Climate Sensitivity per the IPCC

[Crick]

Is that actually your picture there?

 

[skye]

 

[Crick]

I do understand it. I understand it to be worthless, babbling entertainment for folks just like you who love their one-click solutions. I understand that Dr Simon Goddek, purported specialist in "aquaponics" and Vitamin D, who got booted from Twitter for COVID misinformation and whose website sports invalid security certificates, is not someone that ANYONE should trust for climate information.

I also understand that you still decline to actually write your own posts, answer questions, discuss, debate or otherwise interact with anyone on this forum.

Virtually all the world's climate scientists and an extremely high majority of scientists from every field accept the conclusions of the IPCC: that global warming is real, that it is a threat to human well-being and that its primary cause is human GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. What makes you believe they are all wrong or that they are all lying? 'Dr' Simon Goddek?

And if you fail to answer this yourself, I will put you on ignore.

 

[ding]

hat makes you believe they are all wrong

Empirical climate data.

 

[skye]

I do understand it. I understand it to be worthless, babbling entertainment for folks just like you who love their one-click solutions. I understand that Dr Simon Goddek, purported specialist in "aquaponics" and Vitamin D, who got booted from Twitter for COVID misinformation and whose website sports invalid security certificates, is not someone that ANYONE should trust for climate information.

I also understand that you still decline to actually write your own posts, answer questions, discuss, debate or otherwise interact with anyone on this forum.

Virtually all the world's climate scientists and an extremely high majority of scientists from every field accept the conclusions of the IPCC: that global warming is real, that it is a threat to human well-being and that its primary cause is human GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. What makes you believe they are all wrong or that they are all lying? 'Dr' Simon Goddek?

And if you fail to answer this yourself, I will put you on ignore.

I agree with what it is said here, that's exactly my opinion.

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real​

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real

Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science. This has not been getting the attention it deserves because politicians (looking…

www.mic.com

 

[Crick]

I agree with what it is said here, that's exactly my opinion.

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real​

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real

Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science. This has not been getting the attention it deserves because politicians (looking…

www.mic.com

Sorry for the delay. I had started to respond but was called away. Life is busy.

So, were you aware that this article or blog or whatever is 12 years old? Were you aware that the 'hiatus' in warming on which the author seems to be basing his conclusion was found to be a measurement error? There was no hiatus and temperatures have certainly continued to climb. He has no basis for his conclusion. What else might have convinced you that AGW is not real?

And I'd like to hear a few more details. Do you believe the world is not getting warmer or that it is but humans aren't responsible?

And thanks for the reply.

 

[skookerasbil]

Sorry for the delay. I had started to respond but was called away. Life is busy.

So, were you aware that this article or blog or whatever is 12 years old? Were you aware that the 'hiatus' in warming on which the author seems to be basing his conclusion was found to be a measurement error? There was no hiatus and temperatures have certainly continued to climb. He has no basis for his conclusion. What else might have convinced you that AGW is not real?

And I'd like to hear a few more details. Do you believe the world is not getting warmer or that it is but humans aren't responsible?

And thanks for the reply.

But where were all the coal plants and SUV's during MWP?

Drrrrrrr

Again.......this same debate has been going on in here for 15 years. And what has changed?

Dick

Fossil fuels still dominate....biGlY....and will for decades.

Fossil fuels 'stubbornly' dominating global energy despite surge in renewables: Energy Institute

Whooooooops

This is a place for climate crusaders to engage in their hobby. In the real world, none of it is mattering.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ooooooooops

Fossil fuels will still dominate energy in 20 years despite green power rising

 

[skookerasbil]

Bah Bah Booey

https://www.euci.com/world-energy-consumption-to-rise-50-percent-by-2050-with-fossil-fuels-still-dominant-eia-says/

 

[skookerasbil]

Crick......sorry but in the big picture, none of your theories matter.

To you its science....but if nobody is caring, its theory.

 

[Crick]

But where were all the coal plants and SUV's during MWP?

If you want to ask a rhetorical question, at least make it clever. This is just stupid.

Drrrrrrr

What is that sound? Do you have a locust in your mouth? Are you at the dentist getting drilled? Is that the sound of you trying to think?

Again.......this same debate has been going on in here for 15 years. And what has changed?

In here, not much. In the world, plenty.

Fossil fuels still dominate.

Fossil fuels are on their way OUT. Renewables are taking over. In another decade, we'll have our first fusion power plant and that will be the end of the question.

...biGlY....and will for decades.

Wrongo Sweetie-Pie

Fossil fuels 'stubbornly' dominating global energy despite surge in renewables: Energy Institute

Oooo... that really gets my goat. Of course, the majority of their members work with oil and natural gas, so...

Whooooooops

Did you drop something? Forget to give yourself enough lead time getting to the bathroom?

This is a place for climate crusaders to engage in their hobby. In the real world, none of it is mattering.

While you have repeated that line over and over and over again, US CO2 emissions have plunged, renewables are rapidly taking over and no one in their right mind rejects AGW.

 

[ding]

Climate sensitivity is low.

 

[Crick]

Climate sensitivity is low.

The IPCC went to enormous lengths to come up with their values and it's all available in black and white in the OP and their docs. What work have YOU done that supports your claims?

 

[ding]

The IPCC went to enormous lengths to come up with their values and it's all available in black and white in the OP and their docs. What work have YOU done that supports your claims?

Too bad they got it wrong. What have I done? I studied the empirical climate data. If climate sensitivity to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 is high, then the planet wouldn’t have cooled for millions of years at elevated levels of atmospheric CO2.