More Empirical Evidence That Recent Climate Change Warming Is Not A Threat

[Billy_Bob]

So, what is the conclusion of the latest IPCC report on the status of our planets climate.

BTW I don’t get to rule out anything and neither do you.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Politics and power are what drive their purpose. Once you realize that, you realize that their science is lacking even the very basic scientific methods and rebuttal. They silence people with opposing points of view.

I do get to rule things out. Its my job as an atmospheric physicist. When I retired from law enforcement, I went back and finished my degree in atmospheric physics. SO there is that...

 

[otto105]

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Politics and power are what drive their purpose. Once you realize that, you realize that their science is lacking even the very basic scientific methods and rebuttal. They silence people with opposing points of view.

I do get to rule things out. Its my job as an atmospheric physicist. When I retired from law enforcement, I went back and finished my degree in atmospheric physics. SO there is that...

No the IPCC is not a political organization. You played that card because you!were unable to make a valid case against it’s findings.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No the IPCC is not a political organization. You played that card because you!were unable to make a valid case against it’s findings.

LOL... you do not have a clue. I can show that CO2 can not warm the oceans. It is impossible due to the laws of physics. You have yet to make any case on it being able to. You go back to the IPCC and an appeal to authority when they are a political organization. I can make several arguments which disprove the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.

Please explain what the AGW hypothesis is, what is accepted by both sides, and what is in dispute.. I'll wait.

Here is a link to help you: The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

 

[otto105]

LOL... you do not have a clue. I can show that CO2 can not warm the oceans. It is impossible due to the laws of physics. You have yet to make any case on it being able to. You go back to the IPCC and an appeal to authority when they are a political organization. I can make several arguments which disprove the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.

Please explain what the AGW hypothesis is, what is accepted by both sides, and what is in dispute.. I'll wait.

Here is a link to help you: The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

See the latest IPCC report on climate and have that idiot you source respond.


Until then, you’re wrong and hilariously ignorant.

 

[Sunsettommy]

See the latest IPCC report on climate and have that idiot you source respond.


Until then, you’re wrong and hilariously ignorant.

Deflection
deflection
deflection.... burp!

 

[otto105]

Deflection
deflection
deflection.... burp!

No deflection.

The post speaks for itself.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No deflection.

The post speaks for itself.

No, you didn't read any of it because you NEVER make a post in your own words incorporating facts and data in a manner people can understand.

Why do warmist/alarmists like you never show evidence that you actually know what the AGW conjecture is and how it is in two parts.

You speak for no one which is why you remain very ignorant.

 

[otto105]

No, you didn't read any of it because you NEVER make a post in your own words incorporating facts and data in a manner people can understand.

Why do warmist/alarmists like you never show evidence that you actually know what the AGW conjecture is and how it is in two parts.

You speak for no one which is why you remain very ignorant.

I have the entire scientific community to speak on my behalf in regard to AGW.

You have articles and lord mukington.

 

[otto105]

I as a responsible person give 98% of my time to the scientific consensus on warming and to the 2% who deny it the same amount of appropriate time.


You choose to waste yours on the 2%

 

[Sunsettommy]

I as a responsible person give 98% of my time to the scientific consensus on warming and to the 2% who deny it the same amount of appropriate time.


You choose to waste yours on the 2%

This is why you have ZERO credibility when you can't answer AGW 101 stuff on your own because you show no indication you know what the AGW hypothesis is about.

Back on ignore you go.

 

[Billy_Bob]

See the latest IPCC report on climate and have that idiot you source respond.


Until then, you’re wrong and hilariously ignorant.

So you are unable to tell me what the hypothesis is...

That explains why you are so ignorant. You are simply a parrot regurgitating what you are told to say.

IF you had read my link, you would know there is very little that separates the two sides. Much of the AGW hypothesis is agreed upon. You tell me to read your propaganda, but you refuse to learn the hypothesis so you can learn and be informed. This makes you nothing more than a useful idiot.

Had you read the link I provided, you would have learned that the Mid-tropospheric hot spot, required by that hypothesis has NEVER MANIFESTID ITSELF and that the current warming of the earth is less than half of the expected warming that CO2, alone, should create. This means the climate sensitivity number (or magic multiplier) is less than 0.5 and not 3 as the hypothesis suggests. This is empirical evidence that the hypothesis is falsified.

Please continue to be a parrot... it serves your lack of intelligence well...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I as a responsible person give 98% of my time to the scientific consensus on warming and to the 2% who deny it the same amount of appropriate time.


You choose to waste yours on the 2%

Conesus is NOT SCIENCE. Skepticism IS SCIENCE. Everything in science is open to discussion, evidence, experiment, and reproof. When one says they are right without evidence, they are nothing more than a liar and Charleton. No one is buying the IPCC's snake oil.

 

[ding]

Are any of those people climate scientists?

All of them, dummy.

 

[otto105]

This is why you have ZERO credibility when you can't answer AGW 101 stuff on your own because you show no indication you know what the AGW hypothesis is about.

Back on ignore you go.

Run away denier.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Run away denier.

LOL... That's all you got??

Lets see if you can handle even a basic question.

Below is the log of CO2. What would be the effect on temperature if we doubled our current atmospheric concertation from 400ppm to 800ppm of this trace gas?

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL... thats all you got??

Lets see if you can handle even a basic question.

Below is the log of CO2. What would be the effect on temperature if we doubled our current atmospheric concertation from 400ppm to 800ppm of this trace gas?

View attachment 661024

He will not answer the question because he is an idiot who has been well programmed to be ignorant and stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He will not answer the question because he is an idiot who has been well programmed to be ignorant and stupid.

I was giving him the opportunity to disprove his ignorance...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Another thread I started where warmist/alarmists ignored the content of Post one Article which means yet another failure on the CO2 sniffing cult to spot light one.

Crick in the belly thunders at post 29:

Absolutely classic cherry picked bullshit.

Screams at Post 32:

I'd say I just threw it in the shitter.

I am in awe at his futility where all he can do is get beat by a HadCRUT global temperature dataset.

Post one Article remains UNCHALLENGED

 

[otto105]

LOL... That's all you got??

Lets see if you can handle even a basic question.

Below is the log of CO2. What would be the effect on temperature if we doubled our current atmospheric concertation from 400ppm to 800ppm of this trace gas?

View attachment 661024

The source of the graph presented?

 

[otto105]

LOL... That's all you got??

Lets see if you can handle even a basic question.

Below is the log of CO2. What would be the effect on temperature if we doubled our current atmospheric concertation from 400ppm to 800ppm of this trace gas?

View attachment 661024

Again, offering some cherry-picked BS from somewhere.

Try an actual source.

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels? | NOAA Climate.gov