Heat Generated by 120 ppm of additional CO2

[Crepitus]

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

Go take a gradeschool science class.

 

[Crick]

And your hot spot is where again?

In the lower troposphere at lower latitudes. Why?

 

[daveman]

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

Go take a gradeschool science class.

Maybe he could watch Bill Nye and Al Gore's experiment!

 

[Crick]

Daveman, do you accept that the greenhouse effect takes place and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

 

[daveman]

Daveman, do you accept that the greenhouse effect takes place and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Yes.

Do you accept that the goal of climate change proponents is an economic one, and not an environmental one?

 

[daveman]

Daveman, do you accept that the greenhouse effect takes place and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Yes.

Do you accept that the goal of climate change proponents is an economic one, and not an environmental one?

Oh, and Crick...if the concept were as simple as you and your cult claim, why did Bill Nye and Al Gore fake their experiment?

 

[flacaltenn]

It may be found on page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers contained in "The Physical Science Basis", part of the IPCC, Assessment Report 5. Go to AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Could you tell me why you think I'm "not dealing in reality"?

Partly because IPCC "science" has editors from the political wing of this UN funhouse. The scientists are hired help.. The other 2/3 of the IPCC are politicos or economists or sociologists and the like.. And THAT MAJORITY has a say in the crafting of "executive summaries" and picking the science that IS presented.

It is NOT the pure scientific body you imagine it is.. It's more like the bar scene from Star Wars in terms of the participants and policy makers with VETO ability over the science section report... You place all your eggs in this fragile basket and these jerks will screw you over in terms of representing all of what's available in "climate science"...

You know what the IPCC and every other climate change cult lacks?

Statisticians. People whose job is the science of change over time.

Climate "scientists" write their own models. And they suck at it.

I suspect one or two have gotten involved. And I would not go to a statistician to write a general climate model. They are chock-a-block full of physics that a statistician would not understand.

You misunderstand the difference between scientific specialization and scientific tools.. You can get a "climate science" degree a number of ways... Most popular is thru the Geology dept where advance math and modeling are electives at best.. Good statisticians have NO ISSUE working across multiple scientific specializations.

My background for example is signal/image processing. Involves modeling and data analysis with EVERY TOOL available to people who analyze data.. In addition, modelers have academic background in Systems Theory which is RARELY an academic requirement for ANY climate science degree, BUT is the very BASIS for modeling ANYTHING... In fact, some of the same mathematics and "systems equations" are behind the modeling of "spring--like" structures and electronic devices, and bio-mechanics.. And I've done ALL three...

I'm pretty sure that "climate science" is the HIGHEST FORM of an interdisciplinary field... And it would not progress with JUST climate scientists involved. By my count, there are at least 12 major scientific specializations within the field of Climate Science.. Most likely, it's closer to 20... And NO one climate scientist has that academic depth or training..

 

[daveman]

It may be found on page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers contained in "The Physical Science Basis", part of the IPCC, Assessment Report 5. Go to AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Could you tell me why you think I'm "not dealing in reality"?

Partly because IPCC "science" has editors from the political wing of this UN funhouse. The scientists are hired help.. The other 2/3 of the IPCC are politicos or economists or sociologists and the like.. And THAT MAJORITY has a say in the crafting of "executive summaries" and picking the science that IS presented.

It is NOT the pure scientific body you imagine it is.. It's more like the bar scene from Star Wars in terms of the participants and policy makers with VETO ability over the science section report... You place all your eggs in this fragile basket and these jerks will screw you over in terms of representing all of what's available in "climate science"...

You know what the IPCC and every other climate change cult lacks?

Statisticians. People whose job is the science of change over time.

Climate "scientists" write their own models. And they suck at it.

I suspect one or two have gotten involved. And I would not go to a statistician to write a general climate model. They are chock-a-block full of physics that a statistician would not understand.

You misunderstand the difference between scientific specialization and scientific tools.. You can get a "climate science" degree a number of ways... Most popular is thru the Geology dept where advance math and modeling are electives at best.. Good statisticians have NO ISSUE working across multiple scientific specializations.

My background for example is signal/image processing. Involves modeling and data analysis with EVERY TOOL available to people who analyze data.. In addition, modelers have academic background in Systems Theory which is RARELY an academic requirement for ANY climate science degree, BUT is the very BASIS for modeling ANYTHING... In fact, some of the same mathematics and "systems equations" are behind the modeling of "spring--like" structures and electronic devices, and bio-mechanics.. And I've done ALL three...

I'm pretty sure that "climate science" is the HIGHEST FORM of an interdisciplinary field... And it would not progress with JUST climate scientists involved. By my count, there are at least 12 major scientific specializations within the field of Climate Science.. Most likely, it's closer to 20... And NO one climate scientist has that academic depth or training..

flacaltenn: *is real scientist*

crick:

 

[Crick]

The IPCC, by its charter, is constrained from producing policy-proscriptive output. The political side of the equation, centered on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) serves to organize international governmental efforts to combat global warming. The UNFCCC was formed after the First Assessment Report was released and does not supervise the conduct of the IPCC. The UNFCCC organized the conventions that led to the various international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Accords.

"The fifth assessment report, AR5, is the most comprehensive synthesis to date. Experts from more than 80 countries contributed to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 830 lead authors and review editors drew on the work of over 1000 contributors. About 2,000 expert reviewers provided over 140,000 review comments."
The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

This does not leave much room for FCT's claim that 2/3rds of the IPCC's staff are political positions.

 

[skookerasbil]

"...….the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists".


Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be "totally wrong" ... temperatures aren't rising as predicted ... hoax unraveling


Sorry but the hockey stick is scientific fraud that of which has never been seen before! And notice......not a single climate alarmist in here ever mentions that on at least three occasions, the IPCC even admitted that computer models wer enot relaiable for predicting the future climate!!

Just sayin'

 

[Crick]

From the source of Skookerasbil's article re climate models. A home for genuine science.

Spice beats chemo: Study reveals turmeric is more effective at killing cancer cells than chemo or radiation - NaturalNews.com

Experts warn about harmful side effects of 5G, which requires 20,000 satellites beaming narrow-band signals to Earth that can “fry the cells of all living things” - NaturalNews.com

Using hand sanitizer causes you to absorb 10,000% more emasculation chemicals that feminize men

Georgia Democrat Dar’shun Kendrick wants to pass “testicular bill of rights” to punish men when they “release sperm from their testicles” - NaturalNews.com

New, exotic class of planets outside our solar system made out of GEMS - NaturalNews.com

 

[daveman]

The IPCC, by its charter, is constrained from producing policy-proscriptive output. The political side of the equation, centered on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) serves to organize international governmental efforts to combat global warming. The UNFCCC was formed after the First Assessment Report was released and does not supervise the conduct of the IPCC. The UNFCCC organized the conventions that led to the various international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Accords.

"The fifth assessment report, AR5, is the most comprehensive synthesis to date. Experts from more than 80 countries contributed to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 830 lead authors and review editors drew on the work of over 1000 contributors. About 2,000 expert reviewers provided over 140,000 review comments."
The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

This does not leave much room for FCT's claim that 2/3rds of the IPCC's staff are political positions.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
​

They told you what they're doing. And yet you refuse to accept it. How is that not cult-like behavior?

 

[daveman]

The IPCC, by its charter, is constrained from producing policy-proscriptive output. The political side of the equation, centered on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) serves to organize international governmental efforts to combat global warming. The UNFCCC was formed after the First Assessment Report was released and does not supervise the conduct of the IPCC. The UNFCCC organized the conventions that led to the various international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Accords.

"The fifth assessment report, AR5, is the most comprehensive synthesis to date. Experts from more than 80 countries contributed to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 830 lead authors and review editors drew on the work of over 1000 contributors. About 2,000 expert reviewers provided over 140,000 review comments."
The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

This does not leave much room for FCT's claim that 2/3rds of the IPCC's staff are political positions.

BREAKING NEWS: Crick does't know the difference between staff and contributors.

 

[SSDD]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

None of that is real skidmark...it is all the output of failed computer models...there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

As usual, your claims are bullshit...

 

[SSDD]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

If you post it a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million, it is still going to be the output of failed models...there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

It will be bullshit no matter how many times you post it.

 

[SSDD]

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

Go take a gradeschool science class.

If you believe CO2 generates heat, it is you who is due for a grade school class.

 

[sparky]

Sorry but the hockey stick is scientific fraud that of which has never been seen before!

As usual, your claims are bullshit...

It will be bullshit no matter how many times you post it.

Nibblin' on sponge cake,
watchin' the sun bake;
All those deniers addicted to oil

Sucking the CO , and Big oil BS
Tempers in Congress begining to boil

Wasted away in the Oilocracy
Claiming all alt energy shill gain
Same folks claim middle east is insane
But I know my addiction ain't changed


Some think it's treason, Redfords lost reason
With all his tar sands spillage ado
I liked him as sundance, so i gave him a chance
But wonder if he's got the slightest of clues.

Wasted away again in Oilocracy,
Searchin' through those kocktopus vaults.
Some people claim them cannuck pipelines ashame
But I know..... it's my SUV's fault.


I love when they flip flop,
and claim we're all on top
Tell us the troops will be coming back home.

But there's crude in the pipeline,
And soon it will refine
That dark brown concoction that helps me drive on.

Wasted away again in Oilocracy,
Listening to them oilman explain
Some people claim climate change is their blame

But I know ......it's all just a game
Yes i know..... it's all just a game



w/apologies to parrotheads everywhere

~S~

 

[SSDD]

Sorry but the hockey stick is scientific fraud that of which has never been seen before!

As usual, your claims are bullshit...

It will be bullshit no matter how many times you post it.

Nibblin' on sponge cake,
watchin' the sun bake;
All those deniers addicted to oil

Sucking the CO , and Big oil BS
Tempers in Congress begining to boil

Wasted away in the Oilocracy
Claiming all alt energy shill gain
Same folks claim middle east is insane
But I know my addiction ain't changed


Some think it's treason, Redfords lost reason
With all his tar sands spillage ado
I liked him as sundance, so i gave him a chance
But wonder if he's got the slightest of clues.

Wasted away again in Oilocracy,
Searchin' through those kocktopus vaults.
Some people claim them cannuck pipelines ashame
But I know..... it's my SUV's fault.


I love when they flip flop,
and claim we're all on top
Tell us the troops will be coming back home.

But there's crude in the pipeline,
And soon it will refine
That dark brown concoction that helps me drive on.

Wasted away again in Oilocracy,
Listening to them oilman explain
Some people claim climate change is their blame

But I know ......it's all just a game
Yes i know..... it's all just a game



w/apologies to parrotheads everywhere

~S~

Stolen poetry is all you have? If it sounds like a song it must be true? How about some actual evidence...that would be impressive..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And your hot spot is where again?

In the lower troposphere at lower latitudes. Why?

Prove it with empirical evidence.

 

[Crepitus]

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

Go take a gradeschool science class.

If you believe CO2 generates heat, it is you who is due for a grade school class.

If you think that's what he was saying you need to go back farther than that.