Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
link?
Anyway, SSDD will provide links all the time and the response is some mumbo jumbo from some wanker climate change industry organization attached to the scheisters and providing misleading/bogus information.
. Like that fake Arctic Ice graph the other day 
yesterday I left work at 5:00 PM and the temp was 63. wind chill probably 53. yep, gotta love that AGW.Hey JC.....temps mid-week here on Long Island in the daytime in the low 60's
on June 7th! We had a good laugh!
Perhaps you've forgotten that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land while the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. Did you expect them to behave identically?Perhaps you've forgotten that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land while the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. Did you expect them to behave identically?
Again...two TRILLION of ice have been added to the arctic since 2016. CO2 has been increasing as has the ice. For all your doomsaying, the arctic ice is only off the mean by a few percent...you act as if you think the ice has been as it was in the 70's back to the beginning of time...you actually believe that don't you...that the ice has been unchanging since the beginning of time? What a dupe you are skidmark.
That is part of the problem with warmists who never seem to know that cycles exist in almost anything related to weather and climate.
Look at practically any linear graph they provide...it will invariably be the downward, or upward part of a cycle. They cherry pick the part of the cycle that supports the narrative and then pretend that prior to the upward swing or downward swing, it was a flat line back to the beginning of time. Without fail, if you look back at the larger picture, their proclamations of doom are laughable.
The projections as to global temperature are not all over the place. AGW will easily overwhelm the tiny reduction in solar irradiance and temperatures will continue to climb.
The concept of CO2 greenhouse saturation is bullshit. All of the IR radiated from the Earth into space does so from the upper stratosphere. The elevation of that layer rises and falls with temperature. As the greenhouse effect drives up the Earth's temperature, the altitude of the radiating layer gets higher and higher. There is no saturation effect.
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
The concept of CO2 greenhouse saturation is bullshit. All of the IR radiated from the Earth into space does so from the upper stratosphere. The elevation of that layer rises and falls with temperature. As the greenhouse effect drives up the Earth's temperature, the altitude of the radiating layer gets higher and higher. There is no saturation effect.
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Never said anything about "saturation effect", it is the mathematically derived CO2 sensitivity is what matters here. For each doubling CO2 warm forcing increase gets smaller and smaller. Keep in mind that CO2 absorbs only a small part of the outgoing OLWR, in the first place.
Here is a recently published science paper showing this, from SPRINGER LINK:
Infrared Atmospheric Emission
Boris M. Smirnov
First Online: 30 August 2016
Abstract
Emission of a flat layer, consisting of a gas with a weakly varied temperature in the perpendicular direction to the layer, is reduced to the case of the layer with a constant temperature. The average optical thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere in an infrared spectrum range is u≈2.7'>u≈2.7u≈2.7 and is determined on the basis of the energetic balance of the Earth and its atmosphere within the framework of the standard atmosphere model due to emission and surviving of infrared photons. It is shown that infrared emission of the atmosphere is determined mostly by atmospheric water. One can separate the flux of outgoing infrared radiation of the atmosphere from that towards the Earth. The fluxes due to rotation-vibration transitions of atmospheric CO2'>CO2CO2 molecules are evaluated. Doubling of the concentration of CO2'>CO2CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that is expected over 130 years leads to an increase of the average Earth temperature by (0.4±0.2)'>(0.4±0.2)(0.4±0.2) K mostly due to the flux towards the Earth if other atmospheric parameters are not varied. Various models with a water change give the temperature change (3.0±1.5)'>(3.0±1.5)(3.0±1.5) K at doubling of the CO2'>CO2CO2 molecule concentration. An observed temperature change (0.8∘C'>0.8∘C0.8∘C) during the industrial epoch may be realized if approximately 0.5%'>0.5%0.5% of free water molecules become aerosols, and this testifies to an atmospheric instability.
Hey retard, the RED line is OBSERVED... the black line is your models...Explain how this refutes the issue of the the increasing altitude of the radiating level of the atmosphere. Can't? It doesn't? What a fucking surprise.
Somebody comes up with an equation and you just jump up and buy it. "It's got fancy math, it MUST be right!" Whatever happened to those folks constantly screaming for empirical data? What the fuck is this but an EXTREMELY simple MODEL!!!
Hey retard, the RED line is OBSERVED... the black line is your models...Explain how this refutes the issue of the the increasing altitude of the radiating level of the atmosphere. Can't? It doesn't? What a fucking surprise.
Somebody comes up with an equation and you just jump up and buy it. "It's got fancy math, it MUST be right!" Whatever happened to those folks constantly screaming for empirical data? What the fuck is this but an EXTREMELY simple MODEL!!!
This was our warmest May on record, and second driest. The dry part is a worry.
Explain how this refutes the issue of the the increasing altitude of the radiating level of the atmosphere. Can't? It doesn't? What a fucking surprise.
Somebody comes up with an equation and you just jump up and buy it. "It's got fancy math, it MUST be right!" Whatever happened to those folks constantly screaming for empirical data? What the fuck is this but an EXTREMELY simple MODEL!!!
You're the one with the vision problems. The black line is labeled
y=4.7 ln(CO2 ppm) - 26.9 Global Warming Models
The red line is labeled
y=2.73 Ln(CO2 ppm) - 15.8 This Model - Actual Observations
The wee dash is called a "MINUS SIGN". You might have heard of it in the first grade
Both include MODELS you idiot.
And the text to which you linked says:
It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band�s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.
Reading Challenged...You're the one with the vision problems. The black line is labeled
y=4.7 ln(CO2 ppm) - 26.9 Global Warming Models
The red line is labeled
y=2.73 Ln(CO2 ppm) - 15.8 This Model - Actual Observations
The wee dash is called a "MINUS SIGN". You might have heard of it in the first grade
Both include MODELS you idiot.
And the text to which you linked says:
It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band�s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.
They are now 0.0 to 0.6 deg C/doubling...More recent published papers have LOWERED the warming rate for a doubling of CO2.
Reading Challenged...You're the one with the vision problems. The black line is labeled
y=4.7 ln(CO2 ppm) - 26.9 Global Warming Models
The red line is labeled
y=2.73 Ln(CO2 ppm) - 15.8 This Model - Actual Observations
The wee dash is called a "MINUS SIGN". You might have heard of it in the first grade
Both include MODELS you idiot.
And the text to which you linked says:
It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band�s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.
The Observations were placed into the model and the response plotted as were the modeled outputs. Your so confused that its much worse than being ignorant. Your magic multiplier is total bull shit..
Reading Challenged...You're the one with the vision problems. The black line is labeled
y=4.7 ln(CO2 ppm) - 26.9 Global Warming Models
The red line is labeled
y=2.73 Ln(CO2 ppm) - 15.8 This Model - Actual Observations
The wee dash is called a "MINUS SIGN". You might have heard of it in the first grade
Both include MODELS you idiot.
And the text to which you linked says:
It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band�s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.
The Observations were placed into the model and the response plotted as were the modeled outputs. Your so confused that its much worse than being ignorant. Your magic multiplier is total bull shit..
The "response" of a model into which CO2 observations have been entered is a fucking model run you ignorant twit. Your plot is model outputs and it utterly fails to address the reason CO2's greenhouse effect is not saturated. And, as it states in the IPCC text to which you linked, every further doubling adds an additional 4 watts per square meter radiative forcing. Do you understand? NOT SATURATED.
