- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is flat-out CT blog spam.
Do you find the material too difficult? Perhaps I can help.
I've an MSc International Environmental Science. You're the one with a CT blog education. If you understood any of it, or its context, you could do better than blog spam.
Yes yes. You've told us about your education several dozen times. Wasted money, time and effort, apparently.
I should have just gone with a CT blog education. Then I could spam the blogs and pretend I understand the issue. That would be so much better than an actual education.
Good luck in all your future endeavors.
Fresh propaganda from wattsupwiththat.
Yummy.
Good luck in all your future endeavors.
That sure blew up in your face rather quickly.
Which part?This is flat-out CT blog spam.
Which part?
While we do not really know how sensitivity the atmosphere is to added CO2, The CERES satellites were supposed
to end the discussion once and for all, by showing the level of energy imbalance increasing.
But the first run through the had what some would call mixed results.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
ED2.8 showed an all Sky net flux trend of .091Wm-2/decade and a clear sky net flux trend of .70 Wm-2/decade.
But this would mean that clouds have a much larger attenuation than predicted,
and that the 2XCO2 All Sky imbalance would be about 1.2 Wm-2 or about .38 C forcing.
This was not nearly close enough to the predictions, so ED4.0 massaged the numbers again,
and came up with much more respectable numbers of all sky .27 Wm-2/decade, and clear sky of .47 Wm-2/decade.
This means the clouds only attenuate the forcing by half and the forcing would be much closer
to the 2XCO2 predicted 3.71 Wm-2 number at 3.55 Wm-2.
Everything in AGW starts with the energy imbalance, minimal energy imbalance, minimal warming.
If we are still observing warming, it is coming from somewhere else besides CO2.
Not at all. He's an expected antagonist who never takes up the substance. Until he does, I don't take him seriously.
Not true. When I first encountered your CT blog spam, I went to the article cited by the blog and explained to you what had been overlooked or left out and made clear the blog was providing a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the article. You were unable to grasp the error because you have no legitimate scientific education or knowledge in the field. You proved to be absolutely devoted to your CT; you have self worth vested in it. No amount of actual, informed, criticism will ever show you the folly in which you engage. Only divesting yourself of the CT and getting some actual education in the field could ever tear you from your superiority fantasy, and that's not gonna happen. You're gonna continue to gulp CT blogs and pretend it makes you so much more informed than scientists.
No, you did not. That's just another falsehood to dodge the substance.
Denial is a big part of believing CT.
I'm not the one making stuff up.
Still dodging the substance.
I'm not the one making stuff up.
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?