The Planet is Heating Up Faster than Models Predict -- James Hansen

[Captain Caveman]

You say that "in the other hand", I throw them [scientists] under the bus with sex and gender". What have I said regarding sex and gender that you believe throws scientists under the bus.

PS: That should have been "ON one hand..." and "ON the other hand...".

When it comes to science, you're what is known as, "A cherry picker"

 

[jc456]

Let’s address the elephant in the room, if these consensus fks constantly have to recalculate, it proves they don’t believe consensus either and proves us right!

 

[jc456]

This doesn't involve you. There are a great many things in the world that don't involve you. Grow up and learn when to step back.

Sanctimonious much

 

[Crick]

When it comes to science, you're what is known as, "A cherry picker"

Did you discover that I had never said anything about sex and gender here?

 

[Crick]

Every time their models are wrong climate cultists claim that it only proves their theory correct. This is exactly what religious fanatics do when their doomsday prophecies fail.

Can you show us an example of one of those climate cultists making such a claim?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Did you discover that I had never said anything about sex and gender here?

Your posts speak volumes.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Can you show us an example of one of those climate cultists making such a claim?

James Hansen, from the article in the OP.

 

[Crick]

James Hansen, from the article in the OP.

He made no such claim either in the article or in his study. If you disagree, let's see a quote or two.

 

[Crick]

Your posts speak volumes.

Not about sex or gender. When are you going to retract your charge?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

He made no such claim either in the article or in his study. If you disagree, let's see a quote or two.

Okay this is the part where CNN admits that the theory has been falsified: "The planet is on track to heat up at a much faster rate than scientists have previously predicted..."

And this is what Hansen says in the paper: "We find that Earth’s climate is very sensitive—more sensitive than the best estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—which implies that there is a great amount of climate change ‘in the pipeline.’"

 

[jc456]

Can you show us an example of one of those climate cultists making such a claim?

Didn’t you just post James Hansen recalibrated his data?

Hahaha

 

[Crick]

Okay this is the part where CNN admits that the theory has been falsified: "The planet is on track to heat up at a much faster rate than scientists have previously predicted..."

The theory is not the product or the property of CNN. CNN would not be "admit"ting anything about the theory and their statement is not a falsification of the theory.

And this is what Hansen says in the paper: "We find that Earth’s climate is very sensitive—more sensitive than the best estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—which implies that there is a great amount of climate change ‘in the pipeline.’"

Neither of these indicate Hansen was claiming the theory was correct because a model had failed. Climate sensitivity is not a model input, it is an emergent parameter.

 

[jc456]

The theory is not the product or the property of CNN. CNN would not be "admit"ting anything about the theory and their statement is not a falsification of the theory.

Neither of these indicate Hansen was claiming the theory was correct because a model had failed. Climate sensitivity is not a model input, it is an emergent parameter.

He recalibrated

 

[ding]

This doesn't involve you. There are a great many things in the world that don't involve you. Grow up and learn when to step back.

It's a public forum and I'm just trying to help you get the answers you so desperately seek.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The theory is not the product or the property of CNN. CNN would not be "admit"ting anything about the theory and their statement is not a falsification of the theory.

Neither of these indicate Hansen was claiming the theory was correct because a model had failed. Climate sensitivity is not a model input, it is an emergent parameter.

He's saying that even more correct than before because the theory failed.

 

[ding]

Climate sensitivity is not a model input, it is an emergent parameter.

It's horseshit is what it is. You claim temperature will increase by 5C by 2100. CO2 is predicted to be ~580 ppm by 2100. That's roughly a doubling of the pre-industrial revolution CO2 level of 300 ppm. So CO2 - according to your own science -should increase atmospheric temperature by 1C. Which means your projection is 1 part CO2 and 4 parts feedback from CO2. That's ridiculous.

Here's how ridiculous it is... Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

Here's the ridiculous part... we know for a fact that GHG are only 44% efficient due to convection, but we are expected to believe that CO2 is 500% efficient.

 

[Crick]

He's saying that even more correct than before because the theory failed.

Why don't you try again and shoot for a little more intelligibility.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Why don't you try again and shoot for a little more intelligibility.

Sure: He's saying that it's even more correct than before because the theory failed.

 

[Crick]

Sure: He's saying that it's even more correct than before because the theory failed.

I take it "He" is James Hansen. I cannot tell what "it" is that's more correct then before and I assume "theory" is AGW. But AGW has not failed and Hansen never suggested that it had. Thus, I still don't have a fucking clue what you're trying to say.

 

[Flash]

When it comes to science, you're what is known as, "A cherry picker"

A cherry picking Environmental Wacko with a degree from the University of Google majoring in Cut and Paste.

She needs to fixing her husband a sandwich and stop worrying her little head about silly things like this.