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.
It is clear that you have not bothered to understand the difference between a contradiction and an observation.
Neither LOP or myself, have attempted to show that Human caused climate change is false.
The open question is, how sensitive is the climate to added CO2?
If the CO2 level in the atmosphere, eventually doubles,(and it might), how much warming could we actually expect?
We have many computer models which show that if we simulate an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,
dangerous warming,
could result.
Because the CO2 level will not double abruptly in the real world, the simulation is less than realistic.
Simulations with CO2 pulses less than an abrupt doubling (closer to actual emissions) show much less warming.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
Besides showing lower sensitivity, the study presents another point of fear used in the AGW argument.
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.
The idea that there is massive warming "in the pipeline" that the warming is coming no matter what we do today.
The reality is that over 93% of the warming from emissions before 2012, have already happened, and likely more, because,
Human style emissions are ~9.6 GtC annually, not 100 GtC, or 1000 GtC.
This brings use to simulations other than ECS, like TCR, and TCRE, where the simulation of 1% annual increases
in the CO2 concentration, are much closer to how Humans emit CO2.
As to publishing, would you release a program that you suspected still had bugs, or if you employment could be compromised?
In addition publishing usually requires something be "new art" an addendum to an existing concept or an entirely new concept.
None of what we are discussing is "new art" as the data is published by the IPCC.
