Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 1,001 to 1,003 of 1003

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1001

    Default The TRUTH. This is what passes for "science" when you publish "climate science".

    Young aspiring scientists can easily get published if they write a "climate change" paper. There is no bar. There is no standard. There is nothing that won't get published if you say the climate changed, and man is the cause.

    Here is one example of many hundreds I could post. I would be ashamed if my name were on a publication like this.

    Published in a journal....


    "Disproportionate magnitude of climate change in United States national parks"


    "Abstract
    Anthropogenic climate change is altering ecological and human systems globally..........Between 1895 and 2010, mean annual temperature of the national park area increased 1.0 C 0.2 C century−1 (mean standard error), double the US rate....."


    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...48-9326/aade09
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  2. #1002

    Default

    still in denial about the TRUTH eh?

  3. #1003
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    This paper suggests glaciers are melting due to black soot deposits on them, not warming. Again, this brand of science will never be published in the media...............

    "End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon

    Significance

    The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/38/15216
    I was going to address this more in-depth, but realized it would be a waste of time since you don't seem to understand what a positive feedback loop is.

    Literally the only thing this paper states relevant to climate change is that the changes that were already occurring should be taken into account when determining glacial retreat. Nothing about how it means glaciers are not getting affected by climate change.

    The potential implication of BC deposition in the end of the glacial LIA in the European Alps and the growing understanding of the magnitude of radiative forcing by dust and BC suggests that studies of past, present, and future changes in glacier mass balance should consider these albedo-driven changes to ensure physical consistency.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •