Me engaging with somebody with different opinions makes me a desperate asshole? You are very welcome to leave the thread if you are annoyed by the discussion.
Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one, and yeah, once their consensus is for the garnering of government grants, yeah, their opinions are worthless.
Thats a weak excuse and to assume that the millions of scientists and researchers across the globe including the thousands of experts and labs that earned their reputations on their abilities to give sound scientific arguments are all conspiring to lie about their data... Well its just an absurd and lazy argument. If you have proof then show it. But we both know that you don't.
You don't think recent human activity has a direct relation to Co2 levels in our atmosphere?
Show me the radiative forcing component for orbital cycles from the IPCC report. There is no component for orbital forcing despite their claim that if there were no human influences, Earth's current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles would predict that the planet should be cooling.No, I win, You Lie.
IPCC: archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1
FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes BEFORE the Industrial Era?
Frequently Asked Question 6.1
What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes BEFORE the Industrial Era?
[........]
Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet (see FAQ 1.1). There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s Orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and (3) altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations). In addition, local climate also depends on how heat is distributed by winds and ocean currents. All of these factors have played a role in past climate changes.
FAQ 6.1, Figure 1. Schematic of the Earth’s Orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) that drive the ice age cycles.
‘T’ denotes changes in the tilt (or obliquity) of the Earth’s axis, ‘E’ denotes changes in the eccentricity of the Orbit (due to variations in the minor axis of the ellipse), and ‘P’ denotes precession, that is, changes in the direction of the axis tilt at a given point of the orbit. Source: Rahmstorf and Schellnhuber (2006).
[......]
IPCC:
FAQ 6.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
`
There's no evidence that 1C of warming from a doubling of CO2 will produce an additional 3.5C of feedback.
Let's start here... would you agree that without feedbacks, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would produce around 1°C of direct warming due to the radiative forcing effect of CO2?
Yes, I've said that many times. It is an instantaneous effect. Hard to argue otherwise.
Agreed. Would you agree that feedbacks exist and do have warming effects?
Not necessarily positive, no. Clouds are complicated. They are both positive and negative feedbacks. It's hard to say what the net is. Arguing the feedback is 3.5 times the GHG effect seems ridiculous given that the entire atmosphere of GHG's is only 44% effective at trapping it's theoretical surface temperature due to convective currents whisking the heat away from the surface.
If Brian Cox answers your email, why not set the stage by first telling him that AGW isn't real? That would certainly put him in a sour enough mood to debate the beginning of the universe!
There's not much of a debate about the universe popping into existence. There's no other explanation for the origin of the CMB. Why not ask Brian Cox how the CMB was created, eh? Here's a link you can share with him.
Agreed, clouds do product both warming and cooling feedbacks and there is not simple calculation to give what the NET is. Without getting into the weeds or conducting any of these experiments 1st hand I can see the conclusions of study that consider paleoclimate records and modern day events/models to calculate their estimates... But I think a range of 1-3% is reasonable for feedback amplification. 3.5-4.5 are high end estimates which I'm sure climate activists will push... but I do think there is enough out there to reasonably believe that there is am amplification occurring from feedbacks and CO2 plays a part in it.
1% to 3% is reasonable 350% to 450% is unreasonable. Especially since the entire atmosphere of GHG is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical surface temperature due to convective currents. But going back to the empirical climate evidence from the geologic record... if it is true that feedbacks are 350% to 450% the planet would have never cooled with 1000 ppm of atmospheric CO2.
There are no experiments. There are only computer models. Do you consider that to be evidence?
No offense but none of that explains why the planet cooled with CO2 greater than 600 ppm. At least not in real terms. Maybe start with the polar regions, land mass distribution and resulting ocean circulation currents. Because it's the uneven heating of the surface of the planet and how the ocean distributes that heat that determines climate especially to the Arctic. Because the Arctic is what is driving the glacial cycles of the last 3 million years.
No. Not one bit. Mankind adds less than 5% of the global CO2 production.
How do you figure that?
