Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The models relied upon by the IPCC in their published reports use urban temperature data which incorrectly attributes the urban heat effect from concrete and waste heat from electricity to atmospheric CO2.
Science is best served through challenges. It seems you would like to squelch all challenges. The feedback from water vapor is complex and not well understood. There is no record of water vapor, cloud formation and precipitation in the geologic record. Anyone who claims that they understand it is lying. Especially those who say it results in 2 to 3 times more heat than the GHG effect of CO2 alone. Why? Because the earth cooled for 50 million years with significantly more atmospheric CO2 than today. If the feedback from water vapor was as great as the IPCC claims, the planet would have never cooled. Which is exactly why you can't explain why the planet cooled for 50 million years as evidenced by the oxygen isotope curve.No one cares what you think about complex science you clearly don't understand.
Actually you haven't. Link to it.I've explained it to you several times now.
The average radiative forcing from waste heat from electricity usage in the 123 most populated cities is equal to 11.99 W/m^2.LOL. "Waste heat from electronics"? You're a treasure. Hilarious.
You got that from this didn't you?
Seriously that's just sad.
Waste heat amounts to only about 0.028W/m2 whereas greenhouse warming is 2.9W/m2 (HERE)
Can I ask you: do NUMBERS mean anything to you? Just curious. I thought engineers were all about numbers.
Actually you haven't. Link to it.
Science is best served through challenges. It seems you would like to squelch all challenges. The feedback from water vapor is complex and not well understood. There is no record of water vapor, cloud formation and precipitation in the geologic record. Anyone who claims that they understand it is lying. Especially those who say it results in 2 to 3 times more heat than the GHG effect of CO2 alone. Why? Because the earth cooled for 50 million years with significantly more atmospheric CO2 than today. If the feedback from water vapor was as great as the IPCC claims, the planet would have never cooled. Which is exactly why you can't explain why the planet cooled for 50 million years as evidenced by the oxygen isotope curve.
View attachment 653485
Thumbnail it for me. Because I'll just keep stating my case unopposed until you do.Remember all those discussions of the GULF STREAM, the AMOC and thermohaline circulation? There must be 20 or 30 posts now where I've belabored that point.
No one said it wasn't. In fact, the planet has been cooling for 50 million years. Do you know why?Cannot stress this enough, but it's pretty well known now that the earth is much older than 5million years.
(You aren't a Young Earth Creationist, perchance, are you?)
yes indeed. and it's the currents, not the CO2.Of course ocean currents are an integral part of driving climate.
no it's not, you keep yelling CO2. That's one thing. And that just made you a hypocrite on your post. hmmmmmmmWhy do you always look for simplification? Why does one thing always have to be "in control"? The climate is a complex system that is affected by lots of different factors.
I say no more. Name an economist that says that.Economists call tax breaks "indirect subsidies" and it amounts to pretty much the same thing as cash back.
clouds have never been used in any modeling ever.Science is best served through challenges. It seems you would like to squelch all challenges. The feedback from water vapor is complex and not well understood. There is no record of water vapor, cloud formation and precipitation in the geologic record. Anyone who claims that they understand it is lying. Especially those who say it results in 2 to 3 times more heat than the GHG effect of CO2 alone. Why? Because the earth cooled for 50 million years with significantly more atmospheric CO2 than today. If the feedback from water vapor was as great as the IPCC claims, the planet would have never cooled. Which is exactly why you can't explain why the planet cooled for 50 million years as evidenced by the oxygen isotope curve.
View attachment 653485
Thumbnail it for me. Because I'll just keep stating my case unopposed until you do.
Thermohaline circulation plays an important role in supplying heat to the polar regions. It influences the rate of sea ice formation near the poles, which in turn affects other aspects of the climate system (such as the albedo, and thus solar heating, at high latitudes). Thermohaline circulation prevents global cooling.
The ocean is less important to the planet's climate than the landmasses are because it's the landmasses which determine the ocean's circulations and are responsible for isolating the polar regions from warm marine currents. If the northern and southern polar regions were not isolated by landmasses from warm marine currents the planet would have no glaciation at its poles and would result in a much warmer planet. All you have to do is look at the oxygen isotope curve to see the effect that glaciation has on the planet's temperature.
View attachment 653492
clouds have never been used in any modeling ever.
I don't know about that but there's no record of them from past climates. So whatever modeling they do is suspect. They have tuned their models such that the only thing that can change temperature is CO2.clouds have never been used in any modeling ever.
When the pacific ocean current flows north, the Northern Hemisphere suffers with cooler temperatures every time.
Even when the Atlantic flows north the same thing.
Nothing to do with CO2. Fool
That you can't summarize it speaks volumes. Here's how it's done...Done already. You ignored it every single time. I'm not going over it again for you because you will simply ignore it again.
yes indeed. and it's the currents, not the CO2.
That you can't summarize it speaks volumes.
I think your big problem in communicating isn't communicating. It's how your brain works instead. You criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe but the problem is you never examine what you believe which is why you can't state what you believe in simple terms.Done already. You ignored it every single time. I'm not going over it again for you because you will simply ignore it again.
