The paper's final paragraph:
In summary, the tropospheric temperature has not increased over the last four decades, in both hemispheres, in a way that is more amplified at high latitudes near the surface. In addition, the lower stratospheric temperature did not decline as a function of latitude. Finally, the intrinsic properties of the tropospheric temperature are different from those of the lower stratosphere. Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities. The temperatures used are often estimated indirectly from satellite observations of radiances (e.g. Cracknell and Varotsos, 2007, Cracknell and Varotsos, 2011). It would be interesting to directly analyse these radiances to answer questions about warming or cooling.
Your link was actually to the nutcase blog, not the paper.
Anyway, what the hell is "The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence" supposed to mean? It's not even grammatically correct, and that's supposed to be one of the highlights! Any person with intact critical thinking facilities should immediately smell a rat here.
We know for a fact that global warming has occurred over the past 40 years. If their results are unable to show this, there would appear to be a problem with their data collection and/or analysis techniques.
A great article by Scientific American about Climate Change, and what to expect in 2019.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-missions-will-probe-the-changing-climate-in-2019/
As urgency grows around the need for stronger climate action, so does demand for a deeper understanding of how the planet is already changing—and what to expect in the coming decades.
Climate scientists have published study after groundbreaking study in the past year. They’ve investigated the ways climate change has influenced extreme weather events, including everything from Hurricane Florence to record-breaking heat in Europe. They’ve documented accelerating ice loss in Greenland, new melting spots in Antarctica and alarming losses of Arctic sea ice. They’ve investigated changes in enormous ocean currents and major atmospheric patterns.
Jack, don't you know that peer review only counts when it agrees with the dogma!
It is always plain that the other guy really knows he's beat but in denial when the best he can do is attack the spelling of grammar.
Jack, don't you know that peer review only counts when it agrees with the dogma!
Does that not also speak to the quality of any peer reviewed publication?As I have said on many occasions, peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. It's not my fault that you science deniers can't seem to understand the difference :shrug:
Does that not also speak to the quality of any peer reviewed publication?
As I have said on many occasions, peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. It's not my fault that you science deniers can't seem to understand the difference :shrug:
The question is, what is the "proper" amount of skepticism?Obviously the quality of peer review does vary, but once again: peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. This means that while non-peer-reviewed material is generally not worthy of consideration, peer-reviewed material should still be treated with proper scepticism.
The question is, what is the "proper" amount of skepticism?
I think for research to be worth while, it must be repeatable, and testable.
The methodology of how they arrived at their conclusion, spelled out in a way that others can independently validate their work.
A falsifiable criteria should also be included.
Einstein said that the Sun's gravity would bend light, and that stars behind the sun should be visible
during an eclipse. The Stars behind the sun were photographed, validating his theory.
Had the stars not been visible, that portion of his theory would have been invalidated.
AGW lacks many of these features.
Well... there’s this.
Well... there’s this.
The paper linked in #43 does not dispute the warming. It disputes the attribution to anthropogenic GHG's.
Sure. And other threads if yours dispute the warming. Others dispute the models. Others dispute the fact that CO2 is a GHG. Others say the warming is well within natural variability.
Get back to us when you have a consistent argument.
1. I don't think you can find a thread of mine that disputes the warming.
2. Yes, the models are inaccurate.
3. CO2 is a GHG. The question is whether climate sensitivity is high enough for that to matter; I don't think so.
4. Of course, if the observed warming has not been caused by anthropogenic GHG's then it is by definition within natural variability.
Consistent argument: Earth's climate is predominantly governed by solar influence and the GCR flux.
What's your denial this week? 2016 > 2017 > 2018? Oh wait - that would be a response that disputes warming.
No. That does not dispute warming when there was warming. Since 2016 we have been cooling.
And the pause! Don’t forget the pause!
LOL.
And remember, the ice isnt melting, because the temperature stations are all in the wrong places showing its not really warming, plus the oceans aren’t warming as much as scientists say, unless they are trying to say cosmic rays are doing it, and its soot anyway.
1. I don't think you can find a thread of mine that disputes the warming.
2. Yes, the models are inaccurate.
3. CO2 is a GHG. The question is whether climate sensitivity is high enough for that to matter; I don't think so.
4. Of course, if the observed warming has not been caused by anthropogenic GHG's then it is by definition within natural variability.
Consistent argument: Earth's climate is predominantly governed by solar influence and the GCR flux.
Just more BS. When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.
This is what right wingers thing passes and as argument. A group of scientists that spend their lives focusing on particular topic, going to school, researching, reading tons of material, have an article with backing from numerous scientific studies. All a right winger needs to say is BS and that's it.
nd people wonder why right wingers are viewed as complete morons. And once again showing all opinions are not equal. just look at all the dumb one line post void of any intelligence what so ever from the right wingers
This is what right wingers thing passes and as argument. A group of scientists that spend their lives focusing on particular topic, going to school, researching, reading tons of material, have an article with backing from numerous scientific studies. All a right winger needs to say is BS and that's it.
nd people wonder why right wingers are viewed as complete morons. And once again showing all opinions are not equal. just look at all the dumb one line post void of any intelligence what so ever from the right wingers
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?