"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[jc456]

I have all of this planet's mainstream scientists providing my source material. Yours comes from slightly less reliable sources. If someone is being a charlatan, a huckster, engaged in a scam and a con, I really think you need to look to whatever sources have told you what you seem to believe.

No you don’t. I proved your list as bullshit. Try again.

 

[jc456]

You need to be honest if only with yourself. You aren't a scientist and you obviously don't read scientific journals or books. If you've "not seen any of this done" it's because you haven't looked

List the journal that says what the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2 is

 

[Crick]

No you don’t. I proved your list as bullshit. Try again.

What list would that be?

 

[ReinyDays]

I haven't presented what you asked for. The forcing factors shown in that graphic for emitted gases were simply calculated by known formula.

Would you please post this "known formula"? ... and show how these values were "simply calculated" ...

 

[Crick]

Would you please post this "known formula"? ... and show how these values were "simply calculated" ...

The large caption on the AR6 forcing factor graphic I posted includes "The ERFs of well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) are from the analytical formulae". ERF is Effective Radiative Forcing. It appears the subject is discussed in Chapter 6 of the Technical Summary. I'd look there.

 

[ReinyDays]

The large caption on the AR6 forcing factor graphic I posted includes "The ERFs of well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) are from the analytical formulae". ERF is Effective Radiative Forcing. It appears the subject is discussed in Chapter 6 of the Technical Summary. I'd look there.

You've made your claim ... now back it up ... post the formula or you ain't got nothing ...

Chapter 6 says nothing of the sort ... maybe you have a better link? ...

 

[Crick]

You've made your claim ... now back it up ... post the formula or you ain't got nothing ...

Chapter 6 says nothing of the sort ... maybe you have a better link? ...

I made no claim that needs backing up. You demanded experimental results for a phenomenon that was demonstrated, in the lab, almost 100 years ago. The more significant point was that it has been empirically observed and measured in situ.

80 years since the first calculations showed that the Earth was warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions

Some people argue that concern for global warming is a modern phenomenon. And that scientists and environmental activists invented these worries to raise awareness of rising greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

phys.org

And certainly YOUR Chapter 6 says nothing of the sort. You didn't open up the AR6 Technical Summary did you? Or you did and realized you couldn't understand a word of it. Yes?

 

[ReinyDays]

I made no claim that needs backing up. You demanded experimental results for a phenomenon that was demonstrated, in the lab, almost 100 years ago. The more significant point was that it has been empirically observed and measured in situ.

80 years since the first calculations showed that the Earth was warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions

Some people argue that concern for global warming is a modern phenomenon. And that scientists and environmental activists invented these worries to raise awareness of rising greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

phys.org

And certainly YOUR Chapter 6 says nothing of the sort. You didn't open up the AR6 Technical Summary did you? Or you did and realized you couldn't understand a word of it. Yes?

You claimed these are calculated values ... I want to see the calculations ... the link you provided isn't from AR6, and doesn't include any formula or equations ...

I think you're lying again ... or just repeating someone else's lies ... AR6 is ten times longer than the Holy Bible ... I want book, chapter and verse ... To refresh your memory: "The forcing factors shown in that graphic for emitted gases were simply calculated by known formula" --- You, post #139 --- Oct 12th, 2022 ...

The Greenhouse Effect is expressed, mathematically, as the emissivity factor in SB ... what values should we use? ...

 

[Crick]

You claimed these are calculated values ... I want to see the calculations ... the link you provided isn't from AR6, and doesn't include any formula or equations ...

I think you're lying again ... or just repeating someone else's lies ... AR6 is ten times longer than the Holy Bible ... I want book, chapter and verse ... To refresh your memory: "The forcing factors shown in that graphic for emitted gases were simply calculated by known formula" --- You, post #139 --- Oct 12th, 2022 ...

The Greenhouse Effect is expressed, mathematically, as the emissivity factor in SB ... what values should we use? ...

I do not seem to have provided a link in this thread but yours goes to a technical writing guide. Here is a link to the Technical Summary of IPCC's Working Group I's report, "The Physical Science Basis". It is a large PDF you can either download or read online.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS.pdf. Commit to memory the beginning of that URL: ipcc.ch. It will take you far. Once you have the PDF open, you can easily get to Chapter 6.

My comment about the calculation of forcing factors was simply telling you what was clearly stated in the caption of the forcing factor graphic I posted which you seemed unable to read by yourself. I pointed it out to inform you that the data from the graphic did NOT come from a laboratory experiment so that you would understand that - with that graphic - I was NOT attempting to answer your demand to be shown 80 year old science.

 

[jc456]

What list would that be?

Your bogus list of climate scientists. It’s called credentials

 

[jc456]

I do not seem to have provided a link in this thread but yours goes to a technical writing guide. Here is a link to the Technical Summary of IPCC's Working Group I's report, "The Physical Science Basis". It is a large PDF you can either download or read online.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS.pdf. Commit to memory the beginning of that URL: ipcc.ch. It will take you far. Once you have the PDF open, you can easily get to Chapter 6.

My comment about the calculation of forcing factors was simply telling you what was clearly stated in the caption of the forcing factor graphic I posted which you seemed unable to read by yourself. I pointed it out to inform you that the data from the graphic did NOT come from a laboratory experiment so that you would understand that - with that graphic - I was NOT attempting to answer your demand to be shown 80 year old science.

It seems you’re cornered

 

[Crick]

Your bogus list of climate scientists. It’s called credentials

Do you mean the list of the authors who produced "The Physical Science Basis"? If so, their full CVs are available on the website. Who do you think they are? Homeless people they skimmed up off the street?

 

[jc456]

Do you mean the list of the authors who produced "The Physical Science Basis"? If so, their full CVs are available on the website. Who do you think they are? Homeless people they skimmed up off the street?

Indeed, I couldn’t find one with credentials as a climate scientist

 

[Crick]

Indeed, I couldn’t find one with credentials as a climate scientist

That, quite obviously, is your problem. I've yet to see your credentials as an actual human being.

 

[jc456]

That, quite obviously, is your problem. I've yet to see your credentials as an actual human being.

I rest my case! You don’t know any. You use the adjective for emphasis, but they are no more climate geniuses than anybody. A meteorology expert at least knows meteorology! Weather! Pressure, Wind!

 

[ding]

And incremental heating at point of use. No glaciers, sorry.

No change in incremental waste heat from using electricity generated from fossil fuels compared to using electricity generated from solar.

 

[ding]

I also acknowlegde the incremental cooling effect in my fridge. Still no glaciers.

Maybe you should study the climate history of the planet for the past 3 million years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No change in incremental waste heat from using electricity generated from fossil fuels compared to using electricity generated from solar.

Changing your silly claim?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you should study the climate history of the planet for the past 3 million years.

Maybe you should study the First Law?

 

[ding]

Changing your silly claim?

Nope. You are changing yours by arguing I have changed mine.