/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8866882
>Enjoy my response
Hansen? The guy whose 1988 predictions utterly failed?

>>8720406
Trigger alert! Hansen's 1988 predictions utterly failed. Scenario A happened ( >=1.5% GHG growth) but that temperature increases did not.

>>7297736
>By your logic then I need to provide you with a climate model that is established in the early 1900s to
Nonsense, its been at least 30 years, that's time enough Here's a prediction. Its just that its a failed prediction, Hansen (1988). Scenario A is what occurred; an increase in CO2 output, but the temperature increase doesn't correspond.

Citing an old model means nothing. What is the specific, quantitative prediction that is clearly distinguished from natural climate variation? Its been warming ever since the Little Ice Age.

>>7051221
Hansen's (1989) prediction failed miserably. The actual scenario that occurred is Scenario C, an increase in CO2 output. The closest Scenario to his prediction is Scenario A. That scenario was assumed that there would be a massive stopping of CO2 output. Needless to say, that didn't happen. Hansen failed. Pic Related.

So since the prediction failed, AGW has been falsified, right? Wait, I forgot the AGW is a secular religion.

Concerning your picture, I suppose that there was no flooding before the use of SUVs?

>>6793101

Explain with specificity, the proof that a flood of a single highway was caused by Anthropogenic CO2.

By the way the actual 1988 prediction by Hansen failed. See attached. Scenario A was predicted for a significant increase in CO2; which has actually happened. Scenario C was the scenario based on a massive cutback in CO2. Which didn't happen. Yet that's where the temperatures are.

I credit Hansen for at least having the balls to make a real prediction. But it failed. Now most every Climate "Scientist" hides behind vagueries.

>nb4 SkS shows that if I cut the temp data off early things look OK for Hansen.
Yeah, if you drop inconvenient data, you can make anything look good.

Most of what we here about the global warming crisis is fear mongering and political propaganda. It's about control over the world's energy supply.

No one wants to hear stuff like this because it disagrees with their assumption that Science is incorruptible. But just read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome#Formation
>"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."[9]

A sure sign that something is bullshit is when it become socially unacceptable to criticize it. That's the stage we're at with this climate change stuff.

Most of what we here about the global warming crisis is fear mongering and political propaganda. It's about control over the world's energy supply.

No one wants to hear stuff like this because it disagrees with their assumption that Science is incorruptible. But just read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome#Formation
>"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."[9]

A sure sign that something is bullshit is when it become socially unacceptable to criticize it. That's the stage we're at with this climate change stuff.

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and accounts for less than 5% of the greenhouse effect. Most of it is from water-vapor. All the climate models which predict warming make the assumption that an increase in CO2 will also increase water vapor. But that has not occured, therefore their computer models are invalid. They also assume a positive feedback loop, when in fact (like most elements of complex systems like these) there is a negative feedback. CO2 is insufficient to cause the warming they claim. CO2 has also been VASTLY higher in the past and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

So effectively they are bullshitting. The climate is changing, but it is changing according to natural cycles that have been going on for millions of years.

>>6354490
Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact
on global warming
M. Beenstock1, Y. Reingewertz2, and N. Paldor3

Demonstrates no statistical relationship between global temperature and CO2 levels.

Once upon a time they said that CO2 levels drove global temperature. When the temperatures stopped, they changed the name to Climate Change.

Attached Ref, Hansen 1988, shows the original theory in action.

>>6347872

Case in point, Hansen 1988... CO2 driving temperature, 3 different scenarios of CO2 emissions.