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

[Crick]

how do they know what they post is accurate?

Something about - We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics.

One has nothing to do with the other. A major chartered task of the IPCC is to assess published, peer-reviewed climate science. That is why they bring on the best scientists they can find.

 

[jc456]

One has nothing to do with the other. A major chartered task of the IPCC is to assess published, peer-reviewed climate science. That is why they bring on the best scientists they can find.

With absolutely no significant truth

 

[Crick]

With absolutely no significant truth

How is it that you haven't been booted for general worthlessness?

 

[ding]

^^^ dunning effect

 

[jc456]

How is it that you haven't been booted for general worthlessness?

Irony

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me what removing 71-75% of your imaginary heat from LWIR does to your global circulation modeling?

Nothing is removing 71-75% of LWIR.

Again, Todd cannot see the forest through the trees. IF LWIR or any LWIR from our atmosphere is removed from going into our oceans, every current GCM is wrong. Just maybe, this is why they all overestimate warming by a factor of no less than a multiplier of ten.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, Todd cannot see the forest through the trees. IF LWIR or any LWIR from our atmosphere is removed from going into our oceans, every current GCM is wrong. Just maybe, this is why they all overestimate warming by a factor of no less than a multiplier of ten.

What does "removed from going into our oceans" mean?

Where does it go instead?

 

[Crick]

Again, Todd cannot see the forest through the trees. IF LWIR or any LWIR from our atmosphere is removed from going into our oceans, every current GCM is wrong. Just maybe, this is why they all overestimate warming by a factor of no less than a multiplier of ten.

When you say "they all overestimate warming" do you mean forcing or actual temperature change?
In either case you will have to explain, because temperatures come from instruments. Simple 'models' can be used to fill in gaps but they are not going to increase temperature anomalies ten-fold. Forcing from atmospheric components is calculated from analytic formulae, not models. And the correlation between the calculated forcing and the resultant temperature change is certainly verifiable. Where, in your fevered imagination, do you come up with room for an order of magnitude error?

PS, you have been shown two studies that refute your claim that the oceans cannot be warmed by IR. I admit, the process was indirect and its not so surprising that someone might initially believe as do you. But the fact that the SST follows CO2 levels is indisputable and thus your proposal fails while the mechanism proposed by both those studies works perfectly. If you were actually into science, you'd follow the evidence, not play an exemplar of confirmation bias.

 

[jc456]

When you say "they all overestimate warming" do you mean forcing or actual temperature change?
In either case you will have to explain, because temperatures come from instruments. Simple 'models' can be used to fill in gaps but they are not going to increase temperature anomalies ten-fold. Forcing from atmospheric components is calculated from analytic formulae, not models. And the correlation between the calculated forcing and the resultant temperature change is certainly verifiable. Where, in your fevered imagination, do you come up with room for an order of magnitude error?

PS, you have been shown two studies that refute your claim that the oceans cannot be warmed by IR. I admit, the process was indirect and its not so surprising that someone might initially believe as do you. But the fact that the SST follows CO2 levels is indisputable and thus your proposal fails while the mechanism proposed by both those studies works perfectly. If you were actually into science, you'd follow the evidence, not play an exemplar of confirmation bias.

I’m still waiting on where it’s warming

 

[Crick]

I’m still waiting on where it’s warming

Is your name Billy Bob? No, it's TROLL.

 

[jc456]

Is your name Billy Bob? No, it's TROLL.

I didn't think so. the cultist nonsense continues! can't back up any of your nonsense. Thanks,

 

[xyz]

So if some scientist says smoking doesn't cause cancer or other diseases, does that mean that scientist is right? If a scientist is on oil companies and Saudis' payroll, is that ok?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So if some scientist says smoking doesn't cause cancer or other diseases, does that mean that scientist is right? If a scientist is on oil companies and Saudis' payroll, is that ok?

CO2 is the worst.
I hope you stopped releasing it.
The planet needs your help!

 

[xyz]

CO2 is the worst.
I hope you stopped releasing it.
The planet needs your help!

You huff car exhaust?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You huff car exhaust?

If I did, would it make me more like you?

 

[Crick]

In 1971, when I first went off to college, someone was demonstrating an ICE car that had been modified to burn hydrogen. We were all invited to "huff the exhaust" (though I don't think "huff" was a word at that time). I tried it. It would have been good for a chest cold.

 

[EMH]

In 1971, when I first went off to college, someone was demonstrating an ICE car that had been modified to burn hydrogen. We were all invited to "huff the exhaust" (though I don't think "huff" was a word at that time). I tried it. It would have been good for a chest cold.

Did you buy into the 1970s Global Cooling fraud/scare????


Hard to believe you didn't.

Virtually all of the co2 fraud "originals" come from the Global Cooling nonsense. There it was discovered what URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT was doing to SURFACE GROUND TEMP SERIES - making it go up as urban areas grew...

Time for a new fraud - Global "warming"

Urban Heat isn't even warming the atmosphere, and neither is Co2....

Atmosphere NOT WARMING

Co2 theory REJECTED

 

[Crick]

Did you buy into the 1970s Global Cooling fraud/scare????

No. Did you?

Hard to believe you didn't.

Did you assume it was a lie? Or, because it wasn't actually being reported by any scientist with the qualifications to say it, did you accept it as fact?

Virtually all of the co2 fraud "originals" come from the Global Cooling nonsense.

No they did not.

There it was discovered what URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT was doing to SURFACE GROUND TEMP SERIES - making it go up as urban areas grew...

"Where is "There"?

The Urban Heat Island Effect was discovered in the 1800s. NASA - Ecosystem, Vegetation Affect Intensity of Urban Heat Island Effect.

Time for a new fraud - Global "warming"
Urban Heat isn't even warming the atmosphere, and neither is Co2....
Atmosphere NOT WARMING
Co2 theory REJECTED

By you.

A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
-- Stephen Crane

 

[jc456]

Saw this video this morning. Thought I'd share it with the class.

 

[Crick]

Saw this video this morning. Thought I'd share it with the class.

I see no date. Is this recent? Do you believe both oceans are cooling off as he says?