Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Putting the Stake into Anthropogenic Global Warming
There is one thing shared by all the climate models and projections, relied on by the IPCC, Al Gore and all the rabid Warmies for their dire (and demonstrably false) predictions--that the worst of the warming will be in the troposphere about 10 kilometers up over the tropics. Here is the computer generated heat signature. This pattern is not only common to the predictions; it is key to the predictions.
There's only one thing wrong. It ain't there. The scientists have looked for it with satellites; they have run up weather balloons with transmitting thermometers. There is no such signature, or pattern, there to be detected.
Here's the real heat signature:
So there is something totally wrong with the models, projections and predictions. Namely, that there is no appreciable global warming caused by human generated greenhouse gasses, not in the past, not now, not in the future. As we Deniers dared to predict months ago, anthropogenic
Anyone care to bet against me?
Labels: Global Warming Hoax, Missing Signature
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 2:23 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Debunked!
. . . and I think you mean steak. I'll take mine medium-well.
You know where I stand on the bet.
. . . and I think you mean steak. I'll take mine medium-well.
You know where I stand on the bet.
I read that already. Lambert is particularly unconvincing about the reversal of cause and effect in the new ice cores.To say it's sophistry is being too kind to him. The part that interested me was the multi graphs. I still don't know what that was. Thanks for commenting.
Roger, I think it may be time to move past this argument. At least past whether the globe is warming or not.
The main reason you believe AGW is a hoax is because you think it will hurt the economy if we make some changes. That at least gets to the core of your values, and you'd have much more solid ground to argue that point.
Ready, go.
The main reason you believe AGW is a hoax is because you think it will hurt the economy if we make some changes. That at least gets to the core of your values, and you'd have much more solid ground to argue that point.
Ready, go.
I'm for efficiency and I know that eventually we'll move to a hydrogen economy (as opposed to oil) once there is no oil left. We ought to get to that point before we take the expensive steps to change the basic fuel. Don't you agree? The cool thing about hydrogen (assuming we can make the tanks big enough to use in cars and trucks) is that it produces no greenhouse gas at all. What's not to like? (well the huge price and the technological problems with storage) Right back at you, Andy.
Post a Comment
<< Home
