Anti-science, yeah right. Your position on the subject relies on faulty climate simulation models. and 'adjustments' to surface temperature records. GCM's that have continuously overstated the temperature and the impact of CO2. My science relies on observation, empirical data, and most of all LOGIC. Climate is a local phenomenon. In other words there's no such thing as a global climate. How you retards can't get that through your thick skulls is beyond comprehension.
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
Unfortunately, Fuji claimed the paper's findings proved the AGW hypothesis was valid.
It did no such thing. The effect from CO2 alone is too small to worry about. The scientific issue at the heart of the AGW debate is about water vapour feedback, not the impact that is "solely" due to CO2.
Yes, but it's too small to be of any concern. Even climate researchers who support your views will tell you that.
The debate isn't about the increase that is "solely" due to CO2, it's about the immense amplification that's supposed to come from water vapour in the atmosphere.
I don't expect you to get it. You still haven't figured out if water vapour is supposed to lead to warming or cooling. :thumb:
Interestingly, Mann's official C.V. credited that publication that he apparently had "absolutely nothing" to do with as one of his published works.
http://www.steynonline.com/pics/943.jpg
http://www.steynonline.com/6555/michael-e-mann-repudiates-his-own-hockey-stick
Of course, to be fair to Mann, he may not have been paying close attention. He may have been rehearsing his acceptance speech for his fake "Nobel Peace Prize".
http://climate.nasa.gov/
That's where an excellent depository of the science, observation and empirical data lies.
And Kirk, climate is not local, that's weather.
Basic failure.
Your lack of understanding of AGW, including your false statements about the influence of CO2 only confirms that you either don't know what you are talking about or are a troll.
I'm betting troll.
So let's conclude: AGW is proven and increases warming at the surface by 0.2 watts per square meter per decade, net of all factors related to increased CO2 levels.
We can move on from that solid foundation to see what share of overall warming that represents.
There's no point in discussing whether it is or isn't large enough to be a concern until we have agreed how large it actually is: 0.2 watts per square meter per decade.
This is entertaining.Interestingly, Mann's official C.V. credited that publication that he apparently had "absolutely nothing" to do with as one of his published works.
http://www.steynonline.com/pics/943.jpg
http://www.steynonline.com/6555/michael-e-mann-repudiates-his-own-hockey-stick
Of course, to be fair to Mann, he may not have been paying close attention. He may have been rehearsing his acceptance speech for his fake "Nobel Peace Prize".
You use Mark Steyn to judge Michael Mann?
Shoddy journalist Steyn, who is being sued by Mann for defamation?
Even Steyn isn't attacking Mann's work anymore, now he's down to trying to claim that calling Mann a childmolester is a matter of free speech, not defamation.
Pretty sad, even by denier standards.
The increase related "solely" to CO2 doesn't prove anything about AGW. The AGW hypothesis is primarily about water vapour feedback.
Really?
http://www.amazon.com/%22A-Disgrace...&sr=8-1&keywords=a+disgrace+to+the+profession
By the way, Steyn is also suing Mann. If you think being the subject of a lawsuit means a person's work is automatically classified as "shoddy," then you have to apply that same description to Mann.
No, actually, the water vapour feedback is not part of the 0.2 figure. Your news release explicitly stated that water vapour feedback was not included.
The AGW hypothesis is primarily about water vapour feedback, not the temperature changes due "solely" to CO2. Your paper does nothing to confirm the hypothesis.Science Daily said:
Steyn is counter-suing Mann.
Steyn was the one who called Mann a child molester as well as slandering his work.
And yes, Steyn doesn't have any legit claims against Mann's work, just a series of out of context quotes.
Sort of like one of your posts.....
Sure, that's why there are so many articles on how you should stop showering, using misters and humidifiers.
(sarcasm off)
What a stupid claim, CO2 is the driver, water vapour a feedback.
Without CO2 increasing the greenhouse effect water vapour doesn't change substantially for the planet.
You've got the details about the Sandusky comparison wrong but I can't spend all day and night correcting every one of your posts.
Moreover, what exactly about Mann's work did Steyn "slander"?
Steyn said the hockey stick graph is "fraudulent." Who would disagree with that? (And how does one slander an inanimate object, anyway?)
Ah, you're once again creating straw men by rewriting what I said.
I didn't dispute that CO2 is the driver for the projected increases in the models. I said the majority of the projected warming (about two-thirds of the total) in the models is due to the water vapour feedback.
My point is about the projected size of the impact of each, not which one is the "driver."
The impact of CO2 alone is not worth worrying about. Fuji's paper does nothing to verify the AGW hypothesis.
Who would disagree?
How about the scientists who wrote the two dozen other papers backing the same findings?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
Steyn is a hack, a paid troll who has given speeches at the Heartland Institute.
- Status
