Global Warming Liars

[Crick]

View attachment 679119
Were you lying in post #223, or are you lying now?

Fuck you Todd. I don't lie. The statement quite intentionally lacks the word "net" or "sum", doesn't it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fuck you Todd. I don't lie. The statement quite intentionally lacks the word "net" or "sum", doesn't it.

Water vapor does provide a [NET] positive feedback mechanism to warming.

Because the word NET wasn't in your statement, it was true?

 

[jc456]

Fear of minorities. Fear of immigrants. Fear of gays and lesbians. Ignorance about global warming, the climate, pollution, the environment, ecology and the scientific method. Liberals hate America, socialism is the same as communism, blacks are lazy and tend to criminality, immigrants commit violent crimes out of proportion to their numbers and Biden and the Democratic party stole the 2020 presidential election through voter fraud.

Talk about some fucking projection.

yep, you do it well.

 

[jc456]

Why do you think the oceans are cooling?

why do you think they're not?

 

[jc456]

If it's hot, "climate change."
If it's cold, "climate change."
Too much rain, "climate change."
Rampant stupidity, "climate change."

Seasonal temperatures change all around the world 25 to 50 degrees Celsius. Climate change zealots go crazy over a promised change of 2 degrees. W.T.F.

You claim to be an engineer yet you would ask a question as stupid as this?

where is a question in Chem's post?

 

[jc456]

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/death-toll-from-brutal-heat-wave-tops-1000-in-spain-and-portugal/1218084

the pro-lifers keep the killing going.

 

[jc456]

Check it out. This one actually denies that the oceans are absorbing CO2.

This is why they call them deniers, because they just deny observed reality. They don't care if it makes them look insane. TheParty ordered them to do it, so they obey.

so, are you saying warm oceans don't release CO2? hahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

[Redfish]

OK AGW advocates: is florida under water as algore promised? is Manhattan under water as algore promised, is all of the polar ice gone as algore promised? Duh, no. he lied and you fools believed the lies. You idiots made him rich.

 

[jc456]

Let's take your one penny and attach a small heat pipe to it in an analog to the way the sun is constantly putting in energy that is being absorbed by that "penny" of CO2 and methane. Guess what? They all get warmer.

so show the experiment.

 

[jc456]

Prove that it’s not happening.

prove it is.

 

[jc456]

You have never heard of the burning of fossil fuels?

how about volcanoes?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Consensus in history

We have consensus that the Earth is a flat plane suspended in space on the backs of turtles!

I thought it was yaks?

 

[jc456]

The only thing that you can offer as a scientific organization is a publishing company?


Hilariously bad fail.

how do you supposed they get their material? you think the IPCC is a science organization? hahahhahahahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

From Pg 41: Magnitude of climate system response: In this Report, it has been possible to reduce the long-standing uncertainty ranges for metrics that quantify the response of the climate system to radiative forcing, such as the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the transient climate response (TCR), due to substantial advances (e.g., a 50% reduction in the uncertainty range of cloud feedbacks) and improved integration of multiple lines of evidence, including paleoclimate information.

Pg 42: Effects of short-lived climate forcers on global warming: The AR5 assessed the radiative forcing for emitted compounds. The AR6 has extended this by assessing the emissions-based ERFs also accounting for aerosol–cloud interactions. The best estimates of ERF attributed to sulphur dioxide (SO2) and CH4 emissions are substantially greater than in AR5, while that of black carbon is substantially reduced. The magnitude of uncertainty in the ERF due to black carbon emissions has also been reduced relative to AR5. (Section TS.3.1)

Pg 49: Some CMIP6 models demonstrate an improvement in how clouds are represented. CMIP5 models commonly displayed a negative shortwave cloud radiative effect that was too weak in the present climate. These errors have been reduced, especially over the Southern Ocean, due to a more realistic simulation of supercooled liquid droplets with sufficient numbers and an associated increase in the cloud optical depth. Because a negative cloud optical depth feedback in response to surface warming results from ‘brightening’ of clouds via active phase change from ice to liquid cloud particles (increasing their shortwave cloud radiative effect), the extratropical cloud shortwave feedback in CMIP6 models tends to be less negative, leading to a better agreement with observational estimates (medium confidence). CMIP6 models generally represent more processes that drive aerosol–cloud interactions than the previous generation of climate models, but there is only medium confidence that those enhancements improve their fitness-for-purpose of simulating radiative forcing of aerosol–cloud interactions. {6.4, 7.4.2, FAQ 7.2}

Pg 49: Two important quantities used to estimate how the climate system responds to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR16). The CMIP6 ensemble has broader ranges of ECS and TCR values than CMIP5 (see Section TS.3.2 for the assessed range). These higher sensitivity values can, in some models, be traced to changes in extratropical cloud feedbacks (medium confidence). To combine evidence from CMIP6 models and independent assessments of ECS and TCR, various emulators are used throughout the report. Emulators are a broad class of simple climate models or statistical methods that reproduce the behaviour of complex ESMs to represent key characteristics of the climate system, such as global surface temperature and sea level projections. The main application of emulators in AR6 is to extrapolate insights from ESMs and observational constraints to produce projections from a larger set of emissions scenarios, which is achieved due to their computational efficiency. These emulated projections are also used for scenario classification in WGIII. {Box 4.1, 4.3.4, 7.4.2, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 7.1, FAQ 7.2}

That's enough for this purpose. Certainly clouds are addressed in AR6 and mainstream science's knowledge of how clouds figure into all this is certainly improving. One thing I always find when I go to the the assessment reports is how far beyond the typical USMB conversation are the work of actual scientists. These excerpts are from introductory texts in a technical summary. This is about the simplest level of material you'll find in The Physical Science Basis outside the summary for policymakers but we both know that most posters here can't follow one word in ten from those documents. Why do you listen to those people Todd?

still no empirical data huh?

 

[ChemEngineer]

OK AGW advocates: is florida under water as algore promised? is Manhattan under water as algore promised, is all of the polar ice gone as algore promised? Duh, no. he lied and you fools believed the lies. You idiots made him rich.

Obama and his husband purchased an oceanfront mansion on Martha's Vineyard years after the pathological liar said "Climate change is the greatest threat America is facing. Our oceans are rising."

Construction is going on in the Maldives at a furious pace to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. It's NOT going underwater.

Fear and ignorance are cornerstones of Democrats/environmentalists/Leftists/AlGorians.

 

[jc456]

They could be but as we all here know, clouds are a very complicated question and all the king's horses and all the king's men and all the climate scientists on the planet haven't quite figured out what they do. Now, one thing THAT tells me is that they very likely do NOT have a large effect in either direction, else the data would have shown it by now. It certainly doesn't LOOK like the rate of warming is slowing and if warming is increasing cloud cover it should have been doing that since the turn of the last century at least.

thought you had consensus? How can you know anything if you admittedly have missing data?

 

[ReinyDays]

why do you think they're not?

Because we measure a tiny increase in average air temperature ... that can't happen unless there's an equal increase in the oceans ... equilibrium ... we haven't been measuring ocean temperature, so no one knows for sure ...

 

[jc456]

Because we measure a tiny increase in average air temperature ... that can't happen unless there's an equal increase in the oceans ... equilibrium ... we haven't been measuring ocean temperature, so no one knows for sure ...

But we measure air temperatures over water!

 

[Billy_Bob]

still no empirical data huh?

Its all-failed modeling all of the time with Crick... He will not believe real empirical evidence right in front of his eyes. Crick relies on fantasies that have no basis in reality.

 

[dudmuck]

OK AGW advocates: is florida under water as algore promised? is Manhattan under water as algore promised, is all of the polar ice gone as algore promised? Duh, no. he lied and you fools believed the lies. You idiots made him rich.

is the beach getting smaller?