If you're talking about me, Robert, the problem isn't my focus, it's your lack of understanding re this topic. I clearly showed that what you view as a trivial bit of warming isn't trivial at all, it's unprecedented in human history and beyond. But you skipped that and decided to attack my "focus". If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence says you're wrong, you need to stay away from conversations with anyone who might actually tell you the truth.
You confirmed my remark is about you. A couple of degrees over 150 year time span alarms you. May you keep from scaring others from now forward.
Because a couple of degrees over 150 years is unprecedented over the last million years. May you put your thinking cap on.
You have enough fear to fill up a basket of nitwits.
When your wife warns you that someone is pulling out in front of your car, do you chastise her for her fearfulness?
Ha ha ha ha ha…
The Earth has warmed. The poles have experienced the greatest warming. The oceans have warmed. The pH of the oceans has decreased as a result of increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
About what?
My picture is on my avatar. If you're having trouble seeing it, perhaps you need some stronger readers. Or cataract surgery.
Lots and lots and lots of scientists ARE smarter than him and the vast majority of them disagree with his views. I trust them a GREAT deal more than I trust Landse or you.
It's made extremely well at www.ipcc.ch. You should visit.
They do. When I do math here, I do show it. Why don't you talk to some of the folks on YOUR side of the argument about pulling things out of their asses and failing to back things up with good sources? Eh?
Great than breakout the instantaneous GHG effect from the climate sensitivity. Let's see that calculation.
Clarify what the fuck you're talking about. There are two 'versions' of climate sensitivity: ECS and TCR. Neither is instantaneous and the calculations are present in every one of the assessment reports, in depth. I have posted large segments of the AR6 text on that specific topic because for the first time, in AR6, climate sensitivity is calculated from basic principles rather than as en emergent parameter from climate model runs.
What is the heat that is generated immediately from GHG molecules vibrating versus the heat feedback generated - over time - from GHG molecules vibrating?
GHG molecules do not "generate" heat and greenhouse heating is not a feedback mechanism.
Their vibrating molecules produce heat. That's the GHG effect. Maybe look it up.
I don't mind teaching the ignorant, but trying to teach the willfully ignorant is a waste of everyone's time.
Says the guy who apparently can't distinguish between the immediate physical effect of GHG's and supposed feedback from GHG's.
All you really need is the science of the geologic record to know that we are in an interglacial period that is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more CO2 and 26 ft shallower seas.Lindzen holds the title of being the most consistently wrong climate scientist on the planet.
Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist 'skeptics'. After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, so there are few climate scientist 'skeptics' to choose from. Lindzen has researched climate science for four decades...skepticalscience.com
Note that everything there is well-reasoned, and backed up with hard data and links to primary sources. It covers all of Lindzen's bogus claims from the video, patiently explaining how Lindzen pooched it every time.
So, by the denier "BUT I HAVE A LINK YOU MUST REFUTE!" weasel-standards, unless deniers refute every single sentence in that link, I win.
Yes, I know certain deniers will now invoke conspiracy theories to avoid looking at the data. That's just one reason why they're correctly classified as deniers.
Robert? He'll work hardest of all to run from the facts and data. He never understood any science in the first place, and now he's rejecting the whole concept of science, in favor of parroting kook dogma from his political masters.
How can it be unprecedented when the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less CO2 than today. You can't explain that without claiming natural variability and you can't say natural variability and dismiss natural variability today.
Lindzen holds the title of being the most consistently wrong climate scientist on the planet.
Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist 'skeptics'. After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, so there are few climate scientist 'skeptics' to choose from. Lindzen has researched climate science for four decades...skepticalscience.com
Note that everything there is well-reasoned, and backed up with hard data and links to primary sources. It covers all of Lindzen's bogus claims from the video, patiently explaining how Lindzen pooched it every time.
So, by the denier "BUT I HAVE A LINK YOU MUST REFUTE!" weasel-standards, unless deniers refute every single sentence in that link, I win.
Yes, I know certain deniers will now invoke conspiracy theories to avoid looking at the data. That's just one reason why they're correctly classified as deniers.
Robert? He'll work hardest of all to run from the facts and data. He never understood any science in the first place, and now he's rejecting the whole concept of science, in favor of parroting kook dogma from his political masters.
