Originally Posted by aceventura3

I specifically asked Raveneye for clarification. We had the following exchange:

That exchange I believe, was refering to your primary statement that Hansen was responsible for the Ice Age hypothesis. Which has indeed been put to rest.


If there are questions directed to me that I have not answered, please point them out and I will respond.

Ok...for brevity sake....lets just look at my own replys to you, that were not replied to:

1)
I would imagine, that as with most study the focus was on a certain aspect of the conditions that come into play for a climate model. Othere scientists have most certainly researched the variables you bring up, but it seems you are asking one man to study every aspect of a complex system, which is physically impossible for a human brain....and likely for a computer model as well.

2)Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?

3)If the model used only one parameter, it would not only me a very poor model, but would also fit the criteria you just explained. All climate models take into consideration far more variables, and thus require computers to extrapolate usable data. Though I dont know the details of the hypothesis, it is likely the focus was on cloud cover changes vs. CO2 concentrations as in Earth based models of today.
Yet you still attribute the Ice Age hypothesis to the wrong individual, and refuse to address the simple issue of "Why", other than to say you "think" he was involved more deeply than documentation dictates. Then when asked to back up what you think.....you cannot do so.

Why should we then, take your assumption seriously?

In each of these statements are a series of questions about either the logic used, or the Data...your replys to them are non-commial and do not address the obvious discrepancies I bring up.


Are we sure about that. Some speculate that a sudden climate change lead to the extinction of dinosaurs, and that it happened in a relative short period of time.


Are we to now assume, you wish to revert to the speculation aspect previously criticized by yourself in this very thread?[U] <---note:another question[/U It is well established that the extinction of Dinosaurs took place over a very long period of time, as in thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, please read more before attempting to sideline with gibberish.]


Global average temperatures have increased over x period of time. Norther hemisphere average temperatures have decreased in x period of time. I have not seen a good explanation of that.