Scientist want outer space sun shade to combat climate change

[ding]

And what do you think that matters? Do you think the decades-long effort to calculate accurate values for ECS and TCR failed to take into account basic atmospheric physics known 60 years back?

1. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low. The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.
2. The relationship between radiative forcing of CO2 and temperature is logarithmic which means the effect diminishes as CO2 concentrations increases.
3. Convective currents reduce the GHG effect at the planet's surface by 56%.

All of which work against the climate being sensitive to CO2 such that it that it can be solved through inspection that the climate does not amplify the theoretical GHG effect of an incremental 280 ppm of CO2 by 450%.

 

[Crick]

1. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low. The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

Your simplistic claims are pathetic. The work that scientists have put into determining accurate values for ECS and TCR is not refuted by your 8th grade science observation.

1. The relationship between radiative forcing of CO2 and temperature is logarithmic which means the effect diminishes as CO2 concentrations increases.

The relationship is fully incorporated into the calculations that have led to the current estimated values for ECS and TCR. Did you think the world's climate scientists DIDN'T know what formulas to use, but you did?

1. Convective currents reduce the GHG effect at the planet's surface by 56%.

All of which work against the climate being sensitive to CO2 such that it that it can be solved through inspection that the climate does not amplify the theoretical GHG effect of an incremental 280 ppm of CO2 by 450%.

Says a 60 year old study on developing GCM models.

Your problem (or at least one of them) is that you haven't the faintest idea how to actually calculate any of the results you claim to be refuting with your bits and pieces of antique climate science. I think the odds are well in excess of 99% that every one of the world's climate scientists know everything you know on the topic and a GREAT deal more. You claim that all these thousands of PhDs have made mistake after mistake after mistake but YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY IDENTIFY A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. You claim to be some sort of science heavy but you repeat sentences and half-paragraphs over and over and over again verbatim. If we were to search your posts, how many times would we find "uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation"? This does not argue a thorough understanding on your part. It demonstrates rote memorization.

 

[ding]

Your simplistic claims are pathetic. The work that scientists have put into determining accurate values for ECS and TCR is not refuted by your 8th grade science observation.

The relationship is fully incorporated into the calculations that have led to the current estimated values for ECS and TCR. Did you think the world's climate scientists DIDN'T know what formulas to use, but you did?

Says a 60 year old study on developing GCM models.

Your problem (or at least one of them) is that you haven't the faintest idea how to actually calculate any of the results you claim to be refuting with your bits and pieces of antique climate science. I think the odds are well in excess of 99% that every one of the world's climate scientists know everything you know on the topic and a GREAT deal more. You claim that all these thousands of PhDs have made mistake after mistake after mistake but YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY IDENTIFY A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. You claim to be some sort of science heavy but you repeat sentences and half-paragraphs over and over and over again verbatim. If we were to search your posts, how many times would we find "uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation"? This does not argue a thorough understanding on your part. It demonstrates rote memorization.

I'm just going to keep explaining why climate sensitivity to CO2 is low until you run away. And since you are incapable of providing any evidence or logic for why climate sensitivity to CO2 is high - because there is none - that shouldn't take very long.

1. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low. The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.
2. The relationship between radiative forcing of CO2 and temperature is logarithmic which means the effect diminishes as CO2 concentrations increases.
3. Convective currents reduce the GHG effect at the planet's surface by 56%.

All of which work against the climate being sensitive to CO2 such that it that it can be solved through inspection that the climate does not amplify the theoretical GHG effect of an incremental 280 ppm of CO2 by 450%.