Peer reviewed study refutes AGW

tinfoil said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have never said it was responsible for all the warming.
 
Onceler said:
"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....
Click to expand...


Hmmm, why don't you interpret the study for us then? Tell us what is says.
 
tinfoil said:
Hmmm, why don't you interpret the study for us then? Tell us what is says.
Click to expand...

Well, several times it says that the oceans may have warmed from anthropogenic influences.

That directly contradicts your assertion that the study "refutes AGW."

Seriously; this is embarassing.
 
Damocles said:
tin, directly in the Abstract it ends with this sentence...
Click to expand...

I understand that. There is nodoubt that GHGs will warm water when their concentration increases. However, it may be the water vapor from warming oceans that raises temps over land, not the increased CO2 and the radiative effect. This is what the study suggests. I didn't write it.
 
tinfoil said:
I understand that. There is nodoubt that GHGs will warm water when their concentration increases. However, it may be the water vapor from warming oceans that raises temps over land, not the increased CO2 and the radiative effect. This is what the study suggests. I didn't write it.
Click to expand...
The study states that there are Anthropogenic causes, along with natural, for the rise in the ocean, even in the Abstract it was clear on this point.
 
Here...

This is how the study concludes.

Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal 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 11 natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from 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 interannual and decadal scales (e.g., Shukla et al. 2006, DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007; Newman et al. 2008). There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published 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.


Regardless of whether or not the rapid recent oceanic warming has occurred largely from anthropogenic or natural influences, our study highlights its importance in accounting for the recent observed continental warming. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from our analysis is that the recent acceleration of global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined. The indirect and substantial role of the oceans in causing the recent continental warming emphasizes the need to generate reliable projections of ocean temperature changes over the next century, in order to generate more reliable projections of not just the global mean temperature and precipitation changes (Barsugli et al. 2006), but also regional climate changes.
Click to expand...

It was not a focus of this study, and it is being researched if the warming of the oceans is because of Anthropogenic or more natural circumstances.

That should help you out. The study does not answer at all the origins of the warming of the oceans.
 
Damocles said:
The study states that there are Anthropogenic causes, along with natural, for the rise in the ocean, even in the Abstract it was clear on this point.
Click to expand...
GHGs effect has been overstated in climate models. This study does not say GHGs have no effect, but that their effect is not as pronounced as IPCC models have assumed.

Where did I refute that GHGs warm oceans? The study suggests that humidity is the real warming culprit and not the radiative effect of CO2.
 
tinfoil said:
GHGs effect has been overstated in climate models. This study does not say GHGs have no effect, but that their effect is not as pronounced as IPCC models have assumed.

Where did I refute that GHGs warm oceans? The study suggests that humidity is the real warming culprit and not the radiative effect of CO2.
Click to expand...
Where did I say you refuted that. I said the study suggests other reasons than GHGs for land warming.

I've been reading what the study says. The study does not, at all, answer to the origins of the ocean warming, it concludes that studies are being done as we type on the origin of the ocean warming.
 
I said the study suggests other reasons than GHGs for land warming.

Right. And popular culture has been lead to believe that humans are responsible for most of the warming. We are never given a breakdown as to how much of the warming is due to natural causes and how much due to GHG from humans SO the implication has been that it's the fault of humans. This is undeniable.

To me, the study pokes a hole in the current wisdom that humans are responsible for global warming.
 
tinfoil said:
I said the study suggests other reasons than GHGs for land warming.

Right. And popular culture has been lead to believe that humans are responsible for most of the warming. We are never given a breakdown as to how much of the warming is due to natural causes and how much due to GHG from humans SO the implication has been that it's the fault of humans. This is undeniable.

To me, the study pokes a hole in the current wisdom that humans are responsible for global warming.
Click to expand...

I poked a hole in your mom.
 
I read bits of it. I'm not intelligent enough to read a whole scientific paper and have a ghost of a chance of understanding it, I need someone to explain it to me in simple English.

But the bits I did read made me think that this is why we in Australia have this bloody drought. I forget how it goes but the La Nina (sorry can't do the squiggle) and La Nino things have failed us. Apparently one dries us out and the other gives us rain but apparently both of the little buggers have been drying us out. Where I live our state government has just declared that the major source of our critical human use water (the River Murray which is fed by the Murray-Darling system) has sufficient water for critical human use for 12 months.

I may have to move to Tasmania or New Zealand.
 
Diuretic said:
I read bits of it. I'm not intelligent enough to read a whole scientific paper and have a ghost of a chance of understanding it, I need someone to explain it to me in simple English.

But the bits I did read made me think that this is why we in Australia have this bloody drought. I forget how it goes but the La Nina (sorry can't do the squiggle) and La Nino things have failed us. Apparently one dries us out and the other gives us rain but apparently both of the little buggers have been drying us out. Where I live our state government has just declared that the major source of our critical human use water (the River Murray which is fed by the Murray-Darling system) has sufficient water for critical human use for 12 months.

I may have to move to Tasmania or New Zealand.
Click to expand...

el nino should give you excess rain or is it la nina - we get drought with la nina and flood with el nino

maybe it depends on how cool or warm the effect is
 
Maybe things work different south of the equator.
Most of the climate studies and such seem to be centered above the equator.
Heck their toilets even spin backwards.
 
uscitizen said:
Maybe things work different south of the equator.
Most of the climate studies and such seem to be centered above the equator.
Heck their toilets even spin backwards.
Click to expand...

weather north of the equator generally does not affect weather south of the equator but the la nina/el nino spans the equator

twisters even spin differently down below - but the aussies know how to party
 
DonQuixote said:
el nino should give you excess rain or is it la nina - we get drought with la nina and flood with el nino

maybe it depends on how cool or warm the effect is
Click to expand...

That would be it, thank you - we haven't got the rain we need for several years and it's worse in some places than others. The effect failed and we're up shit creek in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle.
 
DonQuixote said:
weather north of the equator generally does not affect weather south of the equator but the la nina/el nino spans the equator

twisters even spin differently down below - but the aussies know how to party
Click to expand...

I learned how to party from a bunch of USAF blokes :clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top