record low maximum arctic sea ice
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Clearly you have no idea how to use a search engine. Here, look at this blog post or magazine article.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
That's the difference between us, and the difference between someone who can think and some who follows.
If this were something you clowns could come up with to shut us up, you would do it in a heart beat. But you can't find it, so you won't. What you will continue to do is act like a bunch of brats crying over the fact that we are simply better than you. At everything.
Im not directing that solely on you fad....sheskunk.. im directing that at your klansmen too.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
So you come here to prove you are better than others? And then claim you feel sorry for me. For some reason, I believe you.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Lol, you couldn't carry my jockstrap in any aspect of life. More precisely, I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for anything you hold dear. Your taste is in your ass.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
heckler73
Well-Known Member
To be correct, he has actually done no such thing. He rarely does and that's part of the problem. The OP is a news piece from NASA based on a singular metric from February, which hardly constitutes a "series of information". It also neglects to mention anomalies as I have pointed out elsewhere.
Here's a "peer-reviewed" reply which contradicts AC's religion, and it's been cited in a "peer-reviewed" response paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437114005226
After having noted that not even CO2 and other greenhouse gases, either of natural or of anthropogenic origin, could be the cause, let alone the primary cause, of global climate changes, Quinn [50] wrote: “Evidence indicates that global warming is closely related to a wide range of solar-terrestrial phenomenon, from the sun’s magnetic storms and fluctuating solar wind all the way to the Earth’s core motions. Changes in the Solar and Earth magnetic fields, changes in the Earth’s orientation and rotation rate, as well as the gravitational effects associated with the relative barycenter motions of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and other planets, all play key roles. Clear one-to-one correspondence exists among these parameters and the Global Temperature Anomaly on three separate time scales.” Many of these issues are discussed for example in Scafetta’s papers and in other references.
Even when not formally writing papers for publication, their letters to each other still pack scientific muscle. I don't believe people like AC or Buck truly appreciate how science has grown over the centuries through that particular mechanism. Like Keynes' General Theory was less informative than his debates with Hicks in response to it. Science engages in more entertaining battles on the sidelines rather than on the field.
Scafetta's paper with Loehle is also an interesting read,
http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOASCJ-5-74
The equation derived in there is quite beautiful in its simplicity, actually. And it can explain 60%+ of the "warming" seen in the 20th century. I'd say that contradicts the "overwhelming majority of climate scientists", wouldn't you? I particularly like the Fourier aspect of it.
Have you read Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl, Earth's Global Energy Budget (2009) by any chance?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Hillary Clinton will likely be the next president, that's how much shit your party has become
The left's worst beats the right's best, that's how terrible you are and how much nobody likes you
You won't see the oval office again until you change your platform
Enjoy
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Go through your study again heckler. You must not have read it. This is why people like UB and I don't appreciate the private letters between scientists as objective science. It's because private letters are not objective. They're subjective.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437114005226
So when you go through your study again, notice the line under HIGHLIGHTS. It's right before the big thing that starts with ABSTRACT. The fourth line there reads:
The temperature signature is made of oscillations plus an anthropogenic component.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437114005226
So when you go through your study again, notice the line under HIGHLIGHTS. It's right before the big thing that starts with ABSTRACT. The fourth line there reads:
The temperature signature is made of oscillations plus an anthropogenic component.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437114005226
This also doesn't deny the consensus, which is that the atmosphere and oceans are warming and that human activity is to blame.
It attempts to show that humans are responsible for less than half of what the IPCC report claims which is funny since the IPCC claims a range and not a specific contribution.
This also doesn't deny the consensus, which is that the atmosphere and oceans are warming and that human activity is to blame.
It attempts to show that humans are responsible for less than half of what the IPCC report claims which is funny since the IPCC claims a range and not a specific contribution.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
In other words heckler, you have failed to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists... Aka, my religion.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Damn, look at you go. I definitely struck a nerve. There are links to 1350 peer reviewed published papers in this thread.
I don't even know who you are and you are calling me a klansman. Who's puppet are you again? Sometimes I can't tell between AC and UB, which one lied about living in Mexico? You may continue with the meltdown, good stuff to watch.
see4
Well-Known Member
Meltdown? You have me confused with someone who doesn't care about facts.
You keep saying 1350 peer reviewed published papers are spread out throughout this thread, yet I have not seen one of them. Is blatant lying your new tactic?
see4
Well-Known Member
Anthropogenic climate change refers to the production of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. By examining the polar ice cores, scientists are convinced that human activity has increased the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which has skyrocketed over the past few hundred years.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article says:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Seems to me the science community is absolutely in favor of "humans are causing global warming."
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article says:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Seems to me the science community is absolutely in favor of "humans are causing global warming."
see4
Well-Known Member
Why are you here exactly? What exactly have you added to the conversation?
see4
Well-Known Member
Little man, I would pick you up off the ground by your jock strap. Literally.
It is unhealthy to not have a steady stream when urinating. (Thats free advice for ya kiddo)
Why are you so obsessed with my ass? Bro, I like women man. I'm glad you can openly admit your homosexuality, but I'm into chicks.
