James Hansen Wishes he Wasn’t So Right about Global Warming

[Crick]

Man contributes to the situation of the
planet and atmosphere----to a small extent. I am not sure if the contribution is as serious as Ralph Nader thought it is

I don't think I've ever read a single word from Nader on global warming. What is your opinion on the conclusions of the IPCC?

 

[irosie91]

I don't think I've ever read a single word from Nader on global warming. What is your opinion on the conclusions of the IPCC?

I didn't specify global warming. The
calculations are way beyond me and
I am always leery of PROJECTIONS INTO
THE FUTURE. The AIDS virus was
covered about 1981. Projections
at that time were that the entire
population of New York City would be
dead in the gutter by the year 2000.
As a kid we got told "look forward to
4 inches of space for each person----
and SOYLENT GREEN---I even
'ON THE BEACH"

 

[Crick]

I didn't specify global warming.

When you commented that CO2 was the basis of life and that many "schmucks" on this board don't understand organic chemistry, I assumed you were being critical of attempts to reduce or even eliminat human CO2 emissions. Were you?

The calculations are way beyond me

Which calculations?

and I am always leery of PROJECTIONS INTO THE FUTURE.

If I give you a short list of reactants and tell you I'm going to mix them in a beaker at STP, do you not think you could project into the future and tell me what chemical reactions will take place and what the products will be?

The AIDS virus was covered about 1981.

Covered? I don't know what you're saying here.

Projections at that time were that the entire population of New York City would be dead in the gutter by the year 2000.

Was the entire population of New York City exchanging bodily fluids? Who made such a projection?

As a kid we got told "look forward to
4 inches of space for each person----
and SOYLENT GREEN---

Human population is still growing. We could get there.

I even --- 'ON THE BEACH"

You left out a verb. You read it? You watched it?

I was hoping that someone with at the very least a good education in chemistry could provide us all some good foundational info about the greenhouse effect. Posters here believe a wide range of things about CO2 and infrared. Some people accept the standard theory, others believe it is vastly overstated believing that even 420 ppm is just too little material to have warmed the entire planet. Others believe the positive feedbacks from water vapor are grossly overstated. Do you have an opinion about the greenhouse effect and how much of a threat is actually posed by manmade global warming? If not, can you explain to us what you meant by your comments about CO2 being the basis of life and schmucks ignorant of organic chemistry?

 

[irosie91]

When you commented that CO2 was the basis of life and that many "schmucks" on this board don't understand organic chemistry, I assumed you were being critical of attempts to reduce or even eliminat human CO2 emissions. Were you?

Which calculations?

If I give you a short list of reactants and tell you I'm going to mix them in a beaker at STP, do you not think you could project into the future and tell me what chemical reactions will take place and what the products will be?

Covered? I don't know what you're saying here.

Was the entire population of New York City exchanging bodily fluids? Who made such a projection?

Human population is still growing. We could get there.

You left out a verb. You read it? You watched it?

I was hoping that someone with at the very least a good education in chemistry could provide us all some good foundational info about the greenhouse effect. Posters here believe a wide range of things about CO2 and infrared. Some people accept the standard theory, others believe it is vastly overstated believing that even 420 ppm is just too little material to have warmed the entire planet. Others believe the positive feedbacks from water vapor are grossly overstated. Do you have an opinion about the greenhouse effect and how much of a threat is actually posed by manmade global warming? If not, can you explain to us what you meant by your comments about CO2 being the basis of life and schmucks ignorant of organic chemistry?

no I have no opinion----someone played with my preceding post

 

[ding]

I was hoping that someone with at the very least a good education in chemistry could provide us all some good foundational info about the greenhouse effect.

Why? It's not a chemical process.

 

[ding]

You don't need a chemist. You need a physicist.

 

[EMH]

You don't need a chemist. You need a physicist.
View attachment 996999

Actually you just need the actual data...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling"


Atmospheric Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not...

THEORY REJECTED

 

[ding]

Actually you just need the actual data...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling"


Atmospheric Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not...

THEORY REJECTED

It's not theory. It's reality. It's just physics. You make people who disagree with AGW look bad.

 

[EMH]

It's not theory. It's reality. It's just physics. You make people who disagree with AGW look bad.

What is REALITY here is that Co2 increased and atmospheric temperature did not.

Your THEORY is WRONG.

You cannot answer basic climate questions.

You are a FRAUD funded by the Co2 FRAUD to keep the FRAUD going...

 

[ding]

What is REALITY here is that Co2 increased and atmospheric temperature did not.

Your THEORY is WRONG.

You cannot answer basic climate questions.

You are a FRAUD funded by the Co2 FRAUD to keep the FRAUD going...

You make people who disagree with AGW look bad.

 

[Crick]

no I have no opinion----someone played with my preceding post

My apologies then. Have an excellent day.