Climate Change? What Climate Change?

[Buzz]

He will never drop it. He is arguing just to argue.

I will drop it and stop arguing when you denialists quit lying and misleading people about the science of AGW.

I declare you the winner.

Who made you the God of determining who wins debates?

Let him lave the last word and leave is my opinion.

Fine with me as long as you guys stop pushing the lies and misinformation.

 

[longview]

Oh, God... why do you insist on repeating these lies over and over again?

Here is a post of yours where you quote the 2 IPCC definitions of ECS. And both of the definitions don't say anything about the doubling being abrupt:

And here is a post of mine where I cite past examples of me showing you studies of ECS that are not based on an abrupt doubling of CO2.

Your constant lying is getting to be as bad as LoP's.

Buzz, what you refuse to see, is that all the definitions that do not specify a time frame for the doubling, are abrupt doublings. This is how science works, you define the parameters of the experiment. If no time frame is defined, it is because there is no time frame for the event!

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, what you refuse to see, is that all the definitions that do not specify a time frame for the doubling, are abrupt doublings. This is how science works, you define the parameters of the experiment. If no time frame is defined, it is because there is no time frame for the event!

That is nothing but more of your made-up BS! The fact of the matter is that no one knows when the CO2 level will double over the pre-industrial level. So... there is no way for anyone to specify what that time frame will be. And as you keep pointing out, it can't be abrupt. It is only some of the models that assume an abrupt doubling just for the purpose of calculating what the ECS would be after the doubling actually happened.

Think I am wrong? Then prove it with some kind of legitimate scientific source that says this. I have read plenty of scientific articles as well as many of the IPCC reports and have never seen any say what you say.

I am convinced you have just made this up to support your denialist rantings.

 

[longview]

That is nothing but more of your made-up BS! The fact of the matter is that no one knows when the CO2 level will double over the pre-industrial level. So... there is no way for anyone to specify what that time frame will be. And as you keep pointing out, it can't be abrupt. It is only some of the models that assume an abrupt doubling just for the purpose of calculating what the ECS would be after the doubling actually happened.

Think I am wrong? Then prove it with some kind of legitimate scientific source that says this. I have read plenty of scientific articles as well as many of the IPCC reports and have never seen any say what you say.

I am convinced you have just made this up to support your denialist rantings.

ECS only exists in the simulations, and is simulated as an abrupt doubling of the level, which is why ECS is not a valid predictor of future warming!

 

[Lord of Planar]

That is nothing but more of your made-up BS! The fact of the matter is that no one knows when the CO2 level will double over the pre-industrial level. So... there is no way for anyone to specify what that time frame will be. And as you keep pointing out, it can't be abrupt. It is only some of the models that assume an abrupt doubling just for the purpose of calculating what the ECS would be after the doubling actually happened.

Think I am wrong? Then prove it with some kind of legitimate scientific source that says this. I have read plenty of scientific articles as well as many of the IPCC reports and have never seen any say what you say.

I am convinced you have just made this up to support your denialist rantings.

My God man. You did it again. Argued against a point not made.

Will you ever stop arguing just to argue? Is that the best thing going for you in life?

 

[Buzz]

ECS only exists in the simulations, and is simulated as an abrupt doubling of the level, which is why ECS is not a valid predictor of future warming!

That is nothing but your biased opinion that you can not back up with anything. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of climate scientists would likely disagree with you.

 

[Buzz]

My God man. You did it again. Argued against a point not made.

What are you talking about?? I didn't argue against a point not made. Obviously, this debate is beyond your comprehension.

Will you ever stop arguing just to argue?

I am not arguing just to argue. I am pointing out your and your fellow denialists lies and misinformation.

Is that the best thing going for you in life?

Nice. Your insinuation that I am a loser with nothing better going on in my life than arguing on an internet forum is nothing but a personal insult. And you accuse me of being a bully.



If you are not going to participate in these debates then do me a favor and quit harassing me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you are not going to participate in these debates then do me a favor and quit harassing me.

I'm waiting for you to stop. Like I said before, I reserve the right to retaliate in-kind.

Please note, most my posts are quite cordial. It's just you and a couple others simply irk me.

How can you even say such a thing when you purposely place "irritant" under your avatar. You seem to wear it as a badge of honor, which says all anyone needs to know about what you are about!

 

[longview]

That is nothing but your biased opinion that you can not back up with anything. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of climate scientists would likely disagree with you.

Actually you have not demonstrated that ECS is anything other than an abrupt change in the CO2 level that only exists in simulation!
Many definitions of ECS expressly state that the increase in CO2 level is an abrupt change, and those that do not expressly state this, set no time frame for the increase.
Feel free to prove me wrong?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually you have not demonstrated that ECS is anything other than an abrupt change in the CO2 level that only exists in simulation!
Many definitions of ECS expressly state that the increase in CO2 level is an abrupt change, and those that do not expressly state this, set no time frame for the increase.
Feel free to prove me wrong?

He can't. It's seems he doesn't have the srength of character to admit when he's wrong.

I accept is as that. Every time I see "ECS" used, it is from a stated change. What else could it be?

 

[Buzz]

I'm waiting for you to stop. Like I said before, I reserve the right to retaliate in-kind.

Retaliate? For what? I don't jump into debates that I'm not participating in just to attack you. If I jump in it is to point out where you are wrong. You are just retaliating because I prove you wrong so frequently.

Please note, most my posts are quite cordial. It's just you and a couple others simply irk me.

So are mine. But not with you with all the years of your insults, trolling, and lies about me you have pushed over the years.

How can you even say such a thing when you purposely place "irritant" under your avatar. You seem to wear it as a badge of honor, which says all anyone needs to know about what you are about!

Yeah, it is a badge of honor. I'm sorry it triggers you so much. I guess if you didn't push so many denialist lies and misinformation I wouldn't irritate you so badly.

 

[Buzz]

Actually you have not demonstrated that ECS is anything other than an abrupt change in the CO2 level that only exists in simulation!

Yes, I have. We have both quoted the IPCC's two definitions of ECS several times now and neither says anything about it being abrupt. Plus you have cited a study (Otto et al 2013) who knows how many dozens of times that doesn't use an abrupt change. And I have cited several other studies that don't as well.

All you have are some studies that use models where they assume an abrupt change just for their individual study.

Many definitions of ECS expressly state that the increase in CO2 level is an abrupt change,

Only in some studies of models. You can't cite anything else.

and those that do not expressly state this, set no time frame for the increase.

Because nobody knows when it will actually happen.

Feel free to prove me wrong?

I have. Over and over again. And I am sick of having to repeat myself. The fact of the matter is that I have the IPCC and the vast majority of climate scientists to back me up whereas all you have are some cherry-picked studies.

 

[longview]

Yes, I have. We have both quoted the IPCC's two definitions of ECS several times now and neither says anything about it being abrupt. Plus you have cited a study (Otto et al 2013) who knows how many dozens of times that doesn't use an abrupt change. And I have cited several other studies that don't as well.

All you have are some studies that use models where they assume an abrupt change just for their individual study.

Only in some studies of models. You can't cite anything else.

Because nobody knows when it will actually happen.

I have. Over and over again. And I am sick of having to repeat myself. The fact of the matter is that I have the IPCC and the vast majority of climate scientists to back me up whereas all you have are some cherry-picked studies.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that ECS has been used to describe a general case meaning any doubling of CO2,
but ECS itself is defined as an abrupt doubling to a sustained CO2 level, and only exists as a simulation.
Researchers can, as Otto did approximate ECS based on observed warming, but they are doing just what I did,
and finding a multiplier, and applying that to a ln(2).
Again you have not demonstrated or cited an example of ECS where there is a defined time frame for the increase in CO2
level, and without a time frame defined, it is a simulated abrupt change.

 

[Buzz]

You seem to be incapable of understanding

Please... don't insult my intelligence. I think that it is pretty clear with all the debates we have had over the past almost 8 years that I understand climate science far better than you do. Sure... you might know the math better but with all the false and misleading things you have said that I have debunked, it is clear I understand far better.

that ECS has been used to describe a general case meaning any doubling of CO2,

Wrong. It is a doubling where sufficient time has taken place after the doubling for all the feedbacks to have happened. TCS is also a doubling but without all the feedbacks. That is why TCS is always lower and why you prefer it over ECS.

but ECS itself is defined as an abrupt doubling to a sustained CO2 level,

You can keep repeating this lie over and over again but that is not going to make it true. The fact of the matter is that you are just an anonymous internet poster that is perfectly willing to lie about the science. That is why anyone with any common sense and intellectual honesty will believe the definitions written by actual climate scientists and published in the IPCC reports. And the IPCC reports don't say anything about being abrupt.

and only exists as a simulation.

So... you think a doubling of CO2 levels can only happen in a simulation? Really??

Researchers can, as Otto did approximate ECS based on observed warming, but they are doing just what I did,

and finding a multiplier, and applying that to a ln(2).

Wrong again!! Otto did not use the same method you use. It uses energy budgets to come up with a number for ECS. Damn, long... with as many times you have cited that study, you should know this.

As a matter of fact, I have never seen any legitimate peer-reviewed studies that use the same method as you.

Again you have not demonstrated or cited an example of ECS where there is a defined time frame for the increase in CO2

level, and without a time frame defined, it is a simulated abrupt change.

How can any study of ECS define a time frame when nobody knows when that doubling will happen? Sorry long, but this fact doesn't prove anything.

 

[longview]

Please... don't insult my intelligence. I think that it is pretty clear with all the debates we have had over the past almost 8 years that I understand climate science far better than you do. Sure... you might know the math better but with all the false and misleading things you have said that I have debunked, it is clear I understand far better.

Wrong. It is a doubling where sufficient time has taken place after the doubling for all the feedbacks to have happened. TCS is also a doubling but without all the feedbacks. That is why TCS is always lower and why you prefer it over ECS.

You can keep repeating this lie over and over again but that is not going to make it true. The fact of the matter is that you are just an anonymous internet poster that is perfectly willing to lie about the science. That is why anyone with any common sense and intellectual honesty will believe the definitions written by actual climate scientists and published in the IPCC reports. And the IPCC reports don't say anything about being abrupt.

So... you think a doubling of CO2 levels can only happen in a simulation? Really??

Wrong again!! Otto did not use the same method you use. It uses energy budgets to come up with a number for ECS. Damn, long... with as many times you have cited that study, you should know this.

As a matter of fact, I have never seen any legitimate peer-reviewed studies that use the same method as you.

How can any study of ECS define a time frame when nobody knows when that doubling will happen? Sorry long, but this fact doesn't prove anything.

What you are refusing to see is that without a time it took to double the CO2 level defined, it can only be abrupt.
Again ECS only exists inside a simulation, while CO2 could certainly double over many decades, it would never
be like ECS because the doubling would not be an abrupt doubling.
It is also possible to work backwards into an ECS approximation like Otto did, where you look at the
observed ratio of warming to CO2 growth, and then evaluate it as if CO2 had doubled abruptly.

The second section in bold, is exactly why ECS is not a good predictor of future warming, and also why ECS only
exists in a simulation. The CO2 level may eventually double (560 ppm), but it would have taken ~180 years,
consider what an abrupt doubling looks like on a graph, compared to a doubling that takes 180 years?