You should be afraid and you should act

[jc456]

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.

You have no idea what science is cat woman. Science means to question everyone, everything and then question that. Science is always questioning

 

[mamooth]

You have no idea what science is cat woman. Science means to question everyone, everything and then question that.

No, it doesn't.

What you say there is the mantra of the conspiracy kook loser.

 

[jc456]

No, it doesn't.

What you say there is the mantra of the conspiracy kook loser.

Proved my point

 

[jc456]

No, it doesn't.

What you say there is the mantra of the conspiracy kook loser.

SEP1: Asking Questions — The Wonder of Science

thewonderofscience.com

While science begins with questions, engineering begins with defining a problem to solve.

 

[ding]

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.

The doubling of CO2 from physics is 1C, not 3C. Of course they also say 4.5C. They can't seem to make up their minds.

 

[jc456]

The doubling of CO2 from physics is 1C, not 3C. Of course they also say 4.5C. They can't seem to make up their minds.

Logarithmic charts show less

 

[ding]

Logarithmic charts show less

Link?

 

[jc456]

Link?

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

LOL, it was YOU who is doing the deflecting as I linked to a post that uses baseline databases which I notice scares warmist/alarmist loons away if fear thus the article claims remains unchallenged it has become a millstone climate cultist can't handle as they view it with TERROR!

You don't know what a strawman is since I only pointed out that the report consists of modeling scenarios which you know is true that is why you get upset that your IPCC trash isn't universally loved by everyone.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Link?

Try this recently published paper

3 Physicists Use Experimental Evidence To Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturated

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

The doubling of CO2 from physics is 1C, not 3C. Of course they also say 4.5C. They can't seem to make up their minds.

Crick continues to ignore many published papers showing a far smaller ECS TCR numbers that are declining over time as research improves on it as times goes on:

Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

LINK

Here are only 160 published papers showing,

160 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity​

LINK

 

[Crick]

Crick continues to ignore many published papers showing a far smaller ECS TCR numbers that are declining over time as research improves on it as times goes on:

Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
View attachment 944046

LINK

Here are only 160 published papers showing,

160 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity​

LINK

Trending towards zero? HAHAHAHAHAAaaaahaahaa jesus fucking christ you are PATHETIC

 

[ding]

View attachment 944014

That graph claims a 1.85C to a 3.25C increase in surface temperatures per doubling of CO2. See the two annotations at the far right edge of the graph. This graph includes their estimate of "climate sensitivity" which is based upon modeling of adding in feedback.

 

[jc456]

That graph claims a 1.85C to a 3.25C increase in surface temperatures per doubling of CO2. See the two annotations at the far right edge of the graph. This graph includes their estimate of "climate sensitivity" which is based upon modeling of adding in feedback.

yeah, there's not one graph, my recollection was wrong, but I have seen more videos with addressing the feedback piece and I must have included that in my thought process yesterday. Thanks, I'll see if I can find the dude discussing the feedback aspect.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Trending towards zero? HAHAHAHAHAAaaaahaahaa jesus fucking christ you are PATHETIC

Another failed reply comes from you who can't address the numerous published papers which are provided in the link, too bad your adherence to pseudoscience is worse than ever.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That graph claims a 1.85C to a 3.25C increase in surface temperatures per doubling of CO2. See the two annotations at the far right edge of the graph. This graph includes their estimate of "climate sensitivity" which is based upon modeling of adding in feedback.

You referring to the Positive Feedback Loop?

 

[jc456]

That graph claims a 1.85C to a 3.25C increase in surface temperatures per doubling of CO2. See the two annotations at the far right edge of the graph. This graph includes their estimate of "climate sensitivity" which is based upon modeling of adding in feedback.

Here's the guy...

 

[ding]

yeah, there's not one graph, my recollection was wrong, but I have seen more videos with addressing the feedback piece and I must have included that in my thought process yesterday. Thanks, I'll see if I can find the dude discussing the feedback aspect.

I've seen several references to calculations of theoretical surface temperature from radiative forcing of CO2 using simple physics but have never seen a paper on it or the calculations. Those references imply that it is well known in the climate community that simple physics predict a 1C warming of surface temperatures from a doubling of CO2. I find it odd (i.e. telling) that the IPCC doesn't address that in their reports in a transparent way.

 

[jc456]

this video explains the stupidity of the warmers. Richard Lindzen

 

[Crick]

Another failed reply comes from you who can't address the numerous published papers which are provided in the link, too bad your adherence to pseudoscience is worse than ever.

You think the IPCC or the work they assess are putting out pseudoscience? Do you think mainstream science would conclude that estimates of climate sensitivity are trending towards zero?