Yep, nothing new. "The research team tested its ideas experimentally in a large cloud chamber. Data was taken over a period of two years with total 3100 hours of data sampling. Professor Svensmark said the new results gave a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity is reflected in variations in Earth’s climate. “This new work gives credit to a mechanism that is much stronger than changes in solar irradiance alone,” Svensmark told The Australian. “Solar irradiance has been the only solar forcing that has been included in climate models and such results show that the effect on climate is too small to be of importance,” he said. “The new thing is that there exists an amplification mechanism that is operating on clouds in the atmosphere,” Svensmark said. “Quantifying the impact of solar activity on climate from observations is found to be 5-7 times larger than from solar irradiance, and agrees with empirical variations in cosmic rays and clouds,” he said."
Yes. There are many experts who don’t believe that man made co2 causes catastrophic warming. Many. You just don’t want to believe it. That’s your problem.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5551004/two-degrees http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/climate-science-explained-10-graphics
So geologists and physicists and chemists are ok when they are used to prove your point. But peer reviewed articles by geologists and physicists and chemists that refute your ridiculous claims are unacceptable. Because they aren’t ‘climate scientists’ from Global Warming U. You are spaced bro.
Yes, I believe the experts over the non-experts. Maybe you do not. OK, let me be clear here, because you seem to having some difficulty understanding. NO PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DENIES MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. NONE. Furthermore, the non-climate scientists - the engineers and geologists and astrophysicists - offered up by the denial machine DO NOT refute man made global warming.
There are many thousands of them. Scientists who explicitly state that while man may contribute to earths climate change process...but not significantly and most certainly not in any catastrophic way. There are thousands of them. You cannot find a single one that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man made CO2 causes catastrophic warming. So fuck off already and get ready for the next cold spell. Hopefully your HVAC business will boom and you can pollute the world more.
Thousands of what? Scientists that don't deny man made global warming? Gee, got me, LOL Here, read this and learn something. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".[8] "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".[9] Human influence on the climate system is clear.[10] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[11] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[10] "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"[12] "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"[13] "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[12] Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[14] The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[15] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[16] National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgementsand so are not included in the scientific opinion.[17][18] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[19] which in 2007[20] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[21] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
No you retard...thousands of scientists who understand that there is no credible data to suggest that manmadeCO2 is responsible for any catastrophic warming. You just politicize the issue which means you have zero credibility. Let the scientists do the work - there is no consensus. No matter what you cut and paste.
If there is no consensus, among thousands of experts, it should be easy for you to find one quote, paper summary, anything from any publishing climate scientist saying that man made global warming is not happening. The consensus is essentially 100%. Yes I cut and paste the facts.
Furthermore about this complex mega-system, the systems engineers would likely request the scientists to quantify many of the relevant measures, such as (let's concentrate on CO2 for now): A1. Perhaps only part of the total CO2 each year would be usually generated by farming and mining industries? Say, if the impact of CO2 is only 10% among all factors, and within this 10% CO2 there would be merely 20% generated by farming and mining industries, the politicians and some voters might be happy to support any reduction plan as these industries may get exemption due to relatively small adverse impact. If they are not 10% and 20% as stated above, we then need to know what would be the %s. A2. Maybe the absolute majority of total CO2 each year would be actually produced directly/indirectly by last (say) five years' amount of some others factors/gases/ocean-current/etc.!? B1. It seems the overall status is still a bit primitive, not even having clear theoretical backing Yet. Dynamic model (including time lag, feedback, and interactions) of CO2 impact on earth climate temperature: Theory>>Basic science>>Science>>Applied science>>Engineering>>Technology>>Common practice! B2. Why 2% reduction is preferred? According to Deming, this kind of target used in process control is a basic fault, when without a steady/stable process or system first built/reached. Why not 10% or 100%? Who has the best knowledge to define this target? Where is the body of knowledge in this process/system? C. Commercial opportunities? D. ...