Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[flacaltenn]

Hey BobGNote::

In that graph you just posted, the patriotic red, white and blue thingy, -- did you notice that the last 8 or 10 data points are pretty indeterminate in slope? Of course you didn't.. It's just a hint you should double down and scream louder....

Let's go over the latest hockey-stick graph. Notice how CO2 and warming are both on a sharp upswing, indicating related acceleration, in warming.

If that's a hockey stick -- Florida is a real penis.. Or does everything look like a hockey stick when you're stoned?

 

[bobgnote]

Moron believes this crapola!

Wallyfucktard, you are moronic, in that you posted how CO2 removes from the atmosphere, following page after page, of this thread and others, describing how CO2 exchanges with water, to become carbonic acid and carbonate.

You are SO stupid, you then decided you'd jerk at me some more, so fuck off, you dumb bitch. You can't read any of the graphs, and you are probably dying of something, worse than CRS.

 

[bobgnote]

Hey BobGNote::

In that graph you just posted, the patriotic red, white and blue thingy, -- did you notice that the last 8 or 10 data points are pretty indeterminate in slope? Of course you didn't.. It's just a hint you should double down and scream louder....

Let's go over the latest hockey-stick graph. Notice how CO2 and warming are both on a sharp upswing, indicating related acceleration, in warming.

If that's a hockey stick -- Florida is a real penis.. Or does everything look like a hockey stick when you're stoned?

If I did get stoned, you'd still look like a gay piece of shit, if I had to look at you. Note the graph came from .gov, dumber-than-shit.

Don't you like your graph, anymore? Where did you load YOUR graph? Not from .gov?

 

[code1211]

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

Another constant is that he's wrong.

Ignore the facts. Facts can change. His opinions will never change.

Speak in complete thoughts please.

Did you have a thought you wanted me to complete for you?

 

[saveliberty]

Rather than attempting to improperly parse the abstract, why not look at the contextual understandings provided by the actual text of the research paper?

"Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf



of course it is important to realize that Dr Hansen's considerations took place back pre-2000 in an era when our planetary CO2 emissions were significantly lower than they currently are. If we had been prepared to act decisively and aggressively to tackle climate change back 12+ years ago, the more gradualist approach suggested by Hansen in this post, might well have had a shot at producing some good results, after a decade where the rate of emission increase has more than doubled it seems much more a case of wishful thinking on the part of Dr Hansen.

He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels. Remember? Scenario's A, B, and of course C. Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there. Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

 

[westwall]

W know you didn't compile this list on your own.

Of course I didn't. Good scientists don't waste time re-inventing the wheel. I found a good site that had a whole passel of papers that addressed the issue. Makes sense...no?

Hint:
When you print unoriginal work you are supposed to include CITATIONS so that others can, if they wish, go to the original and verify it and/or or see it in its original context. It also helps to keep you from looking like you're taking credit for someone else's work.

The various papers are listed on at least 5 different sites i know of, and guess what, no one posted who compiled the original lists. Sorry, if there were one I'd surely have posted it. But as there wasn't I couldn't.

 

[westwall]

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

Another constant is that he's wrong.

Ignore the facts. Facts can change. His opinions will never change.

Speak in complete thoughts please.

Why bother, you're incapable of understanding them anyway.

 

[westwall]

Moron believes this crapola!

Wallyfucktard, you are moronic, in that you posted how CO2 removes from the atmosphere, following page after page, of this thread and others, describing how CO2 exchanges with water, to become carbonic acid and carbonate.

You are SO stupid, you then decided you'd jerk at me some more, so fuck off, you dumb bitch. You can't read any of the graphs, and you are probably dying of something, worse than CRS.

Poor beligerent foul mouthed child. I hope you don't speak that way in front of your mother!

 

[westwall]

Another constant is that he's wrong.

Ignore the facts. Facts can change. His opinions will never change.

Speak in complete thoughts please.

Did you have a thought you wanted me to complete for you?

Doubtful, he has a hard time generating them.

 

[bobgnote]

Moron believes this crapola!

Wallyfucktard, you are moronic, in that you posted how CO2 removes from the atmosphere, following page after page, of this thread and others, describing how CO2 exchanges with water, to become carbonic acid and carbonate.

You are SO stupid, you then decided you'd jerk at me some more, so fuck off, you dumb bitch. You can't read any of the graphs, and you are probably dying of something, worse than CRS.

Poor beligerent foul mouthed child. I hope you don't speak that way in front of your mother!

How does your mommy talk to you, Wally? Does she call you a dumbass bitch, for quoting, then waiting 10 lines, before you reply? Does she call you the stupidest bitch at the Log Cabin Club, for being unable to read a damn graph, since you like to let her catch you jerking it, with your wingpunks under the bed, while you wait 10 lines, to punk up some kind of reply?

Does your mommy bake you brownies, if you go over to the flame zone, so she can call you the 'c'-word?

:

 

[Old Rocks]

He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels. Remember? Scenario's A, B, and of course C. Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there. Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days. It is a feedback from the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. There was the same amount of water on this planet when the CO2 levels plunged, and the oceans surface was frozen nearly to the equator. There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.

From the time of Svante Arrhenious until present, nobody has failed to take into account the role of water vapor in the atmosphere. Simply another talking point of the right in order to impress the ignorant and gullable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days. It is a feedback from the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. There was the same amount of water on this planet when the CO2 levels plunged, and the oceans surface was frozen nearly to the equator. There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.

From the time of Svante Arrhenious until present, nobody has failed to take into account the role of water vapor in the atmosphere. Simply another talking point of the right in order to impress the ignorant and gullable.

So in 9 days there'll be no water vapor in the atmosphere? What does your moronic "Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days" mean? That water vapor is not a factor in Earth climate because Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days?

What was the water vapor content in the Vostok Ice cores

 

[wirebender]

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Anyone who actually believes that CO2 is any sort of a driver in the atmosphere simply doesn't understand the science. Only a small fraction of CO2's absorption range is not already taken up by the vastly more abundant water vapor and then there is the fact that CO2 has no mechanism by which to cause warming in the first place. CO2 scatters IR which is a cooling mechanism.

 

[wirebender]

Poor beligerent foul mouthed child. I hope you don't speak that way in front of your mother!

He shoud just come out of the closet. The nature of his abnormally vehement hostility is clearly due to tightly repressed homosexuality. It just comes leaking out around whatever barrier he has tried to erect to hold it in. I doubt that he is capable of speaking in any sort of beligerent terms to his mother. Another reason for the excessive hostility here on this board and wherever he goes out of her sight to vent. She is probably the reason he is trying so hard to repress his homosexuality.

 

[wirebender]

There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.

Considering that you know that the poles enjoyed a tropical climate prior to the decent into the present ice age, exactly why do you find it troubling that the exit out of the present ice age would see us moving back towards the natural and predominant state of the earth's historical climate, ie no ice at all at one or both of the poles?

 

[wirebender]

So in 9 days there'll be no water vapor in the atmosphere? What does your moronic "Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days" mean? That water vapor is not a factor in Earth climate because Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days?

It sounded as if the water vapor works in shifts and does 10 days on, at which time it clocks out and exits the atmosphere and the next shift comes on cold and uses the next 10 days to warm up at which time it clocks out for the next "cold" shift to clock in.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels. Remember? Scenario's A, B, and of course C. Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there. Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Really? How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course I didn't. Good scientists don't waste time re-inventing the wheel. I found a good site that had a whole passel of papers that addressed the issue. Makes sense...no?

Hint:
When you print unoriginal work you are supposed to include CITATIONS so that others can, if they wish, go to the original and verify it and/or or see it in its original context. It also helps to keep you from looking like you're taking credit for someone else's work.

The various papers are listed on at least 5 different sites i know of, and guess what, no one posted who compiled the original lists. Sorry, if there were one I'd surely have posted it. But as there wasn't I couldn't.

You only have to post the website you cut and paste the list from.

But you won't because you don't want anyone to know what website it is and/or you wanted people to think you had compiled the list yourself.

 

[bobgnote]

Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days. It is a feedback from the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. There was the same amount of water on this planet when the CO2 levels plunged, and the oceans surface was frozen nearly to the equator. There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.

From the time of Svante Arrhenious until present, nobody has failed to take into account the role of water vapor in the atmosphere. Simply another talking point of the right in order to impress the ignorant and gullable.

Arrhenious didn't anticipate huffing, by wingpunks, in the global exchanges.

Years later, Hansen also omitted this significant source of GHGs and poisons.

As I write this, stupid bitch Zakaria is editorializing, for fracking. "Let's figure out how to make fracking cleaner and safer. The process is manageable . . ." Sure it is, fuckup. That's why toluene and benzene are used, to permanently pollute fracking wells, while tapwater can be ignited! Let's manage that shit, with tiny, little heads, doing the thinking.

Look at the little, bug-eyed head, on Fareed Zakaria:

 

[code1211]

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days. It is a feedback from the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. There was the same amount of water on this planet when the CO2 levels plunged, and the oceans surface was frozen nearly to the equator. There was the same amount of water on the planet when the CO2 levels were very high, and the poles enjoyed a tropical climate.

From the time of Svante Arrhenious until present, nobody has failed to take into account the role of water vapor in the atmosphere. Simply another talking point of the right in order to impress the ignorant and gullable.

So in 9 days there'll be no water vapor in the atmosphere? What does your moronic "Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days" mean? That water vapor is not a factor in Earth climate because Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days?

What was the water vapor content in the Vostok Ice cores

I've asked him what the point is of this line of thought when the amount of water vapor is content regardless of the life of each little molecule.

No satisfactory response yet.