2016 is a good deal higher than even the business as usual scenario as predicted in 2011...that would be because they failed to account for the growth china was experiencing.

Here...from the BBC yesterday...

UN: Emissions gap is 'alarmingly high'

In its annual review, the UN says the gap between carbon cutting plans and the reductions required to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius is "alarmingly high"....

So, WUWT attempted a scenario-switching fraud, for the purpose of lying about the IPCC prediction.

So following the business as usual scenario, WUWT told the truth, and represented the facts as they exist out here in reality land and you remain a lying sack of shit who is either to damned stupid, or to damned lazy to bother to actually try and make contact with reality. Once again you project and accuse others of simply gobbling up whatever bullshit their masters provide them with when in fact, that is precisely how you live your life.

Now that you know, are you going to condemn WUWT for that deliberate fraud? Of course you won't. Instead, you'll suck their ass with even more gusto. All of the deniers here will. None of them has the ethics to renounce frauds, since fraud is all their side has.

Of course not...they told the truth and did the research..you on the other hand lied and didn't bother to even look.

No need to waste time on the rest. After all, your first two claims were fraudulent, so the assumption is that all of them are. You got some 'splainin to do about why you tried to pass off such fraud.

I can understand...If you bothered to address the rest with your usual bullshit, you would just get slapped down that much harder and as you say, stupid, corrupt, and butthurt is no way to go through life...so why don' you do something about it rather than simply attempt to project your state onto others.

You know, the reason I can always humiliate you losers isn't because I'm that incredibly brilliant. It's because I'm ethical, and because you're corrupt. Unlike you, I don't embrace frauds because a political cult commands it. I pay attention to the actual data, while you embrace what's faked, therefore I can always refute you with the actual data.

Hairball, as the beat down I just delivered to you demonstrates, you wouldn't know ethics if they bit you on your stupid, corrupt, butthurt ass....and in your continuing effort at projecting, you claim that you don't embrace fraud when that is precisely what you do...and you don't even have a passing aquaintance with the actual data...even that fake crap provided by your cult leaders...all you do is barely keep up with the latest lies and conveniently forget all the bullshit that failed to come to pass.

And to finish, you can't refute shit, even though it seems to be your dearest wish to be able to do that. Sorry hairball.

 

[mamooth]

You know hairball...I gave you a link to the IPCC site

Actually, WUWT gave it. You just copied it without even looking at it. And you don't want to discuss that, the way you got bamboozled by a paranoid crank web page.

and even gave you a page number...are you to stupid to look?

Obviously I did look at it, and you didn't. That's why you got humiliated. And you're still not looking at it, so you're going to get humiliated more.

Here is a direct cut and paste from the ipcc site.

Which confirms the WUWT fraud. That talks about scenario A, the maximum emission scenario, which the real world CO2 emissions did not match. Real world CO2 emissions matched scenario B. The model based on scenario B predicted 0.2C/decade. Thus, the IPCC model was spot-on, and you and WUWT are lying about it.

Again, you prove that you are a waste of a human being. Of course the business as usual scenario happened..and it happened in spades.

You're lying to everyone's face now, and you don't care who knows.

Check section 5.4.3, page 155, of that same report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_05.pdf
---
The concentration of greenhouse gases increase as in the IPCC "Business-As-Usual" scenario. This assume only modest increases in efficiency and gives an effective doubling of CO2 by 2020 and an effective quadrupling by 2080. Reference will also be made to IPCC Scenario B which assumes large efficiency increases and substantial emission controls, which delay an effective doubling of CO2 to about 2040.
---

It's almost 2020. Has CO2 doubled? No. It's up a little over 40%, half a doubling on a log scale. It will be close to doubling by around 2040. Scenario B.

This isn't a discussion. You're lying about the emission scenarios. Your own source says it.

Here are the CO2 increase predictions based on the various scenarios as stated in 2011.

Given how the report being discussed was from 1990, that all means nothing. You're now trying an apples-vs-oranges fraud to cover for the original fraudulent claim you made about emissions scenarios.

You should have pleaded to being a dope who was parroting cult propaganda. After all, everyone knew that was the case. Instead, you chose to cover for your fraud-by-dumbassery by graduating to deliberate fraud. Not smart. Did you forget you're not talking to one of your fellow cult mouthbreathers? You're deep in fraud hole. Stop digging.

 

[SSDD]

Obviously I did look at it, and you didn't. That's why you got humiliated. And you're still not looking at it, so you're going to get humiliated more.

Poor hairball...all you are looking for is something that might support your cult...and in doing so, you are looking at only the revisions that climate science has made in an effort to appear to know what the hell they are talking about. Here is the 1988 projection. Hansen is the thick black line...the projected CO2 refelected a doubling from pre industrial times and the actual CO2 is between scenario A and scenario B. Look at the temperature hansen predicted in scenario B...an increase of over 0.9 since 1970....did that happen?...Did it get even close?....answer no.

What you are looking at is nothing but the constant revisions to the story made in an attempt to keep at least a passing relationship with reality.

Sorry hairball...as long as you belong to the cult, you are going to be on the losing side.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And a warmer inadvertently posts up the modeling failure reality..

LOL... Nick Stokes posts up the failure and deviation from reality. and this is even a new one with the convergence point move forward (from 1996 to 2008) to remove the deviation.

Where do you see a failure here Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

Let me guess... You fail to see the marked deviation from reality and observed empirical evidence.

You talking to the same group that posts a chart showing a 2 decade pause as evidence that there is no pause....its hopeless

 

[mamooth]

Poor hairball...

You faked a story about the IPCC scenarios.

You got busted for that fraud.

Now you're trying to change the topic by screaming insults.

No matter. Everyone still saw your fraud.

Look at the temperature hansen predicted in scenario B...an increase of over 0.9 since 1970....did that happen?.

Obviously yes. At 2016, The scenario B line in your graph is a nearly a perfect match for Hansen's 1988 model. Dang, you're stupid. You can't even read a simple graph.

Your graph also may have a fraud problem, given that 2016 was warmer than 2015, but your graph shows it as colder. What source did you take your graph from?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here's another one for one gor you to suck on
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf


Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena
that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These
studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise
the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may
never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are
intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are
enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these
cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to
the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me
that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s
atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming
that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide
variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.

This is exactly why the CO2 levels of the past never placed the earth into a runaway state and can not do so to this day.

 

[SSDD]

Poor hairball...

You faked a story about the IPCC scenarios.

Your inability to read does not constitute fakery on my part hairball.

Look at the temperature hansen predicted in scenario B...an increase of over 0.9 since 1970....did that happen?.

Obviously yes. At 2016, The scenario B line in your graph is a nearly a perfect match for Hansen's 1988 model. Dang, you're stupid. You can't even read a simple graph.[/quote]

Obviously yes? Really? A .9 degree C increase since 1979? Where?

Not in the Tropical Pacific

Not in the Western Pacific

Not in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific

Not in the North Atlantic

Not in Antarctica

Not in Western South America...Chilie

Not in China

Not in the US

Not in The Iberian Range...Spain

You have to look pretty hard to find any regional temperature record that shows significant warming in the past 150 years....seems that "global warming" only appears in the highly manipulated, homogenized, and infilled record produced by the lords of the cult.

 

[IanC]

SSDD has just pointed out a particularly weak part of AGW.

There are many local ot regional temperature series that have been included peer reviewed papers that have studied some other effect related to the temperature. In many or most cases these specifically compiled records do not match the adjusted, homogenized and infilled records presented in the global mean products.

Berkeley BEST is the worst offender for this, with literally no cooling stations in the world although they admit that roughly a third of all long term stations have a cooling trend in the raw data. Once their methodology 'fixes' the data, everywhere is warming to match expectations.

 

[skookerasbil]

Poor hairball...

You faked a story about the IPCC scenarios.

Your inability to read does not constitute fakery on my part hairball.

Look at the temperature hansen predicted in scenario B...an increase of over 0.9 since 1970....did that happen?.

Obviously yes. At 2016, The scenario B line in your graph is a nearly a perfect match for Hansen's 1988 model. Dang, you're stupid. You can't even read a simple graph.

Obviously yes? Really? A .9 degree C increase since 1979? Where?

Not in the Tropical Pacific

Not in the Western Pacific

Not in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific

Not in the North Atlantic

Not in Antarctica

Not in Western South America...Chilie

Not in China

Not in the US

Not in The Iberian Range...Spain

You have to look pretty hard to find any regional temperature record that shows significant warming in the past 150 years....seems that "global warming" only appears in the highly manipulated, homogenized, and infilled record produced by the lords of the cult.[/QUOTE]



w0w..........SSDD delivering a BIG..........


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber_1.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[mamooth]

SSDD _still_ faked the scenarios. None of his frantic deflections change that.

His latest deflection involves use of dishonestly cherrypicking to pretend sea surface temepratures aren't rising. Unlike deniers, we honest people just use the global data.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD _still_ faked the scenarios. None of his frantic deflections change that.

His latest deflection involves use of dishonestly cherrypicking to pretend sea surface temepratures aren't rising. Unlike deniers, we honest people just use the global data.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA

SPEAKING OF FAKED...

You just quoted the EPA who used the faked Karl Et AL manipulated data set...LOL...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD _still_ faked the scenarios. None of his frantic deflections change that.

His latest deflection involves use of dishonestly cherrypicking to pretend sea surface temepratures aren't rising. Unlike deniers, we honest people just use the global data.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA

Sorry hairball...just because you are a congenital liar doesn't mean everyone else is....and by "cherry picking" do you mean using graphs of actual regional temperatures rather than the highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record produced by people who will lose their funding if there isn't a crisis? Talk about picking great big pumpkin sized cherries...you only accept records that are manipulated, homogenized, and infilled and reject regional records because they don't reflect the fake results that your lords produce? What a laugh...climate science is a joke...although as time passes, more and more papers are published that call into question the fraudulent pseudoscience that you wack jobs believe in...who knows, in a dozen years or so, it might be as hard to find someone who believed in that crap as it is to find someone who supported eugenics.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD _still_ faked the scenarios. None of his frantic deflections change that.

His latest deflection involves use of dishonestly cherrypicking to pretend sea surface temepratures aren't rising. Unlike deniers, we honest people just use the global data.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA

SPEAKING OF FAKED...

You just quoted the EPA who used the faked Karl Et AL manipulated data set...LOL...

Its her nature....it stands to reason that she would look for the steaming pile with the greatest stink factor...the very idea of comparing regional records to the homogenized, manipulated, and infilled record to check on its accuracy would never occur to someone like her...

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's another one for one gor you to suck on
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf


Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena
that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These
studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise
the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may
never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are
intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are
enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these
cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to
the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me
that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s
atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming
that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide
variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.

This is exactly why the CO2 levels of the past never placed the earth into a runaway state and can not do so to this day.

View attachment 158727

You are one stupid ass. PT Extinction. Primary cause, a very rapid heating of the Earth's atmosphere caused by the rapid accumulation of CO2 and CH4. 95% of all species died. Very close to a total wipeout.

Carbon isotopic evidence for terminal-Permian methane outbursts and their role in extinctions of animals, plants, coral reefs, and peat swamps | Wetlands through Time | GeoScienceWorld Books | GeoScienceWorld


A gap in the fossil record of coals and coral reefs during the Early Triassic follows the greatest of mass extinctions at the Permian-Triassic boundary. Catastrophic methane outbursts during terminal Permian global mass extinction are indicated by organic carbon isotopic (δ13Corg) values of less than –37‰, and preferential sequestration of 13C-depleted carbon at high latitudes and on land, relative to low latitudes and deep ocean. Methane outbursts massive enough to account for observed carbon isotopic anomalies require unusually efficient release from thermal alteration of coal measures or from methane-bearing permafrost or marine methane-hydrate reservoirs due to bolide impact, volcanic eruption, submarine landslides, or global warming. The terminal Permian carbon isotopic anomaly has been regarded as a consequence of mass extinction, but atmospheric injections of methane and its oxidation to carbon dioxide could have been a cause of extinction for animals, plants, coral reefs and peat swamps, killing by hypoxia, hypercapnia, acidosis, and pulmonary edema. Extinction by hydrocarbon pollution of the atmosphere is compatible with many details of the marine and terrestrial fossil records, and with observed marine and nonmarine facies changes. Multiple methane releases explain not only erratic early Triassic carbon isotopic values, but also protracted (∼6 m.y.) global suppression of coral reefs and peat swamps

 

[westwall]

Here's another one for one gor you to suck on
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf


Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena
that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These
studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise
the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may
never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are
intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are
enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these
cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to
the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me
that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s
atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming
that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide
variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.

This is exactly why the CO2 levels of the past never placed the earth into a runaway state and can not do so to this day.

View attachment 158727

You are one stupid ass. PT Extinction. Primary cause, a very rapid heating of the Earth's atmosphere caused by the rapid accumulation of CO2 and CH4. 95% of all species died. Very close to a total wipeout.

Carbon isotopic evidence for terminal-Permian methane outbursts and their role in extinctions of animals, plants, coral reefs, and peat swamps | Wetlands through Time | GeoScienceWorld Books | GeoScienceWorld


A gap in the fossil record of coals and coral reefs during the Early Triassic follows the greatest of mass extinctions at the Permian-Triassic boundary. Catastrophic methane outbursts during terminal Permian global mass extinction are indicated by organic carbon isotopic (δ13Corg) values of less than –37‰, and preferential sequestration of 13C-depleted carbon at high latitudes and on land, relative to low latitudes and deep ocean. Methane outbursts massive enough to account for observed carbon isotopic anomalies require unusually efficient release from thermal alteration of coal measures or from methane-bearing permafrost or marine methane-hydrate reservoirs due to bolide impact, volcanic eruption, submarine landslides, or global warming. The terminal Permian carbon isotopic anomaly has been regarded as a consequence of mass extinction, but atmospheric injections of methane and its oxidation to carbon dioxide could have been a cause of extinction for animals, plants, coral reefs and peat swamps, killing by hypoxia, hypercapnia, acidosis, and pulmonary edema. Extinction by hydrocarbon pollution of the atmosphere is compatible with many details of the marine and terrestrial fossil records, and with observed marine and nonmarine facies changes. Multiple methane releases explain not only erratic early Triassic carbon isotopic values, but also protracted (∼6 m.y.) global suppression of coral reefs and peat swamps

Yet again another load of horse dung. Globally there is OBSERVED evidence of global glaciation. Your "study" is based once again on computer derived fiction.