Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes I did. And if you were capable of following a conversation, you would realize I am referring to the feedbacks that Sunsettommy claimed are based on a "bogus paradigm".
1) Models all the way.
2) Models all the way
3) Models all the way, the paper is badly out of date since CO2 doubling sensitivity has dropped radically.
4) Another what if paper that is already sliding out of date since Greenland ice pack loss has dropped a lot to an actual INCREASE last year.
1) Models all the way.
NONE of your links addresses the most important tests of the AGW conjecture which makes most of their model driven papers moot. The lack of a Tropic "hot spot" and the 50% less per decade warming trend rate prediction/projection.
1) Models all the way.Permafrost melted out in part of southern Greenland that allowed Vikings to grow crops which are impossible today, yet no run away warming occurred. It was around 2C warmer than now in the early part of the interglacial, yet still no run away warming trend, heck it has NEVER happened in last 600 Million years.
1) Models all the way.
Strong Positive feedbacks have NEVER existed because Water Vapor carries away a lot of "heat" from the surface as part of the CONVECTION process, which a significant NEGATIVE feedback.
Your delusions are based on modeling scenarios that are absurd.
1) Models all the way.
2) Models all the way
3) Models all the way, the paper is badly out of date since CO2 doubling sensitivity has dropped radically.
4) Another what if paper that is already sliding out of date since Greenland ice pack loss has dropped a lot to an actual INCREASE last year.
NONE of your links addresses the most important tests of the AGW conjecture which makes most of their model driven papers moot. The lack of a Tropic "hot spot" and the 50% less per decade warming trend rate prediction/projection.
Permafrost melted out in part of southern Greenland that allowed Vikings to grow crops which are impossible today, yet no run away warming occurred. It was around 2C warmer than now in the early part of the interglacial, yet still no run away warming trend, heck it has NEVER happened in last 600 Million years.
Strong Positive feedbacks have NEVER existed because Water Vapor carries away a lot of "heat" from the surface as part of the CONVECTION process, which a significant NEGATIVE feedback.
Your delusions are based on modeling scenarios that are absurd.
Positive feedbacks were very significant during the Great Dying. Lordy, Tommy, at least get a minimal background in paleoclimatology before making such an ass of yourself. And in PT extinction event.Yes I did. And if you were capable of following a conversation, you would realize I am referring to the feedbacks that Sunsettommy claimed are based on a "bogus paradigm".
They are bogus since they exist ONLY in climate models. Never happened in the last 600 Million years, which you keep ignoring over and over. Positive feedback effects are never significant anywhere on the planet. Negative feedbacks are dominant and a big part of the Convection process of removing heat from the surface.
There are new published papers showing that Positive modeling feedbacks claims are dead on arrival. From Ollila, 2018
“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”
“
The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”
Another paper about NEGATIVE feedback:
A global radiative-convective feedback
Abstract.
We have investigated the sensitivity of the intensity of convective activity and atmospheric radiative cooling to radiatively thick upper-tropospheric clouds using a new version of the Colorado State University General Circulation Model. The model includes a bulk cloud microphysics scheme to predict the formation of cloud water, cloud ice, rain, and snow. The cloud optical properties are interactive and dependent upon the cloud water and cloud ice paths. We find that the formation of a persistent upper tropospheric cloud ice shield leads to decreased atmospheric radiative cooling and increased static stability. Convective activity is then strongly suppressed. In this way, upper-tropospheric clouds act as regulators of the global hydrologic cycle, and provide a negative feedback between atmospheric radiative cooling and convective activity
Funny how every year about this times it starts warming up.However, what is significant, and totally blows the silly deniers arguments out of the water is that we do have a cooling period going on with the sun right now, yet the Earth continues to warm.
Funny how winter temperatures more resemble your IQ. Funny how this curve is from left to right, indicating that it is rapidly warming. Funny how that will continue to be the case.
Thanks again for posting a chart that shows a 2 decade pauseWell, here we are, in a La Nina, sun getting colder, and what does the weather do? Just stays warm.
Look at our most recent low, +0.2. That is warmer than all but seven of the years prior to 1997 on satellite record. So, with a cool sun and La Nina, why are we still seeing such warm temperatures?
Yes, the Madoff Data Set of "warming trapped (like a rat!) In the ocean" saves the day!!
Cold water is again taking over the flow from Antarctica up the coast of South America..
Well, on the West Coast. LOL
Thanks again for posting a chart that shows a 2 decade pauseWell, here we are, in a La Nina, sun getting colder, and what does the weather do? Just stays warm.
Look at our most recent low, +0.2. That is warmer than all but seven of the years prior to 1997 on satellite record. So, with a cool sun and La Nina, why are we still seeing such warm temperatures?
Ah shit. Another terminally dumb fuck. Look, my little retarded 'Conservative', there are two factors in what determines the Earth's temperature. How much energy it gets from the sun, and how much of that energy it retains. The energy retained is determined by the albedo of the surface, and the GHGs in the atmosphere. We are decreasing the albedo by decreasing the amount of ice on land and sea, and increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Now do you wish to further offer proof that you are a room temperature IQ?What??? The temperature of the earth is determined by solar energy output?????
Can't be. No way. The Moon Bats tells us it is determined by the number of SUVs that White Republicans drive.
LOL Source is right on the chart. However, seeing as how you are probably too stupid to use google, here is the site;Funny how winter temperatures more resemble your IQ. Funny how this curve is from left to right, indicating that it is rapidly warming. Funny how that will continue to be the case.
Source and calibration data please.
Positive feedbacks were very significant during the Great Dying. Lordy, Tommy, at least get a minimal background in paleoclimatology before making such an ass of yourself. And in PT extinction event.Yes I did. And if you were capable of following a conversation, you would realize I am referring to the feedbacks that Sunsettommy claimed are based on a "bogus paradigm".
They are bogus since they exist ONLY in climate models. Never happened in the last 600 Million years, which you keep ignoring over and over. Positive feedback effects are never significant anywhere on the planet. Negative feedbacks are dominant and a big part of the Convection process of removing heat from the surface.
There are new published papers showing that Positive modeling feedbacks claims are dead on arrival. From Ollila, 2018
“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”
“
The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”
Another paper about NEGATIVE feedback:
A global radiative-convective feedback
Abstract.
We have investigated the sensitivity of the intensity of convective activity and atmospheric radiative cooling to radiatively thick upper-tropospheric clouds using a new version of the Colorado State University General Circulation Model. The model includes a bulk cloud microphysics scheme to predict the formation of cloud water, cloud ice, rain, and snow. The cloud optical properties are interactive and dependent upon the cloud water and cloud ice paths. We find that the formation of a persistent upper tropospheric cloud ice shield leads to decreased atmospheric radiative cooling and increased static stability. Convective activity is then strongly suppressed. In this way, upper-tropospheric clouds act as regulators of the global hydrologic cycle, and provide a negative feedback between atmospheric radiative cooling and convective activity