Why is Crick denying the failure of the AGW Models?
Because I place the truth above politics
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why is Crick denying the failure of the AGW Models?
Why is Crick denying the failure of the AGW Models?
Because I place the truth above politics
The biggest problem with their man made global warming theory is CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature change.
We are 16 years past the global warming cycle that ended in 1998 even as CO2 rate continues to soar thanks to China. There was a period from 1940 to 1975 that the earth cooled for 35 years during mans carbon spewing automobile history. If we make it past that 35 year stretch with no warming their made global warming above 1998 temp, the theory will be proven wrong for sure.
.
An excellent study examining failures in GCMs to foresee wind changes caused by rising SSTs and thus see the ENSO changes that caused the hiatus.
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/syphilip_cld08.pdf
A list of links to sixteen peer reviewed papers comparing climate models to observations.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/papers-on-models-vs-observations/
The biggest problem with their man made global warming theory is CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature change.
We are 16 years past the global warming cycle that ended in 1998 even as CO2 rate continues to soar thanks to China. There was a period from 1940 to 1975 that the earth cooled for 35 years during mans carbon spewing automobile history. If we make it past that 35 year stretch with no warming their made global warming above 1998 temp, the theory will be proven wrong for sure.
.
I'm glad to see someone aware of the cooling period between 1941 and 1979. Would you happen to have any idea why that took place? Can you explain why warming resumed with a passion after 1979?
As to lagging versus leading - what in heaven's name makes you think that one process (increased temperatures taking CO2 out of ocean sequestration) creates any restraints on another (CO2 absorbing infrared radiation)?
Absorbing and emitting do not equal warmingThe biggest problem with their man made global warming theory is CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature change.
We are 16 years past the global warming cycle that ended in 1998 even as CO2 rate continues to soar thanks to China. There was a period from 1940 to 1975 that the earth cooled for 35 years during mans carbon spewing automobile history. If we make it past that 35 year stretch with no warming their made global warming above 1998 temp, the theory will be proven wrong for sure.
.
I'm glad to see someone aware of the cooling period between 1941 and 1979. Would you happen to have any idea why that took place? Can you explain why warming resumed with a passion after 1979?
As to lagging versus leading - what in heaven's name makes you think that one process (increased temperatures taking CO2 out of ocean sequestration) creates any restraints on another (CO2 absorbing infrared radiation)?
The biggest problem with their man made global warming theory is CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature change.
We are 16 years past the global warming cycle that ended in 1998 even as CO2 rate continues to soar thanks to China. There was a period from 1940 to 1975 that the earth cooled for 35 years during mans carbon spewing automobile history. If we make it past that 35 year stretch with no warming their made global warming above 1998 temp, the theory will be proven wrong for sure.
.
I'm glad to see someone aware of the cooling period between 1941 and 1979. Would you happen to have any idea why that took place? Can you explain why warming resumed with a passion after 1979?
As to lagging versus leading - what in heaven's name makes you think that one process (increased temperatures taking CO2 out of ocean sequestration) creates any restraints on another (CO2 absorbing infrared radiation)?
What's makes you think that CO2 drives temperature on planet Earth, Mann's Tree Rings?
Jesus! Are you really that gullible?
Absorbing and emitting do not equal warmingThe biggest problem with their man made global warming theory is CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature change.
We are 16 years past the global warming cycle that ended in 1998 even as CO2 rate continues to soar thanks to China. There was a period from 1940 to 1975 that the earth cooled for 35 years during mans carbon spewing automobile history. If we make it past that 35 year stretch with no warming their made global warming above 1998 temp, the theory will be proven wrong for sure.
.
I'm glad to see someone aware of the cooling period between 1941 and 1979. Would you happen to have any idea why that took place? Can you explain why warming resumed with a passion after 1979?
As to lagging versus leading - what in heaven's name makes you think that one process (increased temperatures taking CO2 out of ocean sequestration) creates any restraints on another (CO2 absorbing infrared radiation)?
I'm glad to see someone aware of the cooling period between 1941 and 1979. Would you happen to have any idea why that took place? Can you explain why warming resumed with a passion after 1979?
As to lagging versus leading - what in heaven's name makes you think that one process (increased temperatures taking CO2 out of ocean sequestration) creates any restraints on another (CO2 absorbing infrared radiation)?
What's makes you think that CO2 drives temperature on planet Earth, Mann's Tree Rings?
Jesus! Are you really that gullible?
Just so we know where you stand, are you rejecting the greenhouse effect?
An excellent study examining failures in GCMs to foresee wind changes caused by rising SSTs and thus see the ENSO changes that caused the hiatus.
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/syphilip_cld08.pdf
Bumped for the science deniers and skook and frank who don't want you to see my posts.
You're not answering my question. I want to know whether you accept or reject the greenhouse effect. I might take it from what you've just posted that you accept it, but that piece is so scurrilously deceptive, I don't believe I can trust it to indicate anything. I want to hear it from you.
Do you believe gases in the atmosphere absorb infrared and raise the Earth's (land, air and sea) temperatures? It's a yes or no question.
Why is Crick denying the failure of the AGW Models?
Because I place the truth above politics
The biggest problem with their man made global warming theory is CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature change.
We are 16 years past the global warming cycle that ended in 1998 even as CO2 rate continues to soar thanks to China. There was a period from 1940 to 1975 that the earth cooled for 35 years during mans carbon spewing automobile history. If we make it past that 35 year stretch with no warming their made global warming above 1998 temp, the theory will be proven wrong for sure.
.
I'm glad to see someone aware of the cooling period between 1941 and 1979. Would you happen to have any idea why that took place? Can you explain why warming resumed with a passion after 1979?
As to lagging versus leading - what in heaven's name makes you think that one process (increased temperatures taking CO2 out of ocean sequestration) creates any restraints on another (CO2 absorbing infrared radiation)?
Why is Crick denying the failure of the AGW Models?
Because I place the truth above politics
Were politics not involved this travesty of a "theory" would have died its well deserved death 15 years ago.
Why is Crick denying the failure of the AGW Models?
Because I place the truth above politics
Were politics not involved this travesty of a "theory" would have died its well deserved death 15 years ago.
The biggest problem with their man made global warming theory is CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature change.
We are 16 years past the global warming cycle that ended in 1998 even as CO2 rate continues to soar thanks to China. There was a period from 1940 to 1975 that the earth cooled for 35 years during mans carbon spewing automobile history. If we make it past that 35 year stretch with no warming their made global warming above 1998 temp, the theory will be proven wrong for sure.
.
I'm glad to see someone aware of the cooling period between 1941 and 1979. Would you happen to have any idea why that took place? Can you explain why warming resumed with a passion after 1979?
As to lagging versus leading - what in heaven's name makes you think that one process (increased temperatures taking CO2 out of ocean sequestration) creates any restraints on another (CO2 absorbing infrared radiation)?