Here are three scientific reasons why CO2 cannot be blamed for dangerous Global warming & climate change
Categorized | What's Hot
Evidence CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming
Posted on 08 March 2011
25 Responses to “Evidence CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming”
Leave a Reply
Copyright © Indian market research : Bharat Business.
by 
.
@oshmunnies ME, you fucking retard. Im trying to explain to you the global warming debate means nothing to me, im not for it im not against it but you continue to sit there and try and treat me like I am wrong about something I have no opinion on. Its a nonsensical argument. And you keep saying I’m ignorant but you are the one that’s missed the whole point. And I’m sorry if you perceive my text as “angry” text but ive been laughing the whole time at how much of an ignorant idiot you are.
I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that liberals are never going to shut up about the global warming that isn’t happening. Maybe, if we just ignore them for long enough, they’ll finally shut up and move on to the next money-making fear mongering scam.
@ryno2085 Keep going…the more you talk, the more angry and ignorant you sound…its pretty entertaining. By the way, who and what is it that I’m “not listening to”?
@gary1813 The level of idiocy of phenomenal
@ryno2085 your the man .idoits in our world that just have no idea whats really going on
@CHIPSTERO7 “Let me tell you what Sherwood got wrong in his paper.”
Let me tell you I will continue to listen to actual scientists. If you’re so much of an expert then why don’t you write a paper and get it published. You’re free to disagree but your statement is pure arrogance.
“To believe Sherwood… we must believe that windshear is better at measuring temperature than actual thermometers.”
No, we must believe there are proxies for temp. Not better but in this case, perhaps, more accurate.
@CHIPSTERO7 And the leading contrarian scientist who actuall works with the UAH data disagrees with you.
Yet the conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH’s John Christy) is the MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY. Christie is a notable “skeptic”
You can protest all you want but you can’t make a case when your main witness says your wrong.
@CHIPSTERO7 Menne 2010. As I said Watt’s data, using his categorizations has been used in a peer reviewed study. It showed a slight cooling bias in the poorly sited thermometers.
“Systematically” What a lie.
By the way I never knew air conditioners were used at night and in winter.
@rugy59 It is likely that there will be a divergence-problem between satellites and radiosondes since they are different instrumentations and employ different methods to measure temperature and humidity. The hazardous radiation-filled environment in which satellites must operate adds significantly to the uncertainty of the data that they provide. Still, the UAH-data is largely in agreement with the radiosonde-data and the RSS-data only overlaps the very outside estimations of the climate models.
@rugbyguy59 I think what you meant to say was that “the surface temperature record shows that the number of warm nights are increasing faster than warm days”. Right? This is what we would expect when highly-sensitive thermometers are systematically sited next to air-conditioners of large buildings. They are contaminated by artificial-heat sources and therefore are unreliable. In any case daily minimum temperatures are not a record of night time temperatures because they are set between 6 – 9 am.
@ruuy59 Let me tell you what Sherwood got wrong in his paper. What he got wrong was everything. The reason that he got it wrong was because instead of working with the raw observational radiosonde-data he measured the tropospheric-temperature with windshear instead which was then fed into computer models. This is not real-science. It is rationalised self-delusion. To believe Sherwood has found the hotspot we must believe that windshear is better at measuring temperature than actual thermometers.
@rugguy59 It is true that there are uncertainties with radiosonde-humidity readings because their sensors have an incorrigible habit of drying-up at high-altitude, but thermometer-readings are very reliable and each radiosonde is individually calibrated to 0.1C and the hotspot should be at least 0.5C. The radiosonde data is also in agreement with RSS and UAH-satellite data. To believe there is a hotspot we must ignore thousands of thermometer measurements which all unambiguously show no hotspot.
@CHIPSTERO7Radiosonde readings are influenced by effects like the daytime heating. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008) The long term trend is uncertain but to say unequivocally there is no hotspot is dishonest.
@CHIPSTERO7 Your willingness to accept any evidence, no matter how thin, as long as it fits your viewpoint is showing. You say “thousands of radiosonde readings since 1979 showing decisively and unequivocally that there is no tropospheric-hotspot”
Yet the conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH’s John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty. Christie is a notable “skeptic”
@CHIPSTERO7 Once again you create the phony reply post. Strange how you are the only person who has this happen.
One of the signatures of GHG warming. Nights temperatures will warm more than day temperatures. Winter temperatures will warm faster than summer. That’s what we see.
@rugbyguy59 As I said, falling ozone-levels is not unique to AGW. You also say “CR theory doesn’t explain more night warming than day”. Sorry, but the planet does not warm at night, it only cools down then.
@rugbyguy59 Your fatuous statement “There is extremely limited evidence of net negative feedbacks” is a patent illustration of the poverty of your own research. Positive feedbacks cannot predominate negative feedbacks in a dissipative-system. There is a wealth of evidence. Let’s take the thousands of radiosonde readings since 1979 showing decisively and unequivocally that there is no tropospheric-hotspot showing that the models overestimate climate-sensitivity and negative lapse rate feedback.
@CHIPSTERO7 Now you do realize that Menne (2009) took all of Anthony Watts’ data that was questioned the placement of surface based thermometers and found there was no actual problem. In fact due to newer thermometers and calibration issues the poorly sited thermometers actually had a slight cooling bias.
So far all Watts has responded with is more pictures of the same stations and a critique of NOAA homogenizing data. But with Menne using raw data its kind of off topic..
@CHIPSTERO7 It did break down and even Svensmark has tried to argue that it is poorly calibrated satellites that are to blame for the divergence.
If you don’t like Lockwood there’s also Krivova (2003), Verheggen (2009), Pierce and Adams (2009), Kazil et al. (2006), Sloan and Wolfendale (2008), Kristjansson et al. (2008), Calogovic et al. (2010), Kulmala et al. (2010), (Laut 2003), (Yu 2000), (Sloan 2007).
CR theory doesn’t explain more night warming than day nor the cooling stratosphere.
@CHIPSTERO7 “undetermined mechanism”? Is that your claim on everything? That’s poor science and worse public policy. We have a theory that makes a series of predictions about what we will see. We are able to measure pretty much everything we expect. Yes there are uncertainties but the best evidence suggests AGW. Meanwhile you’d rather do nothing because there might, maybe be a mystery force that no one’s even got a theory for that’s to blame.
Of course decreased ozone levels would be AGW too.
@CHIPSTERO7 Evidence clearly shows increasing CO2 causes warming. There is extremely limited evidence of net negative feedbacks. “It seems from all anyone can tell” (not a very scientific approach) that there are no negative feedbacks that offset CO2. If there was we would not have seen an ice free earth in the past. Those proposing there are negative feedbacks should provide empirical evidence that they exist. Asking scientists to prove there isn’t one is ass backwards science
I wrote that incorrectly. That should be “evaporation and dumping of latent heat”. Not “latent heat of vaporization”.
@rugbyg59 The correlation between cosmic rays and temperatures did not break down post-1991. Lockwood used surface-based temperature-records and not atmospheric ones and it is well known that the surface-based thermometers are compromised due to them being systematically placed by air-conditioners and a variety of artificial heat-sources. And before you say they “adjust” for artificial heat-contamination; comparing the GISS dataset to satellite ones would suggest this is certainly not the case.
rugbyg59 It is true that the tropospheric-hotspot is not a unique discriminator of AGW. Hypothetically any type of warming could produce a hotspot by accelerating the hydrological-cycle and increasing the vaporization of latent heat. It does show that atmospheric water vapour is not increasing at the rate the models suggest. Furthermore keep in mind that the IPCC tell us with 90% certainty that the warming over the last 50-years is primarily anthropogenic so other possible causes are irrelevant.
@rugg59 We understand the basic physics and know that CO2 absorbs infrared and increasing atmospheric CO2 would thereby increase downward radiation. Although I have never seen any empirical proof that increases of atmospheric CO2 necessarily produce any net global warming at all in the long-term. It seems that for all anyone can tell there may be negative feedbacks inherent in the climate system that offset any increase in radiative forcing from CO2 by reducing radiative forcings from elsewhere.