The Anthropocene

[HikerGuy83]

Nobody wants to hear a grown man whine.

Then maybe you should quit posting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unfortunately, they can't read your links because you never include them.

Not for sealions, I sure don't.

If you cared, you would go read the newest IPCC report. But you don't. So you won't.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Not for sealions, I sure don't.

If you cared, you would go read the newest IPCC report. But you don't. So you won't.

You don't include them for anyone because you don't have anything to back up your baseless bullshit.

 

[ding]

Not for sealions, I sure don't.

If you cared, you would go read the newest IPCC report. But you don't. So you won't.

You haven't. If you had you would know the lowest possible estimate in their report for radiative forcing of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2 and that everything above that value are feedbacks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't include them for anyone because you don't have anything to back up your baseless bullshit.

Your crybabying won't help you.

Anyone can read the IPCC report. Good luck.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You haven't. If you had you would know the lowest possible estimate in their report for radiative forcing of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2 and that everything above that value are feedbacks.

And you are welcome to go live on the planet with no feedback in the climate. I would help you pack.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Your crybabying won't help you.

Anyone can read the IPCC report. Good luck.

It's not supporting you.

Hope you find a way out from under the skirts of the Sierra Club or whoever it is that is pumping you full of bullshit.

 

[HikerGuy83]

And you are welcome to go live on the planet with no feedback in the climate. I would help you pack.

He already is.

What planet do you live on ?

 

[ding]

And you are welcome to go live on the planet with no feedback in the climate. I would help you pack.

The answer is 1C of instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 and 3.5 C of feedbacks is what the IPCC reports are based upon.

Do you have a different answer?

 

[HikerGuy83]

You haven't. If you had you would know the lowest possible estimate in their report for radiative forcing of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2 and that everything above that value are feedbacks.

Don't ruin his fun. Some people like to live in fear of the boogeyman.

It gives their pathetic lives purpose.

 

[ding]

And you are welcome to go live on the planet with no feedback in the climate. I would help you pack.

You can't bring yourself to admit what the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 is because you know the ratio to feedback is ridiculous.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The answer is 1C of instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 and 3.5 C of feedbacks is what the IPCC reports are based upon.

Do you have a different answer?

Please tell me you are not holding your breath for one. You'll die first.

The answer will be "go read what I haven't read (and even if I did, I would not understand it)".

 

[ding]

Please tell me you are not holding your breath for one. You'll die first.

The answer will be "go read what I haven't read (and even if I did, I would not understand it)".

I'm not. I'm establishing what the reports show so I can show them how ridiculous that is.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I'm not. I'm establishing what the reports show so I can show them how ridiculous that is.

Showing them never accomplished anything. They've made one to many trips to the alter of B.S. Science to be reclaimed.

 

[ding]

Showing them never accomplished anything. They've made one to many trips to the alter of B.S. Science to be reclaimed.

Poor choice of words. Establishing the precedent as in giving them the opportunity to disagree. Clearly no one objects to me using 1C of GHG effect and 3.5C of feedback because they can't point to the IPCC report while I can. They have no clue what it says.

 

[Crick]

Who cares. Mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget

What do you mean by "CO2 budget? Humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%.

and CO2 has ZERO climate control.

TRANSLATION: I, Westwall, lie whenever it serves me.

 

[BackAgain]

CO2 is .03% to maybe .04%.

Human activity added to that trace amount, based on some estimates, by as little as 3% or as much as 33% since 1850.

Let’s go with the higher percentage. That would mean that human activity has increased the entire planet’s atmospheric CO2 by a bit over .0133% in around 175 years.

I’m not sure water vapor isn’t more responsible for any global warming than anything humans are doing relative to CO2.

 

[BackAgain]

I see apu dumfuk is still wasting bandwidth.

 

[abu afak]

I see apu dumfuk is still wasting bandwidth.

No you are wasting Bandwidth. (I wasn't going to but for your LYING/fudging and then calling me out)
Crick's post Immediately above yours pre-refuted your Idiotic fudgery.
Everyone really/seriously in this debate knows (as Crick said) CO2 is up 50%. From 280PPM to 420PPM.
And then you wasted all that space Lying about/Juggling/Minimizing Idiotic ballpark estimates when we have the Actual well known numbers.
You Low IQ DISHONEST @sshole.

Last word away YOU bandwidth wasting @sshole
`

 

[ding]

What do you mean by "CO2 budget? Humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%.

~95% of all CO2 is contained in the ocean.