Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[expat_panama]

Does it explain what the PURE radiative forcing of CO2 is without any feedbacks added to it?

You know the immediate physical effect of longwave radiation causing CO2 molecules to vibrate and heat the surrounding air? You know... the immediate physical effect of GHG's?

It's interesting that you used the word "forcing" to identify the process.

I've been trying to get a clear definition of the word how it's used in climate studies and I found that it's not a term than can be defined. Just google the word for a definition and you get a lot of definitions that differ to the point of conflict even while they sort of group around the greenhouse effect.

Next I assumed that "forcing" was not a definable term but rather a concept that demanded discussion and understanding. This failed too as there was no common meeting ground were everyone could consult on the concept's purpose.

Finally I determined that "forcing" was a mantra: “a tool of the mind that has a spiritual effect on a person's will or emotional state" (from here). It's not science, it's feeling.

 

[Crick]

It's interesting that you used the word "forcing" to identify the process.

I've been trying to get a clear definition of the word how it's used in climate studies and I found that it's not a term than can be defined. Just google the word for a definition and you get a lot of definitions that differ to the point of conflict even while they sort of group around the greenhouse effect.

Next I assumed that "forcing" was not a definable term but rather a concept that demanded discussion and understanding. This failed too as there was no common meeting ground were everyone could consult on the concept's purpose.

Finally I determined that "forcing" was a mantra: “a tool of the mind that has a spiritual effect on a person's will or emotional state" (from here). It's not science, it's feeling.

What conflicts in definitions have you found?

 

[otto105]

Does it explain what the PURE radiative forcing of CO2 is without any feedbacks added to it?

You know the immediate physical effect of longwave radiation causing CO2 molecules to vibrate and heat the surrounding air? You know... the immediate physical effect of GHG's?

Hilarious

You think all the worlds climate organizations missed your post.

 

[ding]

It's interesting that you used the word "forcing" to identify the process.

I've been trying to get a clear definition of the word how it's used in climate studies and I found that it's not a term than can be defined. Just google the word for a definition and you get a lot of definitions that differ to the point of conflict even while they sort of group around the greenhouse effect.

Next I assumed that "forcing" was not a definable term but rather a concept that demanded discussion and understanding. This failed too as there was no common meeting ground were everyone could consult on the concept's purpose.

Finally I determined that "forcing" was a mantra: “a tool of the mind that has a spiritual effect on a person's will or emotional state" (from here). It's not science, it's feeling.

Forcing - as I understand it - is the process by which the molecules of GHG's are excited by upward long-wave radiation (i.e. infrared radiation from the surface of the planet radiating outward towards outer space). This movement of the GHG molecules causes friction and heats the surrounding gases in the atmosphere. It is an immediate effect. It is that immediate effect that I am interested in. Because everything else they claim is from modelling. Not a physical process.

 

[ding]

Hilarious

You think all the worlds climate organizations missed your post.

I think they are confused and biased.

 

[otto105]

I think they are confused and biased.

Well, can you email them your evidence that debunks their scientific findings regarding AGW.

Seems that your missing an opportunity to be a national denier hero.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Cultists are "forcing" their exaggerations and pseudoscience on everyone who listens to them.
Compounds react, and "forcing" is their creative new mantra to try to shove water vapor aside as THE dominant greenhouse gas.

Study these graphs and tell me what is "forcing" anything.

I made the middle graph to show the nonsense of the Scary Graph (Keeling Curve), a scientific fraud.

 

[abu afak]

Cultists are "forcing" their exaggerations and pseudoscience on everyone who listens to them.[/B]
Compounds react, and "forcing" is their creative new mantra to try to shove water vapor aside as THE dominant greenhouse gas.
Study these graphs and tell me what is "forcing" anything.
I made the middle graph to show the nonsense of the Scary Graph (Keeling Curve), a scientific fraud.

[/B][/B]

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
[/b]
This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in Water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect.

Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with Water Vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates Water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

``

 

[otto105]

Cultists are "forcing" their exaggerations and pseudoscience on everyone who listens to them.
Compounds react, and "forcing" is their creative new mantra to try to shove water vapor aside as THE dominant greenhouse gas.

Study these graphs and tell me what is "forcing" anything.

I made the middle graph to show the nonsense of the Scary Graph (Keeling Curve), a scientific fraud.

View attachment 859154

Hilarious

What was CO2 levels in our atmosphere 100 years ago?

What is it now?

 

[ding]

Hilarious

What was CO2 levels in our atmosphere 100 years ago?

What is it 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..."

Dr. Roy Spencer

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[abu afak]

"...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..."

Dr. Roy Spencer

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

But even the Denier Spencer Cutely/Deceptively uses the phrase "if CO2 By Itself," fully knowing it also drives how much Water Vapor it causes.. Causes More he goes on to mention. (unquoted)

Same with Methane as it snowballs it's feedback from and into more warming.
SO CO2 "IF ONLY Viewed by itself" is a DISINGENUOUS TRY.
Those 3 GHGs drive virtually ALL the warming triggered by... CO2.

Deceptive Scvmbag poster and Citation.
It might work on Fort Fun, but Not Me.
I understand the climate System.

`

 

[ding]

I can't understand a word he is trying to say.

 

[abu afak]

I can't understand a word he is trying to say.

That's because you are like (or sock-puppeting) Similarly stupid fellow high-frequency ONE-LINER jc456.
Anything over one line (OR THAT REFUTES YOU) you claim is not understandable.

`

 

[ding]

That's because you are like (or sock-puppeting) Similarly stupid fellow high-frequency ONE-LINER jc456.
Anything over one line (OR THAT REFUTES YOU) you claim is not understandable.

`

No. It’s because of your poor writing style.

 

[abu afak]

No. It’s because of your poor writing style.

`

`

 

[ding]

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[expat_panama]

Forcing - as I understand it - is the process by which the molecules of GHG's are excited by upward long-wave radiation (i.e. infrared radiation from the surface of the planet radiating outward towards outer space). This movement of the GHG molecules causes friction and heats the surrounding gases in the atmosphere. It is an immediate effect. It is that immediate effect that I am interested in. Because everything else they claim is from modelling. Not a physical process.

That's a common understanding that many share, tho for my taste we'd have to be able to quantify everything a bit more. I can show a number of other popular definitions that differ but maybe as time goes on we see one concept emerging.

 

[expat_panama]

"...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..."

Dr. Roy Spencer

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

so we got just over 400 ppm CO2 and we're over 1C hotter than the late 1800's. That would mean we had around 200 ppm CO2 and that would have stunted all plant life.

Didn't happen.

 

[Dagosa]

F

Cultists are "forcing" their exaggerations and pseudoscience on everyone who listens to them.
Compounds react, and "forcing" is their creative new mantra to try to shove water vapor aside as THE dominant greenhouse gas.

Study these graphs and tell me what is "forcing" anything.

I made the middle graph to show the nonsense of the Scary Graph (Keeling Curve), a scientific fraud.

View attachment 859154

Fraud.