When is doubling NOT doubling?

[Crick]

Sure.

Do you understand the difference between ECS and TCR?

 

[BackAgain]

Do you understand the difference between ECS and TCR?

Equilibrium climate sensitivity and the climate registry?

I’m not claiming to be a climate scientist, which you already know since I’ve said it previously. But your latest question is just a cheap deflection.

The point of the thread has been set forth very well by CrusaderFrank . And my only point here has been to argue that “consensus” is nonsense. It has no role in the scientific method (which you would acknowledge if you cared to be honest).

Although this little diagram is lifted from wiki (often an unreliable source), it does provide a general scheme for describing the scientific method.

“Consensus” is notably absent.

 

[Crick]

Equilibrium climate sensitivity and the climate registry?

I’m not claiming to be a climate scientist, which you already know since I’ve said it previously. But your latest question is just a cheap deflection.

The point of the thread has been set forth very well by CrusaderFrank . And my only point here has been to argue that “consensus” is nonsense. It has no role in the scientific method (which you would acknowledge if you cared to be honest).

Although this little diagram is lifted from wiki (often an unreliable source), it does provide a general scheme for describing the scientific method.

View attachment 776690
“Consensus” is notably absent.

It was not a deflection, it is the thread topic.

No one ever said that consensus was part of the scientific method.

 

[BackAgain]

It was not a deflection, it is the thread topic.

No one ever said that consensus was part of the scientific method.

Then don’t argue with me about it. And stop babbling about consensus

Jeez. This shit isn’t hard. Follow along.

 

[jc456]

It is demonstrably NOT in the range of natural variation. Earth's climate is not unstable

Why do we have tornadoes hurricanes and floods?

 

[Crick]

Why do we have tornadoes hurricanes and floods?

Why does the wind blow? Why does it rain? Why does it not rain? Why not? They are not climate changes, they are events within a climate AKA weather.

 

[BackAgain]

Why do we have tornadoes hurricanes and floods?

If you say that it’s because of atmospheric “instability,” aboob dumfuk will cry. I’m not sure crick will join him.

 

[jc456]

Why does the wind blow? Why does it rain? Why does it not rain? Why not? They are not climate changes, they are events within a climate AKA weather.

Hey fk face, you said the climate was stable You fking prick.

Why doesn’t rain everywhere at the same time?

 

[Crick]

Hey fk face, you said the climate was stable You fking prick.

Why doesn’t rain everywhere at the same time?

Are you drinking?

Are you ever going to have a coherent thought about any of this?

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is the equilibrium (steady state) change in the surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from pre-industrial condition.
Transient Climate Response (TCR) is the surface temperature response for the hypothetical scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases at 1% yr–1 from pre-industrial to the time of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (year 70).

 

[jc456]

Are you drinking?

Are you ever going to have a coherent thought about any of this?

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is the equilibrium (steady state) change in the surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from pre-industrial condition.
Transient Climate Response (TCR) is the surface temperature response for the hypothetical scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases at 1% yr–1 from pre-industrial to the time of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (year 70).

Word salad?

Hahaha hahaha

 

[Crick]

Word salad?

Hahaha hahaha

What's the matter? Too much roughage for you? Just trying to stay on topic.

Hey fk(sic) face, you said the climate was stable You(sic) fking(sic) prick.

Why doesn’t [it] rain everywhere at the same time?

The problem here, as seems always to be the case, is that you don't understand the topic. "Stable climate" doesn't mean it's frozen. The planet is dynamic system with seasons . A stable climate is a system with year-on-year stability for its major parameters: temperature ranges, precipitation ranges, wind speeds, humidity, etc. It doesn't mean that all weather stops. You fucking idiot.

; - )

 

[jc456]

What's the matter? Too much roughage for you? Just trying to stay on topic.

Indeed. All we needed was some ranch dressing.

Publishing hypothetical’s is hysterical

 

[Crick]

Indeed. All we needed was some ranch dressing.

Publishing hypothetical’s is hysterical

Did you mean to say "Publishing hypotheticals is hysterical"?

What I have posted there, for the second time: the definitions of ECS and TCR, is a direct answer to the question posed in the OP.

Have you found a high school or junior high school (ie, middle school) in your neighborhood that has conducted a CO2 warming experiment? I bet they'd let you watch.

 

[jc456]

Did you mean to say "Publishing hypotheticals is hysterical"?

What I have posted there, for the second time: the definitions of ECS and TCR, is a direct answer to the question posed in the OP.

Have you found a high school or junior high school (ie, middle school) in your neighborhood that has conducted a CO2 warming experiment? I bet they'd let you watch.

Hypothetical I don’t follow. Try facts

 

[Crick]

Hypothetical I don’t follow. Try facts

I've given you lots and lots of facts. I don't know what hypotheticals you're talking about. ECS and TCR are calculated climate parameters. A hypothetical is a conjecture to which no test of validity has been applied. The ECS and TCR values put out by the IPCC are the result of an immense amount of study and work. You would know that if you had only skimmed the text I suggested you read. But, like several others here, you've CHOSEN to remain ignorant.

 

[jc456]

I've given you lots and lots of facts. I don't know what hypotheticals you're talking about. ECS and TCR are calculated climate parameters. A hypothetical is a conjecture to which no test of validity has been applied. The ECS and TCR values put out by the IPCC are the result of an immense amount of study and work. You would know that if you had only skimmed the text I suggested you read. But, like several others here, you've CHOSEN to remain ignorant.

Because they wrote hypothetical.

Again, the rest was word salad. Ranch please

 

[Crick]

Because they wrote hypothetical.

Again, the rest was word salad. Ranch please

Did you really not understand the explanations? This is a fairly complicated topic. If its over your head and if it seems that it will remain over your head... I'm not sure what the value of your participation here might be. If you'd like to learn stuff, please do hang around.

The biggest argument around here, with Billy Bob and his brethren is that the IPCC has vastly overestimated climate sensitivity. The classic definition of that term is the response of the climate to a hypothetical doubling of CO2. That definition has evolved a bit over the years. As you've probably heard, the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so a doubling from, say, 100 ppm to 200 ppm can have a different effect than doubling from 500 ppm to 1,000 ppm. So now they use the pre-industrial baseline and look at doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Then, of course, there is the time factor. Even if we magically double the CO2 in the atmosphere with the snap of our fingers, it can take a long time for all the various effects to sort themselves out. That bring on the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response. The one most often in debate (not that any of your buddies have accepted any of the IPCC's numbers) is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The IPCC believes it ranges between 2C and 5C whereas in AR5 they thought it ranged between 1.5C and 4.5C. In the past it was estimated primarily with the response of climate models. In AR6 it was estimated in a number of different ways and in their final result they actually opted to toss out some of the model numbers. Go flip through Section 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 (page 941 to 1011) in The Physical Science Basis. Just read the paragraph titles to give you some idea of all the different things they look at. The more informed you are, the better will be your arguments.

 

[jc456]

Did you really not understand the explanations? This is a fairly complicated topic. If its over your head and if it seems that it will remain over your head... I'm not sure what the value of your participation here might be. If you'd like to learn stuff, please do hang around.

The biggest argument around here, with Billy Bob and his brethren is that the IPCC has vastly overestimated climate sensitivity. The classic definition of that term is the response of the climate to a hypothetical doubling of CO2. That definition has evolved a bit over the years. As you've probably heard, the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so a doubling from, say, 100 ppm to 200 ppm can have a different effect than doubling from 500 ppm to 1,000 ppm. So now they use the pre-industrial baseline and look at doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Then, of course, there is the time factor. Even if we magically double the CO2 in the atmosphere with the snap of our fingers, it can take a long time for all the various effects to sort themselves out. That bring on the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response. The one most often in debate (not that any of your buddies have accepted any of the IPCC's numbers) is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The IPCC believes it ranges between 2C and 5C whereas in AR5 they thought it ranged between 1.5C and 4.5C. In the past it was estimated primarily with the response of climate models. In AR6 it was estimated in a number of different ways and in their final result they actually opted to toss out some of the model numbers. Go flip through Section 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 (page 941 to 1011) in The Physical Science Basis. Just read the paragraph titles to give you some idea of all the different things they look at. The more informed you are, the better will be your arguments.

Well again, the IPCC is not scientists, and what they look at are paid parrots mocking humanity!

They have no evidence of anything regarding climate change or warming. Zippola

 

[mamooth]

So you can show us repeatable controlled scientific experiments

Why do you demand such a thing? After all, it makes you look like you have no idea of how science works.

Is astrophysics a science?

You say, yes, it is?

Wait! When have they reproducibly formed a galaxy or made a black hole?

By Frank standards, astrophysics can't be science! That demonstrates why Frank standards are so very, very stupid.

Science requires reproducibility, but it doesn't have to be in a lab. It can be from observation. Both astrophysics and climate science achieve reproducibility that way. A theory predicts that a certain outcome will be observed, and when they see it over and over, the theory is confirmed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do you demand such a thing? After all, it makes you look like you have no idea of how science works.

Is astrophysics a science?

You say, yes, it is?

Wait! When have they reproducibly formed a galaxy or made a black hole?

By Frank standards, astrophysics can't be science! That demonstrates why Frank standards are so very, very stupid.

Science requires reproducibility, but it doesn't have to be in a lab. It can be from observation. Both astrophysics and climate science achieve reproducibility that way. A theory predicts that a certain outcome will be observed, and when they see it over and over, the theory is confirmed.

So, the central thesis of your Failed AGW Theory, that doubling CO2 causes a 3C increase in temperature, cannot be replicated in a lab because -- black holes?

Really?

Are you off your meds?

We're still rigorously testing Relativity 120 years later, there's none of these "consensus" lies that you cheats and fraud rely upon