Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
that model is pretty scary because I think we would rather be warming than cooling with the population exploding as it is.
hopefully that model performs as poorly on real time data as the co2 models.
hopefully that model performs as poorly on real time data as the co2 models.
Link to model at below link.
You can download a spreadsheet with the model. Now that is what transparency looks like.
His models destroys the CO2 model including the AR5.
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
Joanne Nova is another scientist (microbiologist) who believes man is definitely contributing to global warming via CO2 emissions, but believes it's no cause for concern.
...carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that adding more to it will warm the planet, yes, absolutely, that's all well proven solid science known for years, yes. I have no disagreement with any of that. Disagreement is with how much warming there is. Is it going to be a catastrophe or is it going to be 0.5 degrees and as far as we can see the evidence the empirical evidence, and there's lots of it, all seems to point to it being around about half a degree to maybe one degree with CO2 doubling which is not the catastrophic projections that are coming out from the climate models.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
So, jem, where is the science which leads Joanne to believe in AGW?that is exactly the question we would like to see answered. I think its a throw away line to get people to not associate her with other skeptics.
But, I will say that my extrapolation or hypothesis is that adding co2 to the atmosphere when co2 is very low like after the ice age.... could help amplify some of the warming that would ahve been expected in the upswing of the cycle. What we don't know is if adding man made co2 to the current atmosphere is causing warming.
I would tend to doubt that at our current level of co2 --- doubling co2 would add any extra warming at all. One degree would seem very high given the recent rise in co2 and the lack of warming. I suspect the sun and the tides and underwater vents and volcanoes would be responsible for most of th warming and cooling right now. (unless we get so much co2 its starts blocking the sun significantly) .
But, all this is guesswork because we have seen no science saying man made co2 causes warming.
But, I will say that my extrapolation or hypothesis is that adding co2 to the atmosphere when co2 is very low like after the ice age.... could help amplify some of the warming that would ahve been expected in the upswing of the cycle. What we don't know is if adding man made co2 to the current atmosphere is causing warming.
I would tend to doubt that at our current level of co2 --- doubling co2 would add any extra warming at all. One degree would seem very high given the recent rise in co2 and the lack of warming. I suspect the sun and the tides and underwater vents and volcanoes would be responsible for most of th warming and cooling right now. (unless we get so much co2 its starts blocking the sun significantly) .
But, all this is guesswork because we have seen no science saying man made co2 causes warming.
Charts are from "Sciencespeak.com" a denier site bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests. The creator of which is NOT a climate scientist.
Come on wedodditowyou. Do you think that we are as stupid as you are?
Come on wedodditowyou. Do you think that we are as stupid as you are?
Please prove that his site is bought and paid for by fossil fuel interest. Or, are you just making shit up again? Also, please provide another model that correlates with temperature as closely as his does. From looking at the chart, his model blows away IPCC's model.
BTW - He is not even denying GW. He thinks that CO2 contributes a small percentage to warming. Apparently, you are again just regurgitating what your overloads have commanded you to state.
Climate intro: Dr David Evans earned six degrees related to modeling and applied mathematics over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University. He was instrumental in building the carbon accounting system Australia uses to estimate carbon changes in its biosphere, for the Australian Greenhouse Office.
David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) from Stanford University, B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc. from the University of Sydney. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing, and trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.
Last edited:
You are so stupid that you can't even tell what is a legitimate source of climate science or not. This one is not. It is paid for by fossil fuel interests. Science for hire. And they are NOT climate scientists. Their models are a farce.
The only way you know about this joke of source is because you read about on some other wingnut site.
Its starting to unravel for you. I saw several references lately to the Global Warming Scam (GWS). I'm seeing this acronym more and more frequently. It will replace AGW and you folks will be shunned by the adults.
Go ahead and spit and thrash and hiss with your juvenile insults. You are very close to brainless.