In short, with regards to AGW, piezoe is a fool and a liar....... like Murray Salby.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CO2 - net emission not human caused - Dr. Salby
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
LOL, poor FC
Man, your own posts prove you wrong. You know why? Because you are right about us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but guess what? There has been no significant warming. If CO2 was a significant driver of heat, we would have seen an increase in temps.
Its actually the other way around....temps rise BEFORE CO2 increases. Even the AGW nutters admit that.
Wow, you are ignorant.
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/historical03.gif
When this global warming business first begin to be talked about I think the natural inclination of most of us was just to accept that it must be right. It wasn't until much later, when observation upon observation inconsistent with Hansen's original conjecture began to surface, that we begin to question. By then the issue had already become politicized, and Hansen had let himself get emotionally involved -- something incompatible with good science!. And now we find that none of the models so far have shown any predictive ability. And Salby points out that no model is even consistent with any other model. We are learning how difficult it is to model climate, despite all the knowledge we have gained about the Earths climate in the past 25 years.I agree, excellent observations.
A few years ago when I first looked into this... I was expecting to find evidence confirming the agw hypothesis.
I remember looking for experimental evidence or statistically validation and all I ever found were models.
Having traded for a living for about 7 years (a decade ago) and having developed my own "models"... the first thing I wanted to know is how the models did on the real time data.
I was amazed when I found out.. there was no experimental data, the models failed in real time and that the statistics showed co2 closely followed but lagged temperature change up and down... both in the historical record and in the instrumental data.
At this stage... I started to equate... AGW nutters with the Larry Williams financial systems type sellers.
I am still just enough of a sucker to believe someone out there will develop a usable model and share it with us... but I doubt it will come from scientists who are paid by govt to find warming.
When this global warming business first begin to be talked about I think the natural inclination of most of us was just to accept that it must be right. It wasn't until much later, when observation upon observation inconsistent with Hansen's original conjecture began to surface, that we begin to question. By then the issue had already become politicized, and Hansen had let himself get emotionally involved -- something incompatible with good science!. And now we find that none of the models so far have shown any predictive ability. And Salby points out that no model is even consistent with any other model. We are learning how difficult it is to model climate, despite all the knowledge we have gained about the Earths climate in the past 25 years.
You should learn to read the posts ahead to avoid looking even more foolish.
Arrhenius was brilliant. Were he alive today, he would be the first to reject his own hypothesis that CO2 from man's activities was responsible for raising the Earths temperature. And thanks for putting me in the same company with Salby, whom I regard as one of the top atmospheric physicists.
In short, with regards to AGW, piezoe is a fool and a liar....... like Murray Salby.
It will only take a couple of decades to prove conclusively that Salby and piezoe are completely correct regarding AGW.
Arrhenius was brilliant. Were he alive today, he would be the first to reject his own hypothesis that CO2 from man's activities was responsible for raising the Earths temperature. And thanks for putting me in the same company with Salby, whom I regard as one of the top atmospheric physicists.
So where is the link showing the "Hansen Hypothesis" is a thing. Google turns up nothing. I just proved you wrong by showing that Arrhenius was the first to state the obvious phenomena in 1896. There is no "Hansen Hypothesis" and Arrhenius would certainly not reject his own hypothesis since CO2 is still very much an important greenhouse gas.
Just what is your major malfunction? Are you just trolling?
Last edited:
Do you know what the term "draft" statement means?
Hint, it is not related to beer. LOL
Do you know what the term "draft" statement means?
Hint, it is not related to beer. LOL
Do you know what the term "daft" means?
Hint, it is not related to you being intelligent.