Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To

[Socio]

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

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

They changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" for a reason, there is no warming but the climate changes seasonally, now they can claim the climate is changing and not actually be lying and looking the fool about that part when exclaiming their fictitious science .

It is really about the Progressive Left growing the government, obtaining more power over the people, and lining the pockets of politicians and the power brokers in Washington nothing more.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Socio

[Guest Br Cornelius]

They changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" for a reason, there is no warming but the climate changes seasonally, now they can claim the climate is changing and not actually be lying and looking the fool about that part when exclaiming their fictitious science .

You display your ignorance on your sleeve.

Br Cornelius

[keithisco]

"The Daily Caller" - such a bastion of un-biased, non right - wing, Republican Propaganda ***Sarcasm mine***. Not even worthy of a proper response

ps. I clicked on the link and the webpage froze my laptop and had to reboot - be warned

Edited April 1, 2015 by keithisco

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The paper itself may have some useful contribution to make to climate science, but Socio's comments had absolutely nothing to do with that paper.

Br Cornelius

[Duke Wellington]

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

They changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" for a reason, there is no warming but the climate changes seasonally, now they can claim the climate is changing and not actually be lying and looking the fool about that part when exclaiming their fictitious science .

It is really about the Progressive Left growing the government, obtaining more power over the people, and lining the pockets of politicians and the power brokers in Washington nothing more.

Democracy is less about responsible government and more about popular government.

[RoofGardener]

Well, he DOES kinda point out the it about climate sensitivity to C02 having to be recalculated in all of the climate models ?

[Merc14]

"The Daily Caller" - such a bastion of un-biased, non right - wing, Republican Propaganda ***Sarcasm mine***. Not even worthy of a proper response

ps. I clicked on the link and the webpage froze my laptop and had to reboot - be warned

Attacking the source without ever mentioning the research sited is a response made by a thinking person? Keep up the free thinking and make sure you never stray from the NYTs. BTW, maybe you should get a better laptop or do a malware scan because I opened the page on four different computers and it popped right up without a problem. WTF?

Well, he DOES kinda point out the it about climate sensitivity to C02 having to be recalculated in all of the climate models ?

Heresy!!!!! Never question global warming climate change as it is the only theory in known science that shall not be challenged.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Merc14

[Von Bismarck]

Some people in this thread are so ignorant that I can't even be bothered explaining why this paper is not a blow to global warming.

Aerosol forcing is extremely complex and most of you wouldn't understand a word anyway.

Article the worst propaganda for big oil I have ever seen. However the paper is quite interesting.

[RoofGardener]

Some people in this thread are so ignorant that I can't even be bothered explaining why this paper is not a blow to global warming.

Aerosol forcing is extremely complex and most of you wouldn't understand a word anyway.

Article the worst propaganda for big oil I have ever seen. However the paper is quite interesting.

Well, it's certainly a blow to the credibility of the IPCC computer models. How did they manage to pass their calibration tests if they are using the wrong value for Aerosol forcing ? Evidently, somebody has been "fudging" results somewhere, casting doubt onto the validity of the IPCC report.

[KariW]

I had absolutely no problem with the link either, and agree with Merc. that something may be wrong with Kiethisco's computer. Perhaps it caught a cold? Suggest taking its temperature while forcing liquids.

[+joc]

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

They changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" for a reason, there is no warming but the climate changes seasonally, now they can claim the climate is changing and not actually be lying and looking the fool about that part when exclaiming their fictitious science .

It is really about the Progressive Left growing the government, obtaining more power over the people, and lining the pockets of politicians and the power brokers in Washington nothing more.

You display the truth for all to see.

[regeneratia]

This is one reason of many why I don't believe in the meme called "global warming".

http://www.newspaper...-world/582.html

"Earth has shifted"-Inuit elders issue warning to NASA and the world

We learn that galaxies flow thru each other, which includes their suns. The sun has cycles that we simply have not measured yet. The sun;s corona is not powered from inside the sun but by cosmic forces. I am sure those cosmic forces have cycles as well, if scientists would get their heads out of their rear quarters, release their dogmas and really take a good look at what is all around the cosmos, which they are indeed starting to do.

I refuse to put man at the center of the universe. Man is just not that important in the great scheme of things.

Edited April 1, 2015 by regeneratia

[Merc14]

Man-made global warming climate change is no longer a science it is a religion. In science there are theories and those theories, while understood and taken as true are always, ALWAYS, up for debate and in many cases we have seen generally accepted theory proved wrong and a new theory takes its place. Not so AGW, this is a theory that is closed labeled beyond debate and questioning it is not allowed. It has even been suggested that those who deny the theory should be imprisoned and some think even executed or strangled in their sleep. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html Does that sound like science or religion to you?

[clare256]

Never doubt global warming climate change, Al Gore for one has made millions off it.

[+joc]

before it was ever even Global Warming...it was Global Cooling...

LINK

On January 11, 1970 the Washington Post reported that "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age"

By 1971 studies indicated that human caused air pollution was spreading, but there was uncertainty as to whether aerosols would cause warming or cooling, and whether or not they were more significant than rising CO2 levels.

The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead, continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century"

An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World",[39] it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968."

In 1998 the theoretical neurophysiologist William H. Calvin proposed in The Atlantic magazine that global warming could paradoxically cause a shutdown of thermohaline circulation and catastrophic cooling

[Doug1029]

Attacking the source without ever mentioning the research sited is a response made by a thinking person? Keep up the free thinking and make sure you never stray from the NYTs. BTW, maybe you should get a better laptop or do a malware scan because I opened the page on four different computers and it popped right up without a problem. WTF?

Heresy!!!!! Never question global warming climate change as it is the only theory in known science that shall not be challenged.

I decided to look up the paper. All it does is report a new finding for the value of climate sensitivity. The new value is a little lower than some previous findings. But what does that mean?

It means that tomorrow somebody is going to do another estimate. These estimates go back and forth, gradually settling on a number that most scientists can more-or-less agree on. This is one more step in the process. The ultimate finding may be lower or higher. We'll just have to see.

And what if the real value of climate sensitivity is lower than scientists thought? It means that it will take longer to reach disaster thresh holds - but we'll still reach them. It means we have more time to meet the challenge, but we're still going to have to meet it. Business as usual is still the road to disaster.

The Daily Caller did not challenge global warming/climate change. All it did was misrepresent a scientific study.

Doug

[Whisperer]

This is one reason of many why I don't believe in the meme called "global warming".

http://www.newspaper...-world/582.html

"Earth has shifted"-Inuit elders issue warning to NASA and the world

*Snipped*

I've had the same belief now for over 20 years, born out of the incidences back in the 80's I think, when commercial sea going vessels started crashing into rocks they always knew were there but were now leaping in front of unsuspecting ships...

It was from that time that GPS became a legal requirement...

Over the years I have noted here in my own country, the sun and moon rising and setting from positions that were off from what I had been accustomed to..

I also recall a small news article from our national media that described an axial tilt of some 5%, which also suggested that the tilt could reach up to 20% in the long run...

If this was or is proved to be true then it would explain the polar and glacial melts we are now noting as every one of those regions would be closer to the sun than normal...

How much truth there is for the above remains speculative at best for no research ever came to light to support such a proposition, only anecdotes from differing places around the globe...

[Guest Br Cornelius]

before it was ever even Global Warming...it was Global Cooling...

LINK

On January 11, 1970 the Washington Post reported that "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age"

By 1971 studies indicated that human caused air pollution was spreading, but there was uncertainty as to whether aerosols would cause warming or cooling, and whether or not they were more significant than rising CO2 levels.

The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead, continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century"

An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World",[39] it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968."

In 1998 the theoretical neurophysiologist William H. Calvin proposed in The Atlantic magazine that global warming could paradoxically cause a shutdown of thermohaline circulation and catastrophic cooling

Bull****. Joc you are cherry picking even from the Wiki article you are referencing, here is the overview of what Wiki says:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[

From the same journal as this thread is based upon a paper showing that the Global Cooling meme is just another myth.

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

http://journals.amet.../2008BAMS2370.1

Cherry picking quotes is intellectually dishonest, but it seems its all the denial crowd have left.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 1, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I've had the same belief now for over 20 years, born out of the incidences back in the 80's I think, when commercial sea going vessels started crashing into rocks they always knew were there but were now leaping in front of unsuspecting ships...

It was from that time that GPS became a legal requirement...

Over the years I have noted here in my own country, the sun and moon rising and setting from positions that were off from what I had been accustomed to..

I also recall a small news article from our national media that described an axial tilt of some 5%, which also suggested that the tilt could reach up to 20% in the long run...

If this was or is proved to be true then it would explain the polar and glacial melts we are now noting as every one of those regions would be closer to the sun than normal...

How much truth there is for the above remains speculative at best for no research ever came to light to support such a proposition, only anecdotes from differing places around the globe...

Exactly, and you seriously believe that scientists who can land a space ship on a moving comet wouldn't have spotted a change in axial tilt, one of the most simple astronomical observations humanly possible

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/49Degrees.HTM

Br Cornelius

Edited April 1, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

before it was ever even Global Warming...it was Global Cooling...

LINK

On January 11, 1970 the Washington Post reported that "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age"

By 1971 studies indicated that human caused air pollution was spreading, but there was uncertainty as to whether aerosols would cause warming or cooling, and whether or not they were more significant than rising CO2 levels.

The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead, continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century"

An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World",[39] it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968."

In 1998 the theoretical neurophysiologist William H. Calvin proposed in The Atlantic magazine that global warming could paradoxically cause a shutdown of thermohaline circulation and catastrophic cooling

My first observation is that ALL your sources are popular press. NOT ONE is from a peer-reviewed source.

That being said, there are two points to support your contention: 1. an article published in the late 60s miscalculated one of the Milankovitch Cycles. It was a simple arithmetic mistake, but it got past the reviewers. It also invalidated the entire study. As I recall, the journal printed a retraction, but people who aren't used to doing research often miss those.

In 1945 the global average temperature was exactly at the baseline temp. In 1968, it was 0.05 degrees C. BELOW the baseline temp. What that illustrates is the need to pick your starting and ending points carefully. Had the Newsweek author used dates just five years later, he would have noted that 1950 was 0.19 degrees below the baseline and that 1973 was 0.16 degrees above it. In short, he either deliberately misrepresented the facts or was such a poor investigator that he missed the most-important detail.

The second point is that there WAS a slight drop in global temps in the late 1960s. In 1963, just before the temperature drop, the globally-averaged temperature was 0.08 degrees above the baseline. The next year the temp dropped to 0.20 degrees below the baseline and it stayed below the mean until 1970. To put that into perspective: in 1950 the globally-averaged temperature dropped to -0.19, only one one-hundredth of a degree warmer than 1964. That little cold snap lasted six years and produced an average temperature of 0.0967 degrees below the mean. The 1960s cold snap lasted five years and produced an average temperature of 0.0800 degrees below the mean.

EVERY ONE of those popular press authors missed the fact that the 1950s cold snap was both colder and longer than the 1960s cold snap. And that illustrates another point: CLIMATE requires at least 30 years of data and at that, temps must be at least 1.96 standard errors above or below the mean to be considered significantly different from the baseline. Those articles are not about climate. They're about WEATHER.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Heresy!!!!! Never question global warming climate change as it is the only theory in known science that shall not be challenged.

We have just been through the three warmest months ever. December, January and February were each the warmest those months have ever been. March hasn't been posted yet, but I'll let you know when it is.

Doug

[regeneratia]

I've had the same belief now for over 20 years, born out of the incidences back in the 80's I think, when commercial sea going vessels started crashing into rocks they always knew were there but were now leaping in front of unsuspecting ships...

It was from that time that GPS became a legal requirement...

Over the years I have noted here in my own country, the sun and moon rising and setting from positions that were off from what I had been accustomed to..

I also recall a small news article from our national media that described an axial tilt of some 5%, which also suggested that the tilt could reach up to 20% in the long run...

If this was or is proved to be true then it would explain the polar and glacial melts we are now noting as every one of those regions would be closer to the sun than normal...

How much truth there is for the above remains speculative at best for no research ever came to light to support such a proposition, only anecdotes from differing places around the globe...

I remember going out one night and not recognizing the sky and stars about two months ago. That was unusual for me. I am always looking up, day and night. Orion is less south than it has ever been and it travels at more of an angle now. That means to me, that my own location is moving more toward the equator, and that the opposite site of the globe from me is moving away from the equator. I am guessing that a new equator is being established as well. I doknow that the earth is bulging more at the equator these past decades.

Edited April 3, 2015 by regeneratia

[regeneratia]

My first observation is that ALL your sources are popular press. NOT ONE is from a peer-reviewed source.

That being said, there are two points to support your contention: 1. an article published in the late 60s miscalculated one of the Milankovitch Cycles. It was a simple arithmetic mistake, but it got past the reviewers. It also invalidated the entire study. As I recall, the journal printed a retraction, but people who aren't used to doing research often miss those.

In 1945 the global average temperature was exactly at the baseline temp. In 1968, it was 0.05 degrees C. BELOW the baseline temp. What that illustrates is the need to pick your starting and ending points carefully. Had the Newsweek author used dates just five years later, he would have noted that 1950 was 0.19 degrees below the baseline and that 1973 was 0.16 degrees above it. In short, he either deliberately misrepresented the facts or was such a poor investigator that he missed the most-important detail.

The second point is that there WAS a slight drop in global temps in the late 1960s. In 1963, just before the temperature drop, the globally-averaged temperature was 0.08 degrees above the baseline. The next year the temp dropped to 0.20 degrees below the baseline and it stayed below the mean until 1970. To put that into perspective: in 1950 the globally-averaged temperature dropped to -0.19, only one one-hundredth of a degree warmer than 1964. That little cold snap lasted six years and produced an average temperature of 0.0967 degrees below the mean. The 1960s cold snap lasted five years and produced an average temperature of 0.0800 degrees below the mean.

EVERY ONE of those popular press authors missed the fact that the 1950s cold snap was both colder and longer than the 1960s cold snap. And that illustrates another point: CLIMATE requires at least 30 years of data and at that, temps must be at least 1.96 standard errors above or below the mean to be considered significantly different from the baseline. Those articles are not about climate. They're about WEATHER.

Doug

Doug, forgive me for being contrary, but peer-review no longer has the integrity it once had.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Doug, forgive me for being contrary, but peer-review no longer has the integrity it once had.

Who says ?

Be specific here because peer review is still the gold standard to us scientists.

There has been a lot of boo-hooing in the anti-science blogosphere but that hardly matters to peer reviews actual credibility in its target demographic.

By the way you maybe interested in this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-has-shifted-location-north-south-poles/

Measured polar drift in centimeters a year, hardly fits with your assertions. How do you match your experience to what has been measured. I suspect its a failure in your observations as my observations certainly don't square with what your claims.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 3, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[regeneratia]

Who says ?

Be specific here because peer review is still the gold standard to us scientists.

There has been a lot of boo-hooing in the anti-science blogosphere but that hardly matters to peer reviews actual credibility in its target demographic.

By the way you maybe interested in this:

http://www.scientifi...th-south-poles/

Measured polar drift in centimeters a year, hardly fits with your assertions. How do you match your experience to what has been measured. I suspect its a failure in your observations as my observations certainly don't square with what your claims.

Br Cornelius

Oh nothing. But Science itself says it. Look at the recent research on it. Off to take the offspring to the dr.