Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Status
Not open for further replies.

AUDub

Suspended
Dec 4, 2013
18,481
7,794
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
I looked at the poster (Delingpole erroneously refers to it as a paper. Hasn't been published yet.) It's utter garbage. Their hypothesis isn't even supported by the evidence presented. Surprised Christie would attach his name to this sort of trash.

Watts says he's submitted it to a "reputable" journal. Its glaring flaws won't get it past peer review if it's a truly reputable journal. Of course, he'll just claim persecution at that point.
 

NationalTitles18

Suspended
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,280
362
Mountainous Northern California
But just remember - the cool thing with THIS is it's JUST LIKE RELIGION!!!!

Your prediction didn't come true? Instead of Mark's version of the prophecy, run to another book in the Bible (e.g. another source) to explain why the claim is still valid.

If the prediction didn't even begin to come true in terms of the temperature rising? Just say we're in a gap of time where there is 'a pause' in warming (like that invisible gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or between the first and second advent).
Or after everyone has said there was a pause just say, "What pause?" after you adjust the temperature set. And it's hot - climate change. If it's cold - climate change. Stormy? Climate change? No storms? Climate change. Someone else brings up the weather showing how your past example of weather driven by climate change doesn't jive with what's happening now? Just say, "That's weather and has nothing to do with climate change (you idiot!)." I have to say, they've covered the bases pretty well. They even have the all-encompassing "denier(formerly known as heretic)" label ready for anyone who questions even the smallest particulars of the orthodoxy. Not even one person questioning can go unanswered by the most faithful on TideFans' non-sports page lest someone might be persuaded and spend the eternity of their lives in a man-made hell on Earth. Besides, Anthony Watts has every letter needed to spell Satan. And who likes it hot? Yep. Anthony "Satan" Watts WANTS the Earth more to his liking. That's why he wants us to continue down the road to hell.
 

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,620
19
0
Or after everyone has said there was a pause just say, "What pause?" after you adjust the temperature set. And it's hot - climate change. If it's cold - climate change. Stormy? Climate change? No storms? Climate change. Someone else brings up the weather showing how your past example of weather driven by climate change doesn't jive with what's happening now? Just say, "That's weather and has nothing to do with climate change (you idiot!)." I have to say, they've covered the bases pretty well. They even have the all-encompassing "denier(formerly known as heretic)" label ready for anyone who questions even the smallest particulars of the orthodoxy. Not even one person questioning can go unanswered by the most faithful on TideFans' non-sports page lest someone might be persuaded and spend the eternity of their lives in a man-made hell on Earth. Besides, Anthony Watts has every letter needed to spell Satan. And who likes it hot? Yep. Anthony "Satan" Watts WANTS the Earth more to his liking. That's why he wants us to continue down the road to hell.
They're making it up as they go along. Science works that way you know.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
Their latest excuse:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/climate-alarmists-invent-new-excuse-the-satellites-are-lying/

Yes, the satellites are lying! How convenient.

How' bout the "scientists" are lying.

For about 45 years now.

No, they would never fudge the data, cherry-pick monitoring sites, and invent gibberish to "correct" the data, since they use sites with problems. No, they would never string this crap out, to milk the "research grant gravy train". No.....................

No, turns out someone else was doing their lying for them.

Is anyone really surprised? No, not really. Except the "deniers" who use the "science is settled" crapola as their main argument.
 

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
1
60
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
The glo-bull warming lie is rooted in greed. Follow the money, including grants and you can clearly see the truth.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
What is that you said? Money is the root of all evil?

Denier agrees with you:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/09/the-profiteers-of-doom-were-wrong-about-climate/

Just keep reminding yourself.............."Science is settled, 97% of all climate scientists, blah, blah, blah..............."

10: Given that the authors of the largest ever survey of peer-reviewed opinion in learned papers marked only 64 of 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, as stating they agreed with the official “consensus” proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade, on what rational, evidence-based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that “97% of scientists” believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?
The only 97% consensus is Hollyweird actors. Yeah, just who we should all believe. Folks who dress up and play make believe, for a living. I'm sure they have about as much of a chance of explaining how much of the alleged warming is man-made, and not a natural occurrence, as a bunch of random lawyers. Which, of course, they can not.

Yet, that is who some of you choose to believe. Seriously? And the rest of us are the deniers? Give me a break.


So, if money truly is the root of all evil, I am not evil, since I am broke. The Hollyweird actors and the moron politicians are the ones with the money. Draw your own conclusion.
 

mikes12

All-American
Nov 10, 2005
3,548
0
0
50
Chattanooga, TN
What is that you said? Money is the root of all evil?

Denier agrees with you:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/09/the-profiteers-of-doom-were-wrong-about-climate/

Just keep reminding yourself.............."Science is settled, 97% of all climate scientists, blah, blah, blah..............."



The only 97% consensus is Hollyweird actors. Yeah, just who we should all believe. Folks who dress up and play make believe, for a living. I'm sure they have about as much of a chance of explaining how much of the alleged warming is man-made, and not a natural occurrence, as a bunch of random lawyers. Which, of course, they can not.

Yet, that is who some of you choose to believe. Seriously? And the rest of us are the deniers? Give me a break.


So, if money truly is the root of all evil, I am not evil, since I am broke. The Hollyweird actors and the moron politicians are the ones with the money. Draw your own conclusion.
Actually, the quote is "love of money is the root of all evil".

Personally, I think there are evils that have nothing to do with money, like sexual predators who prey on children. But, that's another discussion for another thread.
 

AUDub

Suspended
Dec 4, 2013
18,481
7,794
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
What is that you said? Money is the root of all evil?

Denier agrees with you:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/09/the-profiteers-of-doom-were-wrong-about-climate/

Just keep reminding yourself.............."Science is settled, 97% of all climate scientists, blah, blah, blah..............."



The only 97% consensus is Hollyweird actors. Yeah, just who we should all believe. Folks who dress up and play make believe, for a living. I'm sure they have about as much of a chance of explaining how much of the alleged warming is man-made, and not a natural occurrence, as a bunch of random lawyers. Which, of course, they can not.

Yet, that is who some of you choose to believe. Seriously? And the rest of us are the deniers? Give me a break.


So, if money truly is the root of all evil, I am not evil, since I am broke. The Hollyweird actors and the moron politicians are the ones with the money. Draw your own conclusion.
A post accusing the scientific community at large of lying for the sake of money, and one of the authors actually happens to have gotten caught hiding his funding sources for his work. Rich (an attribute that actually applies to Lord Monckton too:biggrin:.)

And you really should go read the Cook study. Here, let's simplify things for you: If I want to understand the level of agreement about Newton’s Law of Gravity, I don’t go look for papers that directly study gravity. I look at how many papers use gravity and what fraction of those use Newton’s Law of Gravity, which is pretty close to being all of them.

Same thing regarding climate change. You find all of the papers that are using and/or considering AGW and determine what fraction of those accept the IPCC position. If a paper uses results from a particular global climate model to understand the possible impact of AGW, that paper can be said to accept and/or endorse the consensus position.

That's how they came up with the 97% for part one of the study. Part two was them asking authors to self rate their papers.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
Blah, blah, blah.

Same crap, since 1970, warmed over, rehashed, repackaged, and thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

Again, nothing personal, but it is not my fault you seem to have no knowledge of what happened before your coming of age. Nothing has changed, in over 45 years, except the excuses and hand wringing, when the prophesied nonsense fails to materialize.

So, we just get more research dollars, to prove the latest excuse. Sorry, but that is the bottom line.

BTW, we are still waiting for your brilliant analysis of how much of the so-called warming is actually man-made, and how much is naturally occurring.
 

AUDub

Suspended
Dec 4, 2013
18,481
7,794
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Blah, blah, blah.

Same crap, since 1970, warmed over, rehashed, repackaged, and thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

Again, nothing personal, but it is not my fault you seem to have no knowledge of what happened before your coming of age. Nothing has changed, in over 45 years, except the excuses and hand wringing, when the prophesied nonsense fails to materialize.
I know you can read, so I'm just going to assume you skimmed over the, quite frankly, ridiculous number of times I have addressed the cooling hypothesis. How many times must I refute this stupid argument?

So, we just get more research dollars, to prove the latest excuse. Sorry, but that is the bottom line.
Thwacka Thwacka Thwacka

Is that you, Mulder?

(See, CrimsonAudio? I rest my case?)

BTW, we are still waiting for your brilliant analysis of how much of the so-called warming is actually man-made, and how much is naturally occurring.
Considering we would be cooling slightly if you did not account for the forcing effect of human GHG emissions, all of it. I've addressed this many times throughout this thread.
 

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
1
60

Study: increased carbon dioxide is greening deserts globally


Enhanced levels of carbon dioxide are likely cause of global dryland greening, study says
From the “inconvenient truth” department and INDIANA UNIVERSITY:
Enhanced levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are a likely key driver of global dryland greening, according to a paper published today in the journal Scientific Reports.
The positive trend in vegetation greenness has been observed through satellite images, but the reasons for it had been unclear.

After analyzing 45 studies from eight countries, Lixin Wang, assistant professor of earth sciences in the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and a Ph.D. student in Wang’s group, Xuefei Lu, concluded the greening likely stems from the impact of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant water savings and consequent increases in available soil water.
“We know from satellite observations that vegetation is greener than it was in the past,” Wang said. “We now understand why that’s occurring, but we don’t necessarily know if that’s a good thing or not.”
In some regions, greening could be caused by species change, with greener invasive plants replacing indigenous ones or bushes encroaching on grasslands that are used to graze cattle, Wang said.
Defined broadly as zones where mean annual precipitation is less than two-thirds of potential evaporation, drylands are the largest terrestrial biome on the planet, home to more than 2 billion people.
Recent regional scale analyses using satellite-based vegetation indices such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index have found extensive areas of dryland greening in areas of the Mediterranean, the Sahel, the Middle East and northern China, as well as greening trends in Mongolia and South America, according to the paper.
Lu and Wang considered other potential drivers that could have caused the greening, including increased rainfall and changes in land-management practices. But only carbon dioxide provided a global explanation for changes to dryland vegetation.
To date, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 27 percent between 1960 and 2015, with the expectation of a continued rise in years to come, according to the researchers.
The researchers believe the greening is a response to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide inducing decreases in plant stomatal conductance — the measure of the rate of passage of carbon dioxide entering, or water vapor exiting, through the stomata of a leaf — and increases in soil water, thus enhancing vegetation growth.
The researchers examined the sensitivity of soil water change to varying levels of carbon dioxide, finding a significant positive change in soil water along the carbon dioxide enrichment gradient.
“The stability of the rate of change justifies using higher carbon dioxide enrichment levels to interpret soil water responses to currently observed carbon dioxide enrichment,” Wang said.
The analysis also showed that elevated carbon dioxide significantly enhanced soil water levels in drylands more so than it did in non-drylands, with soil water content increasing by 9 percent in non-drylands compared to 17 percent in drylands, Wang said. Determining the mechanisms of stronger soil water responses in drylands will require further investigation.
Studies including Wang’s earlier work in Africa have shown that even small changes in soil moisture in drylands could be significant enough to cause large changes in vegetation productivity.
“Importantly, the observed response lends weight to the hypothesis that any additional soil water in the root zone is then available to facilitate vegetation growth and greening under enhanced carbon dioxide,” Wang said. “Future studies using global-scale process-based models to quantitatively assess the carbon dioxide impact on soil moisture is needed to further validate the hypothesis.”
Going forward, Wang said, the positive effect of carbon dioxide-induced water savings may eventually be offset by the negative effect of carbon dioxide-induced temperature increases when the temperature increase crosses a certain threshold.
Another author of the paper is Matthew McCabe, an associate professor from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/16/study-increased-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-deserts-globally/

What do you know, the earth doesn't need socialists to fix its self correcting system?
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
29,099
26,389
337
Breaux Bridge, La
Instead of the lefties continuing to drive the "We are going to die, if we don't do....." stuff.....they should learn to take credit for the changes that the planet is undergoing as "proof" that our current activities are "working".....

But, they won't. Because, like all problems for the left......if you solve the problem, you can't complain about it anymore.....

Have we ever solved any problems plaguing our planet? If so, what? I'd love to hear about it.
 

AUDub

Suspended
Dec 4, 2013
18,481
7,794
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Study: increased carbon dioxide is greening deserts globally


Enhanced levels of carbon dioxide are likely cause of global dryland greening, study says
From the “inconvenient truth” department and INDIANA UNIVERSITY:
Enhanced levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are a likely key driver of global dryland greening, according to a paper published today in the journal Scientific Reports.
The positive trend in vegetation greenness has been observed through satellite images, but the reasons for it had been unclear.

After analyzing 45 studies from eight countries, Lixin Wang, assistant professor of earth sciences in the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and a Ph.D. student in Wang’s group, Xuefei Lu, concluded the greening likely stems from the impact of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant water savings and consequent increases in available soil water.
“We know from satellite observations that vegetation is greener than it was in the past,” Wang said. “We now understand why that’s occurring, but we don’t necessarily know if that’s a good thing or not.”
In some regions, greening could be caused by species change, with greener invasive plants replacing indigenous ones or bushes encroaching on grasslands that are used to graze cattle, Wang said.
Defined broadly as zones where mean annual precipitation is less than two-thirds of potential evaporation, drylands are the largest terrestrial biome on the planet, home to more than 2 billion people.
Recent regional scale analyses using satellite-based vegetation indices such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index have found extensive areas of dryland greening in areas of the Mediterranean, the Sahel, the Middle East and northern China, as well as greening trends in Mongolia and South America, according to the paper.
Lu and Wang considered other potential drivers that could have caused the greening, including increased rainfall and changes in land-management practices. But only carbon dioxide provided a global explanation for changes to dryland vegetation.
To date, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 27 percent between 1960 and 2015, with the expectation of a continued rise in years to come, according to the researchers.
The researchers believe the greening is a response to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide inducing decreases in plant stomatal conductance — the measure of the rate of passage of carbon dioxide entering, or water vapor exiting, through the stomata of a leaf — and increases in soil water, thus enhancing vegetation growth.
The researchers examined the sensitivity of soil water change to varying levels of carbon dioxide, finding a significant positive change in soil water along the carbon dioxide enrichment gradient.
“The stability of the rate of change justifies using higher carbon dioxide enrichment levels to interpret soil water responses to currently observed carbon dioxide enrichment,” Wang said.
The analysis also showed that elevated carbon dioxide significantly enhanced soil water levels in drylands more so than it did in non-drylands, with soil water content increasing by 9 percent in non-drylands compared to 17 percent in drylands, Wang said. Determining the mechanisms of stronger soil water responses in drylands will require further investigation.
Studies including Wang’s earlier work in Africa have shown that even small changes in soil moisture in drylands could be significant enough to cause large changes in vegetation productivity.
“Importantly, the observed response lends weight to the hypothesis that any additional soil water in the root zone is then available to facilitate vegetation growth and greening under enhanced carbon dioxide,” Wang said. “Future studies using global-scale process-based models to quantitatively assess the carbon dioxide impact on soil moisture is needed to further validate the hypothesis.”
Going forward, Wang said, the positive effect of carbon dioxide-induced water savings may eventually be offset by the negative effect of carbon dioxide-induced temperature increases when the temperature increase crosses a certain threshold.
Another author of the paper is Matthew McCabe, an associate professor from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/16/study-increased-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-deserts-globally/
The "greening of the Sahara" is supported by climate models and observations. You going to start taking the scientists on their word now or is it still some grand conspiracy?

Since I've already touched on most of these. Maybe I'll just start quoting my old posts as a matter of course:

Global warming doesn't necessarily mean the whole earth will heat up in a uniform manner. That some areas will be cooler from time to time is actually expected. Example from winter 2014, again using Minnesota (from the same source site your "climate crocks" link used):

Most areas will warm. Some areas will cool. Some areas will experience drought. Some will experience floods. Some may remain relatively unchanged. There will be winners and losers. But the problem is that there will be chaos. These kind of ecological changes generally take place on very long time scales. With AGW, they will take place very quickly.
What do you know, the earth doesn't need socialists to fix its self correcting system?
Earth isn't a "self correcting system."
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
29,099
26,389
337
Breaux Bridge, La
The "greening of the Sahara" is supported by climate models and observations. You going to start taking the scientists on their word now or is it still some grand conspiracy?

Since I've already touched on most of these. Maybe I'll just start quoting my old posts as a matter of course:





Earth isn't a "self correcting system."
LOL

I bet you make up your own scrabble words too.

If the planet was human free, would it cool off?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest threads