Once again, jem is peddling bullshit psuedo-science. Because he is a lying sack of shit. "there are numerous fundamental flaws in the paper, which is based almost entirely on correlation (not causation) and curve fitting exercises. Lu's hypothesis can be disproven very simply. He argues that the radiative forcing (global energy imbalance) from CFCs matches global surface temperatures better than that from CO2 over the past decade. This is because as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFC emissions (and emissions of other halocarbons) have been flat over the past decade, and global surface air temperatures have also been essentially flat during that short timeframe, while CO2 emissions have continued to rise. However, a global energy imbalance doesn't just impact surface temperatures. In fact, only about 2% of global warming is used in heating the atmosphere, while about 90% heats the oceans. Over the past decade, ocean and overall global heating have continued to rise rapidly, accumulating the equivalent of about 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second (Figure 1)." Frankly this paper should not have passed peer-review, but was perhaps aided by publication in a physics rather than climate journal, and in fact in the physics journal with the lowest impact factor by a wide margin. The paper was then trumpeted by a University of Waterloo press release and a Science Daily article, both of which used exaggerated language like "Luâs theory has been confirmed." The Science Daily article did not discuss any of the problems with the paper that we have detailed in this post, or ask any climate experts about it. ABC did a better job, talking to climate scientist David Karoly, who expressed appropriate skepticism about a paper which purports to overturn decades and even centuries of well-established physics and climate science in one fell swoop. Characteristically, The Australian then criticized ABC for failing to be "fair and balanced" because they interviewed an actual climate expert about the paper. Frankly, the paper is a non-story. It may seem like news due to the grandiose claims of overturning the vast body of scientific evidence supporting CO2-caused global warming, but it is very rare for a single paper to accomplish this type of feat. More often the single paper claiming to overturn the body of established scientific research is wrong. That is clearly the case for Lu (2013), which is based on assuming rather than proving the hypothesis, unphysical curve fitting, and misrepresenting the cited research. Moreover, this study isn't new. It's actually the third Lu has published about his CFC warming hypothesis. The first two were addressed by RealClimate, two peer-reviewed published responses, Skeptical Science, and others. Andrew Gilkson at The Conversation, Climate Science Watch and Rabbett Run (here and here) are also good resources for debunking Lu's latest effort. As we've previously discussed, the media need to be more careful in avoiding single study syndrome, misinforming the public by overhyping a single supposedly game-changing study before it has survived the scrutiny of the scientific community. http://www.skepticalscience.com/lu-2013-cfcs.html
As I pointed out before, jem doesn't give a fuck about real evidence. He likes to pretend he cares about evidence but like all zombie liars, his real agenda is pushing his batshit ideologies regardless of what the facts are. Pat Moynihan famously said "You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts". Moynihan never envisioned shameless zombie liars like we have to put up these days who insist on inventing their own "facts" (alternate reality). I don't care about alternate realities until these asshole fantasists try to shove them down our throats..
Your quote.... "there are numerous fundamental flaws in the paper, which is based almost entirely on correlation (not causation) and curve fitting exercises." You realize that is the very argument we make against the idea that man made CO2 causes warming. You have just validated our arguments. No one has shown man made co2 causes warming. You just present curve fitted models. Show us the science that shows man made co2 causes warming.
which leftist troll moron is the hand inside your sock puppet? I am agnostic as to whether man made co2 causes net warming. We know it cools and I accept the fact it can do some warming. I just request you pre fascists present science instead of some curve fitted models which so far have all failed the real time test. I put up all the recent studies to show there is no consensus on the matter and I point to actual science by NASA saying CO2 is also a coolant.
Why do you keep saying "man made CO2", do you believe the molecule acts differently depending on its source?
So you are halfway there to showing some science. CO2 may warm via the greenhouse idea. CO2 using the same properties also blocks some of the sun's heating energy. It is therefore a blanket and a shield. Correct? If you answer truthfully fraudcurrents we can move on to defining the issues.
Yeah, damn those AGW deniers trying to get us all to pay for their...their...what was it again we had to pay for?
good question... I also note that... while not accepting the idea of the greenhouse as conclusively proven... I do accept the idea that co2 works as a blanket in the lower atmosphere and a shield throughout. When we first came out of the ice age... I suspect additional co2 warms. When we get towards the end of the cycle I suspect additional co2 starts to block the suns energy. So... I say man made co2... because I don't know whether adding co2 right now warms or cools. But, I suspect it did net warm earlier in the cycle.
Additional CO2 is not going to begin blocking the solar energy that warms the planet, no matter how much is added: CO2 is transparent to visible light.