Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[eclipsenow]

How many times do you need to ask me to do what I already did? In fact I never said CO[sub]2[/sub] does not trap heat and I already said that global warming happens.

So, why do you ask me to do something I already did? I already told you once that our debate is not if global warming happens. It is about the question in the title of this thread. Please do not continue to sidetrack the debate. This is last time I'm answering to an attempt to sidetrack it.

So if you acknowledge that science can detect that Co2 traps heat, and can mathematically calculate how much extra heat is trapped, why can't you also accept that science can flow this extra energy through the climate and weather systems and calculate how climatic changes will harm our economies? Because the science does say that global warming is a TEOTWAWKI threat. Not the end of the planet, as such, but the end of the world as we know it... the end of climate conditions that prospered our civilisation, that favoured certain profitable crops growing in certain predictable ways, that supplied reliable fresh water in certain convenient places, and that we based our entire worldwide civilisation on these reliable, predictable watersheds and food sources. They're changing. Fast, and in many cases ahead of schedule! That is, the models predicted certain things decades ago, and in some cases the models were pretty much spot on.
Once again I recommend 'This year's model' to you.
This Year's Model - YouTube

 

[pjnlsn]

It might be an end of the world delusion in how some people interpret it. Like political people and politicians who don't know the details anyway. But there's something there, and as far as what I know about the topic, depending on a choice between two predictions, humans have either completely reversed a cooling trend to being a warming trend, or they've somewhat increased a warming trend.

 

[SkyWriting]

I agree with you that we are killing our oceans.

The greatest leaps in evolution, this includes all the ones responsible for our existence as the theory goes,
all come from times of stress. Rejoice ye Evo ones!

 

[Upisoft]

So if you acknowledge that science can detect that Co2 traps heat, and can mathematically calculate how much extra heat is trapped, why can't you also accept that science can flow this extra energy through the climate and weather systems and calculate how climatic changes will harm our economies?

Because it is not that simple as you explain it. You forget all positive and negative feedback that they think happens. Global warming is not just CO[sub]2[/sub]. It is climate change, not atmosphere contents change.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

The greatest leaps in evolution, this includes all the ones responsible for our existence as the theory goes,
all come from times of stress. Rejoice ye Evo ones!

Yeah, that's why acid rain was so popular that we didn'to do anything to stop it. And that is why we still use leaded gasoline (so kids will become more evolved). We didn't do anything about cfc's so that we could evolve to a moreuv tolerant state.

Exceptional reasoning! Bravo.

 

[eclipsenow]

Because it is not that simple as you explain it. You forget all positive and negative feedback that they think happens. Global warming is not just CO[sub]2[/sub]. It is climate change, not atmosphere contents change.

Exactly what negative feedbacks do you think can counteract the extra 1.7 watts per square meter of the entire surface of the earth?

 

[pjnlsn]

Because it is not that simple as you explain it. You forget all positive and negative feedback that they think happens. Global warming is not just CO[sub]2[/sub]. It is climate change, not atmosphere contents change.

He might be oversimplifying, but in the end, anything can be calculated or modelled.

 

[Greatcloud]

The topic of this thread can be summed up in the tittle "Is global warming just another end of the world delusion" . My contention is that it is a delusion, plus the theory of AGW has never been proven. Also where are the major disasters that AGW was supposed to bring ? There were 3,318 cold records set this Spring from all across the USA and that is from the time records were first kept. When I look out my front door I see cooling not warming. Sunspot cycle 25 and a La Nina plus the 200 year sun cycle are all combining to bring about cooling To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes This article by Forbes magazine brings it all into focus. If this cooling continues then I think we can say that these factors are more important then CO2 ever was. Sunspot cycle 25 the 200 year slow down of sun currents and the La Nina are all just begining and we already are seeing cooling in Russia ,Great Britten ,China,India and the rest of the globe according to the Forbes article. This is the end of AGW as a theory it just doesn't add up when you look at the record.

 

[eclipsenow]

The topic of this thread can be summed up in the tittle "Is global warming just another end of the world delusion" . My contention

Don't say 'contention' like you have a considered opinion on this. Say 'my wishy washy feeling'. You don't have a contention. That's too grand a summary of your posts.

is that it is a delusion, plus the theory of AGW has never been proven.

Which part of the basic physics of Co2 are you having trouble with? We've known what Co2 does for nearly 200 years. It's like denying that water boils at 100degrees C at sea level. It's like denying the laws of thermodynamics.

Also where are the major disasters that AGW was supposed to bring ?

All around you if you would but read the science journals, and this is just at around 1 degree of warming. The atmosphere can now carry 5% more moisture than it could 40 years ago! That means increased transportation of water in the atmosphere: faster famines in drying areas, greater floods in flooding areas. Germany has a record breaking flood right now! Are you even watching the news, let alone reading the peer-reviewed journals? But this baby is just gathering steam, the REAL disasters are still coming because we're only at around 1degree of warming. Wait till we get to 2 degrees, or 3 or 4!

There were 3,318 cold records set this Spring from all across the USA and that is from the time records were first kept.

We melted the Arctic sea ice, which changed volumes of heating and air moving, which moved a jet stream to dump more snow in certain local areas of the Northern hemisphere. But over all America is WARMER than ever, across the board, despite record freaky cold snaps across certain localities.
Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss | Environment | guardian.co.uk

In other words, climate change is a more accurate term to describe what happens when there is extra energy trapped in the atmosphere as it CAN result in certain areas getting colder. EG: While Antarctic is generally warming, certain central parts are cooling as what used to fall as rain over Southern Australia is pulled in by a faster Antarctic vortex. Think of an ice skater spinning. If they pull their arms in, they go faster. Well, the extra energy in the climate has pulled the 'arms' of this vortex in so that Australia receives less regular rain across the south, and some small parts of Antarctica get MORE snow as a result. But this satellite measurement of Antarctica's temperature trends shows that generally, it is warming, even while there are cooler bits. A

America is the same.

Earth Day Climatology: A Warming World even thought it doesn't feel like it, sometimes? - YouTube

When I look out my front door I see cooling not warming.

Yeah, that's great climate science! We should listen to people who just look out their front door, and ignore everything tens of thousands of data points from instrumental records and satellites.

Sunspot cycle 25 and a La Nina plus the 200 year sun cycle are all combining to bring about cooling To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes

Yeah, read Forbes magazine. Tell me, are you trying to harm your cause? You look out your front window and read Forbes magazine. Awesome peer reviewed literature!

In the meantime, the peer-reviewed science actually shows that climate change shoved the jet stream out of kilter and froze certain pockets of Europe and America while the rest is hotter than ever. Whacky denialist theories like it's all the sun and cosmic rays etc are NOT peer reviewed, and do NOT survive real scrutiny by the real scientists. They're denialist pipe dreams, and have about as much credibility as the Moon Landing was faked crowd.

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.



The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite direction.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

You tell yourself what you want, look out your window and read Forbes, but I'll stick with the peer-reviewed science which shows climate surprises, but not an end to the warming. Yes, the last 15 years have been the hottest on record with 1998's super El Nino year being the hottest until 2005 EQUALLED IT in a La Nina year! Then 2010 equalled it again! Why was 2005 SO HOT in what would normally be a cooler year?

I bet your 'solar event & cosmic ray' theory can't demonstrate that!

 

[Kalevalatar]

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14682&page=R1Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis (2012)

A recent report commissioned by the CIA and various other American intelligence agencies on the security threats posed by climate change.

The report’s goal is to inform intelligence agencies as to how to best carry out monitoring to anticipate climate-related disasters, help prevent them from occurring, and, when they do, respond to emergencies. The report investigates how climate change could potentially induce social and political stresses that will affect U.S. security over the next decade. The report committee’s chair, John Steinbruner, writes, “There is compelling reason to presume that specific failures of adaptation will occur with consequences more severe than any yet experienced, severe enough to compel more extensive international engagement than has yet been anticipated or organized.”​

 

[Greatcloud]

Here you go eclipsenow ,here are 11,000 papers against AGW.

Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

So you see there are many many papers against AGW and these papers are peer reviewed, since that is your only requirement for rebuttal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here you go eclipsenow ,here are 11,000 papers against AGW.

Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

So you see there are many many papers against AGW and these papers are peer reviewed, since that is your only requirement for rebuttal.

Here is an abstract from one of those papers. Can you tell us how this is against AGW?

"Most global climate models simulate a weakening of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) in response to enhanced greenhouse warming. Both surface warming and freshening in high latitudes, the so-called sinking region, contribute to the weakening of the THC. Some models even simulate a complete breakdown of the THC at sufficiently strong forcing. Here results are presented from a state-of-the-art global climate model that does not simulate a weakening of the THC in response to greenhouse warming. Large-scale air–sea interactions in the Tropics, similar to those operating during present-day El Niños, lead to anomalously high salinities in the tropical Atlantic. These are advected into the sinking region, thereby increasing the surface density and compensating the effects of the local warming and freshening."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

What you are pointing to are some weasel words. Notice that it says "supporting skeptic arguments". This doesn't mean that there are 1,100 papers that are against AGW, only that they somehow have something tangentially to do with an argument being made by an AGW skeptic.

It is this type of weasel behavior that we have come to expect from AGW skeptics.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here are some of the scientists that you alarmist say don't exist in the sicence is settled camp.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes



Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[50]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [51]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[52]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[53]

 

[Greatcloud]

More papers against AGW that alarmists say don't exist.

Solar Cycles causing global warming:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Abstract: “During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core.”

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Abstract: “Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries”

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: “We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.”

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
Abstract: “Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate.”

Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Abstract: “The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.

We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the distributions. We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.”


Climate Models

Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448–455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Abstract: Climate models are now being used extensively to diagnose the causative, especially anthropogenic, factors of observed climatic changes of the past few decades (Palmer, 2001; Stott ., 2001; Thorne ., 2002). These models are also used to make long-term climate projections and climate risk assessments based on future anthropogenic forcing scenarios (Saunders, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Houghton ., 2001; Pittock, 2002; Schneider, et al S.H., 2002). Many such exercises help to shape public policy recommendations concerning future energy use and various ‘climate protection’ measures in order to prevent ‘dangerous climate impacts’ (e.g., Schneider, S.H., 2002; O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world. (This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant AF 49620-02-1-0194 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant NAG5-7635.)

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
Albert Arking - Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Abstract: Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations. A 1-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium model is used to show the effects of such bias on the global energy balance and on the global response to a doubling of CO2. We find the main impact is in the energy exchange terms between the surface and atmosphere and in the convective transport in the lower troposphere, where it exceeds 10 W m-2. The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.

Anthropogenic:

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: “A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the “fast-response” framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.”

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
Abstract: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”

The Continuing Search for an Anthropogenic Climate Change Signal: Limitations of Correlation-Based Approaches
Abstract: “Several recent studies claim to have found evidence of large-scale climate changes that were attributed to human influences. These assertions are based on increases in correlation over time between general circulation model prognostications and observations as derived from a centred pattern correlation statistic. We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records.”

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Quote:
Global climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is another Forbes article that eclipsenow and other alarmists won't like.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

 

[pjnlsn]

Alarmist is a word people use when emotionally reacting to an idea, not judging it's likelihood and empirical completeness.

If we're talkiong about consensus, almost all work published that takes a position, I'm under the impression, takes the position that climate change is man-made. And some doesn't take a position.

In any case, the reason people are concerned about CO2 is the extraordinary amount that human activities have released and continue to release in the atmosphere, and that compared to other greenhouse gases, CO2 traps many more times the amount of heat compared to it's volume, in addition to it being highly persistent, on the order of centuries.

 

[Loudmouth]

Greatcloud,

Can you please point to the anti-AGW conclusion in this abstract?

"Most global climate models simulate a weakening of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) in response to enhanced greenhouse warming. Both surface warming and freshening in high latitudes, the so-called sinking region, contribute to the weakening of the THC. Some models even simulate a complete breakdown of the THC at sufficiently strong forcing. Here results are presented from a state-of-the-art global climate model that does not simulate a weakening of the THC in response to greenhouse warming. Large-scale air&#8211;sea interactions in the Tropics, similar to those operating during present-day El Niños, lead to anomalously high salinities in the tropical Atlantic. These are advected into the sinking region, thereby increasing the surface density and compensating the effects of the local warming and freshening."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[Greatcloud]

Greatcloud,

Can you please point to the anti-AGW conclusion in this abstract?

"Most global climate models simulate a weakening of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) in response to enhanced greenhouse warming. Both surface warming and freshening in high latitudes, the so-called sinking region, contribute to the weakening of the THC. Some models even simulate a complete breakdown of the THC at sufficiently strong forcing. Here results are presented from a state-of-the-art global climate model that does not simulate a weakening of the THC in response to greenhouse warming. Large-scale air–sea interactions in the Tropics, similar to those operating during present-day El Niños, lead to anomalously high salinities in the tropical Atlantic. These are advected into the sinking region, thereby increasing the surface density and compensating the effects of the local warming and freshening."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The scientist is saying here that most climate models are wrong. This is anti AGW contention and he is saying that the natural cycles of ocean cooling and warming are not affected by the greenhouse effect. That is anti AGW.

 

[pjnlsn]

The scientist is saying here that most climate models are wrong. This is anti AGW contention and he is saying that the natural cycles of ocean cooling and warming are not affected by the greenhouse effect. That is anti AGW.

It doesn't say that something other than human activities is the primary cause of climate change. Incidentally, if it did, it's still the case that the vast majority of scientific papers which take a position on climate change take the position that it is caused or initiated primarily by human activities.

 

[Greatcloud]

It doesn't say that something other than human activities is the primary cause of climate change. Incidentally, if it did, it's still the case that the vast majority of scientific papers which take a position on climate change take the position that it is caused or initiated primarily by human activities.

This paper is stating that a part of the theory is wrong it is critical of the models and this is going against the theory. It does not matter if all the papers don't flatly deny AGW directly they are critical of parts of the theory. There are plenty of papers that do deny AGW and they are peer reviewed. Don't be so picky you know this paper is critical of AGW.