Co2 levels and temperature

[ding]

I didn't see a response to this query.

Why do you not know how to use the reply feature?

 

[Crick]

The faulty assumption started 40 years ago. Today they just refuse to see that natural climate variation did not stop and CO2 is not wholly responsible for the warming we have seen. CO2's so minor that it is far less than the expected rise from CO2 alone. With UHI and its effect on the temperatures CO2 has such a small effect that it cannot be discerned from noise. Recent research has shown that CO2 can only be responsible for 0.024 deg C. Far below the MOE for most models.

We still really need to see a link supporting this claim Billy Bob. You know, something to VERIFY those facts and figures.

 

[ding]

We still really need to see a link supporting this claim Billy Bob. You know, something to VERIFY those facts and figures.

It's probably based upon the pure radiative forcing of CO2 with weather effects. Not the bullshit feedbacks bozo's add from models.

 

[Crick]

The faulty assumption started 40 years ago. Today they just refuse to see that natural climate variation did not stop and CO2 is not wholly responsible for the warming we have seen. CO2's so minor that it is far less than the expected rise from CO2 alone. With UHI and its effect on the temperatures CO2 has such a small effect that it cannot be discerned from noise. Recent research has shown that CO2 can only be responsible for 0.024 deg C. Far below the MOE for most models.

YO, BILLY BOY! You posted some numbers here and have yet to present ANYTHING like an actual source for them despite multiple requests. I have to conclude that there IS NO SOURCE. I have to conclude that, like your claim to be an atmospheric physicist sought after for your inciteful analysis of GCM performance, YOU MADE IT ALL UP.

If you'd like to see how to present links to reference sources and sources for data and graphics, see Google search results

 

[Sunsettommy]

YO, BILLY BOY! You posted some numbers here and have yet to present ANYTHING like an actual source for them despite multiple requests. I have to conclude that there IS NO SOURCE. I have to conclude that, like your claim to be an atmospheric physicist sought after for your inciteful analysis of GCM performance, YOU MADE IT ALL UP.

If you'd like to see how to present links to reference sources and sources for data and graphics, see Google search results

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

CO2 warm forcing is TINY compared to the total downwelling effect of everything else heck even when it is doubled from 280 to 560 ppm:

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise."

LINK

Your climate cultists were defeated years ago.

 

[Crick]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

CO2 warm forcing is TINY compared to the total downwelling effect of everything else heck even when it is doubled from 280 to 560 ppm:

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

View attachment 858555
The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise."

LINK

Your climate cultists were defeated years ago.

It was enough to raise global temperature 1.2C since 1850 and at an accelerating rate since 1981 of 0.18C/decade