500 scientists say there is no climate emergency

[ding]

Is that who is keeping you from publishing science?

Or is it that you are a uneducated slob with no education or experience in any relevant field?

Easy answer.

The relationship between the radiative forcing of CO2 and the associated temperature of the atmosphere has already been published and is well understood. Every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles the atmospheric temperature will increase by 1 degree C.

"...Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2..."

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[jc456]

View attachment 857399

Just in case you missed it.

Let’s go Brandon

 

[Dagosa]

Let’s go Brandon

Gotcha , loser.

 

[jc456]

Gotcha , loser.

Got me? Hahaha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The relationship between the radiative forcing of CO2 and the associated temperature of the atmosphere has already been published and is well understood. Every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles the atmospheric temperature will increase by 1 degree C.

"...Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2..."

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

I have no use for denier blogs, sorry. Spencer the discredited fool can publish his science or shut the hell up.

 

[ding]

I have no use for denier blogs, sorry. Spencer the discredited fool can publish his science or shut the hell up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 857568

That's not going to cover for your lies, sorry.

Read the IPCC yet?

 

[ding]

That's not going to cover for your lies, sorry.

Read the IPCC yet?

There were no lies. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists.

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There were no lies. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists.

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

Except it's wrong, in the case of our climate, in what we call "reality".

 

[ding]

Except it's wrong, in the case of our climate, in what we call "reality".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 857571

This won't help you, sorry.

Read the IPCC yet? 1degC is not even in the range.

 

[ding]

This won't help you, sorry.

Read the IPCC yet? 1degC is not even in the range.

"...the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2..."

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ding is stuck again. Poor guy.

Anyone here ever see "Awakenings"? Maybe something can be done.

 

[ding]

Read the IPCC yet? 1degC is not even in the range.

Have you? Because they amplify the radiative forcing of CO2 up to 500% to arrive at that range.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have you? Because they amplify the radiative forcing of CO2 up to 500% to arrive at that range.

I have. 1degC is not even in the range.

Go check.

 

[ding]

Ding is stuck again. Poor guy.

Anyone here ever see "Awakenings"? Maybe something can be done.

You don't even know the IPCC models use the radiative forcing of CO2 that is literally equal to a doubling of CO2 per 1C of temperature.

 

[ding]

I have. 1degC is not even in the range.

Go check.

Because you don't understand the range is not based just on the radiative forcing of CO2. Why don't you ask crick to explain it to you.

 

[ding]

I have.

No, you haven't. If you did you would understand the difference between radiative forcing of CO2 and climate sensitivity which are two different things which are added together for their reports. So their ranges are not based just on radiative forcing of CO2 which is equal to a doubling of CO2 per 1C of temperature.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe if ding repeats himself again, he will upend the IPCC report.

Or maybe not.

 

[ding]

Maybe if ding repeats himself again, he will upend the IPCC report.

Or maybe not.

Maybe if you understood that the radiative forcing of CO2 - which is relatively weak - is only a small component of their total projection, you wouldn't believe the stupid stuff you do. But you don't understand it, have made no effort to understand it and by refusing to believe their science is based upon it are admitting that their science is illogical.