Climate scientists - there are plenty of them out there being ignored or disregarded by mainstream media

[vegas giants]

So tell us what is the climate’s sensitivity to added CO2, and cite and quote the basis of your belief?

Not an answer to the central question!
Why don’t you want to answer, it is the most important question in AGW?

I did
Look up

 

[Threegoofs]

Wrap things up on your questions to me. I may need to leave in 10 minutes.

Homeopathy and Dowsing club meets the last Sunday of the month?

 

[watsup]

Yet what you don't understand is, these are my own words. Not someone's talking points. Any agreement is coincidental.

Yes, they are your own words. The problem is that you can’t back them with actual items from climate scientists. As such, they are just so much blather until you can.

 

[watsup]

I'm sorry you can't differentiate reality any better than the other two here.

What do I think causes the warming? I know of several factors that contribute. Why don't we start with, we really don't know how much the temperature has increased. The claim of ~0.8C is the best guess out there, but we could actually be cooling, or even have more than 2C.

There is no hard data!

I choose not to guess. I will say I do not trust the agenda driven results.

“Agenda driven results” = denier talking point propaganda.

 

[watsup]

Science papers express both a warming and a cooling effect from CO2, when feedbacks are in play. There are no studies that can properly quantify the final effect of CO2 on the global scale. The onlt testable and verifiable facts we have regarding increased CO2, is that the biosphere loves it.

“Testable”? Are you once again go8ng back to the “results in a lab” bit which is totally ridiculous?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what is causing the warming?


Watch this....he will say what warming?

First off, we don't have an accurate indication of the warming. We have no reliable means to determine it. Maybe at best, to 1 degree, which leaves a huge error range when speaking of tenths. There is no way to accurately remove the noise of the urban heat island effect from stations near populations.

Observed temperatures are not actual temperatures. They go through a correction process, which has an unknown accuracy.

We have physical pollutants in the atmosphere. Some warming, some cooling, with little research on the actual quantitative effects.

We have the physical pollutants melting ice faster, decreasing albedo, and adding to the earths heat.

We might still be seeing warming from coming out of the Maunder Minima. I suspect we are at the peak, and will no longer see warming from that, but That's just an educated guess.

The ocean's response in actual heat movement centers around 800 years, so it is impossible to know that changes the natural circulation of the oceans bring.

Then there are the unknown-unknowns as well.

We simply do not know enough about these sciences yet. The idea that CO2 can have a feedback over unity, is preposterous. Anything over unity goes into a runaway mode, until a hard limit is made. If that is the case, we will not see any more warming from any added amount of CO2.

Why do you guys deny the possibility of other factors?

 

[Lord of Planar]

“Testable”? Are you once again go8ng back to the “results in a lab” bit which is totally ridiculous?

Yes, it is ridiculous. We cannot test the hypothesis about CO2. It is impossible. That's why I laugh when people are so sure.

Warming regarding CO2 will never go past an unproven hypothesis, unless we find a way to test it at scale.

 

[Lord of Planar]

OK back to the insults


Leave now....you are dismissed

If you cannot take what you dish out, then don't use terms like "cute response."

 

[longview]

I did
Look up

No you did not, if you disagree state which post number you stated the climate’s sensitivity to added CO2?

 

[watsup]

First off, we don't have an accurate indication of the warming. We have no reliable means to determine it. Maybe at best, to 1 degree, which leaves a huge error range when speaking of tenths. There is no way to accurately remove the noise of the urban heat island effect from stations near populations.

Observed temperatures are not actual temperatures. They go through a correction process, which has an unknown accuracy.

We have physical pollutants in the atmosphere. Some warming, some cooling, with little research on the actual quantitative effects.

We have the physical pollutants melting ice faster, decreasing albedo, and adding to the earths heat.

We might still be seeing warming from coming out of the Maunder Minima. I suspect we are at the peak, and will no longer see warming from that, but That's just an educated guess.

The ocean's response in actual heat movement centers around 800 years, so it is impossible to know that changes the natural circulation of the oceans bring.

Then there are the unknown-unknowns as well.

We simply do not know enough about these sciences yet. The idea that CO2 can have a feedback over unity, is preposterous. Anything over unity goes into a runaway mode, until a hard limit is made. If that is the case, we will not see any more warming from any added amount of CO2.

Why do you guys deny the possibility of other factors?

Standard denier talking points.

 

[watsup]

Yes, it is ridiculous. We cannot test the hypothesis about CO2. It is impossible. That's why I laugh when people are so sure.

Warming regarding CO2 will never go past an unproven hypothesis, unless we find a way to test it at scale.

All that you are doing is to show how little you know about how actual science is done. Stating that it is an “unproven hypotheses” indicates that you think that CO2 does not cause warming in the atmosphere. You get more ridiculous by the minute. That’s why I laugh when you present YOUR chat forum hypotheses as if they actually had any real merit at all.

 

[vegas giants]

No you did not, if you disagree state which post number you stated the climate’s sensitivity to added CO2?

OK you're done

 

[Lord of Planar]

All that you are doing is to show how little you know about how actual science is done. Stating that it is an “unproven hypotheses” indicates that you think that CO2 does not cause warming in the atmosphere. You get more ridiculous by the minute. That’s why I laugh when you present YOUR chat forum hypotheses as if they actually had any real merit at all.

You can stick your pseudo-science where the sun doesn't shine.

scientific method | Definition, Steps, & Application

scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not...

www.britannica.com

Just how do you test the sensitivity of CO2?

Please elaborate.

 

[vegas giants]

You can stick your pseudo-science where the sun doesn't shine.

View attachment 67415010

scientific method | Definition, Steps, & Application

scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not...

www.britannica.com

Just how do you test the sensitivity of CO2?

Please elaborate.

There are several ways of defining climate sensitivity, depending on the timescales of interest. Two of those are:

Transient Climate Response (TCR): The temperature increase at the instant that atmospheric CO2 has doubled (following an increase of 1% each year) gives us the Transient Climate Response. This is useful as a gauge for what we might expect over the current century when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are changing.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): The climate system will continue to warm for some time after the TCR point, largely as the oceans are very slow to respond. Therefore we can also consider the temperature increase that would eventually occur (after hundreds or even thousands of years) when the climate system fully adjusts to a sustained doubling of CO2 – this is called the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The long timescales involved here mean ECS is arguably a less relevant measure for policy decisions around climate change.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There are several ways of defining climate sensitivity, depending on the timescales of interest. Two of those are:

Transient Climate Response (TCR): The temperature increase at the instant that atmospheric CO2 has doubled (following an increase of 1% each year) gives us the Transient Climate Response. This is useful as a gauge for what we might expect over the current century when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are changing.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): The climate system will continue to warm for some time after the TCR point, largely as the oceans are very slow to respond. Therefore we can also consider the temperature increase that would eventually occur (after hundreds or even thousands of years) when the climate system fully adjusts to a sustained doubling of CO2 – this is called the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The long timescales involved here mean ECS is arguably a less relevant measure for policy decisions around climate change.

Defining it is one thing.

Quantifying it is with any accuracy is impossible.

 

[vegas giants]

Defining it is one thing.

Quantifying it is with any accuracy is impossible.

You asked. I gave you. Lol

 

[Lord of Planar]

You asked. I gave you. Lol

No, that was outside of what I asked.

 

[vegas giants]

No, that was outside of what I asked.

You got nothing

 

[Threegoofs]

Defining it is one thing.

Quantifying it is with any accuracy is impossible.

You’re right.

There’s a good chance we are completely underestimating the future effects.

According to you.

 

[watsup]

You can stick your pseudo-science where the sun doesn't shine.

View attachment 67415010

scientific method | Definition, Steps, & Application

scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not...

www.britannica.com

Just how do you test the sensitivity of CO2?

Please elaborate.

Yes, I acknowledge that you have a fifth grade understanding of science. Is EB really the best cite that you have for how science is done? Really? Does or does not CO2 hold heat? What does the science say?

 

[watsup]

Defining it is one thing.

Quantifying it is with any accuracy is impossible.

Really? Then what we need to do is to tell all those climate scientists to just throw up their hands and instead spend time in an online chat room. Would that make you happy?

 

[longview]

OK you're done

No you claimed something untrue, and I called you on it!

 

[vegas giants]

No you claimed something untrue, and I called you on it!

How can we estimate climate sensitivity?

Climate sensitivity cannot be directly measured in the real world. Instead it must be estimated and there are three main lines of evidence that can be used to do this:

Historical climate records: instrumental records of warming since the mid-19th century, combined with estimates of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, can be used to assess the global temperature response to emissions of CO2 by human activities to date.Climate models: we can use climate models, which provide complex simulations of the Earth’s climate system, to predict future climate sensitivity as we don’t have observations for the future climate. These mathematical models are built around our understanding of the physics which underpin our climate system.Palaeoclimate records: ice cores and other records can be used to estimate natural changes in temperature and atmospheric CO2 over thousands of years. These can be used for estimates of the past relationship between the two factors.

 

[longview]

There are several ways of defining climate sensitivity, depending on the timescales of interest. Two of those are:

Transient Climate Response (TCR): The temperature increase at the instant that atmospheric CO2 has doubled (following an increase of 1% each year) gives us the Transient Climate Response. This is useful as a gauge for what we might expect over the current century when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are changing.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): The climate system will continue to warm for some time after the TCR point, largely as the oceans are very slow to respond. Therefore we can also consider the temperature increase that would eventually occur (after hundreds or even thousands of years) when the climate system fully adjusts to a sustained doubling of CO2 – this is called the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The long timescales involved here mean ECS is arguably a less relevant measure for policy decisions around climate change.

So you can cut and paste, but do you understand the difference between ECS and TCR and the difference in climate sensitivity between the two?
And you still have not stated the post number where you stated CO2’s climate sensitivity!

 

[vegas giants]

So you can cut and paste, but do you understand the difference between ECS and TCR and the difference in climate sensitivity between the two?
And you still have not stated the post number where you stated CO2’s climate sensitivity!

Climate sensitivity is typically defined as the global temperature rise following a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere compared to pre-industrial levels. Pre-industrial CO2 was about 260 parts per million (ppm), so a doubling would be at roughly 520 ppm. Current levels of atmospheric CO2 have now exceeded 400 ppm, with the 520 ppm threshold expected in the next 50-100 years depending on future greenhouse gas emissions.