What, me worry?

[Buzz]

The equations I am using came from the scientific community, and actionable evidence is non existent.
There is some evidence that CO2 can cause some warming, but the amount would never be considered actionable.
We simply do not have enough hydrocarbons to burn to make it a concern, at the current measurements.
FYI
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Found an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of .22 Wm-2 as CO2 increased from 369 to 392 ppm,
This equals a forcing from doubling CO2 at ~.75 C.

Feldman shows no such forcing for a doubling of CO2. Are you really going to go back to lying about this study again? Do you have no shame?

 

[bluesmoke]

The equations I am using came from the scientific community, and actionable evidence is non existent.
There is some evidence that CO2 can cause some warming, but the amount would never be considered actionable.
We simply do not have enough hydrocarbons to burn to make it a concern, at the current measurements.
FYI
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Found an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of .22 Wm-2 as CO2 increased from 369 to 392 ppm,
This equals a forcing from doubling CO2 at ~.75 C.

“actionable evidence is non existent.”

I think I’ll just start repeating this same reply, or some variation thereof, in response to all the nonsense I get from deniers like yourself.

None of what you and others throw-up on the tracks adds up to anything significant against the overwhelming evidence recognized by the scientific community that addresses our climate as is affected by AGW.

The greatest influence by AGW has been by greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. Consensus projections are that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario. These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

The 97% of scientist’ you hear of came about from a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. And, that natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect, primarily due to the sun cooling since the 1980’s, rather than any warming effect.

Global warming - Wikipedia

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of however you define your position?

 

[Jack Hays]

“The numbers were easily identifiable in the graph linked at #133.”

No, they weren’t. And you can’t say what those numbers are. An example of your being disingenuous and evasive. You are a slippery one.

If you can’t come up with the numbers, there’s no use in attempting to debate any further. Try debating honestly and be forthright.

The statement stands. Easily identifiable.

 

[Jack Hays]

Of course. There's no such thing as science. There is such a thing, though, as science fiction. We know this because it is so authoritatively stated by a famous science-fiction writer, Michael Crichton, who believed astral-projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance were real. Crichton has since projected himself away from our world of illusive reality and is now viewing us from somewhere, knowing what will happen next.

Yeah, you roll with that one.

None of your claims about Crichton's views is true. He was a Harvard MD and a published scholar.

 

[longview]

Feldman shows no such forcing for a doubling of CO2. Are you really going to go back to lying about this study again? Do you have no shame?

Feldman indeed shows a .22Wm-2 change in downwelling as co2 increased from 369 to 392 ppm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[longview]

“actionable evidence is non existent.”

I think I’ll just start repeating this same reply, or some variation thereof, in response to all the nonsense I get from deniers like yourself.

None of what you and others throw-up on the tracks adds up to anything significant against the overwhelming evidence recognized by the scientific community that addresses our climate as is affected by AGW.

The greatest influence by AGW has been by greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. Consensus projections are that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario. These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

The current scientific consensus is that:

•Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
•Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
•Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
•People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

The 97% of scientist’ you hear of came about from a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. And, that natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect, primarily due to the sun cooling since the 1980’s, rather than any warming effect.

Global warming - Wikipedia

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of however you define your position?

The bs does not improve.
The is only minimal evidence that
CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.
As far as Cooks consensus paper,
Perhaps you should quote it’s consensus statement.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Threegoofs]

The bs does not improve.
The is only minimal evidence that
CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.
As far as Cooks consensus paper,
Perhaps you should quote it’s consensus statement.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh! If only the scientists who have devoted their careers to this topic knew as much as you do!

 

[longview]

Oh! If only the scientists who have devoted their careers to this topic knew as much as you do!

Perhaps you care to quote Cook’s consensus statement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Threegoofs]

Perhaps you care to quote Cook’s consensus statement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why?

You should be telling all of these misguided scientists the truth, O Anonymous Untrained Engineer.

 

[bluesmoke]

The statement stands. Easily identifiable.

I think I’ll just start repeating this same reply, or some variation thereof, in response to all the nonsense I get from deniers like yourself, whether I read all of what you post, or not, or not at all.

None of what you and others throw-up on the tracks adds up to anything significant against the overwhelming evidence recognized by the scientific community that addresses our climate as is affected by AGW.

The greatest influence by AGW has been by greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. Consensus projections are that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario. These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

The 97% of scientist’ you hear of came about from a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. And, that natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect, primarily due to the sun cooling since the 1980’s, rather than any warming effect.

Global warming - Wikipedia

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

You have to take a look at your own side and ask yourself: How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of my position and how do I define that position?

 

[bluesmoke]

None of your claims about Crichton's views is true. He was a Harvard MD and a published scholar.

I think I’ll just start repeating this same reply, or some variation thereof, in response to all the nonsense I get from deniers like yourself, whether I read all of what you post, or not, or not at all.

None of what you and others throw-up on the tracks adds up to anything significant against the overwhelming evidence recognized by the scientific community that addresses our climate as is affected by AGW.

The greatest influence by AGW has been by greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. Consensus projections are that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario. These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

The 97% of scientist’ you hear of came about from a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. And, that natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect, primarily due to the sun cooling since the 1980’s, rather than any warming effect.

Global warming - Wikipedia

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

You have to take a look at your own side and ask yourself: How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of my position and how do I define that position?

 

[bluesmoke]

The bs does not improve.
The is only minimal evidence that
CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.
As far as Cooks consensus paper,
Perhaps you should quote it’s consensus statement.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“The is only minimal evidence that
CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.”

In the peer community of those submitting papers reviewed, 97% disagree with you.

“As far as Cooks consensus paper,
Perhaps you should quote it’s consensus statement.”

Perhaps you should quote that “consensus statement” you imply makes some kind of point in your favor you don’t even bother to give in refute and I can only infer is of no significance.

Perhaps you should define what your position is and quantify the peer reviewed support of that position.

Perhaps you should just go post on the CT forum, where your argument belongs.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think I’ll just start repeating this same reply, or some variation thereof, in response to all the nonsense I get from deniers like yourself, whether I read all of what you post, or not, or not at all.

None of what you and others throw-up on the tracks adds up to anything significant against the overwhelming evidence recognized by the scientific community that addresses our climate as is affected by AGW.

The greatest influence by AGW has been by greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. Consensus projections are that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario. These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

The 97% of scientist’ you hear of came about from a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. And, that natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect, primarily due to the sun cooling since the 1980’s, rather than any warming effect.

Global warming - Wikipedia

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

You have to take a look at your own side and ask yourself: How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of my position and how do I define that position?

Now you're retreating to propaganda boilerplate. I presented data, which you have unsuccessfully attempted to deny. You lose.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think I’ll just start repeating this same reply, or some variation thereof, in response to all the nonsense I get from deniers like yourself, whether I read all of what you post, or not, or not at all.

None of what you and others throw-up on the tracks adds up to anything significant against the overwhelming evidence recognized by the scientific community that addresses our climate as is affected by AGW.

The greatest influence by AGW has been by greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. Consensus projections are that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario. These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

The 97% of scientist’ you hear of came about from a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. And, that natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect, primarily due to the sun cooling since the 1980’s, rather than any warming effect.

Global warming - Wikipedia

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

You have to take a look at your own side and ask yourself: How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of my position and how do I define that position?

A third retreat to propaganda boilerplate. You lose for a third time.

 

[Buzz]

Feldman indeed shows a .22Wm-2 change in downwelling as co2 increased from 369 to 392 ppm

Yes, I know. I was talking about your calculation of "forcing from doubling CO2 at ~.75 C." that you got from Feldman's results. Your methodology is clearly wrong. And you refuse to admit it.

You know what I'm talking about.

 

[charliebrown]

I now a bleeding liberal that says he wants it warmer where we live so he has no concern over his personal carbon footprint.

Did I just describe about 80% of the US population, probably.

 

[yankintx]

Greenhouse gases reach record levels, report finds - CNN

No problem. Probably part of the great Intelligent Design.

I am sure its Hillarys fault.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, I know. I was talking about your calculation of "forcing from doubling CO2 at ~.75 C." that you got from Feldman's results. Your methodology is clearly wrong. And you refuse to admit it.

You know what I'm talking about.

If we take a linear approach of what enters the atmosphere vs. the TOS change with a doubling, the energy imbalance is 1.5417% greater.

(240 + 3.7)/3.7 = 1.015417

1.015417^0.25 = 1.003832

1.003832 x 288 = 289.1036

This would indicate with all changes staying linear, the earth would increase by 1.1 degrees. This is assuming the 3.7 W/m^2 for a doubling is correct. Several recent studies suggest is around half this value or less.

 

[Buzz]

Several recent studies suggest is around half this value or less.

Really?

Prove it.

 

[longview]

“The is only minimal evidence that
CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.”

In the peer community of those submitting papers reviewed, 97% disagree with you.

“As far as Cooks consensus paper,
Perhaps you should quote it’s consensus statement.”

Perhaps you should quote that “consensus statement” you imply makes some kind of point in your favor you don’t even bother to give in refute and I can only infer is of no significance.

Perhaps you should define what your position is and quantify the peer reviewed support of that position.

Perhaps you should just go post on the CT forum, where your argument belongs.

I Cook et al,2013 there is one complete sentence in the abstract that supports my statement.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Also it was only among those papers who Cook determined the abstract expressed an opinion, 64% of the abstracts were not even counted.
Actually a poorly done study.

 

[longview]

Yes, I know. I was talking about your calculation of "forcing from doubling CO2 at ~.75 C." that you got from Feldman's results. Your methodology is clearly wrong. And you refuse to admit it.

You know what I'm talking about.

Nope the formula as found in IPCC AR5 is the change in energy divided by the natural log of CO2 high divided by CO2 low, to get the log multiplier.
This can be verified with the 3.71 Wm-2.
3.71/ln(2)= 5.35. so 5.35 X ln(CO2 High/CO2 low) is the forcing, in Wm-2, if the 2XCO2 forcing were 3.71 Wm-2.
For Feldman they found a .22 Wm-2 increase as CO2 levels went from 369 to 392 ppm, so,
.22/ln(392/396)=3.64, 3.64 X ln(2)=2.52 Wm-2, for doubling the CO2 level.
The IPCC also defines the ratio of Wm-2 to forcing degrees C, as .3 C per Wm-2.
2.52 X .3=.756 C.
These formulas are right out of IPCC AR5!

 

[Threegoofs]

I Cook et al,2013 there is one complete sentence in the abstract that supports my statement.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

Also it was only among those papers who Cook determined the abstract expressed an opinion, 64% of the abstracts were not even counted.
Actually a poorly done study.

Then use one of the many others.

Oh wait. It’s not that you don’t like the methods... you don’t like the results!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Really?

Prove it.

Myself and others have pointed out such studies in the past. I'm sorry you are a denier of science, and never looked at them. Why should I look for them again, when you and the other warmers will deny the science behind them like before?

I'm not a fool. Please stop asking me to show you stuff you have seen before, and denied...

 

[Buzz]

Nope the formula as found in IPCC AR5 is the change in energy divided by the natural log of CO2 high divided by CO2 low, to get the log multiplier.
This can be verified with the 3.71 Wm-2.
3.71/ln(2)= 5.35. so 5.35 X ln(CO2 High/CO2 low) is the forcing, in Wm-2, if the 2XCO2 forcing were 3.71 Wm-2.
For Feldman they found a .22 Wm-2 increase as CO2 levels went from 369 to 392 ppm, so,
.22/ln(392/396)=3.64, 3.64 X ln(2)=2.52 Wm-2, for doubling the CO2 level.
The IPCC also defines the ratio of Wm-2 to forcing degrees C, as .3 C per Wm-2.
2.52 X .3=.756 C.
These formulas are right out of IPCC AR5!

Damn longview... how many times do I have to point out that you are using a surface measurement to calculate a top of atmosphere(TOA) result? Even Feldman states in his study that surface measurements are not directly comparable to TOA measurements.

It would be like if you used a thermometer located inside of your house to determine what temps were outside.

Seriously long... when are you going to quit pushing this unscientific and intentionally misleading BS?

 

[Buzz]

Myself and others have pointed out such studies in the past. I'm sorry you are a denier of science, and never looked at them. Why should I look for them again, when you and the other warmers will deny the science behind them like before?

I'm not a fool. Please stop asking me to show you stuff you have seen before, and denied...

Now you are just lying. I know this because the whole debate about climate sensitivity is a topic I follow closely. And I am fairly certain that nobody has shown any recent studies that say the numbers are as low as you suggest.

And all you have to do to prove I am wrong is show us all one of these recent studies. But we all you can't because you are all talk and no proof.