Climate Sensitivity per the IPCC

[abu afak]

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work, like eliminating other suspects and finding the specific chemical fingerprint of fossil fuel burning in the air, to figure out that humans are responsible for climate change.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in watts per meter squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a watt per meter squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 watts per meter squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 watts per meter square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work, like eliminating other suspects and finding the specific chemical fingerprint of fossil fuel burning in the air, to figure out that humans are responsible for climate change.

`

400PPM is a fucking rounding error.

Moreover we shut the world economy down for 2 years and there was no change to CO2, meaning the VAST majority is natural and had NOTHING to do with mankind

The OCO2 readings show that instead of American cities, the equatorial rain forests are the biggest emitters of CO2

You guys absolutely suck at science

 

[abu afak]

400PPM is a fucking rounding error.
Moreover we shut the world economy down for 2 years and there was no change to CO2, meaning the VAST majority is natural and had NOTHING to do with mankind

View attachment 778433

The OCO2 readings show that instead of American cities, the equatorial rain forests are the biggest emitters of CO2

You guys absolutely suck at science

YOU are the Boards STUPIDEST POSTER.
and lately a Chart/Map/JPG and Last-Wording TROLL in an attempt to Bury devastating rebuttals of your Idiotic positions.
The world did not "shut down."
Your Electric Power was still on, Trucks and trains still delivering to the Supermarkets daily. Delivering foods in glass and aluminum containers that were still being Smelted every day.
etc, etc, etc.

IAC......

Greenhouse Gas Lifetimes in the Atmosphere​

Iowa State University
https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu › gccourse › forcing › li...
Carbon dioxide has a half life of about 120 years, methane 10.5 years, nitrous oxide 132 years, and the CFCs 16 to more than 500 years, as shown in the ...[/B]

How long do greenhouse gases stay in the air?​

The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › environment › jan › g...[/B]
Jan 16, 2012 — Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes ...
You visited this page on 4/19/23.

The Half Life of CO2 in Earth's Atmosphere – Part 1​

Euan Mearns
http://euanmearns.com › the-half-life-of-co2-in-earths...[/B]
Sep 22, 2014 — The half life of ~27 years is equivalent to a residence time for CO2 of 39 years. A major conclusion of this post, therefore, is that emissions ...

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries​

Skeptical Science
https://skepticalscience.com › co2-residence-time
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply ...
You visited this page on 4/19/23.


``

 

[CrusaderFrank]

YOU are the Boards STUPIDEST POSTER.
and lately a Chart/Map/JPG TROLL in an attempt to Bury devastating rebuttals of your Idiotic positions.
The world did not "shut down."
Your Electric Power was still on, Trucks and trains still delivering to the Supermarkets daily. Delivering foods in glass and aluminum containers that were still being Smelted every day.
etc, etc, etc.

IAC......

Greenhouse Gas Lifetimes in the Atmosphere​

Iowa State University
https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu › gccourse › forcing › li...
Carbon dioxide has a half life of about 120 years, methane 10.5 years, nitrous oxide 132 years, and the CFCs 16 to more than 500 years, as shown in the ...[/B]

How long do greenhouse gases stay in the air?​

The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › environment › jan › g...[/B]
Jan 16, 2012 — Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes ...
You visited this page on 4/19/23.

The Half Life of CO2 in Earth's Atmosphere – Part 1​

Euan Mearns
http://euanmearns.com › the-half-life-of-co2-in-earths...[/B]
Sep 22, 2014 — The half life of ~27 years is equivalent to a residence time for CO2 of 39 years. A major conclusion of this post, therefore, is that emissions ...

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries​

Skeptical Science
https://skepticalscience.com › co2-residence-time
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply ...
You visited this page on 4/19/23.


``

Constantly repeating the EXACT SAME WRONG THINGS do not make them correct

 

[BackAgain]

I asked if you would explain what economics were involved in a government pushing renewable tech via the permitting process. You haven't even attempted to answer.

Yeah. I did. You simply didn’t expect or like my answer.

Perhaps part of the problem is your use somewhat arcane terms. Like: “permitting process.” Frankly, it takes some effort to figure out wtf you’re talking about. I gather you’re making reference to governmental permits (to cut corners) to speed up the building of these worthless “alternative energy” scams.

Most people don’t buy this crap, you know. There may be some eventual cleaner forms of energy. But only idiots believe solar will suffice or that wind farms will.

Just like most people don’t buy the nonsense that 200 parts per MILLION of a trace gas is salvation but that 400 parts per MILLION of that same trace gas will be our undoing.

 

[EMH]

Dumbass, Antarctica is losing mass.

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

---

Key Takeaway:​

Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
---

Care to try again? I mean, sure, reality says your theory is insane, but maybe if you scream and rage enough, reality will change, right?

Give it a try.

Oh, if you want to really give us a chuckle, try to calculate the how much ice would have to _not_ melt to account for the current ocean warming rate. It would be funny because you're not capable such a task. You have no idea of how badly you fail at the physics.

There is data and there is fudge.

One is right, one is wrong.

If there is all this "melting" as your fudged fraud side claims


SHOW US LANDMARKS THAT ARE SINKING


Statue of Liberty = nope
Venice = nope
Hawaii 5-0 beach = nope

 

[EMH]

Why don't you tell us?

LMFAO!!!

You mean the tippy toppiest climate "scientists" don't know???

LOL!!!


Already been posted here 50 times...

All land within 600 miles of an Earth pole is in ICE AGE

All land not within 600 miles of an Earth pole is NOT in ICE AGE

And land moves...

And THAT is 99%+ of Earth climate change...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult is a religion and not a nice one; it's a pseudoscientific Spanish Inquisition

They spit out models adapted to fit their foregone conclusions. All hail the CO2 molecule

They make up dataset adapted to fit their foregone conclusion. I know! Let's add in the imaginary heat trapped (like a rat!) In the deep oceans. All hail the CO2 moleculs

Have you accepted the CO2 molecule as your Lord and Savior

 

[Crick]

Yeah. I did.

No, you did not.

Perhaps part of the problem is your use somewhat arcane terms. Like: “permitting process.”

The proces of granting permits? That is hardly arcane. It is the primary method of government control over construction.

Frankly, it takes some effort to figure out wtf you’re talking about. I gather you’re making reference to governmental permits (to cut corners) to speed up the building of these worthless “alternative energy” scams.

The function of permits is not to cut corners. It is permission from the government to build or modify structures, making certain they align with local zoning, meet building, plumbing, electrical and sewage codes. You've never put an addition on a house or built a fence or gotten some major electrical work done? All those things require a permit. If the government doesn't want a coal plant to be built, they will simply refuse to grant a permit to build it.

Most people don’t buy this crap, you know. There may be some eventual cleaner forms of energy. But only idiots believe solar will suffice or that wind farms will.

A combination of different, non-emitting technologies will suffice. Continuing to burn fossil fuels will not.

Just like most people don’t buy the nonsense that 200 parts per MILLION of a trace gas is salvation but that 400 parts per MILLION of that same trace gas will be our undoing.

Then you need to improve your basic science knowledge.

 

[Oddball]

Dumbass, Antarctica is losing mass.

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

---

Key Takeaway:​

Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
---

Care to try again? I mean, sure, reality says your theory is insane, but maybe if you scream and rage enough, reality will change, right?

Give it a try.

Oh, if you want to really give us a chuckle, try to calculate the how much ice would have to _not_ melt to account for the current ocean warming rate. It would be funny because you're not capable such a task. You have no idea of how badly you fail at the physics.

There has been discovered to be massive geothermal activity beneath Antarctica, dumbass.

 

[Oddball]

A combination of different, non-emitting technologies will suffice. Continuing to burn fossil fuels will not.

How many tons of "fossil fuels" are used in the manufacture, transportation, erection, mainteneance, and eventual disposal of these money pit contraptions, nitwit?

 

[mamooth]

There has been discovered to be massive geothermal activity beneath Antarctica, dumbass.

And?

Are you claiming that it's _new_ massive geothermal activity?

Are you really that stupid?

I guess you are.

 

[mamooth]

Constantly repeating the EXACT SAME WRONG THINGS do not make them correct

Then maybe you should stop doing that, eh? It's all you've been doing here for many years now. We explain in simple words where you messed up, and it whooshes right over your head. Everyone thinks of you as a clown.

I don't try to lecture the experts on, say, string theory, because I saw a conspiracy theory on the internet. I'm smart enough to understand my limitations.

Deniers? They're not smart enough to understand their limitations. Their cult keeps telling them what very special and smart snowflakes they are, and the cultists are hooked on receiving that emotional affirmation.

 

[BackAgain]

No, you did not.

Yes. I did.

The proces of granting permits? That is hardly arcane. It is the primary method of government control over construction.

Zzzz.

The function of permits is not to cut corners. It is permission from the government to build or modify structures, making certain they align with local zoning, meet building, plumbing, electrical and sewage codes. You've never put an addition on a house or built a fence or gotten some major electrical work done? All those things require a permit. If the government doesn't want a coal plant to be built, they will simply refuse to grant a permit to build it.

The structures at issue are alternative energy “plants.” Your double tap and double speak doesn’t change that fact.

A combination of different, non-emitting technologies will suffice. Continuing to burn fossil fuels will not.

So you claim.

Then you need to improve your basic science knowledge.

That might be true. But it has nothing at all to do with the silliness you’re spewing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then maybe you should stop doing that, eh? It's all you've been doing here for many years now. We explain in simple words where you messed up, and it whooshes right over your head. Everyone thinks of you as a clown.

I don't try to lecture the experts on, say, string theory, because I saw a conspiracy theory on the internet. I'm smart enough to understand my limitations.

Deniers? They're not smart enough to understand their limitations. Their cult keeps telling them what very special and smart snowflakes they are, and the cultists are hooked on receiving that emotional affirmation.

All you have are “models” preprogrammed for a derived result and a Cult that repeats “consensus”

That’s not science.

I ask simple, scientific questions that you answer with nonsense, ridicule, models and consensus.

If CO2 drives the climate as your preprogrammed models allege, why do temperatures REPEATEDLY plunge for literally tens of thousands of years after CO2 peaks?

 

[mamooth]

All you have are “models” preprogrammed for a derived result and a Cult that repeats “consensus”

That's one of the crazy conspiracy theories we've debunked over and over, but your brainwashing is too thorough, and we've been unable to deprogram you.

I ask simple, scientific questions

No, you push wildly dishonest loaded questions that start out with big ol' lies.

that you answer with nonsense, ridicule, models and consensus.

Then we give clear answers with good science and solid references. You ignore the answer, and go back to spewing the same cult nonsense.

If CO2 drives the climate as your preprogrammed models allege, why do temperatures REPEATEDLY plunge for literally tens of thousands of years after CO2 peaks?

Easy. The science doesn't say that.

That's the simple answer to anything you claim about the science. You're just making it all up.

 

[jc456]

That's one of the crazy conspiracy theories we've debunked over and over, but your brainwashing is too thorough, and we've been unable to deprogram you.


No, you push wildly dishonest loaded questions that start out with big ol' lies.


Then we give clear answers with good science and solid references. You ignore the answer, and go back to spewing the same cult nonsense.


Easy. The science doesn't say that.

That's the simple answer to anything you claim about the science. You're just making it all up.

Lost your self again

 

[jc456]

Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap

Calculate? Calculate? Haha haha hahaha

Never observed

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's one of the crazy conspiracy theories we've debunked over and over, but your brainwashing is too thorough, and we've been unable to deprogram you.


No, you push wildly dishonest loaded questions that start out with big ol' lies.


Then we give clear answers with good science and solid references. You ignore the answer, and go back to spewing the same cult nonsense.


Easy. The science doesn't say that.

That's the simple answer to anything you claim about the science. You're just making it all up.

So CO2 does NOT drive climate? That’s a great step!

 

[Crick]

How many tons of "fossil fuels" are used in the manufacture, transportation, erection, mainteneance, and eventual disposal of these money pit contraptions, nitwit?

A tiny, tiny fraction of what would be burned by a plant that uses it for fuel.