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

[Crick]

Did you ever find anyone with a college education who agreed with your idea of negative sensitivity to CO2? I can't say I've seen a name yet.

 

[jc456]

interesting link:

Climate CO2 Sensitivity Overestimated The Resilient Earth

 

[SSDD]

Did you ever find anyone with a college education who agreed with your idea of negative sensitivity to CO2? I can't say I've seen a name yet.

I don't need someone to agree with me...hell, I knew that stomach ulcers were not stress related 20 years ago when I developed one...and have been telling my doc for years that my cholesterol numbers were meaningless with regard to my heart health. Science gets it wrong all the time primarily due to a failure of common sense...climate science has experienced a literal drought of common sense for some decades now....eventually common sense will catch up, the funding will dry up, and actual science will reveal that CO2 is meaningless in the earth's climate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

interesting link:

Climate CO2 Sensitivity Overestimated The Resilient Earth

"Climate sensitivity is generally given as how much temperature rise would result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Using IPCC figures for radiative forcing, a doubling of CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of about half a degree (see “Another Look at Climate Sensitivity”). Yet the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) gives a much higher value for climate sensitivity. It claims a 2°C to 4.5°C rise for a CO2 doubling, or from four to nine times higher than what is see in the real climate system. Why? Climate models assume that there are large positive feedbacks as Earth warms. Among these feedbacks is the impact of rising temperature on emission and absorption of CO2 by Earth's biota."

yep.... overestimation is the game that alarmist are playing.

 

[IanC]

The effect of doubling CO2, if all other perimeters remain the same, is about 1C. Anything else is feedbacks. Warmists have told us that another 1-3C will be added. Skeptics think that less than 1C will be added to the original 1C, and indeed it is possible that the feedbacks may even be negative.

The climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 based on physical data is already down to about 2C, and falling. Only climate models continue to produce estimates of 3C or more.

In the next few years the alarmists will continue to bring their estimates down, and will pretend that the grossly exaggerated projections never happened. Not unlike how every new paleoreconstruction has a warmer MWP, but they keep saying the new graph is 'consistent with' the old graphs.

 

[jc456]

right?

 

[SSDD]

The climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 based on physical data is already down to about 2C, and falling. Only climate models continue to produce estimates of 3C or more.

There is no physical data showing any sensitivity to CO2 at all. There are models and even a luke warmer like you should know that model output is not physical data.

 

[IanC]

The climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 based on physical data is already down to about 2C, and falling. Only climate models continue to produce estimates of 3C or more.

There is no physical data showing any sensitivity to CO2 at all. There are models and even a luke warmer like you should know that model output is not physical data.

feel free to jump in with any evidence you have. even with your pet subject of the second law of thermodynamics you appear to be all bluster and no backup.

 

[SSDD]

feel free to jump in with any evidence you have. even with your pet subject of the second law of thermodynamics you appear to be all bluster and no backup.

In case you didn't notice, skeptics (actual skeptics) have been asking for a very long time for an experiment, or some physical evidence that proves that CO2 can cause the temperature on earth to rise. The warmer wackos haven't been able to come up with anything as you well know. Are you now claiming that there is some physical evidence that proves that the climate is sensitive to CO2, or are you asking me to prove a negative out of frustration?

 

[IanC]

feel free to jump in with any evidence you have. even with your pet subject of the second law of thermodynamics you appear to be all bluster and no backup.

In case you didn't notice, skeptics (actual skeptics) have been asking for a very long time for an experiment, or some physical evidence that proves that CO2 can cause the temperature on earth to rise. The warmer wackos haven't been able to come up with anything as you well know. Are you now claiming that there is some physical evidence that proves that the climate is sensitive to CO2, or are you asking me to prove a negative out of frustration?

CO2 absorbs longwave at 15 microns. if CO2 wasnt there that 15micron surface radiation would directly escape to space at the speed of light. therefore that energy is held up in the atmosphere and forms a heatsink. which of those three statements do you believe to be false?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 absorbs longwave at 15 microns. if CO2 wasnt there that 15micron surface radiation would directly escape to space at the speed of light. therefore that energy is held up in the atmosphere and forms a heatsink. which of those three statements do you believe to be false?

Absorption and emission are damned near instantaneous...and again, photons, if they exist, and being what science claims they are don't move from cool to warm, so space is the only place for them to go...the same rules apply for radiative transfer as for contact transfer. Do you believe in back convection and back conduction also?

All so called greenhouse gas molecules, except water are like holes in the blanket you guys like to call the atmosphere...not little roadblocks.

 

[Crick]

HAHAHAHAHAHaaaaa...

Did I miss it? Did you find anyone that agrees with your negative sensitivity?

"Damn near instantaneous". It's like the micron. It's so small, it's not real and nothing can happen in that little space or that little time. How silly of you, Mamooth, to not realize the dimensional limitations of subatomic physics.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs longwave at 15 microns. if CO2 wasnt there that 15micron surface radiation would directly escape to space at the speed of light. therefore that energy is held up in the atmosphere and forms a heatsink. which of those three statements do you believe to be false?

Absorption and emission are damned near instantaneous...and again, photons, if they exist, and being what science claims they are don't move from cool to warm, so space is the only place for them to go...the same rules apply for radiative transfer as for contact transfer. Do you believe in back convection and back conduction also?

All so called greenhouse gas molecules, except water are like holes in the blanket you guys like to call the atmosphere...not little roadblocks.

So perhaps we are making headway. You admit that CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation and therefore slows the escape to space. Is this correct?

 

[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.

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

A list is given here with links to multiple studies:

Climate-Change Summary and Update

Now adding you to my ignore list.

 

[ralfy]

The effect of doubling CO2, if all other perimeters remain the same, is about 1C. Anything else is feedbacks. Warmists have told us that another 1-3C will be added. Skeptics think that less than 1C will be added to the original 1C, and indeed it is possible that the feedbacks may even be negative.

The climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 based on physical data is already down to about 2C, and falling. Only climate models continue to produce estimates of 3C or more.

In the next few years the alarmists will continue to bring their estimates down, and will pretend that the grossly exaggerated projections never happened. Not unlike how every new paleoreconstruction has a warmer MWP, but they keep saying the new graph is 'consistent with' the old graphs.

Except that all other factors will likely not remain the same or are mostly negative.

 

[IanC]

The effect of doubling CO2, if all other perimeters remain the same, is about 1C. Anything else is feedbacks. Warmists have told us that another 1-3C will be added. Skeptics think that less than 1C will be added to the original 1C, and indeed it is possible that the feedbacks may even be negative.

The climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 based on physical data is already down to about 2C, and falling. Only climate models continue to produce estimates of 3C or more.

In the next few years the alarmists will continue to bring their estimates down, and will pretend that the grossly exaggerated projections never happened. Not unlike how every new paleoreconstruction has a warmer MWP, but they keep saying the new graph is 'consistent with' the old graphs.

Except that all other factors will likely not remain the same or are mostly negative.

no, the other factors will not remain the same. the backup of energy from retarded radiation can go into several other pathways rather than simply heat the surface. radiation is the low man on the totem pole when it comes to moving bulk energy, when compared to conduction and convection (especially when phase change of water is involved)

 

[Crick]

And which one of those do not involve the retention of thermal energy in the Earth's climate system?

 

[SSDD]

So perhaps we are making headway. You admit that CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation and therefore slows the escape to space. Is this correct?

I never argued that CO2 absorbs at 15 microns and emits at a peak temperature of -80C.

Are you really going to try to blame climate change on the time between absorption of LW and emission on towards space?

 

[SSDD]

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

A list is given here with links to multiple studies:

Climate-Change Summary and Update

Now adding you to my ignore list.[/QUOTE]

Nothing there even approaching proof of feedback loops...and glad to be on your ignore list. Always good to see warmers in fear of discussion.

 

[SSDD]

And which one of those do not involve the retention of thermal energy?

absorption and emission do not involve the retention of energy. No so called greenhouse gas other than water can actually retain energy.