STOP worrying Earth is getting hotter

[ding]

So why won't they discuss it and why are they not transparent?

No idea. You will have to ask them.

 

[alang1216]

The point is the land mass distribution and locations aren’t much different today than they were 50 million years ago.

I suspect the ocean currents were very different before and after Central America was created.

 

[alang1216]

No idea. You will have to ask them.

So what makes you say what you did?

 

[ding]

I suspect the ocean currents were very different before and after Central America was created.

Sure. It accelerated the cooling of the planet. Study the oxygen isotope curve.

 

[ding]

So what makes you say what you did?

Because it’s not clear from their reports what the GHG effect component is. It should be 1C per doubling of CO2.

 

[alang1216]

Because it’s not clear from their reports what the GHG effect component is. It should be 1C per doubling of CO2.

I don't know what the GHG effect should be but there seems to be plenty of discussion of it in the US and globally. If scientists are trying to hide anything they seem to be doing a terrible job.

 

[ding]

I don't know what the GHG effect should be but there seems to be plenty of discussion of it in the US and globally. If scientists are trying to hide anything they seem to be doing a terrible job.

The GHG effect is 1C, they add 3.5C of feedback on top of the 1C of GHG effect. If you don't know that then maybe I am right that they aren't very transparent about that.

 

[Donald H]

Because it’s not clear from their reports what the GHG effect component is. It should be 1C per doubling of CO2.

We've talked before about what should be and what is.

Ask a climate scientist about why it can't be because it should.
Don't expect humanity to take your word against over 98% of the experts.

You can begin by having a close look at what motivates the remaining 2% who are denialists.

If you just want a warm comfortable feeling, ask a forum member here on who you can rely.

Or put your faith in the god, that only HE can control the earth's thermostat.

 

[Robert W]

The Atlantic is only about 50 million years old, seems like that should have had an effect on marine currents.


Do you really believe there is a secret, global conspiracy within the scientific community to push global warming? Seems hard to believe, much easier to believe is that the professionals have looked at the GHG effect of CO2 and come to a different consensus than you have.

Not the scientific community, it is the political community. What will they gain by distracting us onto climate? They believe they will gain more and more power over humans. If Earth has aliens from other planets here, the way they can gain authority is to pick an issue and drill it until they persuade humans that they are the cause of their own deaths.

 

[Robert W]

We've talked before about what should be and what is.

Ask a climate scientist about why it can't be because it should.
Don't expect humanity to take your word against over 98% of the experts.

You can begin by having a close look at what motivates the remaining 2% who are denialists.

If you just want a warm comfortable feeling, ask a forum member here on who you can rely.

Or put your faith in the god, that only HE can control the earth's thermostat.

Why do Alarmists still use the 97% or more figure as were it actually true?

 

[ding]

We've talked before about what should be and what is.

Ask a climate scientist about why it can't be because it should.
Don't expect humanity to take your word against over 98% of the experts.

You can begin by having a close look at what motivates the remaining 2% who are denialists.

If you just want a warm comfortable feeling, ask a forum member here on who you can rely.

Or put your faith in the god, that only HE can control the earth's thermostat.

If a climate scientist were here he would tell you the theoretical surface temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 is 1C because that's what the simple physics calculates that to be. Then he would tell you that the IPCC's projection for temperature increase in the year 2100 - which is approximately the year CO2 would have doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm - is 4.5C with 3.5C of that 4.5C being from feedback from the 1C of GHG effect of CO2.

So if you want to argue about this because you think it can't possibly be that 1C of GHG effect will produce an additional 3.5C of warming, that is great. Because that means you think that is crazy too.

 

[alang1216]

The GHG effect is 1C, they add 3.5C of feedback on top of the 1C of GHG effect. If you don't know that then maybe I am right that they aren't very transparent about that.

If they are not being transparent how do you know that they added 3.5C of feedback on top of the 1C of GHG effect?

 

[ding]

If they are not being transparent how do you know that they added 3.5C of feedback on top of the 1C of GHG effect?

Because their total estimate is 4.5C and they show an "emergent" component of 1C in their tables but don't break out the components of the 4.5C separately.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I honestly don't fault those who pay attention to the IPCC and talking heads pushing the AGW/climate change doctrines. So do I.

What I cannot accept as 'logic, reason, honest science' though are those who refuse to even look at or even allow any point of view other than what is being pushed by governments and 'scientists' funded by governments and other interested parties who allow nobody with different points of view to participate in the discussion and policy making. And selective editing or even falsifying of data as well as those constantly moving goal posts do not inspire confidence in anybody capable of critical thinking.

Science is a field that cites conventional wisdom yes, but science requires an open mind and acceptance of ALL points of view and all pertinent criteria and challenges to the conventional wisdom so that it can get it more and more accurate. More and more correct. Just think how the 'science' was all over map and constantly changing during the pandemic as everybody was learning and trying to figure out what did and did not work to deal with it. It is no different with any other aspect of science. What was the 'conventional wisdom' about many many things--what causes fire to burn, the sound barrier, cause and treatment of many diseases, the structure of the universe etc. etc. etc. was all 'settled science' that changed with new information and capability to gather different information.

But 'official' climate science has become closed and refuses any differing opinions. Any who do not agree with the government, IPCC doctrines and Summary for Policy Makers are forced out of the participating scientific groups or made so unwelcome they quit. The leftwing MSM and other information sources shut them out, do not allow them a voice. We get nonsense like this from Heidi Cullen back in 2006:

"The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe. . ."

<b>Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics</b>

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which...

www.epw.senate.gov

Anybody who says there is any such thing as 'settled science' for which no new information matters is not a scientist but is a politician or opportunist or unthinking brainwashed numbnut or idiot.

IPCC I Protect Communist China

 

[alang1216]

Not the scientific community, it is the political community.

So the scientists of NOAA believe one thing but the politician/scientists that run NOAA say exactly the opposite? Same with NASA and the UN? Seems to me those scientist would not keep silent once they retire, got any such examples?

What will they gain by distracting us onto climate? They believe they will gain more and more power over humans.

How would that work exactly?

If Earth has aliens from other planets here, the way they can gain authority is to pick an issue and drill it until they persuade humans that they are the cause of their own deaths.

Ahhh, a distraction. Kind of like focusing our attention on the tiny number of trans kids?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because it’s not clear from their reports what the GHG effect component is. It should be 1C per doubling of CO2.

Why? Based on what?

If there was a single repeatable experiment showing that, the AGWCult would post it 24/7/365. Doubling CO2 only produces a rounding error of temperature, like .001F

 

[Robert W]

So the scientists of NOAA believe one thing but the politician/scientists that run NOAA say exactly the opposite? Same with NASA and the UN? Seems to me those scientist would not keep silent once they retire, got any such examples?


How would that work exactly?


Ahhh, a distraction. Kind of like focusing our attention on the tiny number of trans kids?

You actually relate trans kids to aliens from space?
How it works is you claim 97 percent of scientists believe ??? yet have no proof that is remotely true.

 

[ding]

Why? Based on what?

If there was a single repeatable experiment showing that, the AGWCult would post it 24/7/365. Doubling CO2 only produces a rounding error of temperature, like .001F

Based on the vibration of GHG molecules creating friction which heat the surrounding air. It's real. The feedbacks they pile on aren't real. Those are computer modeled projections. So there is science around the GHG effect but there is no science around the 3.5C of feedbacks they pile onto the GHG effect of CO2.

 

[Donald H]

If a climate scientist were here he would tell you the theoretical surface temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 is 1C because that's what the simple physics calculates that to be.

And he would have to be answering to an irrelevant question, because, all that is relevant in the final analysis is what he knows to be true!

Then he would tell you that the IPCC's projection for temperature increase in the year 2100 - which is approximately the year CO2 would have doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm - is 4.5C with 3.5C of that 4.5C being from feedback from the 1C of GHG effect of CO2.

No, but we'll have to ask him and it's only fair to expect he will be chosen from within the group of 98% and not from Shell oil.

So if you want to argue about this because you think it can't possibly be that 1C of GHG effect will produce an additional 3.5C of warming, that is great. Because that means you think that is crazy too.

I've told you that I don't want to argue the insignificant. I'm attached to Climate science that is 98% decided.

There's a stronger talking point for you by relying on your god's hand on the thermostat.

 

[ding]

And he would have to be answering to an irrelevant question, because, all that is relevant in the final analysis is what he knows to be true! No, but we'll have to ask him and it's only fair to expect he will be chosen from within the group of 98% and not from Shell oil. I've told you that I don't want to argue the insignificant. I'm attached to Climate science that is 98% decided. There's a stronger talking point for you by relying on your god's hand on the thermostat.

Simple physics calculates the GHG effect of a doubling of CO2 to be an increase of surface temperature of 1C. He's not going to lie about that. Because that's what physics predicts.