When is doubling NOT doubling?

[CrusaderFrank]

A core tenant of the Theory of AGW states that temperature increase by 1.5C for ever doubling of CO2 from 280 PPM. Let's say that could be true, why don't we test this by comparing a 250PPM CO2 environment to a 1,000PPN CO2 environment. According to the American CO2 is bad Theory of Manmade Global Warming, the latter should be 3C warmer than the former. Correct?

Well, it might not be, because you see "3C is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, Frank, not the Transient Climate Response"

Which sounds to be like an excuse for CO2 laboratory performance anxiety. What he means to say is that, "Sure there is no temperature increase in the lab, but our models show a 3C increase based upon Transient Climate Response, you Denier!"

Can someone please explain why doubling is not really doubling?

 

[Crick]

A core tenant of the Theory of AGW states that temperature increase by 1.5C for ever doubling of CO2 from 280 PPM. Let's say that could be true, why don't we test this by comparing a 250PPM CO2 environment to a 1,000PPN CO2 environment. According to the American CO2 is bad Theory of Manmade Global Warming, the latter should be 3C warmer than the former. Correct?

Well, it might not be, because you see "3C is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, Frank, not the Transient Climate Response" [SAYS POSTER CRICK]

Which sounds to be like an excuse for CO2 laboratory performance anxiety. What he means to say is that, "Sure there is no temperature increase in the lab, but our models show a 3C increase based upon Transient Climate Response, you Denier!"

Can someone please explain why doubling is not really doubling?

You quoted me there without attribution Frank. And then you do a really shitty job of telling everyone that I meant to say something else. Well: "Can someone please explain why doubling is not really doubling?" which sounds to me like a confession of sexual proclivities that can't be mentioned here per USMB rules. What I think he meant to say, though, was "Poster CrusaderFrank is a stunningly ignorant and thoughtless dweeb."

From the glossary of The Physical Science Basis

Climate sensitivity The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing. See also Climate feedback parameter.

Earth system sensitivity The equilibrium surface temperature response of the coupled atmosphere–ocean–cryosphere–vegetation–carbon cycle system to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is referred to as Earth system sensitivity. Because it allows ice sheets to adjust to the external perturbation, it may differ substantially from the equilibrium climate sensitivity derived from coupled atmosphere– ocean models.

Effective equilibrium climate sensitivity An estimate of the surface temperature response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration that is evaluated from model output or observations for evolving non-equilibrium conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state, and therefore may differ from equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) The equilibrium (steady state) change in the surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from pre-industrial conditions.

Transient climate response (TCR) The surface temperature response for the hypothetical scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases at 1% yr–1 from pre-industrial to the time of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (year 70).

Transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE) The transient surface temperature change per unit cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, usually 1000 GtC. TCRE combines both information on the airborne fraction of cumulative CO2 emissions (the fraction of the total CO2 emitted that remains in the atmosphere, which is determined by carbon cycle processes) and on the transient climate response (TCR).

Climate services Climate services involve the provision of climate information in such a way as to assist decision-making. The service includes appropriate engagement from users and providers, is based on scientifically credible information and expertise, has an effective access mechanism and responds to user needs (Hewitt et al., 2012)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You quoted me there without attribution Frank. And then you do a really shitty job of telling everyone that I meant to say something else. Well: "Can someone please explain why doubling is not really doubling?" which sounds to me like a confession of sexual proclivities that can't be mentioned here per USMB rules. What I think he meant to say, though, was "Poster CrusaderFrank is a stunningly ignorant and thoughtless dweeb."

From the glossary of The Physical Science Basis

Climate sensitivity The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing. See also Climate feedback parameter.

Earth system sensitivity The equilibrium surface temperature response of the coupled atmosphere–ocean–cryosphere–vegetation–carbon cycle system to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is referred to as Earth system sensitivity. Because it allows ice sheets to adjust to the external perturbation, it may differ substantially from the equilibrium climate sensitivity derived from coupled atmosphere– ocean models.

Effective equilibrium climate sensitivity An estimate of the surface temperature response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration that is evaluated from model output or observations for evolving non-equilibrium conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state, and therefore may differ from equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) The equilibrium (steady state) change in the surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from pre-industrial conditions.

Transient climate response (TCR) The surface temperature response for the hypothetical scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases at 1% yr–1 from pre-industrial to the time of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (year 70).

Transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE) The transient surface temperature change per unit cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, usually 1000 GtC. TCRE combines both information on the airborne fraction of cumulative CO2 emissions (the fraction of the total CO2 emitted that remains in the atmosphere, which is determined by carbon cycle processes) and on the transient climate response (TCR).

Climate services Climate services involve the provision of climate information in such a way as to assist decision-making. The service includes appropriate engagement from users and providers, is based on scientifically credible information and expertise, has an effective access mechanism and responds to user needs (Hewitt et al., 2012)

My bad. I thought the quoted section was part of the AGW Catechism and not something solely attributable to you. Had I know that you were the only person coming up with the lame excuse for why doubling is not doubling this whole thing could have been avoided.

So what you're telling us is that even an instantaneous quadrupling of CO2 in a lab will not raise temperatures because you have to first measure the temperatures on Earth and then retroactively assign the temperature to CO2...that's not science

 

[Crick]

My bad. I thought the quoted section was part of the AGW Catechism and not something solely attributable to you. Had I know that you were the only person coming up with the lame excuse for why doubling is not doubling this whole thing could have been avoided.

The section I quoted in post #2 came from the glossary of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", just as I said in the post.

So what you're telling us is that even an instantaneous quadrupling of CO2 in a lab will not raise temperatures because you have to first measure the temperatures on Earth and then retroactively assign the temperature to CO2...that's not science

I have told you no such thing.

 

[Oddball]

My bad. I thought the quoted section was part of the AGW Catechism and not something solely attributable to you. Had I know that you were the only person coming up with the lame excuse for why doubling is not doubling this whole thing could have been avoided.

So what you're telling us is that even an instantaneous quadrupling of CO2 in a lab will not raise temperatures because you have to first measure the temperatures on Earth and then retroactively assign the temperature to CO2...that's not science

Didn't you get the memo?....The oceans ate Goebbels warming!

 

[Crick]

My bad. I thought the quoted section was part of the AGW Catechism and not something solely attributable to you.

And did you think the "AGW Catechism" included the name "Frank"? You copied and pasted that one line and put quotes around it. During that entire process did you actually fail to see your own name there?

Crick said:
"3C is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, Frank, not the Transient Climate Response"

I'm going to have to say, Frank, that I don't believe you. I believe you are lying.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The section I quoted in post #2 came from the glossary of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", just as I said in the post.

I have told you no such thing.

So you can show us repeatable controlled scientific experiments where increasing CO2 from 250 to 1000PPM increases temperatures by 3C, or at all?

 

[Crick]

So you can show us repeatable controlled scientific experiments where increasing CO2 from 250 to 1000PPM increases temperatures by 3C, or at all?

See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", TS.3.2 ppg 93 - 96
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.4.2 Assessing Climate Feedbacks ppg 968 - 979
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.5 Estimates of ECS and TCR ppg 992 - 1011

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", TS.3.2 ppg 93 - 96
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.4.2 Assessing Climate Feedbacks ppg 968 - 979
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.5 Estimates of ECS and TCR ppg 992 - 1011

I'll bet you $10 there are no experiments, only models

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", TS.3.2 ppg 93 - 96
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.4.2 Assessing Climate Feedbacks ppg 968 - 979
See AR6's "The Physical Science Basis", Ch 7.5 Estimates of ECS and TCR ppg 992 - 1011

Can you please print the experiment here, surely its not 10 pages

 

[Crick]

Can you please print the experiment here, surely its not 10 pages

No, I cannot. That text is the explanation behind the IPCC's conclusion regarding the values of ECS and TCR. There are numerous footnotes to published studies included. Feel free to peruse any of them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, I cannot. That text is the explanation behind the IPCC's conclusion regarding the values of ECS and TCR. There are numerous footnotes to published studies included. Feel free to peruse any of them.

So there is no repeatable experiment, correct? Just "conclusion regarding the values of ECS and TCR"

The IPCC claims that may have measured some warming (once we add in the imaginary AGW heat in the deep oceans) and we know only CO2 causes heat therefore our funding is secure for another year.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

That's NOT the Scientific Method

So strange how CO2 is SO POWERFUL! but never shows up in a lab

 

[Crick]

So there is no repeatable experiment, correct?

I said no such thing.

Just "conclusion regarding the values of ECS and TCR"

I did not say "just". You apparently haven't bothered to look where I told you to look. The only conclusion I can make from that is that you aren't actually looking for any answers.

The IPCC claims that may have measured some warming (once we add in the imaginary AGW heat in the deep oceans) and we know only CO2 causes heat therefore our funding is secure for another year.

Unfortunately for you, you have ZERO EVIDENCE to support any facet of that charge.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

That is not what is happening here. And, as I have said repeatedly, while correlation does not prove causation, causation IS ALWAYS CORRELATED WITH ITS RESULT.

That's NOT the Scientific Method

The studies referenced most certainly use the scientific method. Besides, since you haven't looked at a single word of it, you wouldn't have any fucking idea, would you.

So strange how CO2 is SO POWERFUL! but never shows up in a lab

Amazing how easy it is to come to completely faulty conclusions if one never looks at evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I said no such thing.

I did not say "just". You apparently haven't bothered to look where I told you to look. The only conclusion I can make from that is that you aren't actually looking for any answers.

Unfortunately for you, you have ZERO EVIDENCE to support any facet of that charge.

That is not what is happening here. And, as I have said repeatedly, while correlation does not prove causation, causation IS ALWAYS CORRELATED WITH ITS RESULT.

The studies referenced most certainly use the scientific method. Besides, since you haven't looked at a single word of it, you wouldn't have any fucking idea, would you.

Amazing how easy it is to come to completely faulty conclusions if one never looks at evidence.

You cannot show, not once, not ever how much heat, how much temperature increases when CO2 increases from 250 to even 1,000 PPM. To me, that's the end of the discussion.

You could say CO2 is Dark Matter because there's Dark Matter acting on us and there's CO2, therefore CO2 is Dark Matter

 

[Crick]

You cannot show, not once, not ever how much heat, how much temperature increases when CO2 increases from 250 to even 1,000 PPM. To me, that's the end of the discussion.

You could say CO2 is Dark Matter because there's Dark Matter acting on us and there's CO2, therefore CO2 is Dark Matter

I'm sorry you've chosen to remain ignorant. But, hey, it's your call.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry you've chosen to remain ignorant. But, hey, it's your call.

I don’t care if you post a billion IPCC reports! Until you demonstrate that an increase in CO2 at these de minimus levels raises temperatures by something in excess of .01C your Theory MUST be discarded

Using IPCC methodology, you can say CO2 is responsible for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that’s ever happened!

Parting the Red Sea

Taking man to the Moon

Killing the dinosaurs

Chicago fire

Anything at All

Instead of IPCC reporting on climate change, you can replace “climate change” with Dark Matter and still be consistent, if consistently wrong.

Yes, our studies conclusively show that CO2 propagates Dark Matter

We have Consensus

The Science is Settled!

 

[Crick]

I don’t care if you post a billion IPCC reports! Until you demonstrate that an increase in CO2 at these de minimus levels raises temperatures by something in excess of .01C your Theory MUST be discarded

It's not my theory and its validity has been shown by thousands of published studies.

Using IPCC methodology, you can say CO2 is responsible for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that’s ever happened!

As you've been told before, the IPCC conducts no science. There charter is to assess published science conducted by others.

Instead of IPCC reporting on climate change, you can replace “climate change” with Dark Matter and still be consistent, if consistently wrong.

Yes, our studies conclusively show that CO2 propagates Dark Matter

We have Consensus

The Science is Settled!

I'm sorry you've chosen to remain ignorant. But, hey, it's your call.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not my theory and its validity has been shown by thousands of published studies.

As you've been told before, the IPCC conducts no science. There charter is to assess published science conducted by others.

I'm sorry you've chosen to remain ignorant. But, hey, it's your call.

The IPCC can regurgitate the same non-science a quadrillion times, it does not make it true or science!

Look at how ignorant the panel was in another thread, they had NO IDEA that CO2 was less than an atmospheric rounding error. I hope that at least one of them will start to question their AGW Cult beliefs

You're somewhat smart, so I have to believe that you're being compensated to promote this nonsense, because it sure ain't science. You know it's not science

 

[Crick]

The IPCC can regurgitate the same non-science a quadrillion times, it does not make it true or science!

The rest of the world recognizes the IPCC and the studies they assess as being perfectly valid science. You (particularly YOU) saying it isn't doesn't carry a great deal of weight.

Look at how ignorant the panel was in another thread, they had NO IDEA that CO2 was less than an atmospheric rounding error.

Those were not scientists and they were not affilitated with the IPCC. I am almost certain that you knew that and thus I am almost certain that you just willfully lied.

I hope that at least one of them will start to question their AGW Cult beliefs

What they knew was that cars produce CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect is warming the planet. What did they get wrong?

You're somewhat smart, so I have to believe that you're being compensated to promote this nonsense, because it sure ain't science. You know it's not science

I know that it is and that you are astoundingly ignorant about all of this, even after your years of exposure to these conversations. It makes me think that you and jc WANT to remain ignorant. As I said, it's your call.

 

[Blues Man]

A core tenant of the Theory of AGW states that temperature increase by 1.5C for ever doubling of CO2 from 280 PPM. Let's say that could be true, why don't we test this by comparing a 250PPM CO2 environment to a 1,000PPN CO2 environment. According to the American CO2 is bad Theory of Manmade Global Warming, the latter should be 3C warmer than the former. Correct?

Well, it might not be, because you see "3C is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, Frank, not the Transient Climate Response"

Which sounds to be like an excuse for CO2 laboratory performance anxiety. What he means to say is that, "Sure there is no temperature increase in the lab, but our models show a 3C increase based upon Transient Climate Response, you Denier!"

Can someone please explain why doubling is not really doubling?

Natural phenomena rarely follow such a linear course