Trump's NASA admin Bridenstine changes his tune on AGW

[CrusaderFrank]

Jim Bridenstine, former republican congressman from Oklahoma and AGW denier, who Trump appointed to run NASA, has changed his tune. He now agrees with mainstream science that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

NASA's administrator says he switched his position on climate change because he 'read a lot'

And which observed measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would he have seen to support this change of heart?

Oh, I think I would start with the absorption spectra of the GHGs, and them move on the the melting cryosphere, increase in extreme weather events, increasing acidity of the oceans, increasing temperatures of the oceans, for a start.

So it should be simple to provide lab work showing the temperature increase when we increase CO2 from 280 to 400PPM, no?

Already has been done on a worldwide basis. We increased the GHGs, and the temperature has increased. And will continue to increase. And all of your stupidity will not change that. Go hide in your hollow moon.

LOL! No, really. Where's the lab work.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

Who else is denying the Greenhouse effect of CO2? Westwall, Skook, Silly Billy, and many more. It is not just CO2, it is also CH4, and the water vapor increase that results from those GHGs. 60 inches of rain in Houston is not catastrophic, not at all. LOL

Ha ha, you need to slow down.

 

[flacaltenn]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

Who else is denying the Greenhouse effect of CO2? Westwall, Skook, Silly Billy, and many more. It is not just CO2, it is also CH4, and the water vapor increase that results from those GHGs. 60 inches of rain in Houston is not catastrophic, not at all. LOL

Hurricanes are catastrophic. That's what hit Houston and STALLED over them. You read tea leaves as a hobby?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

Who else is denying the Greenhouse effect of CO2? Westwall, Skook, Silly Billy, and many more. It is not just CO2, it is also CH4, and the water vapor increase that results from those GHGs. 60 inches of rain in Houston is not catastrophic, not at all. LOL

LIAR!

None of us deny the effects of certain gases. What we deny is that their effect has meaning beyond their individual effects. IE; 'climate sensitivity' lie... The one you tout without even a shred of empirical evidence to back up..

 

[flacaltenn]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

Who else is denying the Greenhouse effect of CO2? Westwall, Skook, Silly Billy, and many more. It is not just CO2, it is also CH4, and the water vapor increase that results from those GHGs. 60 inches of rain in Houston is not catastrophic, not at all. LOL

LIAR!

None of us deny the effects of certain gases. What we deny is that their effect has meaning beyond their individual effects. IE; 'climate sensitivity' lie... The one you tout without even a shred of empirical evidence to back up..

I had HOPED you weren't a GHouse denier.. And you're correct. The REAL GHouse dissemblers are the folks that try to assign a SINGLE GLOBAL variable for "climate sensitivity". It's the "catch all" factor that determines the POWER of GH gases and other forcings. Can't have accurate climate models without recognizing the locations and interactions of the different climate zones that exist on the planet.

And then making "climate sensitive" a silly CONSTANT when it's actually very complex time dependent variable is another reduction to absurd simplicity. YET --- there have been HUNDREDS of papers doing just those things.

All the CS numbers have been crashing down since the 80s. They are STILL being revised down. MAYBE the models are actually analyzing climate thermal dynamics now and not a homogenoused simplified version of how the Earth distributes and stores and loses "heat".

 

[Sunsettommy]

They turned a trace GHG, with a tiny IR absorption window into a grotesque super molecule caricature capable of driving the entire climate system.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

Who else is denying the Greenhouse effect of CO2? Westwall, Skook, Silly Billy, and many more. It is not just CO2, it is also CH4, and the water vapor increase that results from those GHGs. 60 inches of rain in Houston is not catastrophic, not at all. LOL

LIAR!

None of us deny the effects of certain gases. What we deny is that their effect has meaning beyond their individual effects. IE; 'climate sensitivity' lie... The one you tout without even a shred of empirical evidence to back up..

I had HOPED you weren't a GHouse denier.. And you're correct. The REAL GHouse dissemblers are the folks that try to assign a SINGLE GLOBAL variable for "climate sensitivity". It's the "catch all" factor that determines the POWER of GH gases and other forcings. Can't have accurate climate models without recognizing the locations and interactions of the different climate zones that exist on the planet.

And then making "climate sensitive" a silly CONSTANT when it's actually very complex time dependent variable is another reduction to absurd simplicity. YET --- there have been HUNDREDS of papers doing just those things.

All the CS numbers have been crashing down since the 80s. They are STILL being revised down. MAYBE the models are actually analyzing climate thermal dynamics now and not a homogenoused simplified version of how the Earth distributes and stores and loses "heat".

The unadjusted data sets show just a 0.38 deg C warming in 185 years and the highly adjusted set shows 0.857 Deg C in that same time period.

If the warming prior to 1930 was primarily natural then 0.2 deg C or 0.47 deg C (depending on which data set you use) was Natural warming. If we subtract the natural warming from our current time period there is essentially no warming that can be attributed to increasing CO2..

The CS number is total BS.. Current thoughts are 0.0 to 0.6 deg C/doubling as water vapor is dampening the LOG effect by 50% according to empirical observations.

 

[flacaltenn]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

Who else is denying the Greenhouse effect of CO2? Westwall, Skook, Silly Billy, and many more. It is not just CO2, it is also CH4, and the water vapor increase that results from those GHGs. 60 inches of rain in Houston is not catastrophic, not at all. LOL

LIAR!

None of us deny the effects of certain gases. What we deny is that their effect has meaning beyond their individual effects. IE; 'climate sensitivity' lie... The one you tout without even a shred of empirical evidence to back up..

I had HOPED you weren't a GHouse denier.. And you're correct. The REAL GHouse dissemblers are the folks that try to assign a SINGLE GLOBAL variable for "climate sensitivity". It's the "catch all" factor that determines the POWER of GH gases and other forcings. Can't have accurate climate models without recognizing the locations and interactions of the different climate zones that exist on the planet.

And then making "climate sensitive" a silly CONSTANT when it's actually very complex time dependent variable is another reduction to absurd simplicity. YET --- there have been HUNDREDS of papers doing just those things.

All the CS numbers have been crashing down since the 80s. They are STILL being revised down. MAYBE the models are actually analyzing climate thermal dynamics now and not a homogenoused simplified version of how the Earth distributes and stores and loses "heat".

The unadjusted data sets show just a 0.38 deg C warming in 185 years and the highly adjusted set shows 0.857 Deg C in that same time period.

If the warming prior to 1930 was primarily natural then 0.2 deg C or 0.47 deg C (depending on which data set you use) was Natural warming. If we subtract the natural warming from our current time period there is essentially no warming that can be attributed to increasing CO2..

The CS number is total BS..

Mathematically -- you NEED a C.S. number to convert from W/m2 to temperature. HOWEVER you get it --- it has to be both temporally and spatially variable.

The CS number used for the doubling of JUST CO2 alone -- results in about 1.2degC/doubling. Most every scientist accepts that number. THat's the RAW power of CO2 without actually placing it into a complex climate system. That's WITHOUT storage, feedbacks or imagined "accelerations".

So -- we've gone from 4 to 6 degC/doubling to now more like 1.8 to 2.4 degC/doubling in 30 years. I'd be happy if the result was 30% due to "excess man-caused" CO2. And pretty soon, the accepted numbers will be close to less than 50%.

We haven't even reached the FIRST doubling of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Not looking good to get ANOTHER doubling in before 2100..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The CS number used for the doubling of JUST CO2 alone -- results in about 1.2degC/doubling. Most every scientist accepts that number.

And we have seen 0.85 Deg C rise in 185 years (using the highly adjusted data set). if we remove natural forcings the result is zero warming that can be attributed to CO2 rise.

start: 280ppm
end: 408ppm

1st doubling = 560ppm
1/2 of first doubling 280+140= 420ppm


Now some of the rise is invariably from CO2 but not nearly what the IPCC fantasizes about.. We have also had an increase of solar input of 2.3w/m^2 over that time period, which can be attributed to 99% of that warming.

There is simply no way the math can work using SB or Planks theory to attribute it to CO2.

 

[flacaltenn]

The CS number used for the doubling of JUST CO2 alone -- results in about 1.2degC/doubling. Most every scientist accepts that number.

And we have seen 0.85 Deg C rise in 185 years (using the highly adjusted data set). if we remove natural forcings the result is zero warming that can be attributed to CO2 rise.

start: 280ppm
end: 408ppm

1st doubling = 560ppm
1/2 of first doubling 280+140= 420ppm


Now some of the rise is invariably from CO2 but not nearly what the IPCC fantasizes about.. We have also had an increase of solar input of 2.3w/m^2 over that time period, which can be attributed to 99% of that warming.

There is simply no way the math can work using SB or Planks theory to attribute it to CO2.

Almost. You can't attribute all to natural forcings when you ADMIT that some is "invariably from CO2 rise". The point of the CO2 doubling exercise is really to show that NONE of the AMPLIFICATIONS or positive feedbacks, or accelerations PRESUMED by CAGW theory have ever manifested in about 100 years. It's all real close to the basic Physics calculations for the REAL (unimagined, unembellished) powers of CO2 as a GH gas.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The CS number used for the doubling of JUST CO2 alone -- results in about 1.2degC/doubling. Most every scientist accepts that number.

And we have seen 0.85 Deg C rise in 185 years (using the highly adjusted data set). if we remove natural forcings the result is zero warming that can be attributed to CO2 rise.

start: 280ppm
end: 408ppm

1st doubling = 560ppm
1/2 of first doubling 280+140= 420ppm


Now some of the rise is invariably from CO2 but not nearly what the IPCC fantasizes about.. We have also had an increase of solar input of 2.3w/m^2 over that time period, which can be attributed to 99% of that warming.

There is simply no way the math can work using SB or Planks theory to attribute it to CO2.

Almost. You can't attribute all to natural forcings when you ADMIT that some is "invariably from CO2 rise". The point of the CO2 doubling exercise is really to show that NONE of the AMPLIFICATIONS or positive feedbacks, or accelerations PRESUMED by CAGW theory have ever manifested in about 100 years. It's all real close to the basic Physics calculations for the REAL (unimagined, unembellished) powers of CO2 as a GH gas.

When you do the math, CO2's contribution is less than 0.16 deg C for a .5 of doubling. Very near zero and extremely below IPCC fantasy projections...