Top-level Climate Modeler Criticizes "nonsense" of "global warming crisis"

[jamil]

57 genders and nothin on.

I see that thing you did.

 

[Ingomike]

Science deniers gonna deny. I’m no expert but it is very simple science that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
There is a reason I call this place INFoil when talking to friends/relatives.

This post really is the truly ignorant outing themselves...

 

[AtTheMurph]

My view on this is its being framed wrong. As usual it’s everyone scrapping to say they are right while continuing to pollute unchecked. Both sides should be focusing on cutting emissions regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CO2 is not pollution, no matter what you have been told.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Still waiting for someone . . . anyone . . . to provide actual evidence that CO2 is a bad, bad thing. <cricket chirping>

CO2 is good since it is a plant fertilizer and allows plants to grow better, produce more (crops) and with less water.

All that CO2 in hydrocarbons came from the biosphere previously. The biosphere used to have much, much more C)2 in it than it does today. The planet was lusher, greener and yes, warmer but life it seems prefers warmth over cold and all that CO2 did not start some run away heating event that burned up the planet.

The absurdity of the Warmists is incredible. Their dishonesty has been revealed as well. Such as Michael Mann of Penn State and his famous emails. You might have read or heard about the email that referenced they needed to "hide the decline".

What he was referencing was an attempt to protect the belief in his "hockey stick" global temperature graph. That graph was a composite of two data sets, historical tree ring temperature recreations (pre-1979) and satellite temperature readings (1979 - current).

First of all there is absolutely no reason to splice those two data sets together since the tree ring data is current! And if the current tree ring data was simple presented then it would show a decline in global temps since 1979 (hide the decline!). So he did some funky and very unscientific data manipulation to "hide the decline" because he wanted to not present the data but to present propaganda that the Warmists want to use to assume power.

 

[jamil]

October 2019? I mean. it's a quality post and all. But don't you have over 50?

 

[IndyDave1776]

CO2 is good since it is a plant fertilizer and allows plants to grow better, produce more (crops) and with less water.

All that CO2 in hydrocarbons came from the biosphere previously. The biosphere used to have much, much more C)2 in it than it does today. The planet was lusher, greener and yes, warmer but life it seems prefers warmth over cold and all that CO2 did not start some run away heating event that burned up the planet.

The absurdity of the Warmists is incredible. Their dishonesty has been revealed as well. Such as Michael Mann of Penn State and his famous emails. You might have read or heard about the email that referenced they needed to "hide the decline".

What he was referencing was an attempt to protect the belief in his "hockey stick" global temperature graph. That graph was a composite of two data sets, historical tree ring temperature recreations (pre-1979) and satellite temperature readings (1979 - current).

First of all there is absolutely no reason to splice those two data sets together since the tree ring data is current! And if the current tree ring data was simple presented then it would show a decline in global temps since 1979 (hide the decline!). So he did some funky and very unscientific data manipulation to "hide the decline" because he wanted to not present the data but to present propaganda that the Warmists want to use to assume power.

This jackass's neck is too short. It needs stretched.

 

[BugI02]

Have scientists been able to extract a function for the relationship between CO2 and temperature change? I'm not a scientist, but that's what I would want to know. Surely if they're making computer models of this, it's a basic requirement. And then the important question to answer, since such functions are testable, are changes in ppm and resulting observed changes in temperature confirmed by the function? It seems to me that the models have overpredicted temperature changes since Al's inconvenient wet dream.

You are correct, the models have never made a specific, testable prediction. They lack a long enough information timeline with reliable temp and CO2 measurements in order to have much chance of deriving that function, it is unlikely to be first order. It is my understanding that the function used in the model is one of the ones they periodically tweak in order to make the model output more closely match current reality, but when they run it to produce predictions the results don't match up and they tweak something else like cloud formation density and albedo etc