/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8617881
>Unlike you, I don't deal in speculation
All you do is speculate and present conjecture. You truly are a massive, dishonest hypocrite.

CO2 most certainly is responsible for the current warming. It is not linked to volcanism, it is not linked to solar activity, so I ask you, what else is it linked to? We can perform experiments to understand the forcings of CO2 in atmospheric warming, we KNOW that it is responsible for the current trend, this is not pseudoscience. We monitor solar activity, we put the data into the context of the 11-year solar cycle, as well as the overall TSI over geological time.


Hansen never once admitted that there was no evidence of CO2 warming you fucking liar. He is saying that AT THE TIME in the fucking 1980s when that research was undertaken, he could not find evidence of CO2 being linked to temperature changes in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, just one part of the Earth, not the system as a whole which even then they were measuring WARMING.

God you are so fucking dense, I cannot believe I even have to point these simple concepts out to you.

>Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that surface warming at high latitudes will be two to five times the global mean warming (52-55). Climate models predict the larger sensitivity at high latitudes and trace it to snow/ice albedo feedback and greater atmospheric stability, which magnifies the warming of near-surface layers (6-8). Since these mechanisms will operate even with the expected rapidity of CO2 warming, it can be anticipated that average high-latitude warming will be a few times greater than the global mean effect.

Nothing in this paper is disputing the science of global warming AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD IN THE 1980S. Do you think that our knowledge of atmospheric sciences hasn't advanced at all in nearly 50 years? Do you think that there have been zero changes in our understandings of the underlying mechanisms of climate change?