SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong

SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong10-02-2020 19:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen famously warned Congress almost 30 years ago to the day that human activities had put the world on the path to disaster, but two scientists now say the global warming "godfather's" predictions were wrong. Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue compared Hansen's temperature predictions to real-world observations and found his supposedly "highly unlikely" forecast with the least amount of warming was the most accurate. "Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16," Michaels and Maue wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/godfather-global-warming-was-wrong/
11-02-2020 02:03
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	What's 30 years precise measurements, compared to hundreds of thousands of years worth of proxy, analog, and virtual data? 30 years is barely a dot, on the hockey-stick graph.
11-02-2020 02:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: What's 30 years precise measurements, compared to hundreds of thousands of years worth of proxy, analog, and virtual data? 30 years is barely a dot, on the hockey-stick graph. I think that's why you didn't make the list
11-02-2020 03:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/godfather-global-warming-was-wrong/ "Cato Institute scientists " That's the koch brothers https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought They work hard at it.
11-02-2020 04:49
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/godfather-global-warming-was-wrong/ "Cato Institute scientists " That's the koch brothers https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought They work hard at it. I wish you could quote science at some point. It's stressful. But as you and some others have said, details are not important. The attached graph shows no warming for your choice of 2 time frames. One is 36 years and the other is 37 years. The IPCC states that 30 years demonstrates a trend. This is when the IPCC debunked their report saying there was a 15 year global warming hiatus. And when we went from warming which was mild, the IPCC issued a brand new report from a brand new group 1 year later saying the world was doomed. It's really sad that all the IPCC can say is "models" and they never say observed glacial melt over the last 10 years because observed glacial melt is ignored. Junk Science. And according to the graph, no warming between 1880 and 1978. That's 98 years of no warming. Is that a trend? Attached image: Edited on 11-02-2020 05:00

11-02-2020 04:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles, before 1980, CO2 levels and temperature have nothing in common. Yet global warming started in 1950 or so they say. How scientists are credible when off by 30 years, where the graph shows CO2 concentration is 1950 and is considered the start of global warming. What was the rise in ppm from 1910 to 1945? Is it comparable to 1945 to 1975? Or 1975 to 2005? 3 - 30 year trends that have nothing in common. The IPCC states that each 30 year period is a trend as is scientifically accepted. Yet there is no relationship between CO2 and global warming. This is why I consider other things. Accept the graph, the IPCC, NOAA and the EPA does. It's the same graph everyone accepts as being correct. I do have better things to do than to teach people how to read a graph. That's just too basic and if people can only repeat what they've been told, not really my problem. Please find it strange that 1944 was much warmer than 1950 but global warming started in 1950. Beginning in the late 1950s, scientists observed a steady increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere based on precise measurements. By the 1980s, the global temperature had begun to increase to such a degree that the media heard about it and began to spread the news. https://www.reference.com/science/did-global-warming-start-f1eee8032b22d762 Yep, when no warming was occurring on a 5 year average, scientists noticed warming and the media got it's headlines. If you look, from 1945 to 1980, a 35 year period, almost no change in temperature. But global warming started in 1950. To simplify, from 1940 to 1980, all temperatures in between were lower based on a 5 year average. How is that global warming related to CO2? It's their graph. Attached image: Edited on 11-02-2020 05:12
11-02-2020 05:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	What's worse, I saw one IPCC report that started out with in memory of. They were giving eulogies. And the people responsible for that report? About 10 people. When that few people control a report that decides government policy, they are the new Knights Templar. Basic physics. If 93% of global warming is in the oceans, then the oceans are the source of warming. The oceans are radiating heat and the atmosphere is absorbing it. If the atmosphere was warming the oceans then the atmosphere should be the source of the heat. This is CO2 based warming. https://principia-scientific.org/antarcticas-larsen-ice-shelf-melt-due-to-geology-not-humans/ More CO2 based warming. https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/the-dreaded-blob-may-be-back-in-the-pacific-ocean Those are 2 of the reasons why global temperatures are increasing and yes, CO2 is obviously responsible. I mean am enjoying a warm winter in Kentucky because of the warm Pacific Ocean, but that's caused by CO2 just as is the warming in Antarctica. It gets old to me when people can't consider other causes for warming. CO2 could be a health hazard but no one mentions that. Look at Beijing and LA. But we can't discuss air quality and why that matters. We also can't discuss depleted fresh water because as Harvey55 states, we can drain lakes and rivers, we don't need'em. We need cheap. Lots of people do agree with you Harvey. You're not alone.
11-02-2020 05:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Sorry about the rant ya'all. But maybe someone can consider how much CO2 heat is coming from the 2 links that I posted? And this isn't why oceans warm either; https://www.iceagenow.info/hydrothermal-vents-pumping-super-heated-water-gulf-california/ It did help California to have some severe fire seasons, but that's because of global warming. Yep, CO2 is the only answer. For me this is frustrating because it prevents any discussion from happening.
11-02-2020 05:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14475)	James___ wrote:Yep, CO2 is the only answer. For me this is frustrating because it prevents any discussion from happening. Why isn't nitrogen the answer? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2020 06:06
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Yep, CO2 is the only answer. For me this is frustrating because it prevents any discussion from happening. Why isn't nitrogen the answer? . People who say that CO2 is causing global warming state that it can not excite nitrogen. They state that atmospheric warming cannot occur when molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen collide with CO2 molecules causing them to become more excited. They state that does not happen. This means that PV = nRT = NKT is not valid. They know this to be true. Basically, if CO2 were warming the atmosphere, it would be because O2 and N2 have not increased the rate at which they cycle. But they can't show this. ie., it's colder in the polar regions because of fewer collisions between molecules in the atmosphere. This is relative to their kinetic energy. Increased KE means increased velocity which has a specific relationship to the number of collisions that molecules have. And it's these collisions which allow for a flow of energy from them which is what we consider heat to be. Gosh, thanks for asking a good question. I feel much better now.
11-02-2020 06:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14475)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Yep, CO2 is the only answer. For me this is frustrating because it prevents any discussion from happening. Why isn't nitrogen the answer? Gosh, thanks for asking a good question. I feel much better now. So, should we be releasing more nitrogen back out into the wild? ... maybe start a viral "catch & release" awareness campaign on Facebook? We gotta do something ... and the time to act is now. Hey, why don't we tax nitrogen? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2020 08:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	O2 levels have decreased by 0.06%. That's actually as a % a 6 times greater change than CO2.
11-02-2020 10:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: Those are 2 of the reasons why global temperatures are increasing and yes, CO2 is obviously responsible. I mean am enjoying a warm winter in Kentucky because of the warm Pacific Ocean, but that's caused by CO2 just as is the warming in Antarctica. It gets old to me when people can't consider other causes for warming. CO2 could be a health hazard but no one mentions that. Look at Beijing and LA. But we can't discuss air quality and why that matters. We also can't discuss depleted fresh water because as Harvey55 states, we can drain lakes and rivers, we don't need'em. We need cheap. Lots of people do agree with you Harvey. You're not alone. Pacific ocean is a long way from Kentucky. CO2 is a trace gas. Don't know where you pulled th drain the lakes crap, how about a link, to even one of my posts that state such a lie. Since you won't/can't, sort confirms, that you blatantly lie about everything, delusional.
11-02-2020 12:55
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have read and reread James posts and cannot work out if he is making fun or being serious.
11-02-2020 16:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14475)	duncan61 wrote: I have read and reread James posts and cannot work out if he is making fun or being serious. James__ is joking. He's quite the comedian. Climate_Debate is where he experiments with new material. If he gets you to laugh, he takes it to the club and tries it out on the rough crowd there. The courteous thing for you to do is to let James__ know you laughed. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Edited on 11-02-2020 16:02

11-02-2020 17:12
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have read and reread James posts and cannot work out if he is making fun or being serious. James__ is joking. He's quite the comedian. Climate_Debate is where he experiments with new material. If he gets you to laugh, he takes it to the club and tries it out on the rough crowd there. The courteous thing for you to do is to let James__ know you laughed. . Must be one of those clubs, where they throw bottles, when the show sucks. Guessing, he's not much of a comedian, and not real good a dodging bottles.
11-02-2020 17:36
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	James, don't worry, I laughed.
11-02-2020 17:42
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	LOL!!!!!

Join the debate SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Rush Limbaugh cited one of my discoveries on his show	100	03-05-2024 02:20
Real Perspective on Warming - NASA Data	17	27-04-2024 04:30
Previous Panics by Scientists	0	27-03-2024 20:35
Would You Join A New Secret Society Help Humans Live To At Least 200 Years And More ?	2	03-01-2024 20:18
Every time I say that this board is dead, someone says something to prove me wrong, but	9	01-01-2024 05:08