Another Day, another article about the climate collapsing!

[Buzz]

My goal is a sustainable energy future, where everyone alive can enjoy a first world lifestyle if they choose to!

Oh really?? But you have admitted more than once that you have a conflict of interest concerning climate science. And this goal you give does not have any conflicts. I don't think you are being entirely honest here.

Why don't you tell us the rest, longview?? Is it as I suspect that you have a lot of stock in the fossil fuel industry? Or is the conflict something else?

 

[longview]

Oh really?? But you have admitted more than once that you have a conflict of interest concerning climate science. And this goal you give does not have any conflicts. I don't think you are being entirely honest here.

Why don't you tell us the rest, longview?? Is it as I suspect that you have a lot of stock in the fossil fuel industry? Or is the conflict something else?

I do not have a conflict of interest with climate scientist, but my employer would likely not like me publishing on the topic.

 

[Buzz]

I do not have a conflict of interest with climate scientist, but my employer would likely not like me publishing on the topic.

I don't think that your employer not liking you publishing something constitutes a conflict of interest. Sounds more like a freedom of speech issue to me.

And are you going to show me where a black box amplifier has anything to do with climate science's analysis of temperature data or are you just going to blow it off again like you typically do when you make stuff up?

 

[Antiwar]

Demonstrate the testable theory

This person wants us to test whether or not burning boatloads of hydrocarbons every day is good or bad for the environment that supports life on Earth by burning hydrocarbons. He's like the cartoon characters that test bombs with hammers.

 

[longview]

This person wants us to test whether or not burning boatloads of hydrocarbons every day is good or bad for the environment that supports life on Earth by burning hydrocarbons. He's like the cartoon characters that test bombs with hammers.

So you cannot describe the testable theory that would show 2XCO2 could produce warming of 3C or more?

 

[longview]

I don't think that your employer not liking you publishing something constitutes a conflict of interest. Sounds more like a freedom of speech issue to me.

And are you going to show me where a black box amplifier has anything to do with climate science's analysis of temperature data or are you just going to blow it off again like you typically do when you make stuff up?

Any amplifier can be evaluated for how much it amplifies, the climate is no different!
The concept of catastrophic AGW is that the forcing warming of 2XCO2 (~1.1C) will be amplified to be 3C or greater. If true, then that same feedback factor should be present all over the instrument temperature record, but it is not!

 

[Buzz]

Any amplifier can be evaluated for how much it amplifies, the climate is no different!
The concept of catastrophic AGW is that the forcing warming of 2XCO2 (~1.1C) will be amplified to be 3C or greater. If true, then that same feedback factor should be present all over the instrument temperature record, but it is not!

Yup... I thought so. You can't cite anything in the science of climate change that uses a black box amplifier. And you know perfectly well that the Earth is not a black box. So your "black box amplifier" is something you just made up and now you are trying to BS your way out of having to admit it.

And you also know that the feedbacks from GHG warming are NOT going to be the same over all of the instrumental temperature record. Or you should know this. To say this is nothing but more denialist BS.

 

[longview]

Yup... I thought so. You can't cite anything in the science of climate change that uses a black box amplifier. And you know perfectly well that the Earth is not a black box. So your "black box amplifier" is something you just made up and now you are trying to BS your way out of having to admit it.

And you also know that the feedbacks from GHG warming are NOT going to be the same over all of the instrumental temperature record. Or you should know this. To say this is nothing but more denialist BS.

Physics is not confined to the science of climate change, and the same rules are everywhere.
If a system has amplification potential, then that potential will be demonstrated with any input.
The problem is that the necessary feedback factors do not exists for any period of more than a single year.
It would be like saying an amplifier can turn 1 volt into 10 volts, but the collector voltage is only 5 volts!

 

[code1211]

The IPCC is not a business.

I don't know if you are aware of this but the scientists who contribute to the reports do not get paid. They are volunteers who do it for the good of the planet and mankind. And I am sure that the vast majority of these scientists would love to see the IPCC become unnecessary and not have to devote hundreds of hours of work to produce the reports. But that would require that the fossil fuel industry and other mostly conservative organizations stop spending huge amounts of money misinforming and lying to the public. And people like you would need to quit helping them with all the false and misleading BS you push. Then, maybe, if most everyone on the planet started taking AGW seriously and we actually did what is necessary to stop the warming then the IPCC wouldn't be needed and it could "go out of business".

That is just more BS!! I have been reading the scientific literature on climate change now for over a decade. I have done a large amount of reading specifically on the temperature records in order to debunk the lies and misinformation that has consistently come from people like you, LoP, Steve Case, and others. Not to mention reading significant amounts of all the IPCC reports. And in all that time I have never once seen any reference to a black box amplifier being used in evaluating the temperature record. Even Google comes up with nothing relevant at all.

I think you are making this up. And unless you can cite something to show otherwise, I am going to insist you are just lying.

No thanks. I am not afraid to admit I don't have the math skills. Not that I think using that graph to make such a calculation would even be appropriate in the first place.

IN passing, the IPCC is a political organization. That aside, though:

Why are the glaciers still present in Glacier National Park? It was too warm for them to even start to form until 7000 years ago WHEN CO2 WAS FAR LOWER.

IF the rise of CO2 is THE direct and PRIMARY cause of the effect which is climate/temperature change
and the CO2 has been too high for almost a century,
THEN those glaciers should be gone and we should be warmer than 7000 years ago.

Your seeming call to examine cause and effect to prove the direct cause-effect connection between climate and CO2 seems to collapse if examine the real world outcomes of the cause and effect demonstrated in the real world.

Atmospheric CO2 ppm by year 1959-2023 | Statista

The average global atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased by almost 20 percent since 1990, and set a record high in 2022.

www.statista.com

 

[Germinator]

IPCC: Window to avert catastrophic climate change is quickly closing

It seems the climate alarmist are the ones who are denying the science.
If the imagined 1.5°C target exists, then how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is a large factor in when it would be reached.

climate change is an existential threat to humanity because it is part of a systemic feed back loop

 

[longview]

climate change is an existential threat to humanity because it is part of a systemic feed back loop

If the said feedback loop exists, then why did it not kick in during any of the earlier inter glacial periods in the last millions years, where it got quite a bit warmer?

 

[Buzz]

Physics is not confined to the science of climate change, and the same rules are everywhere.
If a system has amplification potential, then that potential will be demonstrated with any input.
The problem is that the necessary feedback factors do not exists for any period of more than a single year.
It would be like saying an amplifier can turn 1 volt into 10 volts, but the collector voltage is only 5 volts!

None of this changes the fact that you made up the term "black box amplifier" and lied about the current state of climate science's estimation of CO2 sensitivity.

 

[Threegoofs]

None of this changes the fact that you made up the term "black box amplifier" and lied about the current state of climate science's estimation of CO2 sensitivity.

Like I said, the main goal is denial. Everything else is peripheral with him.

 

[Buzz]

IN passing, the IPCC is a political organization. That aside, though:

Wrong. It is a scientific organization that does have some political goals.

Why are the glaciers still present in Glacier National Park?

Because they haven't completely melted yet.

It was too warm for them to even start to form until 7000 years ago WHEN CO2 WAS FAR LOWER.

CO2 is not the only thing that can warm the planet.

IF the rise of CO2 is THE direct and PRIMARY cause of the effect which is climate/temperature change

and the CO2 has been too high for almost a century,

It is just the primary cause NOW. And it hasn't been too high for almost a century.

THEN those glaciers should be gone and we should be warmer than 7000 years ago.

They probably will be soon.

Your seeming call to examine cause and effect to prove the direct cause-effect connection between climate and CO2 seems to collapse if examine the real world outcomes of the cause and effect demonstrated in the real world.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[longview]

None of this changes the fact that you made up the term "black box amplifier" and lied about the current state of climate science's estimation of CO2 sensitivity.

That you think I made up the term black box amplifier, demonstrates your lack of understanding of the topic!
Also CO2’s climate sensitivity is greatly dependent on how the CO2 is emitted.
Smaller annual emissions reach maximum warming much quicker, and if you look at the axis on the graph in the maximum warming paper, places the maximum warming at 0.2K per 100 GtC.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I am curious how many elites flew in on private jets from all over the world to create that report.

 

[Buzz]

That you think I made up the term black box amplifier, demonstrates your lack of understanding of the topic!

If you didn't make it up then why can't you site anything at all that describes it as you do? How come Google comes up with absolutely nothing?

Also CO2’s climate sensitivity is greatly dependent on how the CO2 is emitted.
Smaller annual emissions reach maximum warming much quicker, and if you look at the axis on the graph in the maximum warming paper, places the maximum warming at 0.2K per 100 GtC.

Blah, blah, blah....

Just admit it... you lied.

 

[longview]

If you didn't make it up then why can't you site anything at all that describes it as you do? How come Google comes up with absolutely nothing?

Blah, blah, blah....

Just admit it... you lied.

If you had asked, I could cite references about black box amplifier concepts.
Black box amplifier
That you do not know how to structure a google query is also demonstrated.
As to the sensitivity, if 100 GtC hits a maximum warming of about 0.2C/K, and 2XCO2 would be 596 GtC, so maximum warming would be 0.2 C x 5.96, or 1.19C!
P.S. they ran the simulations out to 1000 years, any the maximum warming was still right around 0.2C.

 

[Buzz]

If you had asked, I could cite references about black box amplifier concepts.

I did ask.

Black box amplifier
That you do not know how to structure a google query is also demonstrated.

That is an electronic amplifier!!



You were talking about the analysis of temperature data. Black box electronic amplifiers have almost nothing to do with temperature analysis as you incorrectly claimed.

You are just making a fool of yourself again.

As to the sensitivity, if 100 GtC hits a maximum warming of about 0.2C/K, and 2XCO2 would be 596 GtC, so maximum warming would be 0.2 C x 5.96, or 1.19C!

P.S. they ran the simulations out to 1000 years, any the maximum warming was still right around 0.2C.

This still doesn't change the fact that you lied.

Not to mention that your calculations are both overly simplistic and completely ridiculous.

 

[longview]

That is an electronic amplifier!!



You were talking about the analysis of temperature data. Black box electronic amplifiers have almost nothing to do with temperature analysis as you incorrectly claimed.

You are just making a fool of yourself again.

This still doesn't change the fact that you lied.

Not to mention that your calculations are both overly simplistic and completely ridiculous.

Any amplified system can be evaluated as a black box amplifier.
Also unless you can show how my calculations are in error, it is you who are making things up!

 

[Buzz]

Any amplified system can be evaluated as a black box amplifier.

The Earth's climate forcings and feedbacks are not the same thing as an electronic amplifier. And they can NOT be evaluated in the same manner. Why do you insist on such stupidity??

Also unless you can show how my calculations are in error, it is you who are making things up!

That just makes no sense whatsoever.

Admit it long,... YOU LIED!!!

And no matter how much you obfuscate the facts, you are not going to rationalize away this lie.

 

[longview]

The Earth's climate forcings and feedbacks are not the same thing as an electronic amplifier. And they can NOT be evaluated in the same manner. Why do you insist on such stupidity??

That just makes no sense whatsoever.

Admit it long,... YOU LIED!!!

And no matter how much you obfuscate the facts, you are not going to rationalize away this lie.

Then you do not grasp how a black box evaluation works!
Again unless you can show an error in my calculations, then you are just blowing smoke!

 

[Buzz]

Then you do not grasp how a black box evaluation works!

OMG!! Are you seriously suggesting that the Earth's forcings and feedbacks should be studied and evaluated as a black box??

A black box where everything that happens inside of it is completely ignored??



That is just idiotic. No wonder you can't cite anything from climate science to back up this stupid argument you have gotten yourself into.

And what does a black box amplifier have to do with a black box evaluation?

You just don't know when to quit digging... do you??

Again unless you can show an error in my calculations, then you are just blowing smoke!

The problem with your calculation is that it is so overly simplistic that only a fool would believe it could actually tell us anything about the sensitivity of CO2.

 

[longview]

OMG!! Are you seriously suggesting that the Earth's forcings and feedbacks should be studied and evaluated as a black box??

A black box where everything that happens inside of it is completely ignored??



That is just idiotic. No wonder you can't cite anything from climate science to back up this stupid argument you have gotten yourself into.

And what does a black box amplifier have to do with a black box evaluation?

You just don't know when to quit digging... do you??

The problem with your calculation is that it is so overly simplistic that only a fool would believe it could actually tell us anything about the sensitivity of CO2.

Yes exactly, the uncertainties and unknowns are so many, that a black box evaluation is a reasonable approach.
If we want to know how the climate will respond to a warming perturbation,
we evaluate how it has already responded. I am not sure why this concept is so alien to you?
Besides I am not to only one who has considered that the climate can behave like an amplifier or attenuator.
ACS Forcing and Feedback


Now let's get to my simplistic calculations of the graphic from the maximum warming study.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

One the Y axes the title is Temperature Anomaly (K/1000 GtC), so a 2 on the graph of a 100 GtC emission would have a scale of 0.2K!
Do you agree or disagree?
The next question would be how many cumulative 100 GtC pulses would it take to double the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 560 ppm?
ORNL Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables

1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C

So 280 ppm would be (280 X 2.13 =596.4 GtC),
Let's be generous and say the peak on the subjective graph is 0.21 K,
So, 5.964 (the number of 100 GtC units) Times 0.21K per unit, equals 1.25K or C.
Again the graph is the output of the same climate models used to arrive at the high levels of ECS, but
instead of abrupt increases of 2XCO2, or 4XCO2, they ran a smaller 100 GtC pulse (about 47 ppm) out for 1000 years.

 

[code1211]

Wrong. It is a scientific organization that does have some political goals.

Because they haven't completely melted yet.

CO2 is not the only thing that can warm the planet.

It is just the primary cause NOW. And it hasn't been too high for almost a century.

They probably will be soon.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The words that are represented by the initials IPCC are Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As such, it is a political body with political aims, political goals and political processes.

Water forming glaciers melts and then the freezes again. That's how it works. The Holocene started about 10,000 years ago.

The Glaciers in Glacier National Park froze up, AFTER they had been melted by the warming following the most recent ice age. The water in those glaciers was liquid for about 3000 years. Then it froze. It's been frozen for about 7000 years.

It was warmer, far warmer between the time that the ice melted to water and then refroze. During that warming, CO2 concentration was lower, much lower.

The CO2 level was much, much lower when the ice age froze the water, when the ice melted and became water again and when the water and became ice again.

I am talking about actual, real world evidence that departs from the raving proclamations of the doom sayers telling us the end is nigh.

The IPCC and their supporters tell us that humanity can control and direct the climate of the planet. This is, on its face, ridiculous.

In passing, the Industrial Revolution started in about 1700. The use of fossil fuels for energy gained much wider application in about 1800 and has grown ever since.