/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8617881
You also completely misunderstand the purpose of the 1980 Hansen paper. You pick one quote OUT OF CONTEXT within the paper itself:

>The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970 (9), a time of rapid CO2 buildup. In addition, recent claims that climate models overestimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude (10, 11) have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood.
>We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.

Look what we have here, this is again, a paper from the 1980s on global warming, and what are they talking about? RADIATIVE PERTURBATIONS (forcings) of different aspects of the atmosphere, NOT JUST CO2.
>It's great you think your climate scientists are factoring in all variables into climate prediction and analysis
>think your climate scientists are factoring in all variables
>climate scientists are factoring in all variables

Blown out by your own source YET AGAIN. I guess Hansen totally wasn't taking into account other aerosols in the atmosphere, or clouds, or methane, or Ozone when studying global warming in the 1980s.
>Identification of the CO2 warming in observed climate depends on the magnitude of climate variability due to other factors. Most suspected causes of global climate change are radiative perturbations, which can be compared to identify those capable of counteracting or reinforcing the CO2 warming.