Its called NATURE!!!!

[jc456]

He has personally seen them judged by their peers. What "peers" judge the work Heartland's employees do?

He has? He was there for the review? Why did you feel the need to interfere in my conversation with him? How da fk would you fking know? You being the fk cuck

 

[Crick]

He has? He was there for the review? Why did you feel the need to interfere in my conversation with him? How da fk would you fking know? You being the fk cuck

Someone has to interfere in almost every conversation of yours. It's a two-man lift.

 

[Grumblenuts]

^He ain't heavy. He's my brother!

 

[jc456]

Someone has to interfere in almost every conversation of yours. It's a two-man lift.

Ahh you think you’re the hall pass fk!! Look at you! Still waiting on a scientist!! Ain’t got one? IPCC aren’t scientists!!! And psst, they do not do anything

 

[Crick]

Ahh you think you’re the hall pass fk!! Look at you! Still waiting on a scientist!! Ain’t got one? IPCC aren’t scientists!!! And psst, they do not do anything

The IPCC employs large numbers of scientists. In a post here a year or two ago I listed pages and pages of them, with their university affiliations. And, as I have pointed out to YOU on many occasions, the IPCC conducts no science. Their job is to assess the work of others. That is done by many more - by thousands - of scientists. And who do you have on your side of the argument? Four scientists? Five? Most retired? Most elderly? Most funded by the oil and mining industries?

 

[jc456]

The IPCC employs large numbers of scientists. In a post here a year or two ago I listed pages and pages of them, with their university affiliations. And, as I have pointed out to YOU on many occasions, the IPCC conducts no science. Their job is to assess the work of others. That is done by many more - by thousands - of scientists. And who do you have on your side of the argument? Four scientists? Five? Most retired? Most elderly? Most funded by the oil and mining industries?

you thought you did, and I went and resourced the names on the list and they weren't scientists, I explained to you they weren't and asked you to pick one name out of the list, and you scampered away with your dick in your hand.

 

[Crick]

you thought you did, and I went and resourced the names on the list and they weren't scientists, I explained to you they weren't and asked you to pick one name out of the list, and you scampered away with your dick in your hand.

That would be a lie.

 

[ding]

Hilarious


Where did you get you internets climate degree?

From 20+ years of studying paleoclimates.

 

[ding]

Well we know that's a shameless lie. I have given you the opportunity. Many times.

I don't know that's a lie because it isn't. Unlike you I understand paleoclimates and what drove the transition from a greenhouse planet to our present icehouse planet. Feel free to invite anyone to the discussion. I won't run from it like you do.

 

[ding]

It is not from a model. It is from a calculation. "In panel (a) ERFs for well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) are from the analytical formulae". You should read the captions.

It is 100% from their model output. They attribute feedback from the radiative forcing of CO2 and lump in in all together. There's no transparency.

 

[Crick]

It is 100% from their model output. They attribute feedback from the radiative forcing of CO2 and lump in in all together. There's no transparency.

Prove it. Which might be difficult if, as you claim, there's no transparency. Once again I suggest you read the fucking caption before you make yourself look even more a fool.

 

[ding]

Prove it. Which might be difficult if, as you claim, there's no transparency. Once again I suggest you read the fucking caption before you make yourself look even more a fool.

The proof is they don't show them as separate components. Are you seriously arguing they don't believe there is an emergent CO2 radiative forcing that supposedly creates an incremental amount of water vapor which causes additional warming which is the positive feedback from the emergent CO2 radiative forcing?

What you - and they - attribute to CO2 is the radiative forcing of CO2 plus the feedback of CO2. If they don't break them out separately then they are lumping them in all together and reporting them as warming from CO2.

It's quite disingenuous and has apparently fooled even you into believing the theoretical surface warming - from physics - of a doubling of CO2 isn't 1C.

 

[otto105]

From 20+ years of studying paleoclimates.

And that informs us how from human caused rapid warming?

 

[ding]

And that informs us how from human caused rapid warming?

That's it's not driven by humans but is a natural cycle that has been going on for millions of years.

 

[otto105]

That's it's not driven by humans but is a natural cycle that has been going on for millions of years.

So, what is driving the rapid warmth that only started after we started burning fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

So, what is driving the rapid warmth that only started after we started burning fossil fuels.

Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic and of course the sun. Happens every interglacial period before AMOC switches off and temperatures plunge in the NH.

 

[Crick]

The proof is they don't show them as separate components. Are you seriously arguing they don't believe there is an emergent CO2 radiative forcing that supposedly creates an incremental amount of water vapor which causes additional warming which is the positive feedback from the emergent CO2 radiative forcing?

What you - and they - attribute to CO2 is the radiative forcing of CO2 plus the feedback of CO2. If they don't break them out separately then they are lumping them in all together and reporting them as warming from CO2.

It's quite disingenuous and has apparently fooled even you into believing the theoretical surface warming - from physics - of a doubling of CO2 isn't 1C.

The water vapor is positive feedback to every warming factor and cooling factor. Is that what you want to say? If so, I have to ask why the warming sum is not equal to the ECS.

 

[otto105]

Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic and of course the sun. Happens every interglacial period before AMOC switches off and temperatures plunge in the NH.

Sure, sure.

The ocean and the sun causing a spike in CO2 in the atmosphere.

How?

 

[otto105]

Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic and of course the sun. Happens every interglacial period before AMOC switches off and temperatures plunge in the NH.

The ocean is creating CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[ding]

The water vapor is positive feedback to every warming factor and cooling factor. Is that what you want to say? If so, I have to ask why the warming sum is not equal to the ECS.

Because they are two different phenomenon. One is the calculated immediate temperature effect of vibrating molecules (1C per doubling of CO2). The other is their model estimate of feedback from vibrating molecules.