What is (and isn't) the AGW Scientific Consensus?

[Feynman Lives!]

the hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming is central to any agreement that NetZero CO2 emissions would alter what is happening with the climate.

So looks like you're confusing the FACT that CO2 contributes to Global Warming to the NetZero CO2 proposal.

That NetZero CO2 emissions will help ameliorate the future effects of Global Warming is a VERY reasonable hypothesis. It is extremely doubtful that, at this stage, it would STOP the worst effects of Global Warming. But it's extremely likely we could avoid making them worse.

From a scientific point of view, the NetZero emissions proposals is not falsifiable. Therefore, it's not testable. All we can do is produce models. However, it's utterly irrational to believe that if we keep producing CO2 at current levels, we will not be seeing the worst case scenarios play out in the not too distant future.

Stop confusing the two!

There is no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming, and saying the words, “it is a proven hypothesis” does not change the facts!

I have no idea what you mean by "empirical evidence" in this context! And I don't think you do either.

There is SCIENTIFIC evidence. Meaning that the current warming trend was PREDICTED decades ago if the current levels of CO2 stayed the way they are.

"Empirical evidence" is simply a form of observation. We have NOT observed the worst consequences of AGW. And we probably won't for at least a couple of decades. But we DO observe increase in heat waves, in the intensity of extreme weather events, .... people dying.... Whether this falls into the category of "empirical evidence" or not.... very likely yes, from a logical point of view; but not definitive from a scientific point of view... Too soon to tell. But that's IRRELEVANT. What IS relevant is that we need to adopt decisive policies to keep this from getting worse. And, depending on your age, you might not live to see it. But our children or grandchildren WILL.

I have not stated that a peer reviewed study disproved that CO2 could NOT contribute to global warming ( that’s a double negative),

Happy to see you correcting that. Now.... please read what I wrote above attentively, because I think it addressees the point you are missing.

 

[longview]

So looks like you're confusing the FACT that CO2 contributes to Global Warming to the NetZero CO2 proposal.

That NetZero CO2 emissions will help ameliorate the future effects of Global Warming is a VERY reasonable hypothesis. It is extremely doubtful that, at this stage, it would STOP the worst effects of Global Warming. But it's extremely likely we could avoid making them worse.

From a scientific point of view, the NetZero emissions proposals is not falsifiable. Therefore, it's not testable. All we can do is produce models. However, it's utterly irrational to believe that if we keep producing CO2 at current levels, we will not be seeing the worst case scenarios play out in the not too distant future.

Stop confusing the two!


I have no idea what you mean by "empirical evidence" in this context! And I don't think you do either.

There is SCIENTIFIC evidence. Meaning that the current warming trend was PREDICTED decades ago if the current levels of CO2 stayed the way they are.

"Empirical evidence" is simply a form of observation. We have NOT observed the worst consequences of AGW. And we probably won't for at least a couple of decades. But we DO observe increase in heat waves, in the intensity of extreme weather events, .... people dying.... Whether this falls into the category of "empirical evidence" or not.... very likely yes, from a logical point of view; but not definitive from a scientific point of view... Too soon to tell. But that's IRRELEVANT. What IS relevant is that we need to adopt decisive policies to keep this from getting worse. And, depending on your age, you might not live to see it. But our children or grandchildren WILL.




Happy to see you correcting that. Now.... please read what I wrote above attentively, because I think it addressees the point you are missing.

You seem to think that empirical (observed) evidence exists that added CO2 causes warming,
to my knowledge no such evidence has ever been reported.
I am not saying our climate is not changing, but the question is if the recent changes are a result of added CO2?
For added CO2 to cause warming, would first require it to cause a longwave energy imbalance,
by decreasing the Outgoing Longwave Radiation.
Because since 2000 the OLR has not decreased, the added CO2 could not be causing the observed warming!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

You seem to think that empirical (observed) evidence exists that added CO2 causes warming,

I still don't know what you mean (or why you insist on talking about) "empirical evidence". But I don't care. I ONLY care about scientific evidence of what I'm saying.

to my knowledge no such evidence has ever been reported.
I am not saying our climate is not changing, but the question is if the recent changes are a result of added CO2?

AGW SCIENCE has made it clear that NO individual phenomenon can be directly ascribed, from the viewpoint of the science, to AGW. What it does is PREDICT that certain conditions, which INCLUDE CO2 emissions, can and will increase the average surface temperature which, in turn, will produce a whole host of changes in climate, weather events, ocean conditions, etc....

That's it!

For added CO2 to cause warming, would first require it to cause a longwave energy imbalance,

CO2 does NOT "cause" warming. The SUN causes warming. If you want to debate the properties of chemical compounds, you need to start by understanding the basics.

However, that is NOT what this thread is for.

by decreasing the Outgoing Longwave Radiation.
Because since 2000 the OLR has not decreased, the added CO2 could not be causing the observed warming!

 

[Buzz]

You seem to think that empirical (observed) evidence exists that added CO2 causes warming,
to my knowledge no such evidence has ever been reported.

This is nothing but a damn lie... and you know it. You have been shown empirical evidence that CO2 causes and continues to cause warming many times. Why do you insist on repeating this lie when people like me can, and have repeatedly, cited instances of you being shown this evidence? When are you going to stop pushing this zombie denialist lie?

I am not saying our climate is not changing, but the question is if the recent changes are a result of added CO2?
For added CO2 to cause warming, would first require it to cause a longwave energy imbalance,
by decreasing the Outgoing Longwave Radiation.

There is no such thing as a longwave energy imbalance. This is a term you made up to confuse people. The imbalance that matters is the imbalance that happens between longwave energy leaving the Earth and the shortwave energy that the Earth receives. What the CERES data shows is that GHGs are continuing to reduce the amount of longwave energy that is escaping the Earth. And almost every study that analyzes the CERES data and from which you cherry-pick your data from states this explicitly in their text and conclusions.

Because since 2000 the OLR has not decreased, the added CO2 could not be causing the observed warming!

If CO2(or GHGs) were the sole determining factor that controlled the amount of outgoing longwave radiation(OLR), you would have a legitimate point. But it isn't. There is also the Planck response. And just because you declare that the decrease in OLR has to be more than the increase due to the Planck response for GHGs to still be causing warming doesn't make it true.

And the most telling thing about all these lies and opinions you constantly push is the fact that you cannot cite a single climate scientist who believes as you do. Nope... not even one. I'm with 3G and many others... I'm going to believe the vast majority of climate scientists and not some random poster on an internet forum who is known for constantly lying.

 

[longview]

I still don't know what you mean (or why you insist on talking about) "empirical evidence". But I don't care. I ONLY care about scientific evidence of what I'm saying.


AGW SCIENCE has made it clear that NO individual phenomenon can be directly ascribed, from the viewpoint of the science, to AGW. What it does is PREDICT that certain conditions, which INCLUDE CO2 emissions, can and will increase the average surface temperature which, in turn, will produce a whole host of changes in climate, weather events, ocean conditions, etc....

That's it!



CO2 does NOT "cause" warming. The SUN causes warming. If you want to debate the properties of chemical compounds, you need to start by understanding the basics.

However, that is NOT what this thread is for.

Empirical evidence not hypothetical evidence.
From a science perspective Energy cannot be created, for added CO2 to cause warming it would have to cause
and energy imbalance for the entire longwave spectrum. Why, because after a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15 um photon,
it can only pass off that energy equal to or less than the energy in that 15 mu photon. The residuals will be longer wavelengths.
We have not observed an energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum!

AGW as the IPCC states is centered on CO2 emissions, and all of the follow on consequences
result from the initial perturbation from added CO2, The energy imbalance forces warming and everything else is a response to that warming.

Correct CO2 does not cause warming, the hypothesis is that is reduces the OLR and causes a longwave energy imbalance,
but now we have empirical (Observed) evidence that the OLR reduction did not happen!

 

[longview]

This is nothing but a damn lie... and you know it. You have been shown empirical evidence that CO2 causes and continues to cause warming many times. Why do you insist on repeating this lie when people like me can, and have repeatedly, cited instances of you being shown this evidence? When are you going to stop pushing this zombie denialist lie?

There is no such thing as a longwave energy imbalance. This is a term you made up to confuse people. The imbalance that matters is the imbalance that happens between longwave energy leaving the Earth and the shortwave energy that the Earth receives. What the CERES data shows is that GHGs are continuing to reduce the amount of longwave energy that is escaping the Earth. And almost every study that analyzes the CERES data and from which you cherry-pick your data from states this explicitly in their text and conclusions.

If CO2(or GHGs) were the sole determining factor that controlled the amount of outgoing longwave radiation(OLR), you would have a legitimate point. But it isn't. There is also the Planck response. And just because you declare that the decrease in OLR has to be more than the increase due to the Planck response for GHGs to still be causing warming doesn't make it true.

And the most telling thing about all these lies and opinions you constantly push is the fact that you cannot cite a single climate scientist who believes as you do. Nope... not even one. I'm with 3G and many others... I'm going to believe the vast majority of climate scientists and not some random poster on an internet forum who is known for constantly lying.

Buzz we have been over this, and you have never shown empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
I use longwave energy imbalance because it is less confusing that the term net longwave flux.
Every study of the CERES data shows a increase in the OLR, as the greenhouse gas levels rose!

CO2 is not the sole determining factor in OLR, but a decrease in OLR is where any longwave energy imbalance would show up.

The increase in Planck radiation from the Earth being warming is already part of the equation, as you have been shown before.
A positive longwave energy imbalance requires that the downward longwave radiation exceed the OLR, causing a decrease in OLR,
that has not been happening!

 

[Threegoofs]

Buzz we have been over this, and you have never shown empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
I use longwave energy imbalance because it is less confusing that the term net longwave flux.
Every study of the CERES data shows a increase in the OLR, as the greenhouse gas levels rose!

CO2 is not the sole determining factor in OLR, but a decrease in OLR is where any longwave energy imbalance would show up.

The increase in Planck radiation from the Earth being warming is already part of the equation, as you have been shown before.
A positive longwave energy imbalance requires that the downward longwave radiation exceed the OLR, causing a decrease in OLR,
that has not been happening!

Ask AI if there’s any empirical evidence and let us know.

Or ask a climate scientist, who you seem to never talk to.

 

[longview]

Ask AI if there’s any empirical evidence and let us know.

Or ask a climate scientist, who you seem to never talk to.

You are the one who claims that empirical evidence exists that shows added CO2 causes warming, support your own claim.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz we have been over this, and you have never shown empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.

Damn, long... you just can't stop lying about this!! I have shown you that you are wrong about this repeatedly. I have done so here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And the study YOU cite, "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010" in that last one says this in the summary:

This paper presents empirical evidence for the effect of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on the Earth's surface energy balance.

You have no shame, do you?

I use longwave energy imbalance because it is less confusing that the term net longwave flux.

How can it be less confusing when the longwave energy imbalance just doesn't exist? Sorry, long but those two terms are very different and do nothing to clarify the science of AGW.

Every study of the CERES data shows a increase in the OLR, as the greenhouse gas levels rose!

Yes... because of the increase in the Earth's temperature. Also known as the Planck response. Now, if there had been no increase in GHGs, that increase in OLR would have been even larger. But it wasn't because GHGs are still increasing and causing more warming.

CO2 is not the sole determining factor in OLR, but a decrease in OLR is where any would show up.

Again, there is no such thing as a longwave energy imbalance. If you think there is, then cite someone or some study that talks about this. You won't because nobody does.

The increase in Planck radiation from the Earth being warming is already part of the equation, as you have been shown before.

Yes, it is part of the calculations for the sensitivities of increasing GHGs, but that doesn't mean that it won't affect the changes in OLR or the measurements of the CERES data.

A positive longwave energy imbalance requires that the downward longwave radiation exceed the OLR, causing a decrease in OLR,
that has not been happening!

Not true. This is just your subjective opinion that you can't back up with anything other than your say-so.

 

[longview]

Damn, long... you just can't stop lying about this!! I have shown you that you are wrong about this repeatedly. I have done so here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And the study YOU cite, "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010" in that last one says this in the summary:

You have no shame, do you?

How can it be less confusing when the longwave energy imbalance just doesn't exist? Sorry, long but those two terms are very different and do nothing to clarify the science of AGW.

Yes... because of the increase in the Earth's temperature. Also known as the Planck response. Now, if there had been no increase in GHGs, that increase in OLR would have been even larger. But it wasn't because GHGs are still increasing and causing more warming.

Again, there is no such thing as a longwave energy imbalance. If you think there is, then cite someone or some study that talks about this. You won't because nobody does.

Yes, it is part of the calculations for the sensitivities of increasing GHGs, but that doesn't mean that it won't affect the changes in OLR or the measurements of the CERES data.

Not true. This is just your subjective opinion that you can't back up with anything other than your say-so.

Buzz, Feldman did a good job at looking at the half of the data he could see, the downwelling longwave radiation, but
that is not the whole story. An positive longwave energy imbalance would be from the downwelling being greater than the increase in OLR, but that did not happen.

 

[Threegoofs]

Damn, long... you just can't stop lying about this!! I have shown you that you are wrong about this repeatedly. I have done so here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And the study YOU cite, "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010" in that last one says this in the summary:

You have no shame, do you?

How can it be less confusing when the longwave energy imbalance just doesn't exist? Sorry, long but those two terms are very different and do nothing to clarify the science of AGW.

Yes... because of the increase in the Earth's temperature. Also known as the Planck response. Now, if there had been no increase in GHGs, that increase in OLR would have been even larger. But it wasn't because GHGs are still increasing and causing more warming.

Again, there is no such thing as a longwave energy imbalance. If you think there is, then cite someone or some study that talks about this. You won't because nobody does.

Yes, it is part of the calculations for the sensitivities of increasing GHGs, but that doesn't mean that it won't affect the changes in OLR or the measurements of the CERES data.

Not true. This is just your subjective opinion that you can't back up with anything other than your say-so.

And the ‘empirical evidence’ goalpost moves again.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, Feldman did a good job at looking at the half of the data he could see, the downwelling longwave radiation, but
that is not the whole story.

So what if that study only looks at half the data? It is still empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.

An positive longwave energy imbalance would be from the downwelling being greater than the increase in OLR

Prove it. Or even just provide evidence that this is true. You can't!!



You can't disprove anything I am saying.

All you can do is repeat the same lies and misinformation over and over again.

 

[longview]

So what if that study only looks at half the data? It is still empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.

Prove it. Or even just provide evidence that this is true. You can't!!



You can't disprove anything I am saying.

All you can do is repeat the same lies and misinformation over and over again.

When they simulate adding greenhouse gases they do so by reducing the OLR, it is an assumption that is not supported by any observed data.
Look at what Feldman said in 2015,
“However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.”
So in 2015 he acknowledged that there was little direct observational evidence of radiative forcing from increasing CO2.

 

[Buzz]

When they simulate adding greenhouse gases they do so by reducing the OLR,

Yes, this is what initially happens when GHGs increase. And then, when the temperature of the Earth increases, OLR will start to increase. It is how the planet's energy balance gets back to equilibrium. If this didn't happen, as you seem to think, then any increase in forcing would cause runaway warming. Your denialist arguments are fundamentally flawed.

it is an assumption that is not supported by any observed data.

Again... this is just another of your lies.

Look at what Feldman said in 2015,
“However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.”

Yes, that is written in this study. But then the very next sentence says this:

Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.

It is just amazing how you can cherry-pick one sentence from a study and then completely ignore the next sentence when it doesn't fit your narrative.

So in 2015 he acknowledged that there was little direct observational evidence of radiative forcing from increasing CO2.

Yes, little evidence before 2015, but since then, studies, including this one, have provided much more direct observational evidence of radiative forcing from increasing CO2. And you have cited and been shown numerous other studies that provide even more evidence.

You are never going to quit lying about this, are you?

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, this is what initially happens when GHGs increase. And then, when the temperature of the Earth increases, OLR will start to increase. It is how the planet's energy balance gets back to equilibrium. If this didn't happen, as you seem to think, then any increase in forcing would cause runaway warming. Your denialist arguments are fundamentally flawed.

Again... this is just another of your lies.

Yes, that is written in this study. But then the very next sentence says this:

It is just amazing how you can cherry-pick one sentence from a study and then completely ignore the next sentence when it doesn't fit your narrative.

Yes, little evidence before 2015, but since then, studies, including this one, have provided much more direct observational evidence of radiative forcing from increasing CO2. And you have cited and been shown numerous other studies that provide even more evidence.

You are never going to quit lying about this, are you?

It’s really weird.

Bordering on pathological.

 

[Buzz]

It’s really weird.

Bordering on pathological.

Yeah... that's exactly what I am starting to think.

 

[longview]

Yes, this is what initially happens when GHGs increase. And then, when the temperature of the Earth increases, OLR will start to increase. It is how the planet's energy balance gets back to equilibrium. If this didn't happen, as you seem to think, then any increase in forcing would cause runaway warming. Your denialist arguments are fundamentally flawed.

Again... this is just another of your lies.

Yes, that is written in this study. But then the very next sentence says this:

It is just amazing how you can cherry-pick one sentence from a study and then completely ignore the next sentence when it doesn't fit your narrative.

Yes, little evidence before 2015, but since then, studies, including this one, have provided much more direct observational evidence of radiative forcing from increasing CO2. And you have cited and been shown numerous other studies that provide even more evidence.

You are never going to quit lying about this, are you?

You are wrong, the initial imbalance would persist for years, as long as it took the energy imbalance to become warming. The same latencies would apply normal warming, which is about a decade for small steps of CO2.

I was still looking for some empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming and came across this study,
which uses the CERES data.
Radiative Forcing and Climate Sensitivity of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Fine-tuned with CERES Data
His description of the stratospheric cooling could be what I was missing.
In the studies analysis based partially on the observed data they found.
an ERF from 2xCO2 to be 2.65 Wm-2, and ,

The most convincing result of this study is the value 0.265 K/(Wm-2) of the climate sensitivity parameter λ.

So the 2XCO2 sensitivity from doubling the CO2 level would be 2.65 X 0.265 = 0.70C
It looks like I was wrong, but the 2XCO2 sensitivity based on at least some observed data is very low.

Again almost all of the observed warming is from shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation,
so our pursuit of Net Zero is almost meaningless!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Empirical evidence not hypothetical evidence.

What ABOUT hypothetical evidence?

Hypothetical evidence is the basis of science. ALL science. Empirical evidence is simply observation. Observation is USED by science. But it's HYPOTHESIS that are the building blocks of any Scientific Theory.

So you are spewing nonsense!

From a science perspective Energy cannot be created, for added CO2...

Energy is created by THE SUN! Not by CO2!

Do you know what a greenhouse is? It's a structure primarily made out of plastic (usually) that TRAPS the sun's heat. Did you think the plastic "created" that heat?

It's amazing how completely over your head this debate is.

But that's what science denialists are hoping for: people who don't understand science who they can feed "scientificky-sounding" words that they don't understand.

 

[longview]

What ABOUT hypothetical evidence?

Hypothetical evidence is the basis of science. ALL science. Empirical evidence is simply observation. Observation is USED by science. But it's HYPOTHESIS that are the building blocks of any Scientific Theory.

So you are spewing nonsense!



Energy is created by THE SUN! Not by CO2!

Do you know what a greenhouse is? It's a structure primarily made out of plastic (usually) that TRAPS the sun's heat. Did you think the plastic "created" that heat?

It's amazing how completely over your head this debate is.

But that's what science denialists are hoping for: people who don't understand science who they can fee "scientificky-sounding" words that they don't understand.

Science starts with an observation, the hypothesis is an attempt to explain the observation in repeatable scientific terms.
As for the greenhouse effect, it is mostly about planets with atmospheres as opposed to what the atmosphere is made of.
The original theory was that Earth was warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were COMPLETELY transparent i.e. zero absorption
of any photons. BTW the Sun does not create energy ether, but converts it from mass. 1st law of thermodynamics!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Science starts with an observation, the hypothesis is an attempt to explain the observation in repeatable scientific terms.

EVERYTHING starts with observation. Religion, philosophy.... or any human action like hunting or eating or playing..... What makes science distinct from any of those other activities, is the ability to formulate testable (falsifiable) hypothesis!

As for the greenhouse effect, it is mostly about planets with atmospheres as opposed to what the atmosphere is made of.

AGW is not about what the atmosphere is made of. It's about It's about what anthropogenic CO2 is made of. NOT because it "creates energy", like you claimed. But because of its properties that create an effect similar to that of a greenhouse.

BTW the Sun does not create energy ether, but converts it from mass. 1st law of thermodynamics!

And yet you said you are expecting a study showing that CO2 "creates" energy.

What hair-splitting nonsense! Energy comes from the Sun. CO2 does not "create" or "transform" mass into energy

When people say things like these it shows that they are desperately trying to find a way out of the argumentative mess they got themselves into.

But at least you understand that you got yourself into an argumentative mess.

 

[longview]

EVERYTHING starts with observation. Religion, philosophy.... or any human action like hunting or eating or playing..... What makes science distinct from any of those other activities, is the ability to formulate testable (falsifiable) hypothesis!


AGW is not about what the atmosphere is made of. It's about It's about what anthropogenic CO2 is made of. NOT because it "creates energy", like you claimed. But because of its properties that create an effect similar to that of a greenhouse.



And yet you said you are expecting a study showing that CO2 "creates" energy.

What hair-splitting nonsense! Energy comes from the Sun. CO2 does not "create" or "transform" mass into energy

When people say things like these it shows that they are desperately trying to find a way out of the argumentative mess they got themselves into.

But at least you understand that you got yourself into an argumentative mess.

Um I did not say that CO2 created energy, I said the hypothesis was that added CO2 caused warming,
and that there was little empirical evidence that this is true.
You seem to act like you understand this but I am not sure that is correct.
The hypothesis is that a 15 um photon can excite the 667 cm-1 dipole moment of a CO2 molecule.
As the excited state decays, the molecule will pass that energy off via vibrational transfer by coming in contact
with other atoms or molecules, but the energy passed can never exceed the initial 667 cm-1.
While the CO2 molecule is in an excited state, it cannot absorb additional photons.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Um I did not say that CO2 created energy, I said the hypothesis was that added CO2 caused warming,
and that there was little empirical evidence that this is true.

There is A LOT of "empirical evidence": Man-made CO2 has been added, heat has increased. What's more "empirical" than that? Do you even know what "empirical" means? What is important is that there is also plenty of SCIENTIFIC evidence. Empirical evidence without science is simply an observation like the one in italics above.

Anyway... I don't think you are contributing much to this debate. You need to start by reading the OP so you understand what science IS. THAT is the purpose of this thread. To explain how science WORKS. Until you do, it's a waste of time.

But thanks anyway...

 

[Buzz]

You are wrong, the initial imbalance would persist for years, as long as it took the energy imbalance to become warming. The same latencies would apply normal warming, which is about a decade for small steps of CO2.

No, I'm not wrong. And your reasoning here is just a bunch of nonsensical gibberish.

I was still looking for some empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming and came across this study,
which uses the CERES data.
Radiative Forcing and Climate Sensitivity of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Fine-tuned with CERES Data
His description of the stratospheric cooling could be what I was missing.
In the studies analysis based partially on the observed data they found.
an ERF from 2xCO2 to be 2.65 Wm-2, and ,

So the 2XCO2 sensitivity from doubling the CO2 level would be 2.65 X 0.265 = 0.70C

Another study from the well-known denialist Antero Ollila?



How many times do I have to point out to you that that guy is known for publishing junk science in predatory journals?

It looks like I was wrong, but the 2XCO2 sensitivity based on at least some observed data is very low.

So, you admit you were wrong? Does this mean you are finally going to stop pushing the BS that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 continues to cause warming?

Again almost all of the observed warming is from shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation,

Much, if not most, of which is due to the feedbacks from GHG warming.

so our pursuit of Net Zero is almost meaningless!

This is just another one of your subjective opinions that isn't supported by any legitimate climate scientists.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What ABOUT hypothetical evidence?

Hypothetical evidence is the basis of science. ALL science. Empirical evidence is simply observation. Observation is USED by science. But it's HYPOTHESIS that are the building blocks of any Scientific Theory.

So you are spewing nonsense!



Energy is created by THE SUN! Not by CO2!

Do you know what a greenhouse is? It's a structure primarily made out of plastic (usually) that TRAPS the sun's heat. Did you think the plastic "created" that heat?

It's amazing how completely over your head this debate is.

But that's what science denialists are hoping for: people who don't understand science who they can feed "scientificky-sounding" words that they don't understand.

You are making incorrect assumptions about what he claims.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, I'm not wrong. And your reasoning here is just a bunch of nonsensical gibberish.

No, he is correct.

Instead of saying he is wrong, prove it. Start by telling us how he is wrong.

Another study from the well-known denialist Antero Ollila?

Logical fallacy, and ostracizing scientists that do not march in lockstep to the agenda.

This is a perfect example of diminishing the person, because no actual fault can be shown. You do that with me too. You claim I am wrong, but are incapable of showing us how. You link to past topics where you claim you proved me wrong, but you are incorrect. Such instances are normally changing what I said, acting as if I made a false claim. But it is you who lies about what I said.

Again. Tell us specifically how he is wrong, instead of just making your false, slanderous claim.

How many times do I have to point out to you that that guy is known for publishing junk science in predatory journals?

Another way to discredit with a logical fallacy.

So, you admit you were wrong? Does this mean you are finally going to stop pushing the BS that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 continues to cause warming?

At least he is capable of changing his perspective.

Much, if not most, of which is due to the feedbacks from GHG warming.

Sorry. You cannot be serious. How does the feedback from greenhouse gasses reduce the cloud cover? Warming is supposed to increase the water vapor so we should have more cloud cover.

Hint... it is almost certainly the increased aerosols that are reducing the cloud cover.

This is just another one of your subjective opinions that isn't supported by any legitimate climate scientists.

You rarely ever support tripe. Longview references a study and explains what he sees.