So wetodddidtooalso thinks that there are no effects on coral reefs from the rapid increase in temperatures, rising sea levels and increased ocean acidity from the 40% increase in the greenhouse gas CO2. Must be a tRumper. They are the only ones that are that stupid.
Good point. So coral reefs are how many thousands years old? And adapted to certain conditions. I wonder if this (chart below) would cause them problems? Wouldn't it be nice if you and I could be as blissfully ignorant as wetodtodidorwat ? It must be nice to not worry like that. Do you ever think that it would be better if we were scientifically dumb and religiously faithful? Have you heard the word of the lord nitro.
Quite amusing chart. But complete nonsense. Doesn't even show the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings were growing crops in Iceland and Greenland.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...on-boffins-cast-shock-DOUBT-on-global-warming Has climate change been disproved? Large Hadron boffins cast shock DOUBT on global warming MANKIND'S burning of fossil fuels may not be the primary cause of global warming, according to the shock results of a new study by scientists behind the Large Hadron Collider (LCH). Boffins from CERN have also discovered projected temperature increases over the next century may have been over estimated. Researchers found trees may have been putting similar aerosols into the air as burning fossil fuels, long before the industrial revolution, meaning humans may have had less impact on the climate than we thought. Scientists made the discovery during an experiment to create an artificial cloud that was thought could help cool Earth and reverse global warming. A study published this week in the journal Nature has looked more closely at the tiny particles within clouds, known as cloud seeds, that help cool the planet and found they can be produced naturally. Clouds, including natural ones and those from aerosols, are seen by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the single biggest source of uncertainty about the so-called human-caused climate change. But now CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, have left the issue even more confusing after discovering, while creating the fake cloud, that trees could have been putting these aerosols into the atmosphere since they first grew at the time of the dinosaurs. Direct aerosol particles come from dust, sea salt, and the burning of biomass. Secondary aerosol particles are formed when gas is converted into a particle, and are responsible for more than half of all cloud seeds in our atmosphere. Until this study, scientists thought sulphuric acid, largely produced with fossil fuel emissions, was needed to form secondary aerosols, and therefore responsible for the bulk of global warming aerosols. However, the research found the Earth actually produces these particles naturally, without any interference from man. The particles are created by a mix of tree vapours and cosmic rays - high-energy particles bombarding the atmosphere from outside our solar system. Jasper Kirkby, CERN particle physicist and originator and spokesperson of the CLOUD experiment, said: "We found that nature produces particles without pollution. "That is going to require a rethink of how human activities have increased aerosols in clouds." The results may turn the whole climate change debate and projected temperature increases upside down, they said.
No the scientists did not say that. The moron author did. He is a liar and you are still an idiot. CO2 is still a greenhouse gas that has gone up by 40% causing this
Exclusive: Effect of CO2 on warming is worse than we thought Recent record-breaking temperatures mean estimates of how much warming will result from CO2 emissions will have to be revised upwards, New Scientist can reveal WE MAY be in for more global warming than we hoped, New Scientist can reveal. Over the past few years, a number of studies have concluded that a given level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces less warming than previously thought. This rare good news on climate made headlines around the world. But these studies were carried out towards the end of a period of little warming. Do the results still stand given the record warming in 2014, 2015 and 2016? To find out, New Scientist asked those behind the studies what would happen if the latest global temperature data was plugged into their models. One headline-making 2013 study had concluded that the immediate warming that would result from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would be around 1.3 °C – significantly less than most previous estimates. If correct, this would mean we still have a chance of limiting warming to below the “dangerous” point of 2 °C despite soaring CO2levels. But this was before global temperatures shot past 1 °C above pre-industrial levels last year, as predicted by New Scientist in July 2015. If the 2013 study was repeated using that value, it would give an estimate for the immediate warming of 1.6 °C, says Piers Forster, one of the study’s authors based at the University of Leeds, UK. If we assume that the average global surface temperature in 2016 will be a record-breaking 1.3 °C above the pre-industrial level, as expected, the estimate would be closer to 2.1 °C, Forster says. But that may be an overestimate due to the current spike in warming caused by a now-fading El NiÑo. “Maybe 1.6 °C is closer to the ‘truth’,” he says. Indeed, he points out that 1.6 °C is well within the uncertainty bounds of his 2013 study. Even before the recent warming, several other studies had already concluded that the 2013 estimate of the immediate warming effect was too low. These suggested that Forster’s team underestimated how much warming has been masked by the cooling effect of other pollutants, such as sulphur aerosols, that we pump out alongside CO2. In 2014, Drew Shindell of Duke University concluded that the immediate warming in response to a doubling of CO2would be around 1.7 °C. A 2015 study by a team including Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York got the same result. And this year, Trude Storelvmo of Yale University put it at an alarming 2 °C. “Instead of a 1.3 °C rise for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere we may be looking at 1.8 °C or more“... https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ing-is-worse-than-we-thought/?utm_source=NSNS
What!? Antarctic Ocean hasn't warmed? The deniers have been correct all along? The scientist have finally admitted that Antarctic hasn't warmed. The alarmist have apparently fixed a conundrum that they previously refused to admit existed. So the consensus scientist have been lying the entire time. But, we are suppose to trust them now? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160530115537.htm Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn't warmed The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers. Observations and climate models show that the unique currents around Antarctica continually pull deep, centuries-old water up to the surface -- seawater that last touched Earth's atmosphere before the machine age, and has never experienced fossil fuel-related climate change. The paper is published May 30 in Nature Geoscience. "With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on," said lead author Kyle Armour, a UW assistant professor of oceanography and of atmospheric sciences. "We show that it's for really simple reasons, and ocean currents are the hero here." "When we hear the term 'global warming,' we think of warming everywhere at the same rate," Armour said. "We are moving away from this idea of global warming and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents." blahahahahahahahahahahaha
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/na...ill-last-centuries-tosses-global-warming-out/ Nature ties itself in knots here, and reveals a lot more than they probably meant too, but mostly about themselves rather than about Antarctica. If it’s correct, the implications from this study are pretty big, not that the study will tell you that. The term “Global warming” is tossed under a bus, along with almost all the Antarctic man-made scares of the last two decades. The political nature of Nature is on full display. This time Nature claims it has found the cause of the Antarctic pause. Apparently this now finally resolves yet another conundrum (fantastic, what!) that was, as usual, not called a conundrum until it was solved. Another secret problem fixed. Where was the press release telling us there was a problem? Those who said there was a conundrum were just deniers. It’s right there in the press release, paragraph two: The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers. Which rather begs the question: If there was a conundrum then the skeptics who pointed it out were not deniers, but correct. And if there was no conundrum, and deniers were denying something, then this is not a new finding at all. Alternately perhaps some researchers “knew” the answer they were going to find, and the other researchers, who can’t see the future, are deniers? Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn’t warmed The waters surrounding Antarctica may be one of the last places to experience human-driven climate change. New research from the University of Washington and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds that ocean currents explain why the seawater has stayed at roughly the same temperature while most of the rest of the planet has warmed. Apparently climate modelers didn’t know basic ocean circulation and thought the heat would just mix downward — yes, even I am a bit amazed at this next para: “The old idea was that heat taken up at the surface would just mix downward, and that’s the reason for the slow warming,” Armour said. “But the observations show that heat is actually being carried away from Antarctica, northward along the surface.” Really – that was the old idea? Look out here: It will take centuries for us to run out of cold ocean… The Southern Ocean’s water comes from such great depths, and from sources that are so distant, that it will take centuries before the water reaching the surface has experienced modern global warming. Follow the implications — this is going to keep going. Antarctica will be fine for centuries? There’s no rapid sea level rise coming and no imminent destruction of the shelf? Forget all the images of penguins dying from global warming which is regional not-warming in Antarctica. So were all the papers blaming “global warming” for Antarctic icebergs, starving penguins, and collapsing ice shelves all wrong in attributing them to man-made warming which won’t arrive there for centuries? Could be.
Fraud, NASA admits that it has been lying. Antarctica see ice has been increasing not decreasing. Deniers correct again!!!! http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6516 Since the late 1970s, its extent has been relatively stable, increasing just slightly; however, regional differences are observed.