New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating’

[skookerasbil]

"climate sensitivity"..........another way of keeping this hoax alive!! What a ruse.......and funny as hell that there are a bunch of people who fall for this hook, line and stinker. Suckers...........some people just tend to the hysterical.Same people see a typical weather event and freak out that it is some new phenomenon!!!

More than any other reason by far......that's what draws me back to this forum..............so I can highlight the tendencies of these bozo's who navigate life thinking that at any second, a house might fall out of the sky and onto their head. Oddballs................worry about stoopid shit, likely ( with progressives) because they have little meaningful going on in their lives. Fringe..........which is clearly displayed when you look at polls of what people in this country are concerned about. Nobody is concerned about global warming except those the tend to the hysterical.............and shit if Im not brilliant at publically highlighting it!!

 

[IanC]

Perhaps, but it is not going to bring sensitivity down where you - with no particular evidence to quote - believe it lies.

perhaps not. I think it is 1 +/- a small amount, and probalby variable depending on what position in the range of temperatures Earth has stayed in during its lifetime. I have certainly been right for the last five years in saying that it should be lower than the alarmists are claiming it to be.

 

[SSDD]

Perhaps, but it is not going to bring sensitivity down where you - with no particular evidence to quote - believe it lies.

perhaps not. I think it is 1 +/- a small amount, and probalby variable depending on what position in the range of temperatures Earth has stayed in during its lifetime. I have certainly been right for the last five years in saying that it should be lower than the alarmists are claiming it to be.

Give it time. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is going to end up at zero or less....when the AGW crazy train finally goes over the cliff, and there is no threat of sanction for actually doing real research into the climate, it would not surprise me at all to find that, as I have stated before, CO2 provides a net cooling effect to the atmosphere. It is just stupid to claim that a radiative gas would decrease the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Perhaps, but it is not going to bring sensitivity down where you - with no particular evidence to quote - believe it lies.

perhaps not. I think it is 1 +/- a small amount, and probalby variable depending on what position in the range of temperatures Earth has stayed in during its lifetime. I have certainly been right for the last five years in saying that it should be lower than the alarmists are claiming it to be.

Give it time. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is going to end up at zero or less....when the AGW crazy train finally goes over the cliff, and there is no threat of sanction for actually doing real research into the climate, it would not surprise me at all to find that, as I have stated before, CO2 provides a net cooling effect to the atmosphere. It is just stupid to claim that a radiative gas would decrease the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

CO2 tends to increase the speed the water column convects at. So it is indeed a negative forcing... They simply can not grasp this simple concept.

 

[Crick]

Well, Ian, what do you think? Is climate sensitivity to CO2 negative?

 

[SSDD]

Well, Ian, what do you think? Is climate sensitivity to CO2 negative?

Ian is a warmer...he believes in the magic...he just doesn't think the magic is as powerful as the real crazies like you think it is.

 

[IanC]

The term is lukewarmer, thank you very much. I share the position with most of the other mainstream skeptics who are called 'deniers'.

 

[Crick]

Do you believe sensitivity is negative, yes or no?

 

[ralfy]

It has nothing to do with magic but with feedback loops.

 

[SSDD]

It has nothing to do with magic but with feedback loops.

Which are where the magic resides. If such feedback loops existed, do you think the earth could have dropped into a deep ice age with atmospheric CO2 in the 1000ppm range, or the 2500ppm range, or the 5000ppm range? It has happened repeatedly. Far from suggesting that CO2 is a positive feedback, it more strongly suggests that it is a negative feedback.....the idea that a radiative gas could hamper the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is preposterous on its face.

 

[SSDD]

The term is lukewarmer, thank you very much. I share the position with most of the other mainstream skeptics who are called 'deniers'.

Lukewarmer is still a warmer....again, you just don't think the magic is as strong. You still believe that a radiative gas can inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

 

[Crick]

What I'd say is that he still believes you don't have a fucking clue.

 

[SSDD]

What I'd say is that he still believes you don't have a fucking clue.

And yet, sensitivity numbers keep falling...and will continue till they are zero or less. I am afraid it is you warmers who believe in magic back radiation who don't have a f'ing clue.

 

[Crick]

Us warmers take our cue from thousands of degreed, publishing scientists. You take your cue, as far as can be told, from your uneducated imagination. Do you think Curry or Spencer or either Pielke would go along with a negative sensitivity? Find us someone with a degree in any sort of physical science who even suggests such a thing.

 

[SSDD]

Us warmers take our cue from thousands of degreed, publishing scientists. You take your cue, as far as can be told, from your uneducated imagination. Do you think Curry or Spencer or either Pielke would go along with a negative sensitivity? Find us someone with a degree in any sort of physical science who even suggests such a thing.

You mean the guys who publish and then have their papers withdrawn or have to make massive changes? Those guys? Climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less. The idea that a radiative gas could hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is ludicrous. People who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities....not your quote below for reference.

 

[Crick]

Again, find us ANYONE with a degree in ANY physical science who thinks sensitivity could be negative.

 

[SSDD]

Again, find us ANYONE with a degree in ANY physical science who thinks sensitivity could be negative.

Before a few years ago, one would have had a hard time finding a degreed scientist who believed that stomach ulcers were caused by anything other than stress....the same can be said for many previously believed falsehoods. Sensitivity of greater than zero to CO2 is destined to be one more example of how badly science can go wrong if there is enough money on the table.

 

[Crick]

So you've got no one. What a fucking surprise.

God are you stupid. And Billy Bob right alongside you.

 

[ralfy]

It has nothing to do with magic but with feedback loops.

Which are where the magic resides. If such feedback loops existed, do you think the earth could have dropped into a deep ice age with atmospheric CO2 in the 1000ppm range, or the 2500ppm range, or the 5000ppm range? It has happened repeatedly. Far from suggesting that CO2 is a positive feedback, it more strongly suggests that it is a negative feedback.....the idea that a radiative gas could hamper the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is preposterous on its face.

I'm not referring to CO2.

 

[SSDD]

It has nothing to do with magic but with feedback loops.

Which are where the magic resides. If such feedback loops existed, do you think the earth could have dropped into a deep ice age with atmospheric CO2 in the 1000ppm range, or the 2500ppm range, or the 5000ppm range? It has happened repeatedly. Far from suggesting that CO2 is a positive feedback, it more strongly suggests that it is a negative feedback.....the idea that a radiative gas could hamper the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is preposterous on its face.

I'm not referring to CO2.

Your feedback loops are imaginary...ad hoc artifacts in computer models disproven by actual observation.