[ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm
Michael at videosonics.com
Fri Jul 27 09:12:46 UTC 2007
>> Michael Lawrence wrote:
>> Anthropogenic global warming, as in enhanced greenhouse effect, can firstly >> be considered refuted due to the mismatch in fingerprinting between the
>> predicted and actual atmospheric warming profile.
>Most scientists disagree with this. Why?
Who are 'most"? I challenge your assumption.
>> Secondly, by the temperature responses on forcing not showing negative
>> feedback characteristics, falsifying the alleged effect of positive
>> That's it, projections and predictions false. Hypothesis falsified. Popper >> philosophy end of story.
> Sorry but it is not that simple.
No need to apologise. I just wonder how many more years of no warming have to occur before the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis gets a critical look.
page 18 (116) fig 5.3
Four independent models agree about the following fingerprints:
(1) that significant warming occurred around the equator at an altitude of 8 and 12km, (2) that at the altitude of 16km there exists a transition from warm to cool, (3) that there is some warming in lower levels in the SH and arctic (45o-75o S).
And now for reality:
(1) Cooling at 4km and no significant warming, (2) transition from warming to cooling at 12km, (3) SH cooling while majority of models show warming.
Other examples exist.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the extropy-chat