New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Settled science... yes we can!

MrMike

MrMike

Bless you all
It's kind of ridiculous when you look back at it...

historyofsettledscience-big11.jpg
 
MrMike said:
It's kind of ridiculous when you look back at it...

historyofsettledscience-big11.jpg
Click to expand...


Then there is this.


There is also this

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface
Date:
February 25, 2015
Source:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Summary:
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
 
Spamature said:
Then there is this.


There is also this

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface
Date:
February 25, 2015
Source:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Summary:
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
Click to expand...

The recent German study found that CO2 does not cause warming. There are other such findings, but the hoties never read those.
The sun has gone very quiet and it looks like a major cooling period coming, I hope it does not go too low. More people die of Famine in cold periods than in warm periods.
 
Translation: Please send more grant $$$

Spamature said:
Then there is this.


There is also this

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface
Date:
February 25, 2015
Source:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Summary:
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
Click to expand...
 
MrMike said:
Do you want people who have an immediate financial interest in pimping it to define it?

gorechurch.jpg
Click to expand...

MrMike said:
Translation: Please send more grant $$$
Click to expand...

Seems you're looking at the wrong mouth on the govt teet.


As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates the total value of U.S. subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at $37.5 billion annually, including international finance. This does not include military, health, climate, or local pollution costs. These subsidies have increased dramatically as U.S. oil and gas production has increased.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
 
Fast Eddy said:
The recent German study found that CO2 does not cause warming. There are other such findings, but the hoties never read those.
The sun has gone very quiet and it looks like a major cooling period coming, I hope it does not go too low. More people die of Famine in cold periods than in warm periods.
Click to expand...

Link to that study. It defies simply logic as well as the entire scientific community.

Never mind. Found a letter from him about the study.

Bjorn Stevens has issued a statement regarding his paper:

“A paper that I recently wrote, entitled ‘Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing,’ has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate. This paper presents a number of arguments as to why the radiative forcing from aerosols is neither as negative, nor as uncertain, as has previously been thought. That said, my new estimates of aerosol radiative forcing are within the range of previous estimates, e.g., as provided in Chapter 7 of the IPCC fifth assessment report of which I was one of the authors, albeit on the lower end of that range in terms of the estimated magnitude of the forcing.


“In my new paper, I did not speculate as to the implications of my findings for estimates of Earth’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, which is perhaps the simplest measure of the response of the Earth System to a change in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. 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.


“As fond as I am of my own ideas, one should resist concluding too much, too soon, from a single study. In the long run, I certainly hope that my findings will help constrain the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 but they do not, on their own, relieve society of the threat of dangerous warming arising from anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Indeed, even a warming of only 2 degrees Celsius from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding. … So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.”

http://www.mtexpress.com/opinion/gu...cle_8521e5e2-f370-11e4-8ce3-af70f53784c2.html
 
Spamature said:
Link to that study. It defies simply logic as well as the entire scientific community.

Never mind. Found a letter from him about the study.

Bjorn Stevens has issued a statement regarding his paper:

“A paper that I recently wrote, entitled ‘Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing,’ has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate. This paper presents a number of arguments as to why the radiative forcing from aerosols is neither as negative, nor as uncertain, as has previously been thought. That said, my new estimates of aerosol radiative forcing are within the range of previous estimates, e.g., as provided in Chapter 7 of the IPCC fifth assessment report of which I was one of the authors, albeit on the lower end of that range in terms of the estimated magnitude of the forcing.


“In my new paper, I did not speculate as to the implications of my findings for estimates of Earth’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, which is perhaps the simplest measure of the response of the Earth System to a change in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. 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.


“As fond as I am of my own ideas, one should resist concluding too much, too soon, from a single study. In the long run, I certainly hope that my findings will help constrain the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 but they do not, on their own, relieve society of the threat of dangerous warming arising from anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Indeed, even a warming of only 2 degrees Celsius from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding. … So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.”

http://www.mtexpress.com/opinion/gu...cle_8521e5e2-f370-11e4-8ce3-af70f53784c2.html
Click to expand...

http://lastresistance.com/10885/new-german-study-destroys-global-warming-hysteria/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06...head-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top