Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Superfreak said:
Step (1) call them deniers! Despite no one actually denying climate or changes to it.

Step (2) Appeal really really really hard to authority. Call them 'experts'. Pretend they have track records that are actually good.

Step (3) belittle the actual scientists that debunk the cultist AGW morons with facts rather than emotional nonsense



Yes moron... the question is what is the impact. Why do the cultists continue to find ways to adjust data from the 1870-1950 range down and data is adjusted up for more recent 1950-current time frames? Why do their computer models continue to fail? Why have we seen no significant warming for almost 20 years, despite CO2 continuing to increase?

Bottom line, lemmings like Cypress will believe anything his masters tell him to believe. He is incapable of rational thought.
Click to expand...

I have to take issue with (1).

I deny 'climate change' has any meaning, therefore I deny any changes are possible to a climate.

I do not deny there are different climates, but 'climate' itself is a subjective term. It has no quantifiable value. There is no way to describe a 'change' for there is no way to describe how much 'change' has occurred.

Earth simply has different climates. There is no global climate, for there is no global weather. Where a desert happens to form on Earth might change, but a desert climate is still a desert climate.
 
tinfoil said:
That's why I scoffed at your cosmic ray mars/earth juxtaposition. Clearly apples and oranges
Click to expand...

Yes. They are. I was hoping to get Cypress (who brought up the argument in this forum) to come to terms with this, but it seems he won't deal with defending it.

Since you did not guess what the other factor between Mars and Earth that affects cloud formation is, the answer is simply temperature of formation. Clouds will not form without a drop in temperature. It takes energy for cosmic nucleation of a cloud. The cosmic ray itself provides some, but the rest comes from the air around and within the cloud. The effect is very small, but it's there.

Clouds on Earth, however, form simply by convective heating, a far more powerful method than cosmic rays.
 
Into the Night said:
I guess the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law mean nothing to you, eh?

No.
* You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
* You can't decrease entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't heat the surface using a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't slow or trap heat (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't slow or trap light (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and Plancks law).
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.

Don't need Judith. All I need are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny, just like your climate 'scientists' deny.

None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nul. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
Click to expand...

clown8.gif


I see you, troll. Haw, haw......................haw.
 
moon said:
Climate change means a changing climate.
Climate is recorded by paleoclimatologists.
Global weather is monitored by global weather stations and the data contributes to a pattern of global climate over time.

These are very simple and accepted fundamentals. You morons can't even troll properly. Haw, haw...........................haw.
Click to expand...

Here is a study by a couple of paleoclimatologists, no doubt you'll either ignore or attempt to dismiss it!!

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0959683617715701
 
Havana Moon said:
Here is a study by a couple of paleoclimatologists, no doubt you'll either ignore or attempt to dismiss it!!

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0959683617715701
Click to expand...

Here is yet another study by paleoclimatologists for your Bullshit Dissemination Society to dismiss.

Abstract

The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well-recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world, with a core period of 1000–1200 CE. Here we are mapping the MCA across the Antarctic region based on the analysis of published palaeotemperature proxy data from 60 sites. In addition to the conventionally used ice core data, we are integrating temperature proxy records from marine and terrestrial sediment cores as well as radiocarbon ages of glacier moraines and elephant seal colonies. A generally warm MCA compared to the subsequent Little Ice Age (LIA) was found for the Subantarctic Islands south of the Antarctic Convergence, the Antarctic Peninsula, Victoria Land and central West Antarctica. A somewhat less clear MCA warm signal was detected for the majority of East Antarctica. MCA cooling occurred in the Ross Ice Shelf region, and probably in the Weddell Sea and on Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf. Spatial distribution of MCA cooling and warming follows modern dipole patterns, as reflected by areas of opposing temperature trends. Main drivers of the multi-centennial scale climate variability appear to be the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which are linked to solar activity changes by nonlinear dynamics.

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/06...n-southern-hemisphere-on-all-four-continents/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00310182193031905
 
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
Click to expand...

NASA ? maggot ? Difficult choice . Haw, haw.......................................haw.
 
Havana Moon said:
Stick to your whittling, complex science is clearly not for you!!

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10343
Click to expand...
For all your projection, you still haven't learned to read past the titles of your offerings.


Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5,6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top