you mean high level real scientists and astronauts how got you nutter buddy hansen kicked out of nasa for being a fraud?
16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
NASA is still cooking the books:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3991044&#post3991044
Here's all you need to know about diaper boy's hero, Hansen:
James Hansenâs Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Hansen âEmbarrassed NASAâ & âWas Never Muzzledâ
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
whether it was or not is not the point. the point is you have no science man made co2 causes warming.
you actually think the last 17 years and 6 months of cooling was caused by the 40% increase in co2?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...-follow-religious-fundamentalism/#more-111768
âClimate changeâ is a theory for which there is âno scientific proof at allâ says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a âcombination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one.â
Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.
âThe certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific âproofâ at all.â
Moore goes on to list some key facts about âclimate changeâ which are ignored by true believers.
1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.
2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.
you actually think the last 17 years and 6 months of cooling was caused by the 40% increase in co2?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...-follow-religious-fundamentalism/#more-111768
âClimate changeâ is a theory for which there is âno scientific proof at allâ says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a âcombination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one.â
Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.
âThe certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific âproofâ at all.â
Moore goes on to list some key facts about âclimate changeâ which are ignored by true believers.
1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.
2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.
If you want my personal opinion, I think it is premature to draw that specific conclusion. I would point out, however, that from the chart you posted it does seem that the most recent temperature and CO2 spike is right on schedule and likely is a natural occurrence beyond man's control. Keep in mind that CO2 in ice as a function of depth can be determined with negligible error, but reconstructing long ago atmospheric concentrations from that data is subject to quite large errors, and recently Salby has determined that large systematic errors have been included as well. The observed cyclical pattern should hold regardless however.Wow. Just wow. I'm dumbfounded.
Simple question. Do you think that it is extremely logical to conclude that this recent spike in CO2 levels is due to man? Or not.
We can determine the present day atmospheric concentration by direct measurement more accurately than we can indirectly determine concentrations that existed long ago using the proxy record. Is it possible that today's CO2 concentration peak appears a little greater than past concentration peaks only because of uncompensated systematic error incorporated into the past data derived from the proxy record? I would think so. This is a chart prepared before Salby reported the diffusion corrected data, isn't it?
Do you think that it is extremely logical to conclude that this recent spike in CO2 levels is due to man?
If you want my personal opinion, I think it is premature to draw that specific conclusion. [ICO2 spike is right on schedule and likely is a natural occurrence ][/I]
Thank you for undeniable proof that you are either stupid, crazed, lying or some combination of these things.
Your opinion is now worth squat. And that's being generous.
Ricter, now do you see why I have been so insulting to him? Can you believe this guy?
If you want my personal opinion, I think it is premature to draw that specific conclusion. [ICO2 spike is right on schedule and likely is a natural occurrence ][/I]
Thank you for undeniable proof that you are either stupid, crazed, lying or some combination of these things.
Your opinion is now worth squat. And that's being generous.
Ricter, now do you see why I have been so insulting to him? Can you believe this guy?
fc you are moron... for trying to compare ice core data directly with muana loa data.
that like comparing frozen apples with orange juice.
Science shows CO2 lags change in temps.. see the peer reviewed paper below.
"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
that like comparing frozen apples with orange juice.
Science shows CO2 lags change in temps.. see the peer reviewed paper below.
"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
You just quoted baloney modeling from when Hansen was putting out lies at NASA... before he was sacked.
Just about every recent relevant paper now says water vapor is what has the major impact on temps... was kicked out.
FC you pulled this boulder dash before... that article is based on climate modeling. Modeling which as all failed. I have pointed this out to you before.
from you link...
This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
Just about every recent relevant paper now says water vapor is what has the major impact on temps... was kicked out.
FC you pulled this boulder dash before... that article is based on climate modeling. Modeling which as all failed. I have pointed this out to you before.
from you link...
This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
fc you are moron... for trying to compare ice core data directly with muana loa data.
that like comparing frozen apples with orange juice.
Science shows CO2 lags change in temps.. see the peer reviewed paper below.
"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
Ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah, it's the CO2 levels
The debate is over jem.
And you can't answer a simple question. No surprise.