And I try to explain to you, the Science portion of AGW is strictly the direct response sensitivity of CO2.WTF?
I explain and you STILL don't get it.
And I try to explain to you, the Science portion of AGW is strictly the direct response sensitivity of CO2.
Feedbacks exists, both positive and negative, but the aggregate of those feedbacks is at the low end of the IPCC large range.
The gain range for the IPCC's amplified feedback is an enormous .3 to 3.75 (1.5 to 4.5 with an input of 1.2).
So far, the amplification factor appears to be about .5, which would yield an ECS of about 1.8 C,
assuming we ever actually manage to double the CO2 level.
Well, there is no shortage of 'climate scientists' willing to support the 'problem' so long as all that lovely government funding keeps flowing to them or so long as they say the right things to be included in the 'in' crowd club. And there is no shortage of politicians willing to use the issue to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. But sooner or later, it is possible that even the most gullible people will begin to see that the so-called 'skeptics' have the better case. Global warming hasn't been working out for the alarmists for some time now so they shift the jargon to 'climate change'. That provides them a whole lot more wiggle room.
And it also could easily adjust to a global cooling projected disaster scenario too if their global warming models came to be seen as so absurd as to be too embarrassing for most of the scientific community to support. But they could get several more decades of mileage out of a global cooling schtick, long enough to complete their careers and retire on all that lovely money..
No matter how many times we remind you that group-think does not equal conspiracy, you stay with that strawman.
Why are you baiting us? If you aren't baiting us, why are you so ignorant?
Global cooling and the AGW theory falling apart are just as likely as a conspiracy involving thousands of people holding together in the first place. That every scientific organization on Earth and the various governments that support them could possibly engage in such a conspiracy even if they wanted to is a pretty wacky idea. So, chalk up this as yet another wacky conspiracy theory. Even the "Bush administration was behind 911" WCT is less wacky and improbably as it only involves one government and a relatively small number of people. The "moon landing was faked" WCT is far more plausible for the same reason. A WCT involving thousands of people from dozens of nations is about as ludicrous of an idea as has ever been promoted by anyone.
It is not a conspiracy. it is a matter of practicality and/or profit to those pushing the concept. Democratic forms of government--we were the first--were non existent in the 18th Century, but once the idea catches on and there is profit seen in it, others gradually followed suit. Once it was observed that there were massive profits to be made by pushing a 'global warming' crisis, folks jumped on the bandwagon. Those who weren't willing to go along to get along became outcasts, scientific pariahs excluded from the scientific community, academia, and government. Those who govern, if not sufficiently restrained, will always seek to increase their power and influence, and global warming, supported by the media and the scientific opportunists, provided them with an excellent practical and 'humanitarian' way to do that. And it seems ingrained in the left that it rarely passes up an opportunity to control how others shall live their lives.
Actually the 1.8C is very close to several published papers findings, you just don't accept those.Yes, we know you do your own calculations and hold them up as some sort of scientific gospel.
But in the real world, lots of experts who work on figuring out feedback and amplification disagree. And as crazy as it is, I think I'll stick with them over a random libertarian anonymous poster.
Surely I must be misinterpreting that. Democratic governments exist because there is profit in it? Really?
[h=2]Rise in CO2 has greened planet Earth[/h] Posted on April 26, 2016 | 149 comments
by Judith Curry
We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend. – Zhu et al.
Continue reading →
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
:thumbs: It's always interesting to read what Judith Curry has to say! I'm going to add her to my list of gals I'd like to have a drink with...That's five so far, so I have no doubt it will be lively! :mrgreen: :happy::
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
:thumbs: It's always interesting to read what Judith Curry has to say! I'm going to add her to my list of gals I'd like to have a drink with...That's five so far, so I have no doubt it will be lively! :mrgreen: :happy::
Off topic: I would like to be on that list too, Polgara.
On topic: From the linked article:
. . .And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: “It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models). These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed.”. . .
She may indeed be a 'warmer' at heart, but this kind of thinking I expect from a real scientist. If the 'warmers' are so certain of their models and conclusions to declare it 'settled science', what do they have to gain by shutting down the debate for questions and/or different conclusions?
Science does not muffle differences in opinion but invites them and encourages debate. Anything else runs too great a risk of being deeply flawed or even bogus science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?