global warming summit in France

[Crick]

Frankie boy, your ignorance is monumental. Several times in the geological history of this planet, GHGs have driven a very rapid rise in temperatures. You can start with the P-T event if you really care to learn something.

Wrong again...

You thrive on being wrong!

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

How quick do you think those spike are Billy? 50,000 years? We've done a greater rise than any of those in a small fraction of ONE PERCENT of their time span.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frankie boy, your ignorance is monumental. Several times in the geological history of this planet, GHGs have driven a very rapid rise in temperatures. You can start with the P-T event if you really care to learn something.

Wrong again...

You thrive on being wrong!

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

How quick do you think those spike are Billy? 50,000 years? We've done a greater rise than any of those in a small fraction of ONE PERCENT of their time span.

Crick, you miss context and spatial resolution. IF those spikes are 50,000 years long our current spike would never be seen and any 'like' spikes would not be recorded because they are too short to be seen when averaged.

 

[catatomic]

The Point is this, With short residency time and multiple sinks that are sucking up the CO2, there has been no warming for almost 19 years and the increase is not causing a response of increased temperature. The CO2 - Water Vapor positive forcing link does not exist by empirical observed evidence. The AGW most critical hypothesis fails empirical review.

Remember when I started out on this forum, you showed took troposphere data in a vacuum and then CO2 in a vacuum. What's wrong with adding cubes up all over the earth that have all the temperature differences measured, and then solving? It seems you're looking in a vacuum again. The CO2 residency times acceleratingly get worse as the Ocean gets stuck up.

I'll let Crick argue that our spike is steeper because I think he/she will win. I should probably move on from this thread soon.

 

[Crick]

Frankie boy, your ignorance is monumental. Several times in the geological history of this planet, GHGs have driven a very rapid rise in temperatures. You can start with the P-T event if you really care to learn something.

Wrong again...

You thrive on being wrong!

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

How quick do you think those spike are Billy? 50,000 years? We've done a greater rise than any of those in a small fraction of ONE PERCENT of their time span.

Crick, you miss context and spatial resolution. IF those spikes are 50,000 years long our current spike would never be seen and any 'like' spikes would not be recorded because they are too short to be seen when averaged.

You're a fucking idiot.

Our current temperatures and CO2 levels are changing faster than they have changed in a very, very, very long time. Anyone with who'd taken a remedial class in atmospheric anything would know that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Point is this, With short residency time and multiple sinks that are sucking up the CO2, there has been no warming for almost 19 years and the increase is not causing a response of increased temperature. The CO2 - Water Vapor positive forcing link does not exist by empirical observed evidence. The AGW most critical hypothesis fails empirical review.

Remember when I started out on this forum, you showed took troposphere data in a vacuum and then CO2 in a vacuum. What's wrong with adding cubes up all over the earth that have all the temperature differences measured, and then solving? It seems you're looking in a vacuum again. The CO2 residency times acceleratingly get worse as the Ocean gets stuck up.

I'll let Crick argue that our spike is steeper because I think he/she will win. I should probably move on from this thread soon.

Our current spike is less than 100 years long. The resolution of 10,000 year averages in the record would mean our current spike would never be seen until it reaches 8,000 plus years in length above the highest point of the overall average.

What this mean to you is this, the record is not clear enough to rule out previous spikes of this magnitude from happening naturally. And as others have posted on this forum, there are other proxies out there which show much greater resolution and the fact that these spikes are not unprecedented or outside of natural variation. You simply do not have the resolution to back up your assertion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frankie boy, your ignorance is monumental. Several times in the geological history of this planet, GHGs have driven a very rapid rise in temperatures. You can start with the P-T event if you really care to learn something.

Wrong again...

You thrive on being wrong!

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

How quick do you think those spike are Billy? 50,000 years? We've done a greater rise than any of those in a small fraction of ONE PERCENT of their time span.

Crick, you miss context and spatial resolution. IF those spikes are 50,000 years long our current spike would never be seen and any 'like' spikes would not be recorded because they are too short to be seen when averaged.

You're a fucking idiot.

Our current temperatures and CO2 levels are changing faster than they have changed in a very, very, very long time. Anyone with who'd taken a remedial class in atmospheric anything would know that.

Wrong again..

Your lack of context and lack of spatial resolution understanding blinds you to the fact your supposition is not supported by empirical evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Point is this, With short residency time and multiple sinks that are sucking up the CO2, there has been no warming for almost 19 years and the increase is not causing a response of increased temperature. The CO2 - Water Vapor positive forcing link does not exist by empirical observed evidence. The AGW most critical hypothesis fails empirical review.

Remember when I started out on this forum, you showed took troposphere data in a vacuum and then CO2 in a vacuum. What's wrong with adding cubes up all over the earth that have all the temperature differences measured, and then solving? It seems you're looking in a vacuum again. The CO2 residency times acceleratingly get worse as the Ocean gets stuck up.

I'll let Crick argue that our spike is steeper because I think he/she will win. I should probably move on from this thread soon.

Actually it was a cylinder of argon gas and CO2.. This however is not our atmosphere and fails to account for water vapor among other gases and solids. Just throwing a bunch of blocks in a model and hoping that what you find in the end result will be correct (as the IPCC has done) is fallacy and pure folly. You need to do some real science and determine how those other gases react under changing pressures and temperatures. Our current crop of GCM's fail at just 12 hours.

 

[catatomic]

So you couldn't do the experiment I told you you'd be the richest man in the world for? Oh well. Never mind then.

If our Global Climate Models failed at 12 hours, once again nobody would use them, which isn't the case. In fact 195 countries have used them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you couldn't do the experiment I told you you'd be the richest man in the world for? Oh well. Never mind then.

If our Global Climate Models failed at 12 hours, once again nobody would use them, which isn't the case.

You must be taking lessons from Crick again.. bad move.

Please post up the certainty levels of any model used today.. I dare you!

 

[catatomic]

So you couldn't do the experiment I told you you'd be the richest man in the world for? Oh well. Never mind then.

If our Global Climate Models failed at 12 hours, once again nobody would use them, which isn't the case.

You must be taking lessons from Crick again.. bad move.

Please post up the certainty levels of any model used today.. I dare you!

Good idea... I will look for that or find a spreadsheet and measure it myself.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Model agreements (or spreads) are therefore not equivalent to probability statements. Since we cannot hope to span the full range of possible models (including all possible parameterizations) or to assess the uncertainty of physics about which we so far have no knowledge, hope that any ensemble range can ever be used as a surrogate for a full probability density function of future climate is futile."

When we can not even parameterize our atmosphere any model or projection is FUTILE!

This is why all current weather modeling fails at 12 hours. Even the ensemble range fails.

Source

 

[catatomic]

OK I got one and bet I could get more: The 6 continent picture I showed you is also here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Go to page 11-18. The variance is in the notes. It shows the five to ninety-five percentiles for all 19 natural forcings and 58 natural+human forcing models. Note that this is a superposition of 5-95% for all models! That's pretty good I think.

 

[catatomic]

OK I got one and bet I could get more: The 6 continent picture I showed you is also here:


https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf


Go to page 11 of 18. The variance is in the notes. It shows the five to ninety-five percentiles for all 19 natural forcings and 58 natural+human forcing models. Note that this is a superposition of 5-95% for all models! That's pretty good I think.

 

[catatomic]

I'm sorry but I think you are making up that we can't cover the atmosphere. That was one of the first things I said and a first thing MIT covered. The atmosphere may differ, but the total matters.

 

[Kosh]

OK I got one and bet I could get more: The 6 continent picture I showed you is also here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Go to page 11-18. The variance is in the notes. It shows the five to ninety-five percentiles for all 19 natural forcings and 58 natural+human forcing models. Note that this is a superposition of 5-95% for all models! That's pretty good I think.

Sorry the IPCC is a joke, any bo0dy or entity that uses the Mann Hockey stick is not to be trust as a science course..

CO2 does not drive climate..

 

[Billy_Bob]

OK I got one and bet I could get more: The 6 continent picture I showed you is also here:


https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf


Go to page 11 of 18. The variance is in the notes. It shows the five to ninety-five percentiles for all 19 natural forcings and 58 natural+human forcing models. Note that this is a superposition of 5-95% for all models! That's pretty good I think.

Gavin Schmidt (alarmist) writes:

"Yet demands from policy makers for scientific-looking probability distributions for regional climate changes are mounting, and while there are a number of ways to provide them, all, in my opinion, are equally unverifiable. Therefore, while it is seductive to attempt to corner our ignorance with the seeming certainty of 95-percent confidence intervals, the comfort it gives is likely to be an illusion. Climate modeling might be better seen as a Baedeker for the future, giving some insight into what might be found, rather than a precise itinerary."

Even Schmidt understands the failure.

Source

 

[catatomic]

Have a nice day Kosh.

 

[catatomic]

Schmidt doesn't sound very smart... it was a 90 % interval. lol.

I think it's pretty much done... I can stop typing now.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your range percentages are failures..

 

[catatomic]

I will respond: the yellow is from 2000, an outlier. The distribution at 2015, then is very nearly the same as say 1900. I won't do this much longer.