MIT Study Says Carbon Dioxide Has Little Effect on Climate

[Noyka]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715 ... -Scientist





The link also has a link to the study itself. I'd copy and paste it here but there are a lot of graphs involved so it's better to click the link.

[Mesarthim]

[zim]

[neckred]

[quote name="Lumbergh"][/quote]



someone had to take the picture, so someone obviously cares

[Noyka]

[Lavabug]

[quote name="Noyka"]http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715 ... -Scientist





The link also has a link to the study itself. I'd copy and paste it here but there are a lot of graphs involved so it's better to click the link.[/quote]



I didn't skim through much of this but to my knowledge SPPI is not a peer-reviewed publishing group, like Science or Nature, at least I've never heard of it before. I'm sure a good MIT graduate like Lindzen should have little difficulty in producing a paper good enough for a real science journal?



Oh and







Once again, cherry picking part of the temperature graphs that show only the last few years instead of showing the whole record. I don't know why they think temperature projections are even relevant to the graph, they are predictions, the graph does not portray the future.



I'll bookmark this for some other time. I've got exams coming up, but I'm not in a big hurry to read this either, I'll be honest.







Edit: Btw, I forgot to post this article that came out a few days after I made the post about positive feedback loops in the last thread about the subject(melting ice sheets releasing more greenhouse gases held within them), but I sarded posting it since the thread seemed dead. If anyone cares: <!-- m -->http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090804/ ... 9.778.html<!-- m -->



Btw Noyka do you get some kind of discounted pass/free student access to any science journals through your university? I know in some uni's in the US you get free access via some student account, but it might only be for post-grad students.

[Lavabug]

[quote name="neckred"]
[quote name="Lumbergh"][/quote]



someone had to take the picture, so someone obviously cares[/quote]

That picture may have very well been taken from outside the room.

[neckred]

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="neckred"]
[quote name="Lumbergh"][/quote]



someone had to take the picture, so someone obviously cares[/quote]

That picture may have very well been taken from outside the room. [/quote]



or that's the corner of some larger room!

[Noyka]

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Noyka"]http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715 ... -Scientist





The link also has a link to the study itself. I'd copy and paste it here but there are a lot of graphs involved so it's better to click the link.[/quote]



I didn't skim through much of this but to my knowledge SPPI is not a peer-reviewed publishing group, like Science or Nature, at least I've never heard of it before. I'm sure a good MIT graduate like Lindzen should have little difficulty in producing a paper good enough for a real science journal?



Oh and







Once again, cherry picking part of the temperature graphs that show only the last few years instead of showing the whole record. I don't know why they think temperature projections are even relevant to the graph, they are predictions, the graph does not portray the future.



I'll bookmark this for some other time. I've got exams coming up, but I'm not in a big hurry to read this either, I'll be honest.







Edit: Btw, I forgot to post this article that came out a few days after I made the post about positive feedback loops in the last thread about the subject(melting ice sheets releasing more greenhouse gases held within them), but I sarded posting it since the thread seemed dead. If anyone cares: <!-- m -->http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090804/ ... 9.778.html<!-- m -->



Btw Noyka do you get some kind of discounted pass/free student access to any science journals through your university? I know in some uni's in the US you get free access via some student account, but it might only be for post-grad students.[/quote]



I don't, I go to a junior college I'm transferring after I get my GE done which is next fall

[Noyka]

Also



"Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows the “global warming” scare is over. Thanks to recent peer reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate. Page 3."



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/month ... _july.html

[Lavabug]

[quote name="Noyka"]Also



"Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows the “global warming” scare is over. Thanks to recent peer reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate. Page 3."



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/month ... _july.html[/quote]

It's not his work then, it would be best to read the actual papers and not take his word for it no? I'd like to see peer-reviewed literature that suggests it is absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is completely false.

[beandorkio]

[quote name="Lavabug"]I'd like to see peer-reviewed literature that suggests it is absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is completely false.[/quote]



I'd like to see that theory proven, before all the carbon taxes and carbon trading come into place.



On the topic of the arctic, some SERIOUS:



The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”



Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.



“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said. "We as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues."



Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present. [Clarification] The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”



...that was a BBC report btw. Please no-one accuse them of being "deniers" or I'll choke to death laughing hysterically.

The point of this being all sorts of incredible predictions as to impending doom are being made and have been made for the last two decades, with barely any coming true. Two facets of humanity - we all like to believe the end is nigh, and we all enjoy religions and the feeling of moral superiority no matter which form they're offered in.



And now for some FUNNY:



Eric Forsyth, captain of the eco-yacht Fiona decided to sail through the fable North West Passage, highlighting the terrible ice melt in the Arctic.



Here is the log from AUGUST 17, 2009



"Last night, 16 Aug, we got hopelessly trapped by the ice. Despite a favorable ice report we encountered 8/10ths ice, with many old, i.e. large, bergs. We spent the night tied to one of them but had to leave this morning when another ‘berg collided with us and tipped Fiona over. We got away but the space around us is shrinking. I called the Canadian Coast Guard at noon and they are sending an icebreaker, due here tomorrow. We are NOT in immediate danger. Watch this space for developments."

[Teignub]

its all HAARP. HAARP, as well as all the other Ionospheric heaters, are the real cause of any sort of climate destabilization we have. if you dont know what HAARP is, go fucking check it out k thx bye

[jawn galliano]

my neighbor is big into haarp conspiracy theories, i've never really looked into it though. probably because most of the stuff he's told me about it is pretty far-out there, so i tend to tune it all out :\

[Teignub]

this is probably a good thing for the sake of your sanity

[Charles Bronson]

Human caused global warming is a crock of shit.



Wait for more studies to come out, then these pseudo-environmentalists will feel like the morons they are.

[jawn galliano]

nobody that matters is saying humans are the sole causal agent you retard

[Lavabug]

[quote name="beandorkio"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]I'd like to see peer-reviewed literature that suggests it is absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is completely false.[/quote]



I'd like to see that theory proven, before all the carbon taxes and carbon trading come into place.

[/quote]

Which of the theories that support the idea of human-induced climate change? That carbon gases produce the runaway greenhouse effect? That anthropogenic carbon gas emissions exceed natural carbon sinks thereby increasing atmospheric concentrations? More importantly: that carbon dioxide has been shown to be related to temperature? Be specific. You could have brought up one of the alternate theories that was meant to explain the increases in temperature, an increase in Solar output, which although has now been shown to be incorrect, could have at least proven to me that you actually hold scientific evidence and dialog to some level of esteem.



And why do you keep citing tabloid sources written by journalists with a laymen understanding of geology and climate science instead of tested-and-tried scientific literature reviewed by top experts before their publication is even considered? Let's deal with empirical evidence. I would understand if I had been responsible of this myself, but I don't believe I have, if that is the case do call me on it and I will correct it.



By the way, didn't you say "the Arctic is receding, but the Antarctic is growing!!" once? Now I'd like to be exemplary by not posting links to news articles instead of real science journals, so take it for what it's worth, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I came across this in the headlines earlier this month, I believe it was a few days after the last thread was abandoned: Antarctic glacier 'thinning fast' <!-- m -->http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm<!-- m -->

[Charles Bronson]

[quote name="Famous Mortimer"]nobody that matters is saying humans are the sole causal agent you retard[/quote]

That seems to be the mainstream opinion. Yes, these people don't matter.

[Noyka]

Famous only knows mainstream, he doesn't think anyone else's opinions are valid, remember

[beandorkio]

[quote name="Lavabug"]Which of the theories that support the idea of human-induced climate change? That carbon gases produce the runaway greenhouse effect?

That anthropogenic carbon gas emissions exceed natural carbon sinks thereby increasing atmospheric concentrations? More importantly: that carbon dioxide has been shown to be related to temperature? Be specific. [/quote]



No.



Your side of the argument is the one proposing taxes, telling everyone else to stop using electricity, travelling, and flying, and implementing useless rort-plagued carbon-trading. As your side of the argument is proposing those remedies, the onus is on you to specify and validate these theories, acknowledge the vast amount of doubt concerning these theories, and address the huge number of inaccuracies being peddled in the argument for global manmade warming.



Carbon dioxide is a requirement for all plant life on earth.

Carbon dioxide concentrations historically follow trends in temperature.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and the science behind man-made carbon dioxide emissions causing climate change has been discredited.



But please, continue.



[quote name="Lavabug"]You could have brought up one of the alternate theories that was meant to explain the increases in temperature, an increase in Solar output, which although has now been shown to be incorrect, could have at least proven to me that you actually hold scientific evidence and dialog to some level of esteem.[/quote]



I actually do hold scientific evidence in esteem. With manmade global warming believers though, I don't make the effort in dialogue. It's like trying to change Imran's mind on the inherent corrupt imperialist nature of western democratic capitalism, it ain't happening. So I don't bother.



Let me ask you a question though - how much evidence, both scientific and witnessed firsthand, would you require in order to come to the understanding that manmade carbon emissions don't cause climate change?



I expect you to ignore that question or skirt around it. And that's why I don't bother with dialogue, and stick with making fun and emitting carbon dioxide.



[quote name="Lavabug"]why do you keep citing tabloid sources written by journalists with a laymen understanding of geology and climate science instead of tested-and-tried scientific literature reviewed by top experts before their publication is even considered? Let's deal with empirical evidence. I would understand if I had been responsible of this myself, but I don't believe I have, if that is the case do call me on it and I will correct it.[/quote]



I've posted links to empirical evidence, publications in journals, and petitions from scientists, etc. But the great about being a global warming believer is that you can just say that they're corrupt, funded by oil companies, or the research comes from hotbed of deniers and so on without actually considering any of the evidence.



Naturally it doesn't make anything I say any less true. One of the biggest advocate groups of manmade warming (outside of the UN) DID just fess up to exaggerating the disappearance of the arctic ice. And another manmade warming glory hound DID get his shit wrecked by icebergs that the rest of the world had him believing wouldn't be there.



But just in case you care about sources such as scientists, here's 30,000 saying the same as me:

<!-- m -->http://www.petitionproject.org/<!-- m -->



Let me know if you'd like another few listings from Nobel Prize winners, climate experts, geologists, and scientific journals from across the world. As a matter of fact, fuck ya - you can find them yourself. There's enough of them out there if you care.



[quote name="Lavabug"]By the way, didn't you say "the Arctic is receding, but the Antarctic is growing!!" once? Now I'd like to be exemplary by not posting links to news articles instead of real science journals, so take it for what it's worth, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I came across this in the headlines earlier this month, I believe it was a few days after the last thread was abandoned: Antarctic glacier 'thinning fast' <!-- m -->http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm<!-- m -->[/quote]



Yep, I did. Antarctica is much, much bigger than one single glacier, even one as whopping as the west antarctica ice sheet. The antartic's ice thickness has actually been increasing up until 2002: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/co ... hicker.htm

And if it's the west antarctica ice sheet in particular that you're concerned about, absorb some of this:

<!-- m -->http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 074839.htm<!-- m -->



That's what you get for quoting those tabloid laymen at the BBC, I suppose. As for the Arctic, yep it is receding but has survived much warmer climates than the current day's. Any group, paper, or celebrity saying that Arctic ice will disappear in our lifetimes should set off your bullshit detector.



Manmade global warming is so far unproven. However, the debate concerning it is highly politicized for both sides.

That's the only consensus out there at the moment.