[ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm

Michael Lawrence Michael at videosonics.com
Fri Jul 27 09:12:46 UTC 2007

samantha wrote:

>> 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 
>> feedbacks.
>> 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.


Requested references:



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...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070727/5fc8f6c7/attachment.bin>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list