MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[jc456]

Chris Landsea works at the NHC ... considered far and wide as one of the foremost experts in tropical cyclones ... he was kicked of the IPCC because he differed with them on much of the IPCC's claims about hurricane frequency and strength ...

Anyone who quotes the IPCC is not a scientific authority ... so there goes your millions of websites ... ha ha ha ha ha ...

As well Judith Curry

Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues - Nature

A feature from Scientific American.

www.nature.com

 

[ReinyDays]

No one ever has presented an iota of data on how warm 120 ppm of co2 is. I have learned we need at least 150 ppm to have trees

Use calculus ... and integrate over time ... gives work performed ... currently, this is positive ... if you want to start at 0.01ºC ... then I can say truthful that the next jump will be less, and each jump thereafter, until we reach a "limit" of ≈ 3ºC ... we're actually measuring a 1ºC rise due to all causes ... you way just takes longer ...

 

[ReinyDays]

As well Judith Curry

Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues - Nature

A feature from Scientific American.

www.nature.com

Amen ... there is scientific opposition to AGW Theory ... they don't have political backing ... but they still publish in the scientific literature ...

 

[jc456]

Use calculus ... and integrate over time ... gives work performed ... currently, this is positive ... if you want to start at 0.01ºC ... then I can say truthful that the next jump will be less, and each jump thereafter, until we reach a "limit" of ≈ 3ºC ... we're actually measuring a 1ºC rise due to all causes ... you way just takes longer ...

It’s funny that lay people must be expected to personally perform some math or experiment to find information some supposed climate looney said rather than the looney provide their data. I’m laughing

 

[jc456]

Well, I’m totally not interested. It has nothing to do with what I posted. There are thousands of weather science related web sites that link CO2 with increased average earth temps. Start with NASA. Then go to the z national z science foundation….then your choice to thousands of university and govt web sites anywhere on EARTH. Find one that agrees with your stupid assertions, just one.

btw dufus, look up the definition of ” cult” .

And yet you can’t quote a one to validate your claim

 

[Dagosa]

And yet you can’t quote a one to validate your claim

I made no claim. You just did. I backed up every thing I’ve said with a reference ( s) …..NASA and 3400 other sources.

 

[jc456]

I made no claim. You just did. I backed up every thing I’ve said with a reference ( s) …..NASA and 3400 other sources.

Naw, post a quote quick draw

 

[Dagosa]

So still nothing

Yup. NASA.

 

[Dagosa]

Naw, post a quote quick draw

” NASA”

 

[Dagosa]

No one ever has presented an iota of data on how warm 120 ppm of co2 is. I have learned we need at least 150 ppm to have trees

Yes they have,. Harvard University.

 

[jc456]

Yup. NASA.

Men on the moon

 

[jc456]

Yes they have,. Harvard University.

Cool, post the data

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don’t know then ? You look it up, you’ll have a referenced proof.

When he answers, maybe I'll have to correct him, maybe I won't.

 

[Dagosa]

When he answers, maybe I'll have to correct him, maybe I won't.

Then you don’t know ? Everything I’ve said is backed up by every climate research facility in the world….like AGW is about the rate of change which is greater during the industrial revolution then at any time man has been on earth.
Simple statement, and NASA, Harvard and EXXON among thousands of others, back me up.

 

[Dagosa]

Men on the moon

Kind of a dumb statement. NASA is about the Earth too which is a fking planet in space. Space includes the earth.

 

[Dagosa]

Cool, post the data

Harvard did for me. Just Google it. I’ve posted umpteen graphs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then you don’t know ? Everything I’ve said is backed up by every climate research facility in the world….like AGW is about the rate of change which is greater during the industrial revolution then at any time man has been on earth.
Simple statement, and NASA, Harvard and EXXON among thousands of others, back me up.

Maybe you can help him out?

Can you back up his claim?

the rate of change which is greater during the industrial revolution then at any time man has been on earth.

I don't think that has been shown.

Simple statement, and NASA, Harvard and EXXON among thousands of others, back me up.

Show me.

 

[Dagosa]

When he answers, maybe I'll have to correct him, maybe I won't.

You won’t be able to, that’s why you’re afraid to go anywhere near one of these sites. You’re not motivated by actual evidence…..just made up shit.

 

[Dagosa]

I don't think that has been shown.

You don’t think. If you did, you’d look it up on an accredited web site.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's currently being researched ... I can say that the temperature increase we have experienced with the 280-400 ppm rise is more that any future temperature increase with a 400-520 ppm rise ... and the next interval will be smaller still ... this is a logarithmic relationship ...

The IPCC composite model for the RPC4.5 scenario puts the limit at roughly 3ºC ... that's the total temperature increase if we burn all the fossil fuels over the next 10,000 years ... sorry, Iowa won't be getting Missouri climate ... the warming isn't that much ...

Sorry. How is it "currently being researched"?

Are you claiming to that the current "increase in temperature" (once you adjust the baseline and add in the 'warming' trapped in the deep ocean to hide the decline since 1995) has eliminated all the variables except for CO2?