16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

futurecurrents · Jun 22, 2014

jem said:
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.

Is this spike in CO2 from man or not?

fhl · Jun 23, 2014

The US has <b>cooled</b>, not warmed since 1930, in spite of the fact that it is one of the world's largest emitters of co2. China didn't surpass the US until the last decade or so.

The charts have been manufactured to show warming.

What should be done with the swindlers perpetuating this hoax?

futurecurrents · Jun 23, 2014

fhl said:
The US has <b>cooled</b>, not warmed since 1930, in spite of the fact that it is one of the world's largest emitters of co2. China didn't surpass the US until the last decade or so.

The charts have been manufactured to show warming.

What should be done with the swindlers perpetuating this hoax?

They were adjusted for the urban heat island effect to make them more accurate, and the US is only 2% of the earth's surface.

What should be done with your brain? It's obvious you are not using it.

fhl · Jun 23, 2014

futurecurrents said:
They were adjusted for the urban heat island effect to make them more accurate, and the US is only 2% of the earth's surface.

What should be done with your brain? It's obvious you are not using it.

"adjusted for the urban heat island effect"

LOL

That's like "the heat is hiding in the ocean"

I don't expect that you will ever acknowledge the scam. Ever.

futurecurrents · Jun 23, 2014

fhl said:
"adjusted for the urban heat island effect"

LOL

That's like "the heat is hiding in the ocean"

I don't expect that you will ever acknowledge the scam. Ever.

I don't expect you acknowledge reality and the truth. Too stupid and gullible. There is no scam. Besides the US is only 2% of the earth's surface.

Try NOAA. Not a right wing rag.

fhl · Jun 23, 2014

It doesn't matter that the US is only 2% of the earth's surface.

If they didn't somehow 'adjust' the data to turn a cooling US into a warming US, they never would have gotten congress to pay them over two billion a year to study global warming and they couldn't have rammed through idiotic laws to prevent co2 emissions in the US.

The needed to continually adjust the data until almost half of it is now computer simulated instead of raw data to pull off the scam.

The whole thing is a pack of lies and a scam.

jem · Jun 23, 2014

the hockey stick was north american data
the the us might only be 2% of the world's surface ... but the data corrupted by Hansen and team... makes up a much higher percentage of the data used to show the world is warming.

Ffox · Jun 23, 2014

Over the last four decades, the disagreement between CO2 and temperature is even worse. Rutan points out that CO2 emissions during the last two decades were 50% higher than emissions during the preceding two decades. Yet warming didnât increase by 50%. In fact, it didnât increase at all â it STOPPED. Even though emissions increased substantially, temperature has steadily COOLED.

Yes, keep those renewables subsidies flowingâ¦

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

jem said:
the debate is over... you were living in the past arguing temperature went up .25 c but instead it stayed even or went down the last 17.5 years.

the only science the agw nutters had were the models.
CO2 went up 40%... temperature went down... the last 17 years and 6 months the models failed.

fhl · Jun 23, 2014

With regard to "they only did it in the US" excuse for the fabricated data:

"These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA

Ffox · Jun 23, 2014

Nice try, futurecurrents. But your distraction from the issue is as lame as it is outdated. Evidence which was left out of the National Science Foundation [NSF] report but which later surfaced disproved its claims. Even NSF management didnât buy them.

The NSF report was a ruse. It was produced when Salby sued his prior university to release his computer files â a university that had earlier come under criminal investigation for stealing $100,000 of Salbyâs research funds. When NSF produced its report, Salby, who had years earlier taken up a professorship at a university outside the US, wasnât even eligible for its grants.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

Judging from the reviews of his book, Salby is highly regarded in the field. Last I heard, Caltech was up there.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180

futurecurrents said:
Yeah Salby is going to a prize alright. LOL

The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying "a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies" and a "consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit." It debarred Salby from receiving federal assistance and benefits until 13 August 2012.[2]