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

[Billo_Really]

Post empirical evidence

Like I said in another thread, most conservatives aren't stupid, but most stupid people are conservative. This thread proves me right!

 

[jc456]

So glad and so impressed that you never lower yourself to personal insults.

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average...

ossfoundation.us

 

[jc456]

Like I said in another thread, most conservatives aren't stupid, but most stupid people are conservative. This thread proves me right!

So can’t back up your stance

 

[Billy_Bob]

What is it being absorbed by?

No answer.

The satellites tell us IR hits the water and is immediately re-radiated to space? Link?

No answer.

Who doesn't account for what energy loss? Link?

No answer.

Thanks for this.....

But it isn't an answer. Run away now.

You are so predictable. The slope of the radiated energy in those graphs answers every question. It first shows that the energy is not being absorbed by the oceans. Second it shows that the atmosphere is allowing the radiation to pass to space. Third it shows that the modeling, which has an opposing slope indicates that they predict that it would be held by the atmosphere which it is not. it is radiated to space.

The answers are right in front of you. Why do you play stupid?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So glad and so impressed that you never lower yourself to personal insults.

When addressing a troll, who refuses to read the graphing and look at the evidence. It gets redundant to repeat the same answers over and over again.

 

[Billo_Really]

So can’t back up your stance

My stance is backed up by 95% of the scientists on the planet. Your stance is from a bunch of fossil fuel whores!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes CO2 does have a GHG effect but their models triple that effect through water vapor feedback which is incorrect.

This is the number one problem I see with the AGW crowd. None of them know that basic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. They do not know the model requires a 3/1 enhancement of the log warming by CO2. This is also known as the "climate sensitivity number". They do not realize all warming is not caused by CO2. When other global factors are removed from the observed warming, what is left is barely 0.024 deg C/ the expected 2.1 deg C of the log value expected. This way below the margin of error which is +/-0.07 deg C.

I always ask the people spouting AGW hysteria how they stopped natural variational forcings. With that level of climate control, we do not have any problems.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My stance is backed up by 95% of the scientists on the planet. Your stance is from a bunch of fossil fuel whores!

No. Your stance is backed up by 77 papers that only 73 agreed on... Legates et. al. destroyed this premise.

Funny that you should rely on a consensus of just 0.5% of scientists when all 11,944+ papers on CAGW are considered.

 

[Billo_Really]

No. Your stance is backed up by 77 papers that only 73 agreed on... Legates et. al. destroyed this premise.

View attachment 749480

Funny that you should rely on a consensus of just 0.5% of scientists.

You always like to fly in with your climate cape and double-speak verbology. The problem is, when you sum up everything you say, it still doesn't mean jack shit!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are so predictable. The slope of the radiated energy in those graphs answers every question. It first shows that the energy is not being absorbed by the oceans. Second it shows that the atmosphere is allowing the radiation to pass to space. Third it shows that the modeling, which has an opposing slope indicates that they predict that it would be held by the atmosphere which it is not. it is radiated to space.

The answers are right in front of you. Why do you play stupid?

It first shows that the energy is not being absorbed by the oceans.

Where does it go? Spell it out.

Second it shows that the atmosphere is allowing the radiation to pass to space.

It shows all the IR that hits the ocean bounces off into space? Are you sure?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You always like to fly in with your climate cape and double-speak verbology. The problem is, when you sum up everything you say, it still doesn't mean jack shit!

You like to run in circles with sharp objects. Please continue. It's entertaining to watch.

I just shredded your BS into thousands of pieces.

 

[Billo_Really]

You like to run in circles with sharp objects. Please continue. It's entertaining to watch.

I just shredded your BS into thousands of pieces.

That's really not saying much.

 

[jc456]

My stance is backed up by 95% of the scientists on the planet. Your stance is from a bunch of fossil fuel whores!

75 people? 3106 say differently. That percentage is 2.4%!!! Hahaha

 

[Billo_Really]

75 people? 3106 say differently. That percentage is 2.4%!!! Hahaha

Only dumbass cons think that.

 

[jc456]

My stance is backed up by 95% of the scientists on the planet. Your stance is from a bunch of fossil fuel whores!

Just curious, can you post the poll?

 

[jc456]

Only dumbass cons think that.

Post the poll

 

[Billo_Really]

Just curious, can you post the poll?

I can't post anything on my phone! I don't know how!

 

[Billo_Really]

Post the poll

I can't.

 

[jc456]

You like to run in circles with sharp objects. Please continue. It's entertaining to watch.

I just shredded your BS into thousands of pieces.

Where’s your poll

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where’s your poll

There is a recent poll that asks two very vague questions to scientists, done by an activist group. It is not scientific and does not ask the 100 plus questions that are required to see if consensus is actually there. Its a hope and poke poll. Worthless POS. I will not link it, as I do not want them to receive traffic for garbage.