Climate Scientist Rejects ‘Climate Change’ As ‘A Quasi-Religious Movement Predicated on An Absurd ‘Scientific’ Narrative’

[Lord of Planar]

We also do not know the point where CO2 may leave it's accepted natural log curve.

Hansen's formula for CO2 is probably the most accurate. It produces a true zero with zero ppm. It also has less forcing than the 5.35 x ln(ratio)

 

[Threegoofs]

Except the statement,

is an assumption and not part of the measurement.
The measurement is the range, 0.8°C to 1.3°C, added to the ranges for
internal variability –0.2°C to +0.2°C, and
natural drivers –0.1°C to +0.1°C,
leading to a range of 0.5°C if they all went one way, and 1.6°C if they all went the other way.

Gee- better tell the IPCC they have their numbers wrong, Mr anonymous Internet poster.

 

[longview]

With that one word in bold. I did not speak of some. I spoke on the idea that it was only CO2 you were stuck on. And your response is do once again repeat the same thing, ie. just talk about CO2.

Huge benefits apparently come with huge costs. It is not that the benefits are not welcomed. It is the understanding that the means to obtain the benefits are not sustainable.

What is the IPCC and the nations of the world attempting to control?
UN net zero coalition

Put simply, net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests for instance.

They want to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Which greenhouse gas is supposed to be the largest contributor to AGW? CO2!

The cost of using naturally stored hydrocarbons is unclear, but what is not unclear is that it is unsustainable.

 

[longview]

Hansen's formula for CO2 is probably the most accurate. It produces a true zero with zero ppm. It also has less forcing than the 5.35 x ln(ratio)

I don't remember seeing Hansen's formula.

 

[longview]

Gee- better tell the IPCC they have their numbers wrong, Mr anonymous Internet poster.

They are their numbers, I am just pointing out the range they describe.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't remember seeing Hansen's formula.

From the TAR:



Hansen's formula is more accurate I think, because it lives a true zero, and is not purely log.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz a top of the atmosphere energy imbalance can be caused by ether increasing the input or decreasing the output!

No duh.

Are you denying that NASA GISS TSI clearly shows a large increase in TSI between 1900 and 1958?

Yes, I am denying that the increase in TSI is large. The fact of the matter is that the increase of about 0.5 Wm-2 is NOT large. It isn't even 0.05%!! You are exaggerating the change in order to get the numbers to say what you want them to say.

It is rather difficult to call that increase .04 W m-2!

Not when you consider all the different factors that influence the actual forcing from that change in irradiance. Remember... the change in irradiance is not the same as the change in forcing. Lord is at least right about that one thing. Any increase in irradiance would translate to only a 1/4 increase in forcing. And then there are the other factors that would also reduce that forcing. Like planetary albedo. If you really understood the science of climate change you would know this. But you don't.

The 2.47 W m-2 increase is for a CO2-eq increase between 1900 and 2021, the increase was from 315 ppm to 500 ppm.
So the forcing can be calculated by 5.35 X ln(500/315) = 2.47 W m-2.

This is one of your frequently made mistakes. You calculate the change in concentration of GHG and figure the forcing from that change is the same forcing over the entire period in question when in reality it isn't. Look at your cited link. The data below the graph gives the forcing for every year from 1979 to 2021. And the forcing you are using is about right for just 2000. All the time before that was obviously lower while after that was higher. And this is why your calculations are oversimplified. They assume the same forcing for the entire period when in reality it changes and increases constantly. Your overly simplistic calculations are unable to account for this fact.

You are correct that if TSI occupied a greater portion of the observed forcing, then the GHG forcing would be less,

Obviously.

This is what I have been saying for years, the process is subtractive, the forcing and warming attributed to added
greenhouse gasses is what remains after all the other known factors have been subtracted!

And this is also where you are wrong. There are uncertainties in all the factors that determine warming attributions. And because of this assuming that the other factors can be precisely quantified to determine what the forcing from just GHGs is just another of your denialist fantasies. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Buzz]

It appears I need to remind these people who are easily influenced by charlatans, that the agenda never gives solar credit for its whole influence. It's been awhile since I brought this up, but number that the IPCC et. al. use are only "direct" forcing number. Solar has an aplification, rather than feedback, so it doesn't have the same under unity gain limitation. If we assume the sun's TSI has increased by ~1.0 W/m^2 then using the 1/4 power influence for the area of the sphere vs. a disk, then this is ~0.25 W/m^2 at the TOA. However, the earths albedo is about 0.3. This means only about 0.175 W/m^2 is absorbed of the extra 1W TSI. This is where the 240 W/m^2 comes from. However, the entirety of the forcing at the surface, is over 500 W/m^2. If I use 240 being amplified to 500, then the ratio is 2.08. This means that 0.175 W/m^2 calculates out to 0.36 W/mm^2.

That is the simple linear approach. It still isn't that simple. The reason is when the TSI increases, so does the spectral peak. Almost all the extra energy is shortwave energy, the bodies of water absorb most of it, and doesn't respond like a black body does. The change is probably closer to a 0.5 or 0.6 W/m^2, but off the top of my head, I don't know the proper formula to use. This is where the IPCC fails. They claim the solar increase to be ~0.12 W/m^2 And the direct forcing change at the surface would about be that, considering my 0.175 includes atmospheric absorption. However, in reality, it is closer to my calculated 0.36 W/m^2 plus the extra energy absorbed in the oceans.

Then there is another factor I haven't mentioned yet. This extra forcing gets amplification from water vapor increases like lo0ngwave energy does too. Now if their claim of a 2:1 feedback is real for longwave, then it becomes a amplification fro shortwave as well. How close to a 2:1 it is, I can only guess. But it will bump up the 0.5 to 0.6 W/m^2 even more yet.

OMG!! What a bunch of BS. Especially your mythical solar amplification.

How about coming up with something to back this BS up other than your made-up graph? I have been bugging you for years for any kind of evidence that your solar amplification is real but you have yet to show anything at all.

Come on, Lord... everyone else seems to be able to back up what they say with something more than just hot air. How about you?

 

[Threegoofs]

OMG!! What a bunch of BS. Especially your mythical solar amplification.

How about coming up with something to back this BS up other than your made-up graph? I have been bugging you for years for any kind of evidence that your solar amplification is real but you have yet to show anything at all.

Come on, Lord... everyone else seems to be able to back up what they say with something more than just hot air. How about you?

Come on.

You know better than this.

 

[watsup]

That's all you have. Nothing but name calling. No evidence, just name calling.

OK...

Just since noon yesterday:

You are incapable of that.

easily influenced by charlatans, t

You are proving you don't know squat.

Then you clearly are not competent to debate this issue of science.

You keep looking so foolish

You are incapable o

it. Stop looking foolish.

 

[Lord of Planar]

OMG!! What a bunch of BS. Especially your mythical solar amplification.

LOL...

I'm sorry you deny the science.

What happens then? Do you think the greenhouse effect magically creates forcing without the sun driving it?

Please specify the part of the science I was wrong about. I know you can't because you don't have the intelligence it takes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just since noon yesterday:

Whining again I see. Can't you make a productive post?

 

[Buzz]

Come on.

You know better than this.

Yeah. I know he will probably lie and claim that he already has provided evidence. But I know he hasn't. And I'll just keep pointing out that he can't provide anything over and over again until he quits saying that BS.

Somebody has to do it.

 

[Buzz]

I'm sorry you deny the science.

I'm not denying anything. And I clearly understand the science far better than you ever will.

What happens then? Do you think the greenhouse effect magically creates forcing without the sun driving it?

Um, yeah... that's how the greenhouse effect works. It blocks outgoing longwave radiation. And that radiation is coming from the earth and not the sun. I thought you understood how this stuff works. I guess not.

Please specify the part of the science I was wrong about. I know you can't because you don't have the intelligence it takes.

There is no solar amplification. You just made that up and can not provide anything to back it up.

And there are other things you are saying that I know or suspect are also wrong but let us just see if you can back up the solar amplification BS first.

And your insulting my intelligence doesn't prove anything other than your ability to break forum rule #4.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah. I know he will probably lie and claim that he already has provided evidence.

Why do I need to provide evidence of the known sciences, the known math, and how it relates to the energy budget.

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you are far beneath my level of competency on this topic. Like normal, you demand a paper, little different than asking me to prove proving 5 + 5 = 10. You keep doing this, denying first year science. Then you wonder why I accurately say that you deny science.

And I'll just keep pointing out that he can't provide anything over and over again until he quits saying that BS.

I stop responding when I realize no matter what I say, you will keep denying science. My understanding is 100% based in science and the data we know.

Funny how you demand for me to find a source for what amounts to a lifetime of learning.

Maybe it would be easier on everyone if you just told us what I said that is wrong. But then, I am almost certain, you don't have the intellect to do so.

Don't you get it? Over and over, I prove to people I know what I am speaking of. I don't need a source to tell me what my decades of education allow me to understand.

Since you are incapable you showing what part(s) I am in error over, maybe you should go away with what little pride you have left.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why do I need to provide evidence of the known sciences, the known math, and how it relates to the energy budget.

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you are far beneath my level of competency on this topic. Like normal, you demand a paper, little different than asking me to prove proving 5 + 5 = 10. You keep doing this, denying first year science. Then you wonder why I accurately say that you deny science.


I stop responding when I realize no matter what I say, you will keep denying science. My understanding is 100% based in science and the data we know.

Funny how you demand for me to find a source for what amounts to a lifetime of learning.

Maybe it would be easier on everyone if you just told us what I said that is wrong. But then, I am almost certain, you don't have the intellect to do so.

Don't you get it? Over and over, I prove to people I know what I am speaking of. I don't need a source to tell me what my decades of education allow me to understand.

Since you are incapable you showing what part(s) I am in error over, maybe you should go away with what little pride you have left.

LOL.

It’s the ‘I’m so smart I don’t need to show proof’ argument.

I bet that works on the graveyard shift, with all the other half asleep mopes…but it doesn’t work here.

 

[watsup]

Whining again I see. Can't you make a productive post?

Post #1410 post proven!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not denying anything.

Yes you are.

And I clearly understand the science far better than you ever will.

LOL... Only in your own head.

Um, yeah... that's how the greenhouse effect works. It blocks outgoing longwave radiation. And that radiation is coming from the earth and not the sun. I thought you understood how this stuff works. I guess not.

If you actually understand that, then doesn't it make sense that the intensity of the greenhouse effect is modulated by the sun's intensity?

There is no solar amplification. You just made that up and can not provide anything to back it up.

It's simple math. Why do you deny that? If the solar intensity were to increase, the wouldn't the greenhouse effect return more downward LW? If the sun were to weakem then wouldn't there be less energy to drive the greenhouse effect, causing it to diminish?

Think about it for a few. This is the forcing amplifiocation I speak of. The sun provides a surface insolation of around 168 W/m^2 global average if I remember right, and the clouds absorb some too, causing more downward IR. The total absolute forcing is now estimated to be over 500 W/m^2. Why do you act as if this extra absolute forcing is magic, instead of an amplification of the solar energy?

Please elaborate.

 

[watsup]

Why do I need to provide evidence

Hahahaha. This lame excuse defines Lord perfectly!

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL.

It’s the ‘I’m so smart I don’t need to show proof’ argument.

I bet that works on the graveyard shift, with all the other half asleep mopes…but it doesn’t work here.

Do I need to also show 5 + 5 = 10 to you?

Don't you see. This is basic simple stuff. Just because the agenda driven charlatans are silent on the inconvenient truths, doesn't mean its not true.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hahahaha. This lame excuse defines Lord perfectly!

Out of context making it a lie... Are you proud of yourself? Please debate the science.

 

[Threegoofs]

Do I need to also show 5 + 5 = 10 to you?

Don't you see. This is basic simple stuff. Just because the agenda driven charlatans are silent on the inconvenient truths, doesn't mean its not true.

LOL.

You can’t come up with a damn thing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL.

You can’t come up with a damn thing.

Bye. Tell me how I'm wrong, or please stop.

 

[watsup]

Here we go again:

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you are far beneath my level of competency on this topic

You keep doing this, denying first year science.

I am almost certain, you don't have the intellect to do so.

agenda driven charlatans ar

Just because the agenda driven charlatans are silent on the inconvenient truths,

Out of context making it a lie..

certain,

 

[Buzz]

Why do I need to provide evidence of the known sciences, the known math, and how it relates to the energy budget.

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you are far beneath my level of competency on this topic. Like normal, you demand a paper, little different than asking me to prove proving 5 + 5 = 10. You keep doing this, denying first year science. Then you wonder why I accurately say that you deny science.


I stop responding when I realize no matter what I say, you will keep denying science. My understanding is 100% based in science and the data we know.

Funny how you demand for me to find a source for what amounts to a lifetime of learning.

Maybe it would be easier on everyone if you just told us what I said that is wrong. But then, I am almost certain, you don't have the intellect to do so.

Don't you get it? Over and over, I prove to people I know what I am speaking of. I don't need a source to tell me what my decades of education allow me to understand.

Since you are incapable you showing what part(s) I am in error over, maybe you should go away with what little pride you have left.

If what you are saying is known science then why are you the only one saying this? Why haven't any other scientists said what you are saying? Why is there no evidence that what you say is true? It is because you are making shit up.

Come on, Lord... buck up and show us the science and data that says there is solar amplification, or SHUT UP!!

If you actually understand that, then doesn't it make sense that the intensity of the greenhouse effect is modulated by the sun's intensity?

Wrong!! The greenhouse effect is modulated by GHGs. Just because the sun might be providing the planet with more energy does not in and of itself change the greenhouse effect. It may be changing the amount of energy that the greenhouse effect is reflecting back to Earth but it is not actually changing the greenhouse effect.

It's simple math. Why do you deny that? If the solar intensity were to increase, the wouldn't the greenhouse effect return more downward LW? If the sun were to weakem then wouldn't there be less energy to drive the greenhouse effect, causing it to diminish?

Do you think that solar intensity is the only thing that can affect the heat received by the planet? By your flawed reasoning, anything that changes the amount of energy received by the surface would be amplified. Like aerosols... if that reduced and the surface became warmer then is there aerosol amplification? If aerosols increased and there was a reduction of energy reaching the surface would that mean there is aerosol dampening? I don't think so.

Think about it for a few. This is the forcing amplifiocation I speak of. The sun provides a surface insolation of around 168 W/m^2 global average if I remember right,

About.

and the clouds absorb some too, causing more downward IR.

Clouds actually reflect some as well.

The total absolute forcing is now estimated to be over 500 W/m^2.

Absolute forcing of what? And 500 W/m^2 is way off no matter what you are talking about.

Why do you act as if this extra absolute forcing is magic, instead of an amplification of the solar energy?

Because the different forcings are not actually changing the amount of energy that the Earth is receiving from the sun. And when you claim that there is a solar amplification you are suggesting that energy from the sun is being increased when it is not.

Your logic is flawed and unscientific.