Sure, sure, the science is settled -- not

[hcap]

"It's been colder and warmer" is climate deniers first line of attack on accelerating climate change. And since you gents have lost on that front you then take up "man is not responsible"

So you gents deny both short term temperature increase and deny man's role.

Or do you agree that the globe is getting warmer.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by hcap

This paper published in the Chinese journal Science Bulletin now makes a grand total of 2.

Pretty impressive

Everything is simple for the closed minded.
The models used to support the climate alarmists claims all run too hot. You choose to follow blindly and not ask questions, that's fine if you want to establish sacred cows, but don't be surprised that others continue to seek answers and ask questions, challenge assumptions, etc, as is required by scientific method. It's not a popularity contest and you don't win the argument with claims of "denier" or by casting out heretics or punishing disbelievers as AlGore wants to do.

[HUSKER55]

That point is going to be mute.

in ten years, or less, the vast majority of cars are going to use batteries. There are some articles in car magazines that say 2016 maybe the last year gas cars are made. The shift to more efficient means of shipping will start making an impact. Cheaper and cleaner energy has an established and positive influence and as technology improves so will the potential of solar and wind power to name 2.

People everywhere know our planet is over populated and the next big battle is going to be forcing a down sizing.

If you believe in mankind then we will win and crying climate change will be lost because we all know it can not be prevented.

Our planet is moving thru its own life process and there is nothing anyone can do.

[fast4522]

AlGore is coming back, not that it will do him any good. The last hissyfit Nancy Pelosi displayed was her party losing the narrative.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Everything is simple for the closed minded.
The models used to support the climate alarmists claims all run too hot. You choose to follow blindly and not ask questions, that's fine if you want to establish sacred cows, but don't be surprised that others continue to seek answers and ask questions, challenge assumptions, etc, as is required by scientific method. It's not a popularity contest and you don't win the argument with claims of "denier" or by casting out heretics or punishing disbelievers as AlGore wants to do.

Since this one of two peer reviewed papers not supporting Anthropomorphic climate change, and was published in China, and all of us have the academic chops to critique climatology and all related pertinent fields, maybe we should download the paper in the original Chinese and then continue this debate? Let me start. I believe this is the first line of the paper.....

气候变化是假的

Qìhòu biànhuà shì jiǎ de or "Climate Change is bogus"

second line..

被温暖过冷却器

Bèi wēnnuǎnguò lěngquè qì or "it's Been warmer it's been cooler"

[Tom]

Peer reviewed......that is good.
Unless the peers are all idiots.

Peer Review said the world was flat.
That debate was over.
Until Columbus didn't sail off the edge.

Science doesn't move ahead from peer review - it moves ahead from going against peer review.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Ben Warmer

Science doesn't move ahead from peer review - it moves ahead from going against peer review.

In which case why bother starting any thread with a peer reviewed paper ironically published in commie China? Unless you want to make fun of that thread for some reason?

Of course I actually agree with making fun of that paper.

[Tom]

Good point.....Ben Warmer.
You are starting to get it.

The laugh is on you - NOTHING will ever change it, no matter how much low-intelligent governments do to try.

All that will happen is economies will be hurt, people will suffer, and morons will walking around think they accomplished something.

Marching in the Parade of Idiots is one thing, but you want to lead it!

[hcap]

I wonder why the authors of that peer-reviewed paper chose a Chinese journal to publish? Maybe they had no choice. Not a very prestigious journal.

The paper is published in the journal Science Bulletin, formerly the Chinese Science Bulletin, which is described in the press release as "equivalent to Science or Nature". Journals are rated according to an 'impact factor', which is a measure of how many times the papers in that journal are referenced by other papers. The impact factor of Nature is 42, for Science it's 31, and for the Science Bulletin it's 1.4

The Chinese Academy of Science, which co-publishes the journal, forcefully distanced itself from the Heartland Institute in 2013 after the think-tank used the fact that the Academy had translated one of its reports to suggest broad support for its climate-skeptic views

[Tom]

Not a very prestigious journal.

Don't hurt yourself reaching that far......

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by hcap

I wonder why the authors of that peer-reviewed paper chose a Chinese journal to publish? Maybe they had no choice. Not a very prestigious journal.

You should take up boxing. You do a good job bobbing and weaving.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

You should take up boxing. You do a good job bobbing and weaving.

This may be a knockout punch.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2554.html

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation

"The team found recent changes in ocean circulation are “unprecedented” since at least the year 900 A.D., about as far back as these proxy data can reliably go. According to the paper, the probability of a similar circulation slowdown caused by natural variability alone (with no influence from human-caused climate change) was less than 0.5 percent."

Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.

The actual study

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclim...=www.slate.com

[rastajenk]

Awful lot of variables in that description makes it a hard sell to us proles. We should sacrifice our way of life, and condemn the poorest of the planet to generations of poverty, (while observing our betters jet-setting to various events and appearances with little regard to their carbon footprints), based on that? I wouldn't call that a knockout by any stretch of the imagination.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Awful lot of variables in that description makes it a hard sell to us proles. We should sacrifice our way of life, and condemn the poorest of the planet to generations of poverty, (while observing our betters jet-setting to various events and appearances with little regard to their carbon footprints), based on that? I wouldn't call that a knockout by any stretch of the imagination.

Nothing from Michael "hockey stick" Mann should be taken seriously. He's been thoroughly discredited as a fraud. People who actually measure ocean current do not find evidence to support the claims in that paper.


uri-oceanographer-refutes-claims-that-climate-change-is-slowing-pace-of-gulf-stream

[rastajenk]

"Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy! temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC."

I'm sold. Where do I sign?