Listen up for once, CO2 does NOT govern Climate

[otto105]

The emperor is naked.

That naked one left in 2021 like a roach in the light.

 

[San Souci]

This video is by this planet's finest of all climate experts.
He explains the major errors we have been led to the alarmist camp by.

Right. CO2 is what TREES and all plants breath. These Climate freaks should dig themselves a hole and fertilize a lawn.

 

[otto105]

Right. CO2 is what TREES and all plants breath. These Climate freaks should dig themselves a hole and fertilize a lawn.

Sure, let’s jack it up to 50,000 ppm.

See what happens

 

[ding]

That naked one left in 2021 like a roach in the light.

Couldn't care less.

 

[ding]

Sure, let’s jack it up to 50,000 ppm.

See what happens

I settle for 580 ppm.

 

[ding]

Do you have some question on the topic that is not answered by the IPCC's "Physical Science Basis" from AR6?

It may be found at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Yes, why don't they report the feedback component separately from the CO2 component?

 

[ReinyDays]

Well, let's look at some evidence.

Nitrogen is the limiting agent for plant protein growth, maybe not so much for wood or sugar storage ... but we don't know about plants that lived with 3,000 ppm CO2 ... damn evolution changes things ...

My primary objections are elementary.

1. Not possible to forecast climate out to 100 years, nor even 10 years.
2. Alarmism is not a solution anyway.
3. We would be better off with a lot more plant life.
4. The scare tactics involved with science angers me. A hell of a lot. It is putting the Feds in charge of my life, my kids lives and my neighbors lives as never done in the past. I do not want the Feds dictating my choices.

1) Climate over ten years is a statistical lie ... lying with 100-year averages is really easy ... all these climate averages come with incredibly large margins-of-error, starting with standard deviation ... we could prove Fantasyland with weather statistics ...

2) Alarmism is a solution ... these people will stop breeding ... for a smaller, more peaceful future !!! ... they're buying EVs which just smash to bits when we hit them ... and mainly it keeps the liberals busy while Democrats sell off the American Economy to the commies in China ... don't you read any of the denialists' rhetoric? ... [giggle] ...

3] HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... I take it you've never lived in a tropic rain forest ... plants are the enemy ... they're out to kill us ... they're just slow so we don't notice ... and that's why they're deadly ... I have 300 foot trees sprouting in my rain gutters every spring ... let that go a couple of years and I'm going to be having some serious issues ...

The Maui fires started outside of town ... suicide brigades of plants I tell ya ... we have those here in California ...

4) Planetary phenomena involve astronomical measures ... that's what's scary ... the number of seconds that the universe has existed is trivial compared to the joules of energy the Earth receives each and every one of those seconds the Earth has existed ... and a joule is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 electron-volts ... and we know how difficult math is for liberals ...

 

[Crick]

1) Climate over ten years is a statistical lie ... lying with 100-year averages is really easy ... all these climate averages come with incredibly large margins-of-error, starting with standard deviation ... we could prove Fantasyland with weather statistics ...

The accuracy of predicting climate is controlled almost entirely by parameters that are under human control. Given those scenarios, the accuracy of, say, 100 year projections will likely be superior to shorter, say, 10 year projections due to the impact of noise. As we've all seen, the IPCC's standard methodology has been to provide forecasts based on specified scenarios. If reality were to stick to the parameters of such a scenario, projections can be made quite accurately.

2) Alarmism is a solution ... these people will stop breeding ... for a smaller, more peaceful future !!!

Alarmism has become a meaningless debate term. If I think conditions are alarming, spreading that alarm is a responsible action. If you think conditions are not alarming, you're not going to think much of spreading alarm. It would be a lot more meaningful to debate the underlying science than to take the easy shortcut of attacking our respective responses to that science as flawed.

... they're buying EVs which just smash to bits when we hit them ...

EVs are not more likely to receive damage in a given accident than is an ICE-powered vehicle. They are simply less repairable in the current state of their industry. The primary problem is that they contain a single component that makes up most of the cost of the vehicle that in most cases cannot be repaired. That can change. Batteries can be made repairable. It would cost more and would increase weight. But, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not CO2 causes climate change, the long-forgotten topic of this thread.

and mainly it keeps the liberals busy while Democrats sell off the American Economy to the commies in China ... don't you read any of the denialists' rhetoric? ... [giggle] ...

You've implied a dichotomy twixt liberals and Democrats. Was that your intent?

3] HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... I take it you've never lived in a tropic rain forest ... plants are the enemy ... they're out to kill us ... they're just slow so we don't notice ... and that's why they're deadly ... I have 300 foot trees sprouting in my rain gutters every spring ... let that go a couple of years and I'm going to be having some serious issues ...

Without plants there'd be no life on this planet.

The Maui fires started outside of town ... suicide brigades of plants I tell ya ... we have those here in California ...

Have you recently watched "The Happening"?

4) Planetary phenomena involve astronomical measures ... that's what's scary ... the number of seconds that the universe has existed is trivial compared to the joules of energy the Earth receives each and every one of those seconds the Earth has existed ... and a joule is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 electron-volts ... and we know how difficult math is for liberals ...

Why would you think there is any meaning or significance to comparing seconds and joules? I guess you wanted to demonstrate how weak is your personal grasp of basic logic and reason.

 

[mamooth]

You stupid Moon Bat. The realists

I understand why you're angry.

You're a small-time fascist fraud who sucks the keisters of bigger fascist frauds.

Your frauding used to work, just a little bit. Not any more. Your perfect 50-year failure record is getting noticed. It's become impossible for anyone to deny your status as a cult fraud.

And so you iz sad.

 

[mamooth]

Not one word in that is true and you did not correctly support anything you claim.
We are sick of your alarmism.

We all understand. You took a science class once! That means you know better than all of the world's best scientists!

Out-of-control narcissism is more or less required for being a denier. They literally can't even imagine that they might not be the smartest person around, and that it might benefit them to try learning from the actual smart people.

Well, let's look at some evidence.

Congratulations! You've shown photosynthesis exists. And that means ... what?

1. Not possible to forecast climate out to 100 years, nor even 10 years.

Demonstrably wrong, since the models have been excellent. If anyone told you otherwise, they lied to your face, and you should ask them why they lied like that.

2. Alarmism is not a solution anyway.

True, because "alarmism" is a fantasy your masters made up. They then told you to preach the fantasy as part of the cult gospel, and you obeyed.

3. We would be better off with a lot more plant life.

More CO2 won't do that. The planet stopped greening from CO2 fertilization in the 1990s. That's when CO2 fertilization reached its limits.

I do understand you had no hope of knowing that, because your cult doesn't want you to know such facts. They need to keep you ignorant to keep you in the cult.

4. The scare tactics involved with science angers me. A hell of a lot. It is putting the Feds in charge of my life, my kids lives and my neighbors lives as never done in the past. I do not want the Feds dictating my choices.

As that sentence demonstrated, it's your side using the scare tactics. Your political masters deliberately keep you afraid and hysterical, because that keeps you obedient. They like you obedient. Very, very obedient, obedient at a level that makes sheep look like proud independent thinkers.

 

[ReinyDays]

Demonstrably wrong, since the models have been excellent.

Which model would that be and where can I download it? ... I'd like to punch in data from 100 years ago and see if this model can reliably return today's weather ...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

LIsten up for once, the OP does not understand the science.

 

[ReinyDays]

LIsten up for once, the OP does not understand the science.

He claims to be a pilot ... so he certainly has more formal training in meteorology than you ... knowledge of the pseudo-adiabatic process is a matter of life-and-death up there ... and still you're clueless ...

Hypercanes and Hockey Sticks require magical forces ... so be careful slinging your ad hominum attacks ... that always backfires ...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Telling the truth about the OP is never an ad hom, unlike what you just did.

 

[Mac-7]

Its not a crisis..

Agreed

The climate has never been static and never will be

The dire predictions of doomsday are just a tool for a power grab by eco libs

 

[mamooth]

Which model would that be and where can I download it? ... I'd like to punch in data from 100 years ago and see if this model can reliably return today's weather ...

No problem.

The models from Hanson et al (1988) were within 10%

And that was 1988. It's only gotten better.

RealClimate: Climate model projections compared to observations

RealClimate: Since we have been periodically posting updates (e.g. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 etc.) of model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface...

www.realclimate.org

 

[mamooth]

He claims to be a pilot ... so he certainly has more formal training in meteorology than you

Seriously? You're claiming some clueless political hack knows more about climate science than the experts because because he's a pilot?

You've said dumb things before, but that one outranks them all.

First, Pilots don't have any formal training in meteorology. They learn the basic of weather systems, but that's all.

And second, meteorology is not climate science.

Lay off the cult koolaid for a while. It's pickled your brain. Sober up before posting again.

 

[ReinyDays]

No problem.

The models from Hanson et al (1988) were within 10%

And that was 1988. It's only gotten better.

RealClimate: Climate model projections compared to observations

RealClimate: Since we have been periodically posting updates (e.g. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 etc.) of model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface...

www.realclimate.org

I'm familiar with RealClimate's 17 cherry-picked models and the approximate results ...

Did you see where your link claims the satellite data clearly shows no temperature increase ... I'm shocked ... but thanx, I've always wanted a reason to apologize to EMH ...

He's right ... satellite and balloon data shows NO TEMPERATURE INCREASES ...

=====

Hey weasel ... got a link to download the model or are you just vomiting forth what you don't understand ...

 

[otto105]

Agreed

The climate has never been static and never will be

The dire predictions of doomsday are just a tool for a power grab by eco libs

Well, if you’re stupid, be fucking stupid.

 

[mamooth]

I'm familiar with RealClimate's 17 cherry-picked models and the approximate results ...

And there's the pseudoscience crankery. "I DON'T LIKE THE DATA, SO IT'S ALL FRAUDULENT!".

I gave you what you asked for. It's not my fault the data says you're wrong.

Did you see where your link claims the satellite data clearly shows no temperature increase ...

The pseudoscience crankery continues. Here, the pseudoscience devotee deliberately throws away the good data and embraces the bad data, purely because the good data contradicts him.

If you want to know the temperature at the surface, what's the better way?

A. Use thermometers placed at the surface.

B. Use microwave emissions from oxygen atoms from throughout the whole troposphere, which are then run through a model that has many fudge factors in it.

You've chosen "B". 'Nuff said.

I'm shocked ... but thanx, I've always wanted a reason to apologize to EMH ...

He's right ... satellite and balloon data shows NO TEMPERATURE INCREASES ...

EMH just lies. Balloon data shows the tropospheric hotspot.

Sure, I could give you the link, but why bother? You'd just do what EMH does, and claim the data was fraudulent. Your pseudoscience cult demands it of you.

Hey weasel ... got a link to download the model or are you just vomiting forth what you don't understand ...

Due to your chronic dishonesty and intellectual cowardice, you've reached "Fuck off, troll" Status. You can turn those tears up to maximum, but the world still puts you in the same category as flat earthers and antivaxxers.