Peer reviewed study refutes AGW

[tinfoil]

http://icoads.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf

Abstract:
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

 

[Don Quixote]

http://icoads.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf

Abstract:
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

and the percent of greenhouse gases in the air has nothing to do with the warming...anthropogenic not withstanding of course

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, the world's getting warmer. And that's not a good thing.

 

[uscitizen]

Tin seem to like these short term studies. 10 years, the last 100 years, etc...

I go by the ice core studies that cover many many thousands of years and show a direct corelation between atmo Co2 and temperature.

 

[Damocles]

Tin seem to like these short term studies. 10 years, the last 100 years, etc...

I go by the ice core studies that cover many many thousands of years and show a direct corelation between atmo Co2 and temperature.

Actually, in the past, the CO2 levels rose in response to the warming. It is like blaming smoking on cancer using the figures from the past.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually, in the past, the CO2 levels rose in response to the warming. It is like blaming smoking on cancer using the figures from the past.

Maybe, that is one conclusion.

But it is asinine to look at 10 years or so and say it is an indication of climate change.

 

[tinfoil]

Tin seem to like these short term studies. 10 years, the last 100 years, etc...

I go by the ice core studies that cover many many thousands of years and show a direct corelation between atmo Co2 and temperature.

LOL

 

[tinfoil]

Here's a peer reviewed study just released and hosted at an NOAA site and what is the response? Crickets

 

[Onceler]

Did you actually read the study?

The title of the thread is somewhat misleading, if you did.

Don't bother, though; it would probably be easier to call me a faggot & tell me to go suck a cock.

 

[tinfoil]

Tin seem to like these short term studies. 10 years, the last 100 years, etc...

This study compared GCMs with and without anthropogenic forcing and found the models without anthropogenic focing built into the assumptions were able to explain the climate trends through ocean interaction and circulation.

I have no idea where you've gotten 10 years or 100 years anywhere in the thread or the link provided. Care to explain?

 

[tinfoil]

Did you actually read the study?

The title of the thread is somewhat misleading, if you did.

Don't bother, though; it would probably be easier to call me a faggot & tell me to go suck a cock.

im know you didn't read it

 

[Onceler]

im know you didn't read it

That sounds as illiterate as you are.

You should read it; your title is basically a lie.

 

[Socrtease]

Did you actually read the study?

The title of the thread is somewhat misleading, if you did.

Don't bother, though; it would probably be easier to call me a faggot & tell me to go suck a cock.

I don't know if it would be easier but you sure make it sound inviting.

 

[uscitizen]

I wonder if there is a clinical name yet for global warming phobia ?

 

[Damocles]

Did you actually read the study?

The title of the thread is somewhat misleading, if you did.

Don't bother, though; it would probably be easier to call me a faggot & tell me to go suck a cock.

I can do that? Dang. And I tried reason and all that.

 

[Onceler]

Kinda what I thought; crickets.

Careful what you wish for, stirfry.

 

[Damocles]

Kinda what I thought; crickets.

Careful what you wish for, stirfry.

What was I supposed to do? Mention your homosexuality and suggest you pleasure me?

 

[tinfoil]

That sounds as illiterate as you are.

You should read it; your title is basically a lie.

har har! I bumped the m somehow. Who cares? What a poser you are! Should I quote the study?

5 Discussion and conclusions
In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified with the global impacts of SST changes. It has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface. While continuous global measurements of most of these changes are not available through the 1961-2006 period, some humidity observations are available and do show
upward trends over the continents, such as. near surface observations (Dai 2006) and satellite radiance measurements sensitive to upper tropospheric moisture (Soden et al. 2005). Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, and natural solar and volcanic forcings or internal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on reliable estimations of natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from fully coupled climate model simulations without anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies
suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on annual (Shukla et al. 2006) and decadal scales (e.g., DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007). There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the IPCC Report (Hegerl et al.
2007, FAQ9.2 Figure 1). Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.


It refutes the claim that GHG from anthropogenic sources is responsible for all the warming since the industrial revolution began, which is a common notion among the climate alarmist crowd.

 

[tinfoil]

now we'll see lorax call me stupid again and he'll leave

 

[Onceler]

"It refutes the claim that GHG from anthropogenic sources is responsible for all the warming since the industrial revolution began, which is a common notion among the climate alarmist crowd."

That's about a million miles from "refutes AGW."

Nice attempt at recovery. It didn't work, but nice attempt.

These threads end up being so sad....