My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

[Cardinal Carminative]

Notice that you keep avoiding his question:

"Here's a math exercise for you ... it's typically reported that man-kind releases 40 gigatons of CO2 every year ... how much is this in atmospheric ppm? ... this value is observed as ≈ 2.5 ppm(volume)/yr at the Hawai'i gauge ... and don't forget density differences ..."

Waiting waiting.....

Why would the number make a difference?

I'm asking because some people always focus on "small numbers" as if small numbers can't have a HUGE effect.


So I'm going to have to ask WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE NUMBER?

But more importantly: NATURAL SOURCES OF CO2 are presumably in balance with the natural world and the carbon cycle. The key is that humanity is release a large amount of previously sequestered carbon at rates in excess of the natural cyclings.

The natural cycle of carbon has releases from a variety of natural sources. Humanity has taken a huge chunk of carbon that was "sequestered outside of the carbon cycle" for millions of years and is now pumping it into the atmosphere.

Like others have noted: the atmosphere has, before humans showed up, had a variety of different levels of CO2. Sometimes MUCH higher than today. The key then becomes what does OUR influx of carbon mean?

Well it clearly means we are looking at measurable warming due directly to our actions. Sure it's been hotter in earth's past. The problem is that our societies didn't exist then and now we are in the process of RAPIDLY changing the climate and endangering out ability to deal with outcome!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

They offer unverifiable model not evidence you moron!

The models are actually reasonably well verified.

(IT's funny to see folks who have no scientific background mock models. You wouldn't know anything about them. But they are integral to almost all the science that you DO like even though you don't now it).

 

[ding]

If you had read even a modest amount of any of the assessment reports you would have seen mention of differing opinions. Your blinders aren't my problem.

You can't point to one.

 

[ding]

If you had read even a modest amount of any of the assessment reports you would have seen mention of differing opinions. Your blinders aren't my problem.

You do realize that by arguing they are doing something they are not doing proves you know it's wrong to not include dissenting opinions.

 

[ding]

The models are actually reasonably well verified.

(IT's funny to see folks who have no scientific background mock models. You wouldn't know anything about them. But they are integral to almost all the science that you DO like even though you don't now it).

Honey, I've run numerical simulations before. Plenty of times. Garbage in equals garbage out.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Honey, I've run numerical simulations before. Plenty of times. Garbage in equals garbage out.

Just because you were bad with models does not mean all models are bad.

As has been noted before the global climate models are actually getting the warming correct.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

 

[ding]

Just because you were bad with models does not mean all models are bad.

As has been noted before the global climate models are actually getting the warming correct.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

I was really good with models that's why I could history match my models which they can't.

 

[ding]

Some new climate models are projecting extreme warming. Are they correct? » Yale Climate Connections

Recent climate models are 'running hot,' projecting catastrophic global warming. Puzzled scientists are weighing whether the models need correcting or whether severe warming is a real threat.

yaleclimateconnections.org

 

[ding]

Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming

A new study from climate researchers concludes that some of the latest-generation climate models may be overly sensitive to carbon dioxide increases and therefore project future warming that is unrealistically high.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[ding]

High end of climate sensitivity in new climate models seen as less plausible

Researchers found that the latest generation of high-sensitivity climate models do not provide a plausible scenario of Earth's future climate. These models project that clouds moderate greenhouse gas-induced warming -- particularly in the northern hemisphere -- much more than climate records...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[ding]

Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

The simulators used to forecast warming have suddenly started giving us less time.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I was really good with models that's why I could history match my models which they can't.

LOL.

Yeah, I'm sure you could. I'm just so sure that the guy with almost NO EARTH SCIENCE BACKGROUND could do better than the experts.

LOL.

You are positively delusional.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

The simulators used to forecast warming have suddenly started giving us less time.

www.bloomberg.com

Couldn't find a science resource for your "data"?

LOL.

"Good with models". I bet.

 

[ding]

LOL.

Yeah, I'm sure you could. I'm just so sure that the guy with almost NO EARTH SCIENCE BACKGROUND could do better than the experts.

LOL.

You are positively delusional.

I didn't say I did climate models, dummy. I wonder about you sometimes.

 

[ding]

Couldn't find a science resource for your "data"?

LOL.

"Good with models". I bet.

Just the other day your climate gods were yammering about how they needed to downwardly adjust the models because the hotter forecasts were not plausible.

I love extreme predictions of temperature changes and sea level rise changes because they can be proven false by time.

But to be fair you have to sell a fake crisis and you can't do that without making outrageous claims. Man this is going to be so much fun.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The models are actually reasonably well verified.

(IT's funny to see folks who have no scientific background mock models. You wouldn't know anything about them. But they are integral to almost all the science that you DO like even though you don't now it).

It is year 2050 or 2100 already?

 

[Dagosa]

They offer unverifiable model not evidence you moron!

No evidence of a Climate Emergency exist which I have already shown which you completely avoided because you KNOW it is true.

I see you neglect every, without exception, accredited university and climate science research institute in the world.
You’re kind is is a babble generator of ignorance.

 

[ding]

I see you neglect every, without exception, accredited university and climate science research institute in the world.
You’re kind is is a babble generator of ignorance.

There are good reasons to challenge the theory that CO2 drives climate change.

1. The relationship between GHG and temperature is a logarithmic relationship. As GHG concentrations increase the associated temperature of the GHG diminishes. The majority of the greenhouse gas effect occurs at low GHG concentrations. In other words, it is the presence of an atmosphere which provides the largest greenhouse gas effect.
2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
3. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.
4. The geologic record overwhelmingly shows temperature leading atmospheric CO2 by 800 to 1,000 years.
5. 94% of the earth's CO2 is stored in the oceans.
6. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature. Temperature did not correlate to CO2. CO2 correlated to temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water. As earth's climate warmed CO2 was released from the ocean. As the earth's climate cooled CO2 was absorbed by the ocean.
7. Post industrial revolution the correlation between temperature and CO2 was broken as CO2 now correlates to carbon emissions and not temperature.
8. Post industrial revolution temperature has not followed CO2 as our planet is 2C colder than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2 in the atmosphere.
9. No correlation of associated temperature for varying concentrations of CO2 has been quantified through laboratory experiments.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

There are good reasons to challenge the theory that CO2 drives climate change.

1. The relationship between GHG and temperature is a logarithmic relationship. As GHG concentrations increase the associated temperature of the GHG diminishes. The majority of the greenhouse gas effect occurs at low GHG concentrations. In other words, it is the presence of an atmosphere which provides the largest greenhouse gas effect.

Got to nitpick here: most of the atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse effect gas. O2, N2, Ar, those aren't capable of absorption of significant IR and hence don't act as greenhouse gases. You are correct, though, the presence of GREENHOUSE GASES is why the earth's surface temperature isn't something like 30degC cooler.

1. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
2. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Don't forget that water, once it enters the atmsophere, if it is an excess of it, it will very quickly re-condense and come back out. That's called the "Hydrologic Cycle". Excess CO2, however, doesn't quickly come back down to previous levels because the "Carbon Cycle" acts slower and differently.

That's an IMPORTANT POINT. That's why CO2 is considered a "forcing" while H2O is considered a "feedback".

1. The geologic record overwhelmingly shows temperature leading atmospheric CO2 by 800 to 1,000 years.

And when that happens it is because CO2 dissolved in the oceans will come out as temperature increases. There's also evidence of CO2 leading temperature.

We can even understand why: CO2 is KNOWN to absorb IR. And it's presence in the atmosphere is a great deal of why the earth's current surface temperature isn't the same as its blackbody temperature.

1. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature. Temperature did not correlate to CO2. CO2 correlated to temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water. As earth's climate warmed CO2 was released from the ocean. As the earth's climate cooled CO2 was absorbed by the ocean.

Only problem is that we see a different carbon isotope signature in the atmospheric CO2. We see an increase in 12-C vs 13-C, indicative of burning of vegetal and fossil fuels. Plants fix lighter carbon. Same thing was being seen in terms of 14-C before we started doing atmospheric testing of nukes. So we KNOW where this new carbon is coming from.

It's us.

 

[ding]

Got to nitpick here: most of the atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse effect gas. O2, N2, Ar, those aren't capable of absorption of significant IR and hence don't act as greenhouse gases. You are correct, though, the presence of GREENHOUSE GASES is why the earth's surface temperature isn't something like 30degC cooler.




Don't forget that water, once it enters the atmsophere, if it is an excess of it, it will very quickly re-condense and come back out. That's called the "Hydrologic Cycle". Excess CO2, however, doesn't quickly come back down to previous levels because the "Carbon Cycle" acts slower and differently.

That's an IMPORTANT POINT. That's why CO2 is considered a "forcing" while H2O is considered a "feedback".



And when that happens it is because CO2 dissolved in the oceans will come out as temperature increases. There's also evidence of CO2 leading temperature.

We can even understand why: CO2 is KNOWN to absorb IR. And it's presence in the atmosphere is a great deal of why the earth's current surface temperature isn't the same as its blackbody temperature.



Only problem is that we see a different carbon isotope signature in the atmospheric CO2. We see an increase in 12-C vs 13-C, indicative of burning of vegetal and fossil fuels. Plants fix lighter carbon. Same thing was being seen in terms of 14-C before we started doing atmospheric testing of nukes. So we KNOW where this new carbon is coming from.

It's us.

I didn't say the atmosphere was a greenhouse gas. I said we have a greenhouse gas effect because of an atmosphere with water vapor in it.