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

[nat4900]

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.

Well stated......and boy, are you ever correct that when the proverbial poop hits the fan, current deniers WILL deny that they were ever so darn stupid.
(although I suspect that were a Rush to tell them that we were in climate trouble, they'd believe it and.....of course..... blame Obama.)

 

[Wyld Kard]

But the climate science predictions have been correct, for decades running now. That's why the science has such credibility.

If you deniers want the same credibility, you'll have to do some real science, and you'll also have to stop failing consistently at every single thing. Whining that you're not taken seriously because of the big conspiracy won't get you taken seriously.

But the climate science predictions have been correct, for decades running now. That's why the science has such credibility.

 

[Wyld Kard]

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?

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

You keep using that same phrase over and over, and you will continue to be wrong over and over, dumbass.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Hey Mr Right.........gotta get in here more often.......this is a playground for us to make fun of the religion!! A hoot every day!!

Just a small handful of AGW faithful in here daily.......kinda laughable in an ENVIRONMENT forum when you think of it, but for sure, the most nutty-ass of all the mental cases is Mamooth. Her stuff is really out there..........somebody who you know would be real comfortable walking around in public with a big shit stain on her pooper area of her pants. Yep...that kinda k00k.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Well stated......and boy, are you ever correct that when the proverbial poop hits the fan, current deniers WILL deny that they were ever so darn stupid.
(although I suspect that were a Rush to tell them that we were in climate trouble, they'd believe it and.....of course..... blame Obama.)

meh

every global warming k00k said 10 years ago that by now, there would be zero ice at the north pole and in 2013, the area doubled in size!!! Scores of predictions by the AGW climate nutters that ended up being a fairy tale..........on tornado's, snow, floods, hurricanes etc.........clearly, the public has seen enough of this snake oil by 2015 >>>

Gallup Concern About Environment Down Americans Worry Least About Global Warming CNS News

Nobody is giving a **** except the internet OCD climate radicals.

 

[Mr.Right]

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.

Well stated......and boy, are you ever correct that when the proverbial poop hits the fan, current deniers WILL deny that they were ever so darn stupid.
(although I suspect that were a Rush to tell them that we were in climate trouble, they'd believe it and.....of course..... blame Obama.)

meh

every global warming k00k said 10 years ago that by now, there would be zero ice at the north pole and in 2013, the area doubled in size!!! Scores of predictions by the AGW climate nutters that ended up being a fairy tale..........on tornado's, snow, floods, hurricanes etc.........clearly, the public has seen enough of this snake oil by 2015 >>>

Gallup Concern About Environment Down Americans Worry Least About Global Warming CNS News

Nobody is giving a **** except the internet OCD climate radicals.

Remember the movie "the day after tomorrow"? What a hoot! I got a major laugh out of that one. Environmental scare tactics to the max.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Well stated......and boy, are you ever correct that when the proverbial poop hits the fan, current deniers WILL deny that they were ever so darn stupid.
(although I suspect that were a Rush to tell them that we were in climate trouble, they'd believe it and.....of course..... blame Obama.)

meh

every global warming k00k said 10 years ago that by now, there would be zero ice at the north pole and in 2013, the area doubled in size!!! Scores of predictions by the AGW climate nutters that ended up being a fairy tale..........on tornado's, snow, floods, hurricanes etc.........clearly, the public has seen enough of this snake oil by 2015 >>>

Gallup Concern About Environment Down Americans Worry Least About Global Warming CNS News

Nobody is giving a **** except the internet OCD climate radicals.

Remember the movie "the day after tomorrow"? What a hoot! I got a major laugh out of that one. Environmental scare tactics to the max.

Hey man....no shit.....this goofball in here, DeltaEmbassy thinks that movie is going to play out in a year or two. Have heard the idiot is actually building an emergency ark in his backyard!!!

 

[Mr.Right]

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.

Well stated......and boy, are you ever correct that when the proverbial poop hits the fan, current deniers WILL deny that they were ever so darn stupid.
(although I suspect that were a Rush to tell them that we were in climate trouble, they'd believe it and.....of course..... blame Obama.)

meh

every global warming k00k said 10 years ago that by now, there would be zero ice at the north pole and in 2013, the area doubled in size!!! Scores of predictions by the AGW climate nutters that ended up being a fairy tale..........on tornado's, snow, floods, hurricanes etc.........clearly, the public has seen enough of this snake oil by 2015 >>>

Gallup Concern About Environment Down Americans Worry Least About Global Warming CNS News

Nobody is giving a **** except the internet OCD climate radicals.

Remember the movie "the day after tomorrow"? What a hoot! I got a major laugh out of that one. Environmental scare tactics to the max.

Hey man....no shit.....this goofball in here, DeltaEmbassy thinks that movie is going to play out in a year or two. Have heard the idiot is actually building an emergency ark in his backyard!!!

WTF? LOL!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

meh

every global warming k00k said 10 years ago that by now, there would be zero ice at the north pole and in 2013, the area doubled in size!!!

did you make that up yourself or did you get it from FOX News?

 

[skookerasbil]

Actually...........neither..........

Gore said it..........every AGW k00k jumped on the bandwagon!!!

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years The Gateway Pundit

 

[ralfy]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

The statement:

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

A link mentioned in the statement:

RealClimate Reflections on Ringberg

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually...........neither..........

Gore said it..........every AGW k00k jumped on the bandwagon!!!

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years The Gateway Pundit

Ahh. So you didn't make it up yourself, someone had to make it up for you. Sad when you can't come up with your own lies.

The bit about the arctic ice doubling in size...a you original, or did you copy that lie as well?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

The statement:

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

A link mentioned in the statement:

RealClimate Reflections on Ringberg

Since most deniers tire after reading three sentences, I'll give them the best part

"However others have used my
findings to suggest that Earth’s surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of
atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences."

But...but...the link, the OP, the title says.....er ...ahahahrhurjxhuajshjjieij!

 

[IanC]

Steven's PDF statement is quite short. The first paragraph never seems to get quoted in full. Why? Because he admits that his findings are low for aerosols. At the extreme edge of the (edit-IPCC) range.

Show me a model run that uses Steven's aerosol value for input and you will find that it gives a much lower estimate for increasing temperatures.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Steven's PDF statement is quite short. The first paragraph never seems to get quoted in full. Why? Because he admits that his findings are low for aerosols. At the extreme edge of the (edit-IPCC) range.

Show me a model run that uses Steven's aerosol value for input and you will find that it gives a much lower estimate for increasing temperatures.

Since you've already done the model run why don't you show us?

 

[IanC]

Steven's PDF statement is quite short. The first paragraph never seems to get quoted in full. Why? Because he admits that his findings are low for aerosols. At the extreme edge of the (edit-IPCC) range.

Show me a model run that uses Steven's aerosol value for input and you will find that it gives a much lower estimate for increasing temperatures.

Since you've already done the model run why don't you show us?

here is one graph out of many similar ones. all models use a variation of inputs to get their own set of hindcasts and forecasts. I am saying that the model runs that show the least warming are the ones with the lowest coded in climate sensitivity for 2xCO2.


I will concede that my previos post was incorrect. any model that uses lower aerosols instead of the IPCC estimate will actually give higher temps because there isless of a downward correction. if some of the models already had a smaller built-in correction factor for aerosols, then reducing the aerosol value to Steven's findings will still increase the temp prediction, but less than other models that need higher aerosol values to cancel out other built in feedbacks.

that is still garbled. suffice it to say a climate model's sensitivity is calculated by positive forcings minus negative forcings. if you reduce the negative forcings you get increaded temperatures. if you hold the temperatures the same then the climate sensitivity goes down. pick your poison. either the models get farther out of whack with reality or you reduce the estimate of climate sensitivity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Steven's PDF statement is quite short. The first paragraph never seems to get quoted in full. Why? Because he admits that his findings are low for aerosols. At the extreme edge of the (edit-IPCC) range.

Show me a model run that uses Steven's aerosol value for input and you will find that it gives a much lower estimate for increasing temperatures.

Since you've already done the model run why don't you show us?

here is one graph out of many similar ones. all models use a variation of inputs to get their own set of hindcasts and forecasts. I am saying that the model runs that show the least warming are the ones with the lowest coded in climate sensitivity for 2xCO2.


I will concede that my previos post was incorrect. any model that uses lower aerosols instead of the IPCC estimate will actually give higher temps because there isless of a downward correction. if some of the models already had a smaller built-in correction factor for aerosols, then reducing the aerosol value to Steven's findings will still increase the temp prediction, but less than other models that need higher aerosol values to cancel out other built in feedbacks.

that is still garbled. suffice it to say a climate model's sensitivity is calculated by positive forcings minus negative forcings. if you reduce the negative forcings you get increaded temperatures. if you hold the temperatures the same then the climate sensitivity goes down. pick your poison. either the models get farther out of whack with reality or you reduce the estimate of climate sensitivity.

I see your plot conveniently leaves off 2013 and 2014. Do you have something more recent? Considering 2014 was the warmest on the instrumental record, I think your plot would look a lot different with updated data.

 

[IanC]

Steven's PDF statement is quite short. The first paragraph never seems to get quoted in full. Why? Because he admits that his findings are low for aerosols. At the extreme edge of the (edit-IPCC) range.

Show me a model run that uses Steven's aerosol value for input and you will find that it gives a much lower estimate for increasing temperatures.

Since you've already done the model run why don't you show us?

here is one graph out of many similar ones. all models use a variation of inputs to get their own set of hindcasts and forecasts. I am saying that the model runs that show the least warming are the ones with the lowest coded in climate sensitivity for 2xCO2.


I will concede that my previos post was incorrect. any model that uses lower aerosols instead of the IPCC estimate will actually give higher temps because there isless of a downward correction. if some of the models already had a smaller built-in correction factor for aerosols, then reducing the aerosol value to Steven's findings will still increase the temp prediction, but less than other models that need higher aerosol values to cancel out other built in feedbacks.

that is still garbled. suffice it to say a climate model's sensitivity is calculated by positive forcings minus negative forcings. if you reduce the negative forcings you get increaded temperatures. if you hold the temperatures the same then the climate sensitivity goes down. pick your poison. either the models get farther out of whack with reality or you reduce the estimate of climate sensitivity.

I see your plot conveniently leaves off 2013 and 2014. Do you have something more recent? Considering 2014 was the warmest on the instrumental record, I think your plot would look a lot different with updated data.

hahahahahaha. really? are you kidding? satellite data didnt have 2014 as the warmest year. go to KLMI site and download the data for yourself. you're an astrophysicist, you must be fluent in graph production.

 

[jc456]

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.

it's nothing like the world is ending prediction failures by centuries.

 

[jc456]

Steven's PDF statement is quite short. The first paragraph never seems to get quoted in full. Why? Because he admits that his findings are low for aerosols. At the extreme edge of the (edit-IPCC) range.

Show me a model run that uses Steven's aerosol value for input and you will find that it gives a much lower estimate for increasing temperatures.

Since you've already done the model run why don't you show us?

here is one graph out of many similar ones. all models use a variation of inputs to get their own set of hindcasts and forecasts. I am saying that the model runs that show the least warming are the ones with the lowest coded in climate sensitivity for 2xCO2.


I will concede that my previos post was incorrect. any model that uses lower aerosols instead of the IPCC estimate will actually give higher temps because there isless of a downward correction. if some of the models already had a smaller built-in correction factor for aerosols, then reducing the aerosol value to Steven's findings will still increase the temp prediction, but less than other models that need higher aerosol values to cancel out other built in feedbacks.

that is still garbled. suffice it to say a climate model's sensitivity is calculated by positive forcings minus negative forcings. if you reduce the negative forcings you get increaded temperatures. if you hold the temperatures the same then the climate sensitivity goes down. pick your poison. either the models get farther out of whack with reality or you reduce the estimate of climate sensitivity.

I see your plot conveniently leaves off 2013 and 2014. Do you have something more recent? Considering 2014 was the warmest on the instrumental record, I think your plot would look a lot different with updated data.

hahahahahaha. really? are you kidding? satellite data didnt have 2014 as the warmest year. go to KLMI site and download the data for yourself. you're an astrophysicist, you must be fluent in graph production.

too funny Ian!!!