Those articles are not climate science. Those are meta analysis of others' climate science. So youre wrong there.STATUS: FALSE
Even the go-to climate hysteria online propaganda mill for climate alarmism zealots acknowledges the existence of his peer-reviewed work: https://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=128
Random forum dwellers don't decide for me who is or isn't a subject matter expert, or who does or doesn't have the education & experience in climate science.
I’ll just note that the guy writing all this above has never actually talked to a climate scientist. Ever.Then I suggest you learn it before you criticize someone who do.
I have do disagrement with the consensus as published in papers. The problem is, the pundits lie about what the consensus actually means.
Neither side should get tax dollars for the climate sciences. Subsidies should not be buying the wealthier of us solar generation, and subsidize $60,000 EV cars. We have better things to spend our tax dollars on, including reducing the debt.
I disagree. The unnatuiral transition to green energy is causing problem. Unstable power grinds for one.
It is real, and it does impact us. Are you this imprecise in your programming? The disagreement is how significant AGW is, and why are only greenhouse gasses being addressed instead of physical pollutants and land use changes?
The consensus is that we have an effect. Agreeing that we "contribute" to climate change is where you get the 97+%. Keep in mind, contribute, can be an exceptionally small percentage. Only a small percentage of papers and scientists polled think that AGW is a problem.
It would appear that by your standards, you offer no contribution to these forums.
You sure love strawmen. Are you married to one?I’ll just note that the guy writing all this above has never actually talked to a climate scientist. Ever.
Jan Veizer - PhD & professor (University of Ottawa)
Robert Balling - PhD & professor (Arizona State University)
You sure love strawmen. Are you married to one?
It would appear that by your standards, you offer no contribution to these forums
Then I suggest you learn it before you criticize someone who do.
Strawman? How does that apply here?You sure love strawmen. Are you married to one?
The strawman is acting like it matters.That wasn’t a strawman. You truly have never actually talked to an actual climate scientist.
The hilarious thing here is that you think that it doesnt.The strawman is acting like it matters.
You appeal to authority is also a fallacy.The hilarious thing here is that you think that it doesnt.
It is clear that you have not bothered to understand the difference between a contradiction and an observation.I see that @longview and @Lord of Planar are still on this forum, trying to convince laymen (apologies if anyone is involved in climate science). Both of you are still too busy to publish your alternative interpretations I assume? Strange that you seem to consider yourselves informed enough to contradict other scientists, yet are unwilling to submit yourselves to the peer review process, which is fundamental to how science is done today. And, while not perfect, it is clearly successful as whole, given all the successes we have seen borne from that process.
Instead of trying to expand your own knowledge, what you are instead doing is as if I decided I would write a compiler (a common exercise for computer scientists), but rather than reading and applying the concepts of the many computer scientists before me, I decided in my mind that all they have done is crap and only I know the 'best way'. Certainly, I could still write a compiler like this, but at best, I'd simply come to the same conclusions of those who came before me and will have wasted much time and energy in an effort to prove myself somehow better than them. At worst, I would make a mess, and miss all the key principles the exercise is designed to teach a budding Computer Scientist.
The idea that there is massive warming "in the pipeline" that the warming is coming no matter what we do today.Our results indicate that as CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may take several decades, if not centuries to emerge. A large fraction of the warming, however, will be realized relatively quickly (93% of the peak warming is realized 10 years after the emissions for the 1000 PgC pulse). This implies that the warming commitment from past CO2 emissions is small, and that future warming will largely be determined by current and future CO2 emissions.
This is just not true. Much of what you claim around here is not published or is contradictory to what is published in the IPCC report.None of what we are discussing is "new art" as the data is published by the IPCC.
Buzz, the only new art that I think I have added was evaluating the climate feedback that hasThis is just not true. Much of what you claim around here is not published or is contradictory to what is published in the IPCC report.
The only new thing you did was change it so it makes your denial of reality more palatable to you.Buzz, the only new art that I think I have added was evaluating the climate feedback that has
already happened as a black box amplifier.
The idea discussed in this thread is about how the authors converted a 1% annual increase in the PPM concentration level
of CO2, into the 1000 GtC accumulation. but that comes down to is 2XCO2 sensitivity for TCRE ~1°C or 2°C?
Change what Goofs? Really, what do you think I changed converting 1000 GtC into ppm CO2?The only new thing you did was change it so it makes your denial of reality more palatable to you.
The conclusion.Change what Goofs? Really, what do you think I changed converting 1000 GtC into ppm CO2?
What conclusion was changed in a unit conversion?The conclusion.
How do you not get this?
Jesus. You don’t get it.What conclusion was changed in a unit conversion?
Be specific, if you "know" I made a mistake in converting 1000 GtC into CO2 ppm,
then show where the error was? You simply not liking the results, does not make them wrong!
Goofs, it is you who does not understand!Jesus. You don’t get it.
You’re arriving at a low climate sensitivity number which is the low end of the IPCC consensus, and claiming it’s the full answer, because you’re perseveration about your napkin math.
And?Goofs, it is you who does not understand!
The IPCC published the results of a TCRE simulation of how much warming would result from
a 1% annual increase in the concentration of CO2 until the level reached 1000 GtC.
I converted that sensitivity (1.65°C per 1000 GtC) to a CO2 doubling relative to the pre industrial level of 280 ppm.
Unless you can show an error in the conversion, then what the IPCC published stands.
Oh, please... you have been adding "new art" around here for years only to have it debunked over and over again. Like this totally made-up nonsense about black box amplifiers. That isn't a term used in climate science anywhere that you can cite. Even the latest IPCC report never even uses the term even once in all of its nearly 4000 pages. It is just more of your denialist BS.Buzz, the only new art that I think I have added was evaluating the climate feedback that has
already happened as a black box amplifier.
There is nothing wrong with TCRE until you distort it with your screwed-up math. And I have already explained why your math is wrong several times now. And I think you know why it is wrong but you are just too intellectually dishonest to admit it.The idea discussed in this thread is about how the authors converted a 1% annual increase in the PPM concentration level
of CO2, into the 1000 GtC accumulation. but that comes down to is 2XCO2 sensitivity for TCRE ~1°C or 2°C?
Your denialist conversion is not published in the IPCC reports.Goofs, it is you who does not understand!
The IPCC published the results of a TCRE simulation of how much warming would result from
a 1% annual increase in the concentration of CO2 until the level reached 1000 GtC.
I converted that sensitivity (1.65°C per 1000 GtC) to a CO2 doubling relative to the pre industrial level of 280 ppm.
Unless you can show an error in the conversion, then what the IPCC published stands.
I did not conclude anything, I converted their sensitivity in GtC and GtCO2 into 2XCO2.And?
What do you conclude from this?
That you for confirming that the idea of using a black box amplifier to evaluate climate feedbacks is new art.Oh, please... you have been adding "new art" around here for years only to have it debunked over and over again. Like this totally made-up nonsense about black box amplifiers. That isn't a term used in climate science anywhere that you can cite. Even the latest IPCC report never even uses the term even once in all of its nearly 4000 pages. It is just more of your denialist BS.
There is nothing wrong with TCRE until you distort it with your screwed-up math. And I have already explained why your math is wrong several times now. And I think you know why it is wrong but you are just too intellectually dishonest to admit it.
The conversion is published in the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion TablesYour denialist conversion is not published in the IPCC reports.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?