MTG's tweet on climate change...

[Threegoofs]

The largest impact we have that can be classed as a climate changing impact, is the soot we allow to fall on ice, increasing the melt rate by reducing its albedo.

Not greenhouse gasses, but soot.

China keep building more and more poor quality coal plants in that they don't control aerosols as well as the newest designs do. The AGW cultists seem not to care. They only care about CO2 and not real pollution. They are indoctrinated to think that way.

What's wrong with this picture?

Actual scientists disagree.

But they’ve actually, yanno, studied the issue.


Now, indoctrination looks more like this:

 

[LouC]

Have you ever listened to her speak, in full context, or are you just going by snippets and what other people say about her?

I listen, I read, I research, I learn, and as a result, I know things.

Thanks for asking.

 

[longview]

Actual scientists disagree.

But they’ve actually, yanno, studied the issue.

View attachment 67445060
Now, indoctrination looks more like this:
View attachment 67445061

You know that IPCC report is almost a decade old at this point, what is wrong with the graphic from the most current report?

 

[Threegoofs]

You know that IPCC report is almost a decade old at this point, what is wrong with the graphic from the most current report?

Its not as easily accessible in my photos?

Weird that you dont bug the guy who makes blanket (and ludicrously incorrect) statements about CO2 and his absolute lack of citations.

Besides his self stated wonderful track record of ‘knowing the science better than anyone’, of course.

Feel free to let us know what has changed with the effect of black carbon on snow since the last report. I’m guessing I wont be hearing from you on this again, since it might cause you to do some actual legwork.

 

[longview]

Its not as easily accessible in my photos?

Weird that you dont bug the guy who makes blanket (and ludicrously incorrect) statements about CO2 and his absolute lack of citations.

Besides his self stated wonderful track record of ‘knowing the science better than anyone’, of course.

Feel free to let us know what has changed with the effect of black carbon on snow since the last report. I’m guessing I wont be hearing from you on this again, since it might cause you to do some actual legwork.

You are the one who posted a 2013 graphic without any citation or link!

 

[Threegoofs]

You are the one who posted a 2013 graphic without any citation or link!

So has it changed?

 

[Buzz]

Can you elaborate, because I don't think they can affirmatively tie higher CO2 levels to the observed warming we have seen.

They only showed that the earth is warming.

Wow!! You have repeatedly stated that increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause the planet to warm. Are you changing your beliefs and going full denialist now?

The largest impact we have that can be classed as a climate changing impact, is the soot we allow to fall on ice, increasing the melt rate by reducing its albedo.

Not greenhouse gasses, but soot.

China keep building more and more poor quality coal plants in that they don't control aerosols as well as the newest designs do. The AGW cultists seem not to care. They only care about CO2 and not real pollution. They are indoctrinated to think that way.

What's wrong with this picture?

Damn, Lord... you used to just claim that warming from soot on snow was only a stronger warmer than CO2 in just the Arctic. And now you have made the lie even more extreme by saying this is true for the whole planet. It is funny how your denialist lies tend to get bigger and bigger over time.

You know that IPCC report is almost a decade old at this point, what is wrong with the graphic from the most current report?

Is this what you were looking for? It is from AR6's Summary for Policymakers. And I have circled the assessed warming from greenhouse gases and the warming from soot(black carbon) so everyone who doesn't really understand this graph can see what Lord is, without any evidence whatsoever, claiming is bigger than the other.


The small circled bar representing soot(black carbon) warming on the right is what Lord of Planar thinks is larger than the circled bar representing greenhouse gas warming on the left.



Lord of Planar is either losing his mind or has decided to just blatantly start lying about the current science of climate change. And only a fool would believe anything he says after this obvious BS.

Oh... and longview should be ashamed of himself for defending Lord's denialist crap.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actual scientists disagree.

But they’ve actually, yanno, studied the issue.

View attachment 67445060

The error margins are huge, and the sciences in many cases above not well understood. The IPCC slects the studies and commissions studies to fit their agenda. There are others out there that do not fin in their agenda, so you don't see them.

Now if I take the surface albedo regarding black carbon on snow, they indicate a 0.1 W/m^2 global effect. Now Antarctica is virtually untouched by soot leaving about 36 million km over a 510 million km surface area of the earth This amount to a focun on the ice of 14 times the numbers given, at 1.4 W/m^2 on the sheet and sea ice, primarily in the northern hemisphere. That is greater than the CO2 forcing increase on such ice. The CO2 effect will be about half the global average, so my concern here is how much ice is melted by soot.

At the same time, aerosols are given a wide error band for their atmospheric cooling effect as well. How can anyone do anything but laugh at this when the error range exceeds the stated results by so much?

The solar irradiance at the AR4 0.3 W/m^2 estimation first off is using the lowest of TSI change studies. The average of various studies by various authors is more than 0.2%, which would be in reality about 0.48 W/m^2. Then on top of that, they even specify this is a "direct effect" meaning they do not give the numbers for any secondary effects. However, the greenhouse effect is generated using the heat of the sun, and the greenhouse gas effect traps heat. The surface effect for the total downward heat is about 500 W/m^2, so the secondary effect is multiplying these numbers from the absorbed atmospheric and absorbed surface total of about 2.1.

The IPCC et. al. completely ignore the absorption of heat from the endothermic process of photosynthesis. This is a huge amount of heat absorption, probably around 1 W/m^2, and probably around half that number as a net result after the reverse process takes effect, but there is a net absorption of heat by this natural process, indefinitely sequestering solar heat until something like burning oil, wood, or coal occurs.
The IPCC is an agenda driven organization, and they have little credibility when it regards the facts. One day this will be realized by more people.

That whole graph if you read their literature is a best guess, and fit to support their agenda.

Now, indoctrination looks more like this:
View attachment 67445061

This is funny, and a lie.

LOL... HAARP weather machine. LOL... I can see how someone with the same level of scientific understanding but opposing team as you can come to such conclusions. Research in making ELF and LF transmissions for submarines do claim some interesting things in their papers.

​

ELF/VLF radio waves (300 Hz–30 kHz) are difficult to generate with practical antennae, because of their extraordinarily long (10–1000 km) wavelengths, and the lossy nature of the Earth's surface at these frequencies. ELF/VLF waves have been successfully generated via amplitude modulated (AM) HF (2–10 MHz) heating of the lower ionosphere.​

​

---​

​

Magnetospheric amplification and emission triggering by ELF/VLF waves injected by the 3.6 MW HAARP ionospheric heater, submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research, 2008]. In 2007, an upgrade of HAARP was completed, increasing its HF radiated power from 960 kW to 3.6 MW [Cohen et al., 2008].​

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL034061

Yes, people like you take such works, and fit it into their agenda. The people who think HAARP can be used to control weather are idiots. The plain idiots. That 3.6 megawatts is redirected, and insignificantly small on a global, or regional scale. A 1 km square patch of the ionosphere would reduce that to 3.6 W/m^2 of electrical energy, compared to how much energy the ionosphere already possesses. Now think of this on a global scale.

Why didn't you link that chart? I would like to see the screw-ball idiot bloggers you get your science from. Ared you ashamed of your lying source?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I listen, I read, I research, I learn, and as a result, I know things.

Thanks for asking.

OK, reminds me of Tyrion Lanister's words considering your impression of her.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are the one who posted a 2013 graphic without any citation or link!

Yep.

I get tired of these true believers posting things from blogs without sourcing them.

 

[longview]

Wow!! You have repeatedly stated that increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause the planet to warm. Are you changing your beliefs and going full denialist now?

Damn, Lord... you used to just claim that warming from soot on snow was only a stronger warmer than CO2 in just the Arctic. And now you have made the lie even more extreme by saying this is true for the whole planet. It is funny how your denialist lies tend to get bigger and bigger over time.

Is this what you were looking for? It is from AR6's Summary for Policymakers. And I have circled the assessed warming from greenhouse gases and the warming from soot(black carbon) so everyone who doesn't really understand this graph can see what Lord is, without any evidence whatsoever, claiming is bigger than the other.
View attachment 67445093

The small circled bar representing soot(black carbon) warming on the right is what Lord of Planar thinks is larger than the circled bar representing greenhouse gas warming on the left.



Lord of Planar is either losing his mind or has decided to just blatantly start lying about the current science of climate change. And only a fool would believe anything he says after this obvious BS.

Oh... and longview should be ashamed of himself for defending Lord's denialist crap.

Buzz tell us what the IPCC’s sensitivity is for 2xCO2 for both ends if the candle stick, 1C and 2C?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wow!! You have repeatedly stated that increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause the planet to warm. Are you changing your beliefs and going full denialist now?

Buzz, you disappoint me. I specifically stated "to the observed warning." I guess I have to reassess your knowledge and lower my expectations again of you.

Damn, Lord... you used to just claim that warming from soot on snow was only a stronger warmer than CO2 in just the Arctic. And now you have made the lie even more extreme by saying this is true for the whole planet. It is funny how your denialist lies tend to get bigger and bigger over time.

Really? Riddle me this. Have I ever stated soot in the atmosphere does not have a warning effect? Here you go again, filling the blacks with your confirmation bias, and accusing others based of what you think you know.

My knowledge on this topic has not changed regarding soot warming.

Riddle me this as well. How many times in the past have I corrected you guys when speaking of aerosol cooling have I interjected that soot warms rather than cools, as it absorbs energy like a black body rather than reflect it like sulfides?

Buzz.... Remember....

Is this what you were looking for? It is from AR6's Summary for Policymakers. And I have circled the assessed warming from greenhouse gases and the warming from soot(black carbon) so everyone who doesn't really understand this graph can see what Lord is, without any evidence whatsoever, claiming is bigger than the other.
View attachment 67445093

The small circled bar representing soot(black carbon) warming on the right is what Lord of Planar thinks is larger than the circled bar representing greenhouse gas warming on the left.

Once again, you twist the firm meaning of what I say. Notice that i use the term "observed warming" rather than "actual warming." there are other factors that go into this, and if you think about it, most papers use "observed" as well.

What you list is only the aerosol contribution. Not the contribution of what falls on snow and ice. What happens if the IPCC were to also submit the inconvenient truth of the warming soot causes on the ice?

Consider this from page 893 of the AR6:

Short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) are compounds such as methane and sulphate aerosols that warm or cool the​

Earth’s climate over shorter time scales – from days to years – than greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, whose​

climatic effect lasts for decades, centuries or more. Because SLCFs do not remain in the atmosphere for very​

long, their effects on the climate are different from one region to another and can change rapidly in response​

to changes in SLCF emissions. As some SLCFs also negatively affect air quality, measures to improve air quality​

have resulted in sharp reductions in emissions and concentrations of those SLCFs in many regions over the few​

last decades.​

OK, would you agree that the soot primarily affect closer areas? Now if you consider the area of the earth, and the area of effect as to the "global average," doesn't it stand to reason that the localized effect can easily be five to ten times that of the global effect stated, or more? This is one way that they trick you guys. Any weather changes will be driven more by uneven changes, than even changes around the globe. CO2, being a well mixed gas, has relatively no regional changes as they increase by the same annually for all effective proposes. Something like soot is very uneven in its effects region to region, and is mostly cleansed out by rain and factors. It doesn't travel very far. It even helps seed clouds. This is a huge part of weather changes we see. Not CO2, but the physical polluting aspects.

Lord of Planar is either losing his mind or has decided to just blatantly start lying about the current science of climate change. And only a fool would believe anything he says after this obvious BS.

You would agree with me if you actually understood the levels of science needed.

Oh... and longview should be ashamed of himself for defending Lord's denialist crap.

Buzz, you really are a good AGW alarmist member.... You deny the sciences placed squarly in front of you, and hold firmly to the activism of a huge government organization.

 

[watsup]

Yep.

They have yet to prove that increased CO2 levels are harmful. The only thing we have been able to quantify from more CO2 is that the biosphere loves it. It makes the planet more green.

Oh boy. Here we go with standard denier talking points again. That sure didn’t take long!

 

[watsup]

What really pisses off the mentally-diseased leftist filth is that she is right.

Actually, she is just mentally diseased rightist filth. There’s a lot of that going around.

 

[watsup]

Can you elaborate, because I don't think they can affirmatively tie higher CO2 levels to the observed warming we have seen.

They only showed that the earth is warming.

We have shown you this many times before. It is not our problem if you have a bad memory.

 

[watsup]

I still think MTG has pissed off a whole bunch of people just by saying the climate is changing.

She just showed standard right wing stupidity once again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We have shown you this many times before. It is not our problem if you have a bad memory.

I see.

So you are incapable of enunciating it in your own words why the propaganda is right.

All you do is repeat the propaganda.

 

[watsup]

In every way.

The climate is going to continue changing, regardless of any taxes or carbon reduction efforts. There is absolutely nothing humans can do to alter the climate, either way. That is pure hubris and absolute stupidity, and it always manifests itself among the least educated and most indoctrinated leftist pieces of shit.

Standard repetitive denier talking point, as usual. *YAWN*

 

[Lord of Planar]

She just showed standard right wing stupidity once again.

Are you claiming the climate is not changing now?

 

[watsup]

I see.

So you are incapable of enunciating it in your own words why the propaganda is right.

All you do is repeat the propaganda.

See post #38.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Standard repetitive denier talking point, as usual. *YAWN*

Are so-called talking points always wrong in your opinion?

 

[Lord of Planar]

See post #39.

So, you repeat a leftist talking point...

 

[watsup]

Who cares? People who don't realize the climate is always changing aren't intelligent enough to worry about.

See post #38.

 

[watsup]

The fact you have to ask, it telling. The indoctrination of agenda driven misinformation runs deep in society.

See post #38.

 

[Lord of Planar]

See post #38.

LOL...

I see you are now a broken record.