Holy shit! Do you have any ability to actually say something concrete in fifty words or less?
Let's get real.
Do you dispute any of the data presented in this chart?
Last edited:
Trump and climate change
- Thread starter Humpy
- Start date
Holy shit! Do you have any ability to actually say something concrete in fifty words or less?
Let's get real.
Do you dispute any of the data presented in this chart?
I can't fight human nature. So you will go on believing as you do, ignoring defects in your reasoning. Long after Copernicus proposed that the Earth went round the Sun, and Galileo was arrested for stating that this was true. The majority persisted in believing that the Sun went round the Earth. It was obvious to them that that must be the case, because they could see with their own eyes that the sun traveled each day from the Eastern horizon to the Western as it went round the Earth. Obviously anyone who would claim that the Earth went round the Sun was mad. And so is it with you. You can see that CO2 concentration has gone up, and you have convinced your self that temperature has increased by a few tenths of a degree, because others say it has. It is obvious, to you, that rising CO2 is causing the temperature to go up. And since man's activities put CO2 into the air, there can be no question in your mind that man is causing the temperature to rise. This is every bit as obvious to you as it was obvious that the Sun went round the Earth.Holy shit! Do you have any ability to actually say something concrete in fifty words or less?
Lets cut the huge quantities of bullshit. Do you deny that 97% of publishing climate scientists (or more) say that man is causing most of the warming over the last fifty years?
Do you dispute any of the data presented in this chart?
Once again you obfuscate and put up straw men. Just like a good paid denier machine worker for the libertarian think tanks.
Do you have any ability to actually say something concrete in fifty words or less?
Let's get real.
Do you dispute any of the data presented in that chart?
Last edited:
Just how many times are you going to post the same chart over and over again? Something the moderators specifically asked you to stop doing.
Are you afraid of facts?
Do YOU deny that the data presented is correct?
I know you would love to see the facts censored. Why is that?
Don't you agree that censorship is a very bad thing in a free society?
Last edited:
Piezoe? Are you there? Does the tank instruct you not to engage with the facts? Do you dispute any of the data presented in the chart above? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or what?
You piece of lying shit.
You piece of lying shit.
The chart that FC repeatedly posts is what is called a Gee Whiz plot because of the scale of the axes. It is designed to make small changes appear very large. The chart does a good job of concealing detail, but I agree that when looked at very closely with the z-axis correctly drawn it does appear that the temperature is leading the CO2 concentration. But frankly that is not the kind of chart one would see in a peer reviewed journal. It is more along the lines of what you would expect to find in the popular press. So I would be reluctant to draw firm conclusions from it. Notable are the lack of any estimates of error.
What seems to have escaped FC completely is that his, now infamous, chart is equally, if not more, compatible with the Salby hypothesis that temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent. (As pointed out by Jem.)
What should be of great interest to all those engaged in global warming research is Ferenc Miskolczi's papers that GISS tried to suppress. Miskolczi is a physicist and has looked at the green house effect through a physicist's eyes from an energy balance standpoint that makes sense to me, but the paper hasn't been well received by those outside the physics community. Judith Curry dismissed the paper without further comment (I doubt she gave it the study it deserves) by remarking that it redefines the greenhouse effect. This is true in a sense. But I think it would be more accurate to say that it dismisses the usual explanation for the greenhouse effect as incorrect and proposes that a correct mechanism is due to the gravitationally bounded atmosphere's conversion of the sum of the non radiative geothermal and radiative solar input fluxes to the total radiative flux exiting the atmosphere. The consequence is that the "greenhouse" effect is due to radiative pressure of thermalized photons. The details of his proposed mechanism are given in his papers. Miskolczi has demonstrated consistency between his energy balance model and the experimental data, along with a thorough examination of error. I would say that the two different explanations for the green house effect are not as incompatible as Miskolczi has implied. Nevertheless, the common explanation coming from climatologists and myself is incorrect so far as it requires that IR radiated downward toward the Earth's surface be greater than the part of the IR radiated upward from the Earth that is absorbed by the atmosphere. Miskolczi makes a convincing argument that these two radiative components must be equal, rather than one greater than the other, to satisfy fundamental energy balance requirements.
This paper and his follow up papers deserve to be thoroughly vetted by the atmospheric physics community. That hasn't happened yet, but seems to be in progress, and as yet no fatal errors been identified in Miskolczi's work by knowledgable physicists working in this area. We have not heard the end of the rift between GISS and physicists in the Miskolczi camp, but I am sure we will, because this kind of disagreement among experts can not be ignored nor swept under the rug. It reminds me of the Herbert Brown classical versus Saul Winstead non-classical carbonium ion controversy which raged on for years in the twentieth century until 3-center bonding became widely accepted, giving Winstead the edge in the argument, and Brown the edge in gentlemanly deportment.
What seems to have escaped FC completely is that his, now infamous, chart is equally, if not more, compatible with the Salby hypothesis that temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent. (As pointed out by Jem.)
What should be of great interest to all those engaged in global warming research is Ferenc Miskolczi's papers that GISS tried to suppress. Miskolczi is a physicist and has looked at the green house effect through a physicist's eyes from an energy balance standpoint that makes sense to me, but the paper hasn't been well received by those outside the physics community. Judith Curry dismissed the paper without further comment (I doubt she gave it the study it deserves) by remarking that it redefines the greenhouse effect. This is true in a sense. But I think it would be more accurate to say that it dismisses the usual explanation for the greenhouse effect as incorrect and proposes that a correct mechanism is due to the gravitationally bounded atmosphere's conversion of the sum of the non radiative geothermal and radiative solar input fluxes to the total radiative flux exiting the atmosphere. The consequence is that the "greenhouse" effect is due to radiative pressure of thermalized photons. The details of his proposed mechanism are given in his papers. Miskolczi has demonstrated consistency between his energy balance model and the experimental data, along with a thorough examination of error. I would say that the two different explanations for the green house effect are not as incompatible as Miskolczi has implied. Nevertheless, the common explanation coming from climatologists and myself is incorrect so far as it requires that IR radiated downward toward the Earth's surface be greater than the part of the IR radiated upward from the Earth that is absorbed by the atmosphere. Miskolczi makes a convincing argument that these two radiative components must be equal, rather than one greater than the other, to satisfy fundamental energy balance requirements.
This paper and his follow up papers deserve to be thoroughly vetted by the atmospheric physics community. That hasn't happened yet, but seems to be in progress, and as yet no fatal errors been identified in Miskolczi's work by knowledgable physicists working in this area. We have not heard the end of the rift between GISS and physicists in the Miskolczi camp, but I am sure we will, because this kind of disagreement among experts can not be ignored nor swept under the rug. It reminds me of the Herbert Brown classical versus Saul Winstead non-classical carbonium ion controversy which raged on for years in the twentieth century until 3-center bonding became widely accepted, giving Winstead the edge in the argument, and Brown the edge in gentlemanly deportment.
Last edited: