Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
how? There is not one single solitaire experiment to make the statement:Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
Every single one, right? As usual, you are lying, and don't give a damn even when you are caught multiple times in the same lie.
Models are of enormous use throughout the natural sciences. You tell us that you only reject shitty models, but your behavior here sets the lie to that claim. Your routinely reject all models. You reject anything you can claim is a model (whether it is or not). It is a common denier tactic. Billy Boy recently rejected two plots of pure satellite data, labeled as such, claiming they were models.
This discussion is idiotic and moot. Sea level data are not the output of models, they are direct measurements. Those measurements show that sea level is rising and the rate is accelerating. Most of that is due to thermosteric expansion. A growing amount is due to meltwater from Greenland, Antarctica and the worlds other glaciers, ice and snow.
How is it that after desperately striking out at one piece of evidence after another after another after another - violating the laws of science, of physics, of nature and of logic time and time after time, it never occurs to you to consider the possibility that you could be wrong?
Speaking of shitty models. You have been on this thread for over 5 years. From the start you were predicting cooling. In 2010, we had a warm year that matched 1998. But you kept right on predicting cooling, 2014 also matched 1998. But still you predicted cooling. Now this year is going to blow 1998 right out of the water.
What the hell kind of model are you using, Mr. Westwall? For five years you have been consistently wrong. Yet you still try to convince the rest of us that you know what you are talking about. The evidence at this point is you know nothing about climate.
You are getting senile, Mr. Westwall. You cannot point out one post where I claimed to be a geologist. I am 50 credits and a state test away from making that claim. However, for most of my life I have read articles put out by the GSA in Geology, and other peer reviewed journals. And taken trips where I looked at the geology with a USGS quad map in hand, when I could get one, for the area that I was exploring.
That is why I seriously question your claim to be a Phd Geologist. The videos from the AGU meetings have real Phd Geologists and Geophysicists presenting lectures, all of which are 180 degrees from your claims. So, you are saying all your supposed peers are completely wrong, plus being corrupt. You really sound like a crackpot making claims like that.
LOL. Yep, I have taken classes in the past that do not count toward a BS in geology. No regrets, they were classes that were revelent to what I was doing then. Every class that I have taken has taught me something.
Among other things I have learned is how to judge who is a bullshitter, and who actually knows something. I see hundreds of scientists warning of the rising sea levels. I see a poster on an internet board claiming they are all lying for money, and are corrupt. Now who should I believe?
OK, Mr. Westwall. You constantly harp on models. Yet every equation we use in physics, chemistry, biology, and geology is just a model. It is not reality, and often fails to model reality exactly. However, it does much better than guesses pulled out of the asses of amateurs.
dude, it's because a model isn't an experiment. Look up the word. It is actually a test of a hypothesis. A model is an expectation of an idea. It's cool as long as the observed data is then actually measured against it. The problem with climate models is that when they are wrong, they are not scrapped. Instead, temperature datasets are adjusted to prove them right. And s0n, that ain't right no matter how you write it in the forum. Now, so you have an experiment or not? answer the questionModels are of enormous use throughout the natural sciences. You tell us that you only reject shitty models, but your behavior here sets the lie to that claim. Your routinely reject all models. You reject anything you can claim is a model (whether it is or not). It is a common denier tactic. Billy Boy recently rejected two plots of pure satellite data, labeled as such, claiming they were models.
This discussion is idiotic and moot. Sea level data are not the output of models, they are direct measurements. Those measurements show that sea level is rising and the rate is accelerating. Most of that is due to thermosteric expansion. A growing amount is due to meltwater from Greenland, Antarctica and the worlds other glaciers, ice and snow.
How is it that after desperately striking out at one piece of evidence after another after another after another - violating the laws of science, of physics, of nature and of logic time and time after time, it never occurs to you to consider the possibility that you could be wrong?
