- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 5,407
- Reaction score
- 1,128
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I have been meaning to debunk this but haven't had the time till now.
Sorry, long... but you making one ridiculous comparison does not justify you making another ridiculous comparison.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? Sure... initial estimates of how bad warming could be were based mostly on models but over the last decade or more, the science has been observing and measuring data that confirms warming could get really bad. You have been shown this observational data many times.I contend, that alarmist claims of exaggerated warming, are dogma, as they are built, not on observations,
but model outputs, based on assumptions, that are increasingly being shown to be incorrect.
So... you are making a comparison between a hypothetical Earth with no CO2 using what is probably just an estimation of the warming from all the CO2 with an IPCC estimation of climate sensitivity from CO2 to justify another bogus comparison?longview said:As to energy being created, let us consider the what almost everyone accepts.
Earth is 33C warmer, because of a Top of the atmosphere energy imbalance of 150 W m-2.
This is a ratio of .22C per W m-2 of imbalance.
The IPCC, in the Third assessment report, stated that, 4 W m-2 of imbalance would force warming of 1.2C,
a ratio of .3C per W m-2, and that feedbacks would amplify that warming to produce warming of between 1.5 and 4.5C.
( If we use an ECS of 3 C, implies a ratio .75 C per W m-2).
The idea that the ratio of warming to imbalance would increase, is a creation of energy!
Sorry, long... but you making one ridiculous comparison does not justify you making another ridiculous comparison.