CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

[Dagosa]

Be specific

OK. You’re an ignoramus.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK. You’re an ignoramus.

Pussy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You can’t read can you ?

Better than you.... Much better than You...

How about you man up and post some real science that you can articulate? Zone1 - Is Long-Wave Infra-Red Radiation Capable of Warming Earth's Oceans?

 

[bripat9643]

Dr Heller ?

You start off by making up shit. Really ? IF 100% said that you say ? Where is that stated ? Wikipedia ? How do you know ?
Real science says….we don’t know. Real science practiced back in 1912 without sufficient evidence would NEVER say that. they always give possible hypothesis then look for evidence. Without enough, it’s not even a theory.
Here is what really happened.

100% believed that because there was no other theory, moron. Wegener published his theory in 1912. What was the theory prior to that, eh moron?

“Continental drift describes one of the earliest ways geologists thought continents moved over time. Today, the theory of continental drift has been replaced by the science of plate tectonics.”

Prior to 1921 geologist didn't believe continents mover over time, you fucking moron. The didn't even discuss such a possibility. Congenital drift and plat tectonics are the same fucking thing

notice, they NEVER SAID in theory it didn’t move ! It was JUST THE CAUSE THEY WERE NOT SURE OF.

I said that earlier. You should have listened instead of making up shit.

You are too fucking stupid for words to describe.

 

[Dagosa]

100% believed that because there was no other theory, moron. Wegener published his theory in 1912. What was the theory prior to that, eh moron?



Prior to 1921 geologist didn't believe continents mover over time, you fucking moron. The didn't even discuss such a possibility. Congenital drift and plat tectonics are the same fucking thing



You are too fucking stupid for words to describe.

A lot of made up shit. You didn’t even read your own post dick head. Now you start making up shit don’t you. Wegener himself called it an hypothesis nimrod. How stupid can you be. There was not eneough proof dufus until later. Read your own fking post stupid. A drift does not as accurately represent the movements and why it was renamed . You are an idiot starting out with...pretending that 100% of the geologist believe something.

What a dufus. Scientist don’t BELIEVE anything by 100% without evidence. They hypothesizes until they get enough evidence to make it a theory
. You’re such a child. You don’t know shit

 

[Dagosa]

Better than you.... Much better than You...

How about you man up and post some real science that you can articulate? Zone1 - Is Long-Wave Infra-Red Radiation Capable of Warming Earth's Oceans?

You can cut and paste and pretend you know shit. Woo woo.

 

[Dagosa]

100% believed that because there was no other theory, moron. Wegener published his theory in 1912. What was the theory prior to that, eh moron?



Prior to 1921 geologist didn't believe continents mover over time, you fucking moron. The didn't even discuss such a possibility. Congenital drift and plat tectonics are the same fucking thing



You are too fucking stupid for words to describe.

“However, if 100% of geologists said in 1912 that the continents don't move,..”
This is your problem. You’re a fking science illiterate. I know you will just make up shit but 100% of real science said no such thing. You can’t assume because you are stupid, everyone else must be too.

Geesus, they never use 100% assuredness for anything on these lines.
Where did you get your science from, a cereal box ?

 

[Dagosa]

You are too fucking stupid for words to describe.

Well, that makes you dumber then shit.
Anyone else can can find words to describe how stupid “you” are.
(IGNORAMUS)

 

[bripat9643]

A lot of made up shit. You didn’t even read your own post dick head. Now you start making up shit don’t you. Wegener himself called it an hypothesis nimrod. How stupid can you be. There was not eneough proof dufus until later. Read your own fking post stupid. A drift does not as accurately represent the movements and why it was renamed . You are an idiot starting out with...pretending that 100% of the geologist believe something.

What a dufus. Scientist don’t BELIEVE anything by 100% without evidence. They hypothesizes until they get enough evidence to make it a theory
. You’re such a child. You don’t know shit

You are do fucking stupid it's incomprehensible.

 

[bripat9643]

“However, if 100% of geologists said in 1912 that the continents don't move,..”
This is your problem. You’re a fking science illiterate. I know you will just make up shit but 100% of real science said no such thing. You can’t assume because you are stupid, everyone else must be too.

Geesus, they never use 100% assuredness for anything on these lines.
Where did you get your science from, a cereal box ?

You are such a dumbass.

 

[Crick]

100% believed that because there was no other theory, moron. Wegener published his theory in 1912. What was the theory prior to that, eh moron?

You really ought to do at least a little research before doubling down on somethingi that's been challenged. This took about ten seconds.

From Continental drift - Wikipedia​

Early history​

See also: Early modern Netherlandish cartography and geography


Abraham Ortelius by Peter Paul Rubens, 1633
Abraham Ortelius (Ortelius 1596),[5] Theodor Christoph Lilienthal (1756),[6] Alexander von Humboldt (1801 and 1845),[6] Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (Snider-Pellegrini 1858), and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together.[7] W. J. Kious described Ortelius' thoughts in this way:[8]

Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus ... suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa ... by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]."

In 1889, Alfred Russel Wallace remarked, "It was formerly a very general belief, even amongst geologists, that the great features of the earth's surface, no less than the smaller ones, were subject to continual mutations, and that during the course of known geological time the continents and great oceans had, again and again, changed places with each other."[9] He quotes Charles Lyell as saying, "Continents, therefore, although permanent for whole geological epochs, shift their positions entirely in the course of ages."[10] and claims that the first to throw doubt on this was James Dwight Dana in 1849.



Antonio Snider-Pellegrini's Illustration of the closed and opened Atlantic Ocean (1858)[11]
In his Manual of Geology (1863), Dana wrote, "The continents and oceans had their general outline or form defined in earliest time. This has been proved with regard to North America from the position and distribution of the first beds of the Lower Silurian, – those of the Potsdam epoch. The facts indicate that the continent of North America had its surface near tide-level, part above and part below it (p.196); and this will probably be proved to be the condition in Primordial time of the other continents also. And, if the outlines of the continents were marked out, it follows that the outlines of the oceans were no less so".[12] Dana was enormously influential in America—his Manual of Mineralogy is still in print in revised form—and the theory became known as the Permanence theory.[13]

This appeared to be confirmed by the exploration of the deep sea beds conducted by the Challenger expedition, 1872–1876, which showed that contrary to expectation, land debris brought down by rivers to the ocean is deposited comparatively close to the shore on what is now known as the continental shelf. This suggested that the oceans were a permanent feature of the Earth's surface, rather than them having "changed places" with the continents.[9]

Eduard Suess had proposed a supercontinent Gondwana in 1885[14] and the Tethys Ocean in 1893,[15] assuming a land-bridge between the present continents submerged in the form of a geosyncline, and John Perry had written an 1895 paper proposing that the earth's interior was fluid, and disagreeing with Lord Kelvin on the age of the earth.[16]

 

[jc456]

You really ought to do at least a little research before doubling down on somethingi that's been challenged. This took about ten seconds.

From Continental drift - Wikipedia​

Early history​

See also: Early modern Netherlandish cartography and geography


Abraham Ortelius by Peter Paul Rubens, 1633
Abraham Ortelius (Ortelius 1596),[5] Theodor Christoph Lilienthal (1756),[6] Alexander von Humboldt (1801 and 1845),[6] Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (Snider-Pellegrini 1858), and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together.[7] W. J. Kious described Ortelius' thoughts in this way:[8]


In 1889, Alfred Russel Wallace remarked, "It was formerly a very general belief, even amongst geologists, that the great features of the earth's surface, no less than the smaller ones, were subject to continual mutations, and that during the course of known geological time the continents and great oceans had, again and again, changed places with each other."[9] He quotes Charles Lyell as saying, "Continents, therefore, although permanent for whole geological epochs, shift their positions entirely in the course of ages."[10] and claims that the first to throw doubt on this was James Dwight Dana in 1849.



Antonio Snider-Pellegrini's Illustration of the closed and opened Atlantic Ocean (1858)[11]
In his Manual of Geology (1863), Dana wrote, "The continents and oceans had their general outline or form defined in earliest time. This has been proved with regard to North America from the position and distribution of the first beds of the Lower Silurian, – those of the Potsdam epoch. The facts indicate that the continent of North America had its surface near tide-level, part above and part below it (p.196); and this will probably be proved to be the condition in Primordial time of the other continents also. And, if the outlines of the continents were marked out, it follows that the outlines of the oceans were no less so".[12] Dana was enormously influential in America—his Manual of Mineralogy is still in print in revised form—and the theory became known as the Permanence theory.[13]

This appeared to be confirmed by the exploration of the deep sea beds conducted by the Challenger expedition, 1872–1876, which showed that contrary to expectation, land debris brought down by rivers to the ocean is deposited comparatively close to the shore on what is now known as the continental shelf. This suggested that the oceans were a permanent feature of the Earth's surface, rather than them having "changed places" with the continents.[9]

Eduard Suess had proposed a supercontinent Gondwana in 1885[14] and the Tethys Ocean in 1893,[15] assuming a land-bridge between the present continents submerged in the form of a geosyncline, and John Perry had written an 1895 paper proposing that the earth's interior was fluid, and disagreeing with Lord Kelvin on the age of the earth.[16]

I thought he said 1912?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You can cut and paste and pretend you know shit. Woo woo.

Personal attack... and not one attempt to address the science presented. How original...

Tell me what removing 71-75% of your imaginary heat from LWIR does to your global circulation modeling? Does it remove the 10 times over estimation of heat collection in our atmosphere? Suddenly your god is being questioned with real science.

Come on butt boi, pony up some actual science.

 

[Blaster]

Stumpy here is our "resident climate scientist".

You are one of the resident trolls here.

 

[Redfish]

And you have a point ?

yep------------CO2 is not a pollutant

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Better than you.... Much better than You...

How about you man up and post some real science that you can articulate? Zone1 - Is Long-Wave Infra-Red Radiation Capable of Warming Earth's Oceans?

Ahhh, Come on, Man! They needed to add in the imaginary "warming trapped in the deep ocean" to make their numbers add up

Hide the decline!

 

[Crick]

Personal attack... and not one attempt to address the science presented. How original...

Tell me what removing 71-75% of your imaginary heat from LWIR does to your global circulation modeling? Does it remove the 10 times over estimation of heat collection in our atmosphere? Suddenly your god is being questioned with real science.

Come on butt boi, pony up some actual science.

How about this? What does accepting the forcings listed in AR6 do to yours? I assume he's not claiming to be an atmospheric physicist and so could not be expected to accurately answer your question. But you DO claim to be an atmospheric physicist and you SHOULD be able to give us a quantitative answer. So, pony up dudette.

And I love you getting on his case for a personal attack (that you "pretend you know shit") is answered with "butt boi". That's taking the high road.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How about this? What does accepting the forcings listed in AR6 do to yours? And I love you getting on his case for a personal attack (that you "pretend you know shit") is answered with "butt boi". That's taking the high road.

NO.. The forcings are an Anti-science hope and poke. AR6 is derived from computer modeling which fails empirical assessments. That model overestimates warming by a factor of ten. There is a massive calculation error within that model which must be corrected. This means your "forcings" are gravely wrong.

 

[Crick]

NO.. The forcings are an Anti-science hope and poke. AR6 is derived from computer modeling which fails empirical assessments. That model overestimates warming by a factor of ten. There is a massive calculation error within that model which must be corrected. This means your "forcings" are gravely wrong.

Link please.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is what a physics group has to say about the modeling used by the IPCC.

"The principal behind these grids is simple: since modelling the global climate is far too complex, researchers divide the Earth and the atmosphere into grid boxes, cubes with edges that are usually 100 kilometres long. In these boxes, the biological, chemical and physical processes that affect the climate can be modelled using supercomputers. But the fact that a length of 100 kilometres is much too crude to take important processes directly into account—like the small eddies, only a few kilometres in size, in the Gulf Stream and other ocean currents that lead to increased heat and moisture exchange between the sea and the atmosphere. Many climate models are unable to accurately depict the course of the Gulf Stream, which originates in the Gulf of Mexico and travels northwards along the Florida coast before veering eastwards towards Europe. In a lot of models the current moves much too far to the north due the small eddies not being included."

Sorry Crick but even the current unstructured modeling is failing badly..

Source: New climate model for the IPCC