New Study: Temp Adjustments Account For 'Nearly All Warming'

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

The lefty UCS link? UCS thinks that scientific studies that don't agree with their agenda is "fraudulent"? Sounds about right.

https://www.activistfacts.com/organi...ed-scientists/

Irony alert. You're essentially saying that one paper that hasn't yet been peer-reviewed renders all other studies and papers and the broad consensus of the scientific community fraudulent.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Irony alert. You're essentially saying that one paper that hasn't yet been peer-reviewed renders all other studies and papers and the broad consensus of the scientific community fraudulent.

If you're going to try to put words in someone's mouth, try to do a better job of it.

This is simply one additional data point that suggests that the concept of man made global warming is built on a house of cards.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

If you're going to try to put words in someone's mouth, try to do a better job of it.

This is simply one additional data point that suggests that the concept of man made global warming is built on a house of cards.

In your effort to refute me, you confirmed exactly what I said.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In your effort to refute me, you confirmed exactly what I said.

And the study quotes in the OP say nothing about man made global warming. What it claims is that the adjusted data overstates the degree of global temperature increase.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In your effort to refute me, you confirmed exactly what I said.

Uh, no. But if it makes you feel better to believe that, you go boy.

[finnbow]

A real study was just released that disproves Whell's fantasy:

How much Earth will warm in response to future greenhouse gas emissions may be one of the most fundamental questions in climate science — but it’s also one of the most difficult to answer. And it’s growing more controversial: In recent years, some scientists have suggested that our climate models may actually be predicting too much future warming, and that climate change will be less severe than the projections suggest.

But new research is helping lay these suspicions to rest. A study, out Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, joins a growing body of literature that suggests the models are on track after all. And while that may be worrisome for the planet, it’s good news for the scientists working to understand its future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...imate-science/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

A real study was just released that disproves Whell's fantasy:

How much Earth will warm in response to future greenhouse gas emissions may be one of the most fundamental questions in climate science — but it’s also one of the most difficult to answer. And it’s growing more controversial: In recent years, some scientists have suggested that our climate models may actually be predicting too much future warming, and that climate change will be less severe than the projections suggest.

But new research is helping lay these suspicions to rest. A study, out Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, joins a growing body of literature that suggests the models are on track after all. And while that may be worrisome for the planet, it’s good news for the scientists working to understand its future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...imate-science/

That's hilarious. One of the authors of this study is Peter Huybers. He's not an anthropomorphic climate change guy.

"He has advanced the hypothesis that a 41,000 year period of change connected to the Earth's tilt on its axis is dominant during the past 800,000 years, and that every second or third of these cycles produce a major deglaciation event. This deglaciation also appears to trigger changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, perhaps in part coming from radically increased volcanic activity during deglaciation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Huybers

So, it matters not at all that you're driving your SUV or burning your coal fired furnace during the winter. Its all about the Earth's tilt on it's axis, and unless cow farts can correct the tilt, we're in for more scenes of polar bears drifting along the ocean on ice chunks.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

That's hilarious. One of the authors of this study is Peter Huybers. He's not an anthropomorphic climate change guy.

"He has advanced the hypothesis that a 41,000 year period of change connected to the Earth's tilt on its axis is dominant during the past 800,000 years, and that every second or third of these cycles produce a major deglaciation event. This deglaciation also appears to trigger changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, perhaps in part coming from radically increased volcanic activity during deglaciation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Huybers

So, it matters not at all that you're driving your SUV or burning your coal fired furnace during the winter. Its all about the Earth's tilt on it's axis, and unless cow farts can correct the tilt, we're in for more scenes of polar bears drifting along the ocean on ice chunks.

However for the last century or so there haven't been coal fired furnaces or SUV's. So your conclusion has nothing to do with your Wiki quote.