How Warm can the Earth get?

[Tim the plumber]

What is most interesting(to me at least) is the latest Lewis Curry paper assigned a value to the aerosol clearing,
and that came out to a whopping .51C. if that number is accurate, then ECS would have to be lower than the forcing amount.
This means that there would be no amplified feedback, but rather the feedback would be an attenuation.

0.51c is indeed a very significant figure that would account for all the changes.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

According to a lot of scientist when the sun expands at the end of it's lifespan the earth could easily be vaporized. The ultimate global warming. I am sure that will be our fault as well.

 

[longview]

0.51c is indeed a very significant figure that would account for all the changes.

Correct, that plus CO2, Plus CH4, Plus the natural warming, leaves nothing left for the amplified feedbacks.

 

[longview]

According to a lot of scientist when the sun expands at the end of it's lifespan the earth could easily be vaporized. The ultimate global warming. I am sure that will be our fault as well.

It is only our fault, if they can find a way to tax it.:mrgreen:

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sounds like you've stumbled upon something! Why don't you take your findings to a reputable research institution and present them?

They already know, which is why your juvenile replies are amusing.

It is already well known about the IPCC prediction/projection failures, it has been posted many many times on the internet, that writing up a paper about it is unnecessary.

You seem to indicate that you are unaware of Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection failure as well as the "hot spot" projection failure, both from the IPPC reports.

Maybe if you drop the snobbery, you will learn that you don't know as much about the topic as you seem to think.

Cheers.

 

[Phys251]

Let's check in and see if any original scientific research has been presented that would falsify climate science. Starting with:

The vastly overstated consensus, is simply that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and doubling it's
level will cause some warming. If you look at the consensus studies, they carefully confine their words
and place boundaries and qualifiers on the findings.
Phrases like "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming" are only qualifications that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and do not require the support of the predicted amplified feedbacks.
The catastrophic portions of the IPCC's range do indeed require those amplified feedbacks.
Saying that A + B =C does not automatically mean everyone who accepts the science portion "A"
also accepts that the speculative portion "B".

Nope, nothing there.

They already know, which is why your juvenile replies are amusing.

It is already well known about the IPCC prediction/projection failures, it has been posted many many times on the internet, that writing up a paper about it is unnecessary.

You seem to indicate that you are unaware of Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection failure as well as the "hot spot" projection failure, both from the IPPC reports.

Maybe if you drop the snobbery, you will learn that you don't know as much about the topic as you seem to think.

Cheers.

And nothing there. Bonus points for the personal insults--a classic sign of a failing argument. :lol:

 

[Phys251]

You have no credibility because you have no clue.

Quiz;

What is mv[SUP]2[/SUP]/2?

Just a basic test of physics.

Should be easy since google will tell you.

But then the follow question of what is the result of this is for the atmosphere? That will show if you have a clue about any of the debat at all.

Tell you what, Tim. When you learn how to properly spell "debate," then I will entertain your conundrum of kinetic energy. Maybe someday you might actually produce some actual scientific research of your own to change the mountains of evidence in favor of global warming!

 

[longview]

Let's check in and see if any original scientific research has been presented that would falsify climate science. Starting with:



Nope, nothing there.



And nothing there. Bonus points for the personal insults--a classic sign of a failing argument. :lol:

What you continue to fail to grasp is that the actual science portion of AGW is just fine.
No one is trying to falsify that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Catastrophic AGW is made up of two different concepts, that are both required for the catastrophic portion to be true.
The first part is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if you double it's level, it will cause an energy imbalance of about 3.71 Wm-2,
this will force warming in the surface troposphere system by about 1.1 C.
The second part is a belief that the forcing warming will be amplified through feedbacks to create much greater warming.
The second part un tested speculation, yet is necessary for catastrophic AGw to be true.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let's check in and see if any original scientific research has been presented that would falsify climate science. Starting with:



Nope, nothing there.



And nothing there. Bonus points for the personal insults--a classic sign of a failing argument. :lol:

Snobbery and refusal to stop avoiding discussion is indeed a sign of immaturity.

You avoided this completely,

It is already well known about the IPCC prediction/projection failures, it has been posted many many times on the internet, that writing up a paper about it is unnecessary.

You seem to indicate that you are unaware of Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection failure as well as the "hot spot" projection failure, both from the IPPC reports.

You had said this, that prompted my quote reply:

Sounds like you've stumbled upon something! Why don't you take your findings to a reputable research institution and present them?

Don't need to put this simple expose in a science paper at all, it takes all of 5 minutes to do the research:

From HERE

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here.

You have been exposed, don't bother denying it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What you continue to fail to grasp is that the actual science portion of AGW is just fine.
No one is trying to falsify that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Catastrophic AGW is made up of two different concepts, that are both required for the catastrophic portion to be true.
The first part is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if you double it's level, it will cause an energy imbalance of about 3.71 Wm-2,
this will force warming in the surface troposphere system by about 1.1 C.
The second part is a belief that the forcing warming will be amplified through feedbacks to create much greater warming.
The second part un tested speculation, yet is necessary for catastrophic AGw to be true.

You are talking to a wall, he like many warmists go out of their way to ignore the prediction/projection failures. I see it in other places I comment in, it is an universal inability on their part to honestly address it.

 

[Media_Truth]

What is most interesting(to me at least) is the latest Lewis Curry paper assigned a value to the aerosol clearing,
and that came out to a whopping .51C. if that number is accurate, then ECS would have to be lower than the forcing amount.
This means that there would be no amplified feedback, but rather the feedback would be an attenuation.

Funny how you all grasp hold of any one "scientific study", and use it to draw some absolute conclusion. And meanwhile, you ignore the thousands and thousands of scientific studies that comprise the IPCC conclusions. You ignore every mainstream scientific organization, usually for some fossil-fuel industry doubter study.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Funny how you all grasp hold of any one "scientific study", and use it to draw some absolute conclusion. And meanwhile, you ignore the thousands and thousands of scientific studies that comprise the IPCC conclusions. You ignore every mainstream scientific organization, usually for some fossil-fuel industry doubter study.

You are hilarious since all it takes is one specific modeling failure to sweep it away. Lower than predicted/projected Per Decade warming rate, missing "hot spot", no increase in Tropical energy, decrease in Tornadoes, decrease in land falling hurricanes, and so on.

There have been several already well demonstrated, yet gets ignored by warmists every day, because you are too committed to defend it. Eventually you have no choice but deal with the reality that "thousands and thousands of scientific studies" can't defeat a SINGLE definitive destruction of a specific modeling prediction/projection that utterly failed.

Cheers.

 

[Phys251]

Snobbery and refusal to stop avoiding discussion is indeed a sign of immaturity.

You avoided this completely,

You had said this, that prompted my quote reply:

Don't need to put this simple expose in a science paper at all, it takes all of 5 minutes to do the research:

From HERE

You have been exposed, don't bother denying it.

:2funny:

Oh this is getting better by the minute!

First of all you admit that you have made ZERO research contributions to the field of climate science.

Then you think that you can topple me with childish insults like a mouse would take down a giant. And then you resort to a partisan blog, as if that held literally any weight whatsoever in the scientific community.
Why don't you just go for broke and link to conspiracy theory sites? It'd be the next logical step for you! :lamo

 

[Phys251]

Funny how you all grasp hold of any one "scientific study", and use it to draw some absolute conclusion. And meanwhile, you ignore the thousands and thousands of scientific studies that comprise the IPCC conclusions. You ignore every mainstream scientific organization, usually for some fossil-fuel industry doubter study.

Ssshhhhh. Don't confuse him with facts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How do you know what the opinion of the scientific community is? Or that's right you read it in a blog.
Seriously, the opinion of the scientific community is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and not much more.

Yep.

It makes plants grow better like greenhouses do...

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yep.

It makes plants grow better like greenhouses do...

You mean food will be easier to make?

We are cheering this right?

 

[Lord of Planar]

There's this thing called Wikipedia. You should try it sometime.

Please explain to the class what the requirements are to edit a wiki entry...

 

[Lord of Planar]

0.51c is indeed a very significant figure that would account for all the changes.

This relates to one of the problems in methodology I have explained before.

When the climate experts determined the warming of CO2, they did it during a time our skies were clearing, and the sun was strong. Without knowing how to properly account for all variables, the gave CO2 too high of a value for ECS changes. You can make a closer prediction of CO2 warming by taking the 0.51 number into account rather than the numbers used.

These guys will never stop the lies. They are invested in the lies. They know no other way.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Correct, that plus CO2, Plus CH4, Plus the natural warming, leaves nothing left for the amplified feedbacks.

It is possible CO2 has a net cooling effect, though I will not claim it is so.

 

[Xelor]

How Warm can the Earth get?

Between now and when? Give it time. I'm sure it'll eventually get so hot it vaporizes.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Tell you what, Tim. When you learn how to properly spell "debate," then I will entertain your conundrum of kinetic energy. Maybe someday you might actually produce some actual scientific research of your own to change the mountains of evidence in favor of global warming!

Tell me what it is that I disagree with about the science that says that the earth has warmed a bit and that CO2 is likely to warm us a bit more?

You have no clue about any science what so ever.

 

[Phys251]

Please explain to the class what the requirements are to edit a wiki entry...

Your comment literally added nothing to this discussion. Next!

 

[Phys251]

Tell me what it is that I disagree with about the science that says that the earth has warmed a bit and that CO2 is likely to warm us a bit more?

You have no clue about any science what so ever.

:2funny:
I gotta admit something: I didn't come to this thread for personal entertainment, but boy, y'all sure are providing it!! I "have no clue about any science what so ever [sic]" :lamo

 

[Tim the plumber]

:2funny:
I gotta admit something: I didn't come to this thread for personal entertainment, but boy, y'all sure are providing it!! I "have no clue about any science what so ever [sic]" :lamo

Can you demonstrate any understanding of any science at all? If so please do so.

 

[Phys251]

Can you demonstrate any understanding of any science at all? If so please do so.

Already did so in post #207, but it went right over your head. Calm down, slow down, and read it so that you might actually have a chance to find it!