Hurricane Otis' Wind Speed Increased by 115 mph in 24 Hours. That's Normal... Right?

[CrusaderFrank]

Many do try that, but then we see the Cancel Culture at work against them.

Hence, they will tell us we must listen to the entertainer that has a BA in engineering. But we must ignore the PhD with a Nobel prize in in physics because... anybody that does not agree is wrong and must be silenced.

That's how real science works right? You silence the opposition for being deniers

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's how real science works right? You silence the opposition for being deniers

If you've been silenced how can you still be here? Cryin'? Like a baby?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you've been silenced how can you still be here? Cryin'? Like a baby?

I’m not at a University challenging your Fake AGW Theory. “Deniers” aren’t allowed to “peer review” your obviously wrong “theory”

 

[Crick]

I’m not at a University challenging your Fake AGW Theory. “Deniers” aren’t allowed to “peer review” your obviously wrong “theory”

What would be required Frank is that you have some valid science to back up your claims. That you seem to lack in great handfuls.

Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrailers, Holocaust-deniers, 911-was-an-inside-jobbers, fake Moon landers and AGW-deniers ALL claim that their evidence is being suppressed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What would be required Frank is that you have some valid science to back up your claims. That you seem to lack in great handfuls.

Would be great if you had ANY science AT ALL showing how: 1) 120PPM of CO2 can increase temperature on planet Earth and 2) How mankind is generating this additional CO2.

Pointing at weather event and blaming it all on the Spaghetti Climate Monster is NOT science no matter how many bought and paid for "peers" agree with you. Calling skeptics "deniers" merely confirms your cult status.

You see that don't you?

 

[Crick]

Would be great if you had ANY science AT ALL showing how: 1) 120PPM of CO2 can increase temperature on planet Earth and 2) How mankind is generating this additional CO2.

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Pointing at weather event and blaming it all on the Spaghetti Climate Monster is NOT science no matter how many bought and paid for "peers" agree with you.

I have been pointing to peer reviewed studies and the IPCC's assessment reports since the beginning. YOU have been failing - completely - to provide any valid science to back up your claims, since the beginning. I'm quite certain that's never going to change.

Calling skeptics "deniers" merely confirms your cult status.

Calling yourself a skeptic is an insult to skeptics.

You see that don't you?

Yes, Frank, he's standing right behind you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Calling yourself a skeptic is an insult to skeptics.

Seriously.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

I have been pointing to peer reviewed studies and the IPCC's assessment reports since the beginning. YOU have been failing - completely - to provide any valid science to back up your claims, since the beginning. I'm quite certain that's never going to change.

Calling yourself a skeptic is an insult to skeptics.

Yes, Frank, he's standing right behind you.

Using circular IPCC Deniers need not apply, self congratulatory pats on the back is STILL not science.

We ask: how much of a temperature increase is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2 in an Earth atmosphere at sea level...and you never give us a number

IPCC: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

 

[Crick]

Using circular IPCC Deniers need not apply, self congratulatory pats on the back is STILL not science.

You asked for science Frank. I gave it to you.

We ask: how much of a temperature increase is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2 in an Earth atmosphere at sea level...and you never give us a number

I have given you a number. It is included in the link I just provided you in their discussions re equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response (ECS and TCR). Chapter 3, I think.

IPCC: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

That isn't a statement of the IPCC and it is grossly out of the context Edenhoffer clearly included in his full statement. You've been told that before on multiple occasions. That makes you a liar Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Step 1: IPCC Created to fabricate Climate Change as science
Step 2: Skeptic asks for proof of CO2 climate changing ability
Step 3: AGWCult points to Step 1

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You asked for science Frank. I gave it to you.

I have given you a number. It is included in the link I just provided you in their discussions re equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response (ECS and TCR). Chapter 3, I think.

That isn't a statement of the IPCC and it is grossly out of the context Edenhoffer clearly included in his full statement. You've been told that before on multiple occasions. That makes you a liar Frank.

Context? First it was there's no such person as Ottmar, then it was he wasn't speaking for the IPCC now it's sure Ottmar spilled the beans - but context

 

[Crick]

Step 1: IPCC Created to fabricate Climate Change as science
Step 2: Skeptic asks for proof of CO2 climate changing ability
Step 3: AGWCult points to Step 1

1) Manmade global warming was a well known topic in both the scientific and popular press well before the IPCC was formed Frank. Your first claim just makes you look stupid.
2) Not well, but you were answered long ago. Now you claim otherwise. This makes you look like a liar (because you are, Frank, you are)
3) I am not pointing to the existence of the IPCC. I am pointing to an 1800 page assessment of published climate science that verifies the claims I make here and refutes yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You asked for science Frank. I gave it to you.

I have given you a number. It is included in the link I just provided you in their discussions re equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response (ECS and TCR). Chapter 3, I think.

That isn't a statement of the IPCC and it is grossly out of the context Edenhoffer clearly included in his full statement. You've been told that before on multiple occasions. That makes you a liar Frank.

Odd you didn't post a number for the imaginary temperature increase caused buy 120PPM additional CO2. You'd think that after 6 IPCC iterations you'd have a number

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1) Manmade global warming was a well known topic in both the scientific and popular press well before the IPCC was formed Frank. Your first claim just makes you look stupid.
2) Not well, but you were answered long ago. Now you claim otherwise. This makes you look like a liar (because you are, Frank, you are)
3) I am not pointing to the existence of the IPCC. I am pointing to an 1800 page assessment of published climate science that verifies the claims I make here and refutes yours.

See all you have left is insults which don't bother me in the least. Call me anything you want rather than examine why you can't provide an answer.

How quickly does an object fall to Earth in a vacuum, there's a number

How much does of a temperature increase does a 120PPM increase in CO2 cause, insults, crickets, or pointing to IPCC

 

[Grumblenuts]

So where did the quote come from, did Edenhofer say it, and was he really admitting a sinister plan to redistribute the world’s wealth?

The quote originates from this 2010 interview, written in German. Have you spotted the first problem?

How could Edenhofer have “affirmed the scheme” from the Paris accord, when the Paris deal didn’t even exist in 2010 (it was only signed in 2015)? It’s OK. You don’t need to answer.

 

[Grumblenuts]

How quickly does an object fall to Earth in a vacuum

~9.8m/sec^2

How much does of a temperature increase does a 120PPM increase in CO2 cause

Incoherent much? Shirley you can't be serious.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

~9.8m/sec^2

Incoherent much? Shirley you can't be serious.

No answer on the CO2 question, why do you think that is? Maybe the number is .000002F?

 

[Crick]

No answer on the CO2 question, why do you think that is? Maybe the number is .000002F?

Go to the link I provided and look up the new version of the radiative forcing diagram you've seen here a hundred times Frank. That chart now contains the information you've been whining about for so long. I have posted it here multiple times and have pointed out that it answers your old chestnut quite clearly.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Maybe the number is .000002F?

Maybe it's 42. Or maybe the question is simply incoherent, like I said.

How much does of a temperature increase does a 120PPM increase in CO2 cause

Where? On Earth? Globally? At what elevation? Annually? Increase from what starting temperature? What's the starting CO2 level? What's the pressure? What's the humidity?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe it's 42. Or maybe the question is simply incoherent, like I said.

Where? On Earth? Globally? At what elevation? Annually? Increase from what starting temperature? What's the starting CO2 level? What's the pressure? What's the humidity?

Do you find it embarrassing that you DON"T have a number??? You can easily do an experiment controlling for CO2 and show the increase is far out in decimal places, and NOT 1.5F. Completely embarrassing that the AGWCult never gives a number, only insults