Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[Mr.Right]

Now, don't you global warming nuts feel just a little silly?

New Study Is A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria The Daily Caller

Dude like these scientists are totally just lying about that study to get tenure and more grant money you can't trust scientists bro forreal it's just politics bros.

Don't fret OldSchool, in ten years no one will remember that you were bamboozled into believing this pseudo-science. You can pretend you were on to those crazy global-warmerists the whole time.

In twenty years, you can claim it was really only Republicans who believed that man-made global warming was "settled science". XD

He'll be claiming that at some point, they switched sides.

And there will be plenty of useful idiots who will believe him.

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, ol' Wrong is another little lying corksmoker with no idea what a real science article is.

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now, who to believe, a bunch of flapyap idiots on a message board, or the vast majority of real scientists?

 

[lake avenue]

My goodness, ol' Wrong is another little lying corksmoker with no idea what a real science article is.

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now, who to believe, a bunch of flapyap idiots on a message board, or the vast majority of real scientists?

Conservatives are experts on whatever issue they're talking about at the time always.

 

[lake avenue]

who the fuck says it's a death blow?

The title is misleading; all the paper does is construct a basic atmospheric model focused on aerosols and show that their affect on local temperature isn't very profound. If anything, it just lowers the lower bound on how aerosol-atmosphere interactions affect the atmosphere's heat capacity.

There's more to climate change than just aerosols; so this doesn't really do much to discredit the idea that humans are causing it.

 

[Mr.Right]

My goodness, ol' Wrong is another little lying corksmoker with no idea what a real science article is.

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now, who to believe, a bunch of flapyap idiots on a message board, or the vast majority of real scientists?

There is no consensus on global warming. Period. Global warming models haven't even come close to supporting the alarmists. You can scream all you want about how everyone agrees, but the truth is otherwise.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oooh, another "death blow"!

You'd think after the last twenty "death blows" didn't pan out, the denier cultists would be able to figure out they're getting played for idiots. But they never do. Like an abused spouse, they just run right back for more abuse.

One would think that after being proven wrong so many times, the global warming alarmists would just give up.

"The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict."

This quote from the article would be correct as the empirical evidence shows the amount of potential warming attributed to CO2 is near zero.

 

[Billy_Bob]

who the fuck says it's a death blow?

The title is misleading; all the paper does is construct a basic atmospheric model focused on aerosols and show that their affect on local temperature isn't very profound. If anything, it just lowers the lower bound on how aerosol-atmosphere interactions affect the atmosphere's heat capacity.

There's more to climate change than just aerosols; so this doesn't really do much to discredit the idea that humans are causing it.

Disproving the MId-tropospheric host spot is what this article does. It kills the CAGW meme dead...

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Billy ol' Boob, so when are the icecaps going to start growing again? And when are the glaciers going to stop receding? And when are all the Scientific Societies going to state ol' Billy Boob was right all along? LOL

 

[lake avenue]

Oooh, another "death blow"!

You'd think after the last twenty "death blows" didn't pan out, the denier cultists would be able to figure out they're getting played for idiots. But they never do. Like an abused spouse, they just run right back for more abuse.

One would think that after being proven wrong so many times, the global warming alarmists would just give up.

"The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict."

This quote from the article would be correct as the empirical evidence shows the amount of potential warming attributed to CO2 is near zero.

It was near zero before; climate science constantly deals with small numbers. What matters is how many aerosols are in the air, their effects are multiplicative. Secondly, this is one single paper by a meteorologist in Germany. No other study to my knowledge has ever come to the same conclusion, and even if there were, there's not nearly as many as studies that say otherwise.

 

[Mr.Right]

Oooh, another "death blow"!

You'd think after the last twenty "death blows" didn't pan out, the denier cultists would be able to figure out they're getting played for idiots. But they never do. Like an abused spouse, they just run right back for more abuse.

One would think that after being proven wrong so many times, the global warming alarmists would just give up.

"The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict."

This quote from the article would be correct as the empirical evidence shows the amount of potential warming attributed to CO2 is near zero.

It was near zero before; climate science constantly deals with small numbers. What matters is how many aerosols are in the air, their effects are multiplicative. Secondly, this is one single paper by a meteorologist in Germany. No other study to my knowledge has ever come to the same conclusion, and even if there were, there's not nearly as many as studies that say otherwise.

What about all the climate models that never even came close to getting it right?lol

 

[IanC]

The problem for the alarmists is climate sensitivity for 2xCO2. It is exaggerated. The only way to make hindcasts that were remotely close was to fudge aerosols.

Lewis and Curry used IPCC inputs and still got lower sensitivity. Now independent studies are finding lower aerosol forcing from real data instead of high estimates that were needed by the climate models. This brings climate sensitivity down even more.

Mainstream skeptics have not been 'denying' the basic physics concepts. They deny the exaggerations and phoney conclusions of doom stemming from those exaggerations.

 

[skookerasbil]

Global warming hysteria has been dead for quite some time now..........not from any death blow but died more like from a slow trickle of multiple disasters. Long before this study, people stopped caring. The bomb throwers threw too many duds in recent years and have been tuned out. Every poll shows it vividly.

 

[nat4900]

This latest "study" is akin to the woman who went to her doctor and was told, ".....well, madam, you're just a tiny bit pregnant....."

 

[IanC]

This latest "study" is akin to the woman who went to her doctor and was told, ".....well, madam, you're just a tiny bit pregnant....."

the solution is really quite simple. in science when your predictions fail you revise the hypothesis. it is only climate science that insists the hypothesis is correct and therefore needs to revise the data.

 

[nat4900]

For dumbed down right wingers, this new "study" (which could be refuted by a newer "study" a year from now) is equivalent to yet another doctor telling a patient that the dose of arsenic the patient has been taking isn't yet quite at the lethal level....

 

[skookerasbil]

For dumbed down right wingers, this new "study" (which could be refuted by a newer "study" a year from now) is equivalent to yet another doctor telling a patient that the dose of arsenic the patient has been taking isn't yet quite at the lethal level....

but the dummies are winning s0n!!! Nobody cares about global warming in 2015.

PS.....your analogies are ghey.


But here's a great analogy of the plight of the AGW k00ks to have their "consensus" science impacting public policy.......20 years of fAiL. The black knight, of course, represents the global warming k00ks!!!

 

[nat4900]

but the dummies are winning s0n!!! Nobody cares about global warming in 2015.

"Winning" exactly what???

 

[skookerasbil]

but the dummies are winning s0n!!! Nobody cares about global warming in 2015.

"Winning" exactly what???

Here ya go s0n.........390 pages of education >>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[nat4900]

but the dummies are winning s0n!!! Nobody cares about global warming in 2015.

"Winning" exactly what???

Here ya go s0n.........390 pages of education >>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dingbat.....I am asking what exactly do you think you're WINNING ???

 

[Old Rocks]

What is being won is a changed world. How much change, we don't know, we have not been down this road before. What are the total effects going to be? We don't know that, either. And, what will be the time scale that the effects take hold on? We don't know that, also. We do know that some of the effects predicted, such as the regression of the Arctic Sea Ice have progressed far faster than any thought possible. And we know that there are some unknowns, the rate of discharge of CO2 and CH4 by the Arctic Ocean clathrates and Arctic permafrost, that could drastically change the equation.

In the face of all these unknowns, and with the knowledge that GHGs do increase the heat in the atmosphere, the deniers continue to insist we can go on as we have before. Either denying observed effects, or denying the basic physical science. And when they can no longer deny either, they will deny that they ever did, or that the scientists told them of the trouble ahead.