You should be afraid and you should act

[jc456]

Show us proof that they are highly biased and politicized. Show us evidence that they aren't "very reliable".

Post 273

 

[Crick]

No

Then you can show us the data demonstrating otherwise.

 

[Delldude]

Then you can show us the data demonstrating otherwise.

Previously been linked to.

 

[jc456]

Then you can show us the data demonstrating otherwise.

you want someone to show you data you're to pretentious to provide yourself! Color me shocked.

 

[Crick]

Previously been linked to.

No, it hasn't.

 

[ding]

No

Unprecedented rate of CO2 change? Sure. Unprecedented rate of temperature change? Not so much.

 

[jc456]

Unprecedented rate of CO2 change? Sure. Unprecedented rate of temperature change? Not so much.

View attachment 943535

No way.

 

[Crick]

Unprecedented rate of CO2 change? Sure. Unprecedented rate of temperature change? Not so much.

View attachment 943535

Do you not see the legend of your own plot, where it identifies "proxy-based reconstruction uncertainty"? Have you considered the unidentified chronological uncertainty in those data as well? And what do you think the instrumental data did over the 24 years following the end of yours?

 

[Delldude]

Unprecedented rate of CO2 change? Sure. Unprecedented rate of temperature change? Not so much.

Wasn't it something like CO2 levels and temperature are inversely proportional?

 

[ding]

Do you not see the legend of your own plot, where it identifies "proxy-based reconstruction uncertainty"? Have you considered the unidentified chronological uncertainty in those data as well? And what do you think the instrumental data did over the 24 years following the end of yours?

Yes the difference between what you normally post and this data from NASA is that NASA shows climate fluctuations while your presentations hide them.

 

[ding]

Wasn't it something like CO2 levels and temperature are inversely proportional?

No. Prior to the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 was a function of CO2. It's never been the other way around and today only goes to prove that point.

What GHG effect there is - CO2 is a relatively weak GHG - is logaritmic. For every doubling of CO2 the theoretical surface temperature will increase by 1C.

 

[Delldude]

What GHG effect there is - CO2 is a relatively weak GHG - is logaritmic. For every doubling of CO2 the theoretical surface temperature will increase by 1C.

If CO2 doubles and theoretically raises the surface temp by 1C, if CO2 would dwindle at the same rate, would it then, theoretically, lower the surface temp by 1C?

 

[Crick]

Yes the difference between what you normally post and this data from NASA is that NASA shows climate fluctuations while your presentations hide them.

Really? Would you care to review my posts with me? Do you think I've never posted NASA data here?

 

[Crick]

If CO2 doubles and theoretically raises the surface temp by 1C, if CO2 would dwindle at the same rate, would it then, theoretically, lower the surface temp by 1C?

The ECS and TCR both take the logarithmic nature of greenhouse gas warming fully into account. That's why doubling CO2 and waiting to reach equilibrium will see the Earth's temperatures rise by 3C and not by 66C, 118F (twice the current greenhouse warming) .

But don't let me get in the way. You two truly deserve each other. See what the two of you can figure out next.

 

[Delldude]

That's why doubling CO2 and waiting to reach equilibrium will raise the Earth's temperatures by 3C and not by twice the current greenhouse warming or 66C (118F).

So then, what is going to happen?

 

[Crick]

So then, what is going to happen?

The document at this link will tell you that and more.

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Which is the same answer I gave you the last time you asked this question.

 

[jc456]

The document at this link will tell you that and more.

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Which is the same answer I gave you the last time you asked this question.

Garbage in garbage out!!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

The document at this link will tell you that and more.

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Which is the same answer I gave you the last time you asked this question.

Modeling scenarios which you get turned on by pseudoscience while I have the GALL to rely on data/evidence that there is no climate emergency developing a reality you fight again and again with dumb evasions and fallacies which means you don't have shit for counterpoints.

 

[Delldude]

The document at this link will tell you that and more.

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Which is the same answer I gave you the last time you asked this question.

So you can't explain it in your own words...........I knew that...........thanks for proving it.

 

[mamooth]

Modeling scenarios which you get turned on by pseudoscience while I have the GALL to rely on data/evidence that there is no climate emergency developing

Nah. You just make up dumb strawmen and attack them. If you didn't suck so hard at science and logic, you wouldn't have to do that. But you do.

You know what to do now. Throw the meaningless wall of crap up again. Deflect, deflect, deflect. It's your only option.