Real scientists laugh at Murray the fool and fraud.
CO2 - net emission not human caused - Dr. Salby
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
FC, I know you mean well. But you are simply parroting what was thought to be correct in the late 1980s. Did you watch the video above of Salby's presentation? Very convincing!
Almost every requirement for Hansen's hypothesis to be correct is missing!
Watch the video, then give us your comments.
Piezoe, I know you try very hard to sound smart, but really, CO2 is still earth's most important greenhouse gas.
And the article I reference is from 2010 and is the latest science showing that CO2 levels act as earth's thermostat.........because CO2 is an important ghg.
There is no such thing as Hansen's hypothesis.
Last edited:
Hansen's Hypothesis: In the late 1970s, James Hansen begin to develop models of the Earths atmosphere while working at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. By 1981 Hansen's model development resulted in a well known publication in Science in which it was concluded that rising CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to warming at the Earth's surface. On the basis of this work, which used a simple, one-dimensional model incorporating both radiative and convection effects to simulate temperature as a function of altitude, Hansen later predicted that measured temperatures "would rise out of the climate noise by 1990", less than nine years hence! By 1988, Hansen and his colleagues had developed a general model. This model led Hansen to modify his earlier prediction, and predict instead that rising greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, in the atmosphere would "within the next few decades" lead to global warming, and that the increase in CO2 was likely due to human activity.
An hypothesis is a construct in science that is based on educated guesswork. Both the guess that rising CO2 was due to human activity, and the assumption of positive feedback whereby a small increase in CO2 led to a relatively large effect, were, in 1988, guesses on Hansen's part
Hansen's 1988 guess, that human activity was causing atmospheric CO2 to rise and this, in term, based on his assumption of positive feedback, would lead to rising temperatures, became known as Hansen's hypothesis.
An hypothesis is a construct in science that is based on educated guesswork. Both the guess that rising CO2 was due to human activity, and the assumption of positive feedback whereby a small increase in CO2 led to a relatively large effect, were, in 1988, guesses on Hansen's part
Hansen's 1988 guess, that human activity was causing atmospheric CO2 to rise and this, in term, based on his assumption of positive feedback, would lead to rising temperatures, became known as Hansen's hypothesis.
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.
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.
Fraud, that is a great example that you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. Simply a parrot regurgitating. Perhaps, before you open your beak again, you should do a little research. Squawk! Squawk!
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.
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.
Link? Guaranteed it is from some right wing AGW denier site paid for by the Koch bros and co.
There is no such thing as HH. It's called the greenhouse effect and it was talked about many years before James Hansen. But the denier machine tries to ad hom and reduce the argument to one person.
If one google's it the HH that comes up is for a different Hansen.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hansen's hypothesis
\
In fact, what piehole stupidly calls the "Hansen Hypothesis" was thought of long ago...
Svante Arrhenius
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Again, for fuller discussion follow the link at right.)
In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.
It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Svante Arrhenius
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Again, for fuller discussion follow the link at right.)
In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.
It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm