Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[lordjeff]

Dr Vincent Gray historical carbon dioxide levels

This graphs is very interesting

Case in point. I've listened to some Nobel Laureates that indicate warming occurs prior to a co2 incline. We discussed this chemical weathering of rocks. Now overall certainly we know just on the basis of more cars we have more co2. However as I've stated consistently we have oceans, vegetation, & rock formation as repositories. This is what Mann, Hansen, & Cook fail to pick up, maybe because they are tend exclusively to climate & not the other earth science fields. Also, let's take this hypothesis-no one has done too much work with the volume of ocean water. As we know water vapor-obtained from evaporation of a huge amount of ocean water gives us our daily weather & stuff but is also the biggest of the greenhouse gases. Can you imagine if in our fairy world they tried to evaporate water under some scheme thinking that this would lower then earth temp. Good luck trying to survive for living things need water to survive as do crops, plants, animals, etc.

 

[greatcloudlives]

www.drroyspencer.com the satellite graph of global temperature is accurate and I think there is no fudging and bogus data represented here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

www.drroyspencer.com the satellite graph of global temperature is accurate and I think there is no fudging and bogus data represented here.

LOL! Your source expects there to be a drop in CO2 levels already from the Covid pandemic. Please, find valid sources.

 

[lordjeff]

Dr. Spencer is an experienced climatologist & is on top of everything. Just because he disagrees with Mann or Cook does not make him inferior or wrong. He just has other hypotheses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dr. Spencer is an experienced climatologist & is on top of everything. Just because he disagrees with Mann or Cook does not make him inferior or wrong. He just has other hypotheses.

Then find some of his peer reviewed work please.

 

[Gene2memE]

Dr Spencer is a recognised expert on climatology, with a speciality in the lower atmospheric satellite record.

He is also a recognised warming minimalist (not a denier though), consensus questioner, and occasional shill for the Heartland Institute and other parties with an interest in downplaying or muddying the picture about the warning trend.

His scientific publications are (usually) very reliable and accurate - although he does tend towards overstating his case when critiquing other papers, but usually on his blog rather than in the literature.

 

[Gene2memE]

Also its important to note Dr Spencer's UAH graph is for lower troposphere warming only, and this is much lower than sea or surface warming levels.

Which explains why his graph is so popular with the WUWT crowd and wider denialist set.

 

[lordjeff]

Gee these people who question the anthropogenic theory-they all get accused of bias b/c they're working for some institute. You mean to tell me Dr. Mann is not trying to bring money into Penn St., that Dr. Hansen was not trying to get NASA started again, that Al Gore doesn't have his own interests in carbon markets. Arguably the US congress does operate on crony capitalism. But these other scientists are not Fred Hoyle. They're doing what scientists do-explore. The climate is simply do complex a phenomenon to attribute to a single factor.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Case in point. I've listened to some Nobel Laureates that indicate warming occurs prior to a co2 incline. We discussed this chemical weathering of rocks. Now overall certainly we know just on the basis of more cars we have more co2. However as I've stated consistently we have oceans, vegetation, & rock formation as repositories. This is what Mann, Hansen, & Cook fail to pick up, maybe because they are tend exclusively to climate & not the other earth science fields. Also, let's take this hypothesis-no one has done too much work with the volume of ocean water. As we know water vapor-obtained from evaporation of a huge amount of ocean water gives us our daily weather & stuff but is also the biggest of the greenhouse gases. Can you imagine if in our fairy world they tried to evaporate water under some scheme thinking that this would lower then earth temp. Good luck trying to survive for living things need water to survive as do crops, plants, animals, etc.

You are aware that there isn't a Nobel Prize in Climatology, Meteorology, or Geology (or Biology, Ecology, etc.), right? If so, then what do Nobel Laureates have to do with climate change?

[The 1995 prize in Chemistry was awarded for ozone depletion to Crutzen, Molina, & Rowland, was it one of them?]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gee these people who question the anthropogenic theory-they all get accused of bias b/c they're working for some institute. You mean to tell me Dr. Mann is not trying to bring money into Penn St., that Dr. Hansen was not trying to get NASA started again, that Al Gore doesn't have his own interests in carbon markets. Arguably the US congress does operate on crony capitalism. But these other scientists are not Fred Hoyle. They're doing what scientists do-explore. The climate is simply do complex a phenomenon to attribute to a single factor.

Still on the "in it for the money" line, eh? Sigh.

 

[sjastro]

............But these other scientists are not Fred Hoyle. They're doing what scientists do-explore. The climate is simply do complex a phenomenon to attribute to a single factor.........

Fred hasn't been doing much exploring lately, he has been dead since 2001.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you have seen all the diagrams, the physics just is too much about movie tricks. They can determine the number of shots but not who fired the fatal shot. Today most people agree that it was a combo of the military-industrial complex via the mob. They did not like the young Kennedy, nor his hint to pull out of Vietnam.

And when they determine the origin of the fatal shot it was from the upper floors of the Texas Schoolbook Depository, just where Lee Oswald had built a snipers nest. Imagine that!

 

[sjastro]

Case in point. I've listened to some Nobel Laureates that indicate warming occurs prior to a co2 incline.

Beware of the The Nobel Disease.
Should I believe the Nobel Laureate who argues that cosmic raccoons exist simply because he is a Nobel Laureate?

 

[lordjeff]

You are aware that there isn't a Nobel Prize in Climatology, Meteorology, or Geology (or Biology, Ecology, etc.), right? If so, then what do Nobel Laureates have to do with climate change?

[The 1995 prize in Chemistry was awarded for ozone depletion to Crutzen, Molina, & Rowland, was it one of them?]

Think out of the box please: the Nobel Laureates were physicists & there are specialties within physics such thermodynamics, atomic physics, atmospheric physics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Think out of the box please: the Nobel Laureates were physicists & there are specialties within physics such thermodynamics, atomic physics, atmospheric physics.

None of the Nobel Prizes in Physics have been given for anything in atmospheric science. Knowing atomic physics (even very well) does not mean one understands how to apply atomic physics to atmospheric radiative transport. Same thing with thermodynamics.

Who are these people? NAME. THEM. or they are irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gee these people who question the anthropogenic theory-they all get accused of bias b/c they're working for some institute. You mean to tell me Dr. Mann is not trying to bring money into Penn St., that Dr. Hansen was not trying to get NASA started again, that Al Gore doesn't have his own interests in carbon markets. Arguably the US congress does operate on crony capitalism. But these other scientists are not Fred Hoyle. They're doing what scientists do-explore. The climate is simply do complex a phenomenon to attribute to a single factor.

No, they get accused of bias because they are working for an institution fund by oil and coal companies. That is a conflict of interest. NASA has no special interest of that sort. Neither do studies by the IPCC. They do not get extra money for climate change.

Oil and coal companies see this as a threat to their livelihood. That is why they pay people to say it is not a threat. Years ago the tobacco companies did the same things when it was becoming obvious that smoking causes cancer. Seriously do you think that smoking is safe? You are falling for the same tactic as was used back then.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, they get accused of bias because they are working for an institution fund by oil and coal companies. That is a conflict of interest. NASA has no special interest of that sort. Neither do studies by the IPCC. They do not get extra money for climate change.

Oil and coal companies see this as a threat to their livelihood. That is why they pay people to say it is not a threat. Years ago the tobacco companies did the same things when it was becoming obvious that smoking causes cancer. Seriously do you think that smoking is safe? You are falling for the same tactic as was used back then.

And some of the same PHDs for hire...

 

[lordjeff]

And university profs don't have a vested interest. Now who is naive? Universities are cash cows. No different with college sports recruiting. They don't want to give a bunch of scholarships but they do want people to forward their college app be/c it's a revenue source. Any industry always looks out for competition. But you're assuming all the people in a govt agency have this altruistic view of society & are out to see the best for all people. That's bogus too. Govt agencies are out for their own longevity. Trust me I used to work for the govt. Obama reduced NASA's funding; me personally I like the study of space. So what a way to draw attention. Govt likes to give out money too. NASA/NOAA/FEMA/DOD-they all are special interests. But my finer point is not to demean scientists. Some have this theory & some have that theory. Would not be science if there were not disagreement. Science is not like say religion which just lead people along a trail that cannot be verified one way or the other. And if it's truth you want-check the philosophy dept.

 

[lordjeff]

None of the Nobel Prizes in Physics have been given for anything in atmospheric science. Knowing atomic physics (even very well) does not mean one understands how to apply atomic physics to atmospheric radiative transport. Same thing with thermodynamics.

Who are these people? NAME. THEM. or they are irrelevant.

Freeman Dyson e.g.

 

[lordjeff]

You're still missing the point: scientists have a major & then they begin specializing in whatever interests them. That does not make them idiots. You must know that Ms. Oreskes is not a climate scientist, but merely a professor of the history of science.