Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[ding]

Mainstream science has been doing that for decades. I'm going to take their word for it. If you think they're doing it wrong or that they're lying, show us. That'd be YOUR case. Do YOUR work

I have done my work. A cooling earth for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 between 600 ppm and 1000 ppm is proof that their climate sensitivity nonsense is nonsense.

 

[Crick]

I have done my work. A cooling earth for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 between 600 ppm and 1000 ppm is proof that their climate sensitivity nonsense is nonsense.

For someone whose "done their work" you have a pretty pathetic collection of graphics. You make the same few statements over and over and over and over again. You don't seem able to discuss them or defend them. You simply repeat them. You look obsessive as shit.

 

[ding]

For someone whose "done their work" you have a pretty pathetic collection of graphics. You make the same few statements over and over and over and over again. You don't seem able to discuss them or defend them. You simply repeat them. You look obsessive as shit.

I don't hear you disputing the fact that the planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm. Which is what those "pathetic" graphics show. A cooling planet with significantly higher CO2 levels than today.

 

[Crick]

I don't hear you disputing the fact that the planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm. Which is what those "pathetic" graphics show. A cooling planet with significantly higher CO2 levels than today.

I don't dispute the planet's history. I dispute the bullshit conclusion you're claiming to draw from it.

 

[ding]

I don't dispute the planet's history. I dispute the bullshit conclusion you're claiming to draw from it.

If CO2 levels of 420 ppm lead to climate sensitivity that is 2 to 3 times the radiative forcing effect of CO2 then it would only get worse if CO2 levels were 600 to 1000 ppm. If today's climate sensitivity leads to runaway warming, then why did CO2 levels of 600 ppm to 1000 ppm lead to a cooling planet? Their models are flawed. Empirical climate data does not agree with their model conclusions.

 

[Crick]

If CO2 levels of 420 ppm lead to climate sensitivity that is 2 to 3 times the radiative forcing effect of CO2 then it would only get worse if CO2 levels were 600 to 1000 ppm.

1) Are you talking about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or Transient Climate Response
2) Why would climate sensitivity of either flavor be dependent on CO2 levels?
3) In AR6 WGI, TS-2, Box TS.2 under Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, we read "Since AR5, independent lines of evidence, including proxy records from past warm periods and glacial–interglacial cycles, indicate that
sensitivity to forcing increases as temperature increases". So, temperature, not CO2.

If today's climate sensitivity leads to runaway warming, then why did CO2 levels of 600 ppm to 1000 ppm lead to a cooling planet?

Who said it would lead to runaway warming?

Their models are flawed.

First, ECS and TCR in AR6 are NOT calculated from model runs. From AR6, WGI, TS 3.2.1, page 93 "This Report differs from previous reports in not directly using climate model estimates of ECS and TCR in the assessed ranges of climate sensitivity."

Second, whose models of what are flawed and how? And, for that matter, how would YOU know?

Empirical climate data does not agree with their model conclusions.

What empirical climate data and what model conclusions?

 

[ding]

What empirical climate data and what model conclusions?

How many times do I have to explain this. The oxygen isotope curve is the temperature record of the planet. It shows the cooling trend of the planet. It shows temperature changes caused by extensive continental glaciation in the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere. You can literally see the changes of each instance of glaciation on the oxygen isotope curve.

 

[ding]

1) Are you talking about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or Transient Climate Response
2) Why would climate sensitivity of either flavor be dependent on CO2 levels?
3) In AR6 WGI, TS-2, Box TS.2 under Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, we read "Since AR5, independent lines of evidence, including proxy records from past warm periods and glacial–interglacial cycles, indicate that
sensitivity to forcing increases as temperature increases". So, temperature, not CO2.

The entire concept of climate sensitivity - equilibrium or transient - is ridiculous. The GHG effect is immediate. It doesn't take any significant time at all for the CO2 atoms to vibrate and heat the surrounding air. That's a real time effect. The entire concept of climate sensitivity is unsupported by empirical data. There's no data for it at all. Just computer modeling.

 

[ding]

Who said it would lead to runaway warming?

You. You believe in catastrophic warming. You believe that there is no net negative feedback. You only believe in a net positive feedback. Which is ridiculous because the planet cooled for millions of years with significantly higher concentrations of CO2.

 

[ding]

First, ECS and TCR in AR6 are NOT calculated from model runs. From AR6, WGI, TS 3.2.1, page 93 "This Report differs from previous reports in not directly using climate model estimates of ECS and TCR in the assessed ranges of climate sensitivity."

Can you show me the empirical evidence for climate sensitivity?

 

[ding]

Second, whose models of what are flawed and how? And, for that matter, how would YOU know?

Ummmm... the models that the IPCC relies upon to push their political agenda.

How do I know?

1. It is ridiculous that the feedback is 2 to 3 times greater than the radiative forcing effect of CO2.
2. The planet cooled for millions of years with significantly higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. The current temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than previous interglacial periods.

 

[Crick]

Ummmm... the models that the IPCC relies upon to push their political agenda.

You don't even know what models they use. For Christ's sake. Have you ever heard of CMIP 5 and CMIP 6?

How do I know?

Well, since you can't even NAME them, are we actually supposed to believe that you know ANYTHING about them AT ALL?

1. It is ridiculous that the feedback is 2 to 3 times greater than the radiative forcing effect of CO2.

ECS and TCR have been investigated for decades. The values are thoroughly explained and fully justified. You saying they're "ridiculous" isn't much of an argument. In fact, it's no argument AT ALL.

1. The planet cooled for millions of years with significantly higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The planet has been cooling over the long term due to changes in ocean circulation caused by tectonic plate movement.

1. The current temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than previous interglacial periods.

Then we have 2C warming in the pipeline. You have not refuted the greenhouse effect. You have not refuted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have not refuted that ECR and TCS are within the ranges the IPCC estimates. Your claim that historical data prove what you claim it proves is nothing but a bad joke.

 

[ding]

You don't even know what models they use. For Christ's sake. Have you ever heard of CMIP 5 and CMIP 6?

Well, since you can't even NAME them, are we actually supposed to believe that you know ANYTHING about them AT ALL?

ECS and TCR have been investigated for decades. The values are thoroughly explained and fully justified. You saying they're "ridiculous" isn't much of an argument. In fact, it's no argument AT ALL.

The planet has been cooling over the long term due to changes in ocean circulation caused by tectonic plate movement.

Then we have 2C warming in the pipeline. You have not refuted the greenhouse effect. You have not refuted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have not refuted that ECR and TCS are within the ranges the IPCC estimates. Your claim that historical data prove what you claim it proves is nothing but a bad joke.

Even they recognize their models are running too hot.

 

[Crick]

Even they recognize their models are running too hot.

That doesn't support what you've said nor refute any comment I've made in response. Stop pretending that you've got what you obviously do not. Be a fucking man and admit it.

 

[ding]

That doesn't support what you've said nor refute any comment I've made in response. Stop pretending that you've got what you obviously do not. Be a fucking man and admit it.

Sure it does. Their models are flawed and that's one of the reasons they are running too hot too fast. Even they recognize that even if you don't.

 

[Crick]

Sure it does. Their models are flawed and that's one of the reasons they are running too hot too fast. Even they recognize that even if you don't.

Do not attempt to use their comments about the models they are using to support your contention.

 

[ding]

Do not attempt to use their comments about the models they are using to support your contention.

My contention is that their models are flawed so it's relevant that they believe their models are flawed too.

 

[abu afak]

That doesn't support what you've said nor refute any comment I've made in response. Stop pretending that you've got what you obviously do not. Be a fucking man and admit it.

It has no support for ANYTHING he says including/mostly that our CO2/Temperature spike is 'normal interglacial' when in fact it isn't, and bares no resemblance on any other spike he can point to in this interglacial or any other.
He's a knowing Fraud.
`

 

[abu afak]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

There is no consensus. You think there is because they don't allow dissenting opinions in their reports.

See above

 

[CrusaderFrank]

see OP and much above above.

Calling someone a "denier" for disagreeing with your "Consensus" is NOT science, it's a Cult"