Is A New Study A “Death Blow” To Global Warming Hysteria?

Interesting question

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

I’ll leave it to you to dig into the details of the study. There’s no point in writing nor posting those details, because adherents of the Cult Of Climastrology mostly won’t, and those few who do will blow it off. But still won’t give up their own fossil fueled Big Carbon Footprint lives

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

I have to completely disagree. This whole issue is not about science, but about Far Left politics. The Warmists will never give it up, no matter what happens. If the Earth suddenly entered an actual glaciation period, they would still find a way to blame it on Mankind’s output of “carbon pollution”, and the policy prescriptions would all involve bigger and bigger government with more and more power over our lives.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Is A New Study A “Death Blow” To Global Warming Hysteria?”

  1. Hank_M says:

    The far left is incapable of admitting being wrong, about anything. If they ever did, their fragile over-worked ego’s would never recover.

  2. john says:

    Hank by the “far left” do you include the US Navy who believes that we are warming and that this is a problem for national security?
    Pat Michaels one of the 2 scientists mentioned has been wrong much more often than correcthttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/10/2280091/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-history-of-getting-it-wrong/
    My fav was that Toyota would never turn a profit on Prius
    4 month after his 2001 prediction in The Washington Times Toyota announced it was making a profit on Prius which is now its 3rd best seeler and expected by Toyota to be its best seller by 2020

  3. The Neon Madman says:

    I couldn’t give a rat’s behind what the US Navy thinks about global warming. You keep bringing it up, but it’s just an “appeal to authority” argument that doesn’t carry any weight.

  4. Hank_M says:

    John, the “Navy” isn’t the ace up your sleeve you think it is.

    By far left, thinkprogress certainly qualifies.

    As for the prius, that not so environmentally friendly vehicle is the perfect car for the smug, pompous, better-than-you far left crowd. I’m reminded of a 2007 survey asking why people purchased a prius. The primary answer was that “It makes a statement about me!” Sure does.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Another fatal blow to the theory of AGW! Oh noes!!

    It’s suspicious that the press release quotes Pat n Chip and no actual climate scientists.

    I’ll leave it to you to dig into the details of the study. There’s no point in writing nor posting those details, because adherents of the Cult Of Climastrology mostly won’t, and those few who do will blow it off

    LOL. The reason you won’t discuss the paper is because the big CoC won’t listen to you.

    Who knows. The author of this computer modeling essay may be right. If so, we have more time. Good.

    from the Abstract:

    … a simple model is constructed to explore the implications of a strongly negative aerosol forcing on the early (pre 1950) part of the instrumental record. This model, which contains terms representing both aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interactions well represents the known time history of aerosol radiative forcing, as well as the effect of the natural state on the strength of aerosol forcing. Model parameters, randomly drawn to represent uncertainty in understanding, demonstrates that a forcing more negative than −1.0 W m−2 is implausible, as it implies that none of the approximately 0.3 K temperature rise between 1850 and 1950 can be attributed to northern-hemispheric forcing. The individual terms of the model are interpreted in light of comprehensive modeling, constraints from observations, and physical understanding, to provide further support for the less negative ( −1.0 W m−2 ) lower bound.

  6. jl says:

    Even if the whole world returned to an ice-age the cult wouldn’t admit defeat because, ya know, ice ages are now caused by global warming.

  7. Conservative Beaner says:

    John,

    The Admirals and Bureaucrats are so PC they will agree with anything the Precious Prince tells them lest they don’t want to be promoted.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Even if the whole world returned to an ice-age the cult wouldn’t admit defeat because, ya know, ice ages are now caused by global warming.

    It’s pretty clear you understand less of the physical world than you let on. Overall, the Earth is currently in an ice age about 2.5 million years old. This ice age is characterized by repeated glacial and interglacial periods, and we are currently in an interglacial – the Holocene, which is some 10,000 years old (the age of humans). Scientists have a pretty good understanding of the physical processes that trigger the transitions between glacial and interglacial periods. The next glacial period would require a drop of some 8 C over several thousand years, so you’re probably safe in your lifetime. Anyway, the processes that cause the transitions, at least over the last couple of million years or so, are cyclic orbital shifts reinforced by changes in CO2 all the way up to almost 300 ppm!

    Anyway, maybe those egghead scientists are wrong and reaching 600 or 800 ppm won’t cause the Earth to warm 3 or 4 more degrees C. Maybe the methane clathrates won’t release gigatons of methane. Maybe the ice sheets won’t melt. It’s a cool experiment we’re running and too bad we won’t be alive to see how it turns out. A thousand years from now humans just might be cursing us. But fuck ’em. I got mine now.

  9. john says:

    The US Military is highly regarded by most Americans. The risk their lives so that you may enjoy the freedom to insult them.
    Most Americans consider the people who serve in the US military to be honorable men.
    Perhaps you also consider Gen Dempesy USMC and Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to also be dishonorable?
    Anyone else you care to insult? Perhaps the Pope?

    http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/files/2014/02/USN-Arctic-Roadmap-2014.pdf
    http://www.stripes.com/promotions/2.1066/pacom-not-waiting-on-politics-to-plan-for-climate-change-challenges-1.297433
    Its not just the US Navy, who are actually probably the most conservatibe of all branches)

  10. john says:

    hmmm sorry left to make some popcorn now let’s see who else deserves to be insulted for believing all that trash about “global warming”
    hmmm Israel? They are stong believers in the dangers of AGWhttp://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Climate-change-puts-5m-Israelis-at-risk-of-severe-flooding-events-330695
    Who wants to take a swing at them?
    And Teach both of those scientists work for fossil fuel producers/users

  11. jl says:

    Yes-an interglacial period is “a geological interval of warmer global average temperatures lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age.” In other words, the “warmer than average “temps are normal, and, within the above mentioned time period, will cool again. Here I thought it would get so hot we wouldn’t even be here. “Maybe the ice sheets won’t melt.” Maybe climate astrologers will remember that they’ve melted naturally in the past, with no SUVs to be found. And you’ve nothing to dispel the fact that no matter what happens, the alarmists will always blame it on man’s additional CO2.

  12. Jl says:

    “Most Americans consider people who serve in the US military to be honorable men.” That’s true. Now, why don’t you be honorable and show us your polling of those honorable men that they all believed in global warming. Good luck.

  13. Jeffery says:

    And you’ve nothing to dispel the fact that no matter what happens, the alarmists will always blame it on man’s additional CO2.

    You confuse your ill-informed opinions with facts. But that’s diagnostic for RWNJs.

    Your understanding of the world around you is limited, making it difficult to converse with you on factual matters.

    So for me, if the average global surface temperature started to drop I’d look for the physical cause, since I don’t believe in magic. You see, there are physical processes that can cause significant cooling, just as physical processes, e.g., CO2, that can cause significant warming. What’s your hypothesis for how CO2 causes cooling?

    It’s a fact that CO2 causes warming, but it’s not the only process that can cause warming. Other processes can cause cooling. None of it is magic.

  14. Jeffery says:

    show us your polling of those honorable men that they all believed in global warming.

    This is a common tactic of dishonest debaters. The claim was that the US Military is preparing for global warming (this is a fact, by the way). Your dishonest counter is that since not everyone in the military has sworn to this, global warming is a hoax.

    This is the same tactic you use when you claim that a climate realist driving a car proves that global warming is a hoax.

  15. Bob says:

    Pass me some of that popcorn John.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Denialists be desperate.

  17. Jl says:

    “That’s a common tactic of dishonorable debaters.” Really? Asking for proof? Interesting. Actually, a common tactic for dishonorable debaters is to provide a rebuttal to something that’s only in your head. I’ve never said the U.S. Navy doesn’t believe in global warming, I said that if one is to make the assertion that the entire Navy believes that, it should be easy to show, otherwise the honorable thing to do would be to admit there’s no proof of anyone believing in anything of the sort (though obviously some do).Rather, admit that this was on orders from the boss of the entire Navy, Obama. “That’s the same tactic you use when you claim a climate realist driving a car proves global warming is a hoax.” Show me where I’ve ever said that. Hoaxers proclaiming the end of the world and not practicing what they preach doesn’t mean global warming is a hoax (though it is), it simply means they’re hypocrites.

  18. Jl says:

    “What is your hypothesis for how CO2 causes cooling?” I don’t know-what’s yours? I never said CO2 causes cooling. Again, there’s a lot in your head that isn’t in the real world. “Since I don’t believe in magic.” Thanks for the personal info, but nobody’s talking about magic but you. Natural processes have caused cooling and warming, and they always will. There’s no proof that after 4 billion years that’s not happening now. “You confuse ill-informed opinions with facts.” No, it’s a fact that everything that happens, or doesn’t happen, is blamed on global warming by the alarmists.

  19. […] A recent study from the University of Georgia shows differences in brain structure according to how trusting people are of others. The research may have implications for future treatments of psychological conditions such as autism, said the study's …A recent study from the University of Georgia shows differences in brain structure according to how ….. […]

Pirate's Cove