"Epic Climate Model Failure"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by futurecurrents, Jun 13, 2013.

  1. Arnie


    "Prof Hansen has caused controversy in the past with statements including "CEOs of fossil fuel companies should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature" and the assertion that "coal-fired power plants are factories of death".

    LOL :D :D

    This guy needs to be on teevee more. What a fucking kook.
    #11     Jun 14, 2013
  2. pspr


    NASA finally had enough of his false AGW Alarmism and forced him out. He was giving them a bad name.
    #12     Jun 14, 2013
  3. His reasoning is atrocious but you have to admire his ability to twist the truth, avoid obvious logic and his tenacity at finding errors where there are none.
    #13     Jun 14, 2013
  4. Ricter


    You want to see kook take a look at Spencer's history.
    #14     Jun 14, 2013
  5. Lucrum


    ...yet they're light years ahead of yours.
    #15     Jun 14, 2013
  6. jem


    This study shows that it was CFCs that were causing warming since the Industrial Revolution.....

    did we make this study up --- you troll.


    "Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."
    The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global...ioxide.html#jCp

    By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.
    "The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global...ioxide.html#jCp
    #16     Jun 14, 2013
  7. jem


    cern is on the verge of releasing e a study on this subject.

    here is the concluding paragraph.... of an interview...


    Let’s assume that you are able to show that cosmic radiation indeed does contribute a lot to cloud formation. What would that mean?

    I think that the experiments are important in two ways. Firstly, they would show that there is a natural source to climate change. And the other point is that it would change our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We know quite a bit about greenhouse gases. What we know little about are aerosols. These are particles that come from industry floating in the atmosphere. They surely have a cooling effect. However, we have no idea just how great this effect is. It may be small, but it may be very big. Maybe it is even big enough to offset the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.. We don’t know.

    Continue reading at ORF.at.”

    Image source: NASA, public domain image.
    #17     Jun 14, 2013
  8. jem


    1., My sentence structure does suck on this board. Too many typos and revisions without having time to check my work.

    So I accept that part of the critique.

    2. As far as twisting things...
    You should know I try never to twist things.
    I present the work of scientists... if you feel the results of co2 are being twisted its because there no results of co2.

    The post just 2 posts above stated that when you filter out the sun... there is no correlation between CO2 and warming.

    Do you understand what that means.

    zero correlation.

    "The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97.""
    #18     Jun 14, 2013
  9. Ricter


    Jaysus, if you're just going to roll over like that, then I apologize for being so harsh.
    #19     Jun 14, 2013
  10. jem


    I do not want an apology... I having more more fun calling you a guilt ridden carbon belching member of the rentier class.
    #20     Jun 14, 2013