New paper finds the data do not support the theory of man-made global warming [AGW]

SSDD

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2012
16,672
1,965
280
In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf

This paper, recently published in the European Geosciences Union journal Earth System Dynamics demonstrated that there is "no relationship bewteen temperature and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas anomoly once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration".
 
that is not what that study says

Of course it is. They said:

This means, however, that as with all hypotheses, our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.

So they are saying that in the entire universe of possibilities, there is not even a statistically signifigant chance that our contribution to a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing global warming.
 
In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf

This paper, recently published in the European Geosciences Union journal Earth System Dynamics demonstrated that there is "no relationship bewteen temperature and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas anomoly once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration".

The only "contrast" that is "remarkable" here is the one between a normal working brain and your pathetically faulty semi-brain.

In your usual cluelessly delusional way, you claim that: "I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation." and then you point to a paper that is actually entirely based on mathematical models.

Abstract. We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century.

Moreover it is a paper where the two lead authors are not climate scientists but rather members of the Department of Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. But in your delusional and very retarded little pea brain, this one paper somehow completely discredits and disproves the thousands of peer reviewed papers in major science journals that specifically support the the scientific conclusions on anthropogenic global warming. LOLOLOLOLOL....you poor, poor confused little half-wit.

Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top