Deniers, explained.

[Threegoofs]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[h=2]Science, Skepticism, and Irony[/h]An impressive new book about the shortcomings of scientific research is inadvertently ironic.

You should read it instead of blasting worthless blog posts daily.

 

[longview]

You found one mistake in 20 years.

And you can’t even pause your denial to think about it.

Your faith to the cause of AGW is blinding you to the fact, that I am not denying anything!

 

[Threegoofs]

Your faith to the cause of AGW is blinding you to the fact, that I am not denying anything!

Yet...you’re parading around the one mistake you found in three cycles of reports over two decades to deny that the reports are truthful.

The blindness is clear, and it ain’t me.

 

[calamity]

Deniers explained: Having less than two brain cells to rub against each other.

 

[longview]

Yet...you’re parading around the one mistake you found in three cycles of reports over two decades to deny that the reports are truthful.

The blindness is clear, and it ain’t me.

If there is one mistake, that is directly tied to using non peer reviewed sources, there are bound to be others.
The fact is that even in AR5, the IPCC still says they use non peer reviewed material.
The selection seems to be based on level of alarm, not level of accuracy.

 

[calamity]

If there is one mistake, that is directly tied to using non peer reviewed sources, there are bound to be others.
The fact is that even in AR5, the IPCC still says they use non peer reviewed material.
The selection seems to be based on level of alarm, not level of accuracy.

We all know the deniers are not at all concerned with accuracy.

 

[longview]

We all know the deniers are not at all concerned with accuracy.

When you find a denier, tell me? I am interested in what their argument is.
As for myself, I am not denying the science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
but rather questioning the how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
The data as stated from the GISS is that CO2 is only responsible for 20% of the total 33°C,
that Earth is above what it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
That amounts to 6.6°C for all of the doubling s of CO2 that came before the current level.

 

[Threegoofs]

If there is one mistake, that is directly tied to using non peer reviewed sources, there are bound to be others.
The fact is that even in AR5, the IPCC still says they use non peer reviewed material.
The selection seems to be based on level of alarm, not level of accuracy.

Sure. Lots of mistakes. You just havent found any in the last 20 years, despite a blizzard of denier blog posts here daily.

:roll:

 

[longview]

Sure. Lots of mistakes. You just havent found any in the last 20 years, despite a blizzard of denier blog posts here daily.

:roll:

The only error that matters, is the climate sensitivity to added CO2, and the IPCC still have the same 1.5 to 4.5 °C range
it has had for the last 42 years.

 

[Jack Hays]

The only error that matters, is the climate sensitivity to added CO2, and the IPCC still have the same 1.5 to 4.5 °C range
it has had for the last 42 years.

ECS is the hill the AGW paradigm has died on. Pretty good thread topic.:mrgreen:

 

[Threegoofs]

The only error that matters, is the climate sensitivity to added CO2, and the IPCC still have the same 1.5 to 4.5 °C range
it has had for the last 42 years.

In other words, it’s withstood the test of time and significant scientific challenge.

But you don’t like it because you read a two page speculative article by Otto, and you really really really want that to be true.

Deniers gonna deny.

 

[longview]

In other words, it’s withstood the test of time and significant scientific challenge.

But you don’t like it because you read a two page speculative article by Otto, and you really really really want that to be true.

Deniers gonna deny.

Actually the range is too broad to be of any use.
The empirical data excludes the mid to high end of the range, but that is the basis of the catastrophic claims.
Again, every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere up to pre industrial times, only caused 6.6°C of warming,
CO2's doubling capability is governed by those numbers.

 

[longview]

ECS is the hill the AGW paradigm has died on. Pretty good thread topic.:mrgreen:

I wish it were dead, the faithful hang on, like the raciest held on to eugenics.
It took the Nazi extremes of WWII, to finally put such a stink on eugenics, that universities stopped advocating it.
U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective

Some have argued that the lesson of this period was that:

Genetics was corrupted in the 1920s by the confusion of folk knowledge with scientific inference.
For whatever reasons, outsiders who recognized it were shunned, and insiders were, as they say, a day late and a dollar short.
The fairly obvious lesson to be learned is that where science appears to validate folk beliefs, it needs to be subjected to considerably
higher standards of scrutiny than ordinary science.21

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually the range is too broad to be of any use.
The empirical data excludes the mid to high end of the range, but that is the basis of the catastrophic claims.
Again, every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere up to pre industrial times, only caused 6.6°C of warming,
CO2's doubling capability is governed by those numbers.

Wrong all over.

And it’s based on probability, so the midpoint of the range is much more likely then either end.

Deniers gonna deny

 

[calamity]

Actually the range is too broad to be of any use.
The empirical data excludes the mid to high end of the range, but that is the basis of the catastrophic claims.
Again, every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere up to pre industrial times, only caused 6.6°C of warming,
CO2's doubling capability is governed by those numbers.

lol...6.6 Deg C of warming would wipe out life on earth as we know it. :slapme:

 

[Court Jester]

Period between ice ages is always warmer.

The planet is fine.

 

[longview]

Wrong all over.

And it’s based on probability, so the midpoint of the range is much more likely then either end.

Deniers gonna deny

I am not sure it really is the range is the result of many model runs, and none is statistically any better
than the assumptions used for the inputs. If anything the models based on the observed data are better
than those based on assumptions of ECS.

 

[longview]

lol...6.6 Deg C of warming would wipe out life on earth as we know it. :slapme:

I can see someone who did not follow the discussion!
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
Nasa's GISS (and everyone else) claim that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be
if the atmosphere were completely transparent.

The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature
and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C.

Of this 33°C, The GISS claims that 20% is from CO2, or 6.6°C.
Logic follows, that is all the pre industrial CO2, that has fully equalized created 6.6°C of warming,
then each doubling of CO2 would be less than 1°C, since it took a minimum of 8 doubling s, to get from zero CO2 to the
pre industrial level of ~270 ppm, and that assumes we start at 1 ppm!

 

[Threegoofs]

I am not sure it really is the range is the result of many model runs, and none is statistically any better
than the assumptions used for the inputs. If anything the models based on the observed data are better
than those based on assumptions of ECS.

I know you’re not sure.

But you’re ‘sure’ it’s too high.

That’s how we can be sure you are a denier.

 

[longview]

I know you’re not sure.

But you’re ‘sure’ it’s too high.

That’s how we can be sure you are a denier.

The range has to be supported by the observed data!
The simple facts are that the mid to high end of the range is not supported.
Estimates of CO2's contribution to the overall greenhouse effect range from 14 to 26%,
GISS picked 20%, and with a total of 6.6°C of CO2 contribution for all time,
another doubling simply cannot add half of that total again.
It really looks like that the feedback from added CO2 is a negative feedback, so ECS comes out less than forcing,
that is the only way for the numbers to work out.

 

[Threegoofs]

The range has to be supported by the observed data!
The simple facts are that the mid to high end of the range is not supported.
Estimates of CO2's contribution to the overall greenhouse effect range from 14 to 26%,
GISS picked 20%, and with a total of 6.6°C of CO2 contribution for all time,
another doubling simply cannot add half of that total again.
It really looks like that the feedback from added CO2 is a negative feedback, so ECS comes out less than forcing,
that is the only way for the numbers to work out.

The full effect of our CO2 spewing will not be realized for a few decades.

You’ve been told this, you’ve been presented with multiple references, and you still perseverate.

FYI....perseveration is a symptom of something. You might wanna look it up.

 

[longview]

The full effect of our CO2 spewing will not be realized for a few decades.

You’ve been told this, you’ve been presented with multiple references, and you still perseverate.

FYI....perseveration is a symptom of something. You might wanna look it up.

The claimed 20% of 33°C is for CO2 contribution up to the pre industrial age,
it has fully equalized. From that perspective, we know the limits of future CO2 emissions.
We can safely say, that CO2 has doubled eight times since our planet formed an atmosphere, (Likely many more than that).
Even limiting the CO2 growth to eight doubling s, mean that each doubling has a completely equalized effect,
of 6.6°C divided by the low end 8 doubling s, or .825°C per doubling.
Now we know that the forcing warming from doubling the CO2 level is ~1.1°C,
so the only way for the fully equalized level to be less than that, is for the feedbacks to be negative.

 

[Threegoofs]

The claimed 20% of 33°C is for CO2 contribution up to the pre industrial age,
it has fully equalized. From that perspective, we know the limits of future CO2 emissions.
We can safely say, that CO2 has doubled eight times since our planet formed an atmosphere, (Likely many more than that).
Even limiting the CO2 growth to eight doubling s, mean that each doubling has a completely equalized effect,
of 6.6°C divided by the low end 8 doubling s, or .825°C per doubling.
Now we know that the forcing warming from doubling the CO2 level is ~1.1°C,
so the only way for the fully equalized level to be less than that, is for the feedbacks to be negative.

You’re amateur opinion is noted.


And I can’t help but laugh when I recall your hysterical posts about CO2 having a nonlinear effect.

Perseveration.

Could be Wierneke-Korsakoff too, I suppose.

 

[calamity]

The claimed 20% of 33°C is for CO2 contribution up to the pre industrial age,
it has fully equalized. From that perspective, we know the limits of future CO2 emissions.
We can safely say, that CO2 has doubled eight times since our planet formed an atmosphere, (Likely many more than that).
Even limiting the CO2 growth to eight doubling s, mean that each doubling has a completely equalized effect,
of 6.6°C divided by the low end 8 doubling s, or .825°C per doubling.
Now we know that the forcing warming from doubling the CO2 level is ~1.1°C,
so the only way for the fully equalized level to be less than that, is for the feedbacks to be negative.

You do realize that what you just wrote is the exact opposite of what anyone who knows what they are talking about says, right?

 

[Tim the plumber]

I know you’re not sure.

But you’re ‘sure’ it’s too high.

That’s how we can be sure you are a denier.

We can all be sure you do not understand any of it.