You should be afraid and you should act

[Delldude]

None so rapid.

God says CC is BS.....................LOL

 

[Missourian]

It is, I'm afraid, too late.

Cool.

Please give up.

TIA.

 

[Dadoalex]

Cool.

Please give up.

TIA.

When idiots are dead
you first

 

[Crick]

Blip on earth time my man. Have there every been more radical fluctuations in temp extremes, say over the last 500-1000 years?

And no, they were not so radical. Over that time period you've had the LIA and the MWP. The LIA was a regional event that lasted 550 years and experienced a temperature drop of no more than 0.3C. The MWP was more global but was not globally uniform in timing and involved an even smaller temperature change over a period of roughly 300 years.

So, what's your point?

 

[Crick]

LOL..............I call BS............and you can't corroborate it................

Where do you get that idea?

 

[Crick]

Crack Crock , You do not have the expertise or any apparent skills that suggest you should offer advice to anybody on a serious matter .

To have CNN as the messenger of your gospel is hilarious -- renowned for misinformation and Fake News .
And the author is British and from University College London .
The world centre for Fake " Climate " news .

And just a short walk from Imperial College , London which gave the world all the Fake Lock Down data and general Covid evil garbage which you so painstakingly regurgitated .

So, you reject CNN, Britain, University College London and any colleges within walking distance of University College London.

Are you ACTUALLY that much of an ignorant ratfuck?

 

[Crick]

Computer models? How accurate have they been as to what should've already happened because of global warming/climate change?

Conclusion​

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[jc456]

Where do you get that idea?

View attachment 942809

give us the actual data, no made up graph to be scary!!!!

 

[jc456]

View attachment 942811

View attachment 942812

View attachment 942813

View attachment 942814

View attachment 942815

View attachment 942816

View attachment 942817

View attachment 942818

Conclusion​

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

I've repeatedly told you the IPCC isn't evidence. I've posted scientist saying it!!!!! It's garbage and no one who's name is on it did any science. And, oh better yet, there's fking no data!!!!!

 

[jc456]

Got it. Your political cult told you to repeat that conspiracy theory, and you always obey your political cult.

You're projecting, in order to run cover for what you're doing yourself. Only one side politicizes things, and it's yours.

Follow the money. All the corrupting bribe money flows to the denier side, so all the corruption and garbage science comes from the denier side.

The good scientists could all double their salaries by lying for deniers. They don't. They refuse denier bribes. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, giving them even more credibilty.

no science demanded it.

When will you fkwads learn what science is?

 

[Crick]

give us the actual data, no made up graph to be scary!!!!

God are you stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I've repeatedly told you the IPCC isn't evidence. I've posted scientist saying it!!!!! It's garbage and no one who's name is on it did any science. And, oh better yet, there's fking no data!!!!!

He doesn't know the difference between models and the real natural warming trend thing he is that deluded oh and he continues to ignore hard evidence of NO Climate Emergency developing which he ignores all the time.

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?​

LINK

This is the article no warmist cultist can handle as they go apoplexy in their inability to address the content of it which is why run they away quickly spewing a bunch of names calling and fallacious statements.

This is 101 stuff they try hard to ignore as it completely destroys their climate delusions.

Here is the first of 62 charts many fully sourced:

The feeble warm forcing effect of CO2 at the 430 ppm level when most of it was already set in a BILLION years ago when the first 100 ppm accumulated which is where most of the warm forcing developed in which is long known 101 stuff but warmist/alarmists can't let go of the CO2 super molecule delusion,

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

boldings mine

LINK

 

[jc456]

God are you stupid.

and yet you can't show the data. But I'm stupid. I'm not compliant to your nonsense or the globalists view.

 

[Missourian]

When idiots are dead
you first

Don't hold your breath.

Wait...nevermind... definately hold your breath.

 

[TNHarley]

You should be afraid and you should act​

Weird how all the people that are, are still buying ocean front houses, have 6 gas guzzlers following them around and fly on private jets. Weird huh?

 

[Crick]

He doesn't know the difference between models and the real natural warming trend

The model outputs and the measured temperatures are clearly labeled in the legends of all those graphs. Did you miss that? And, pray tell, what evidence do you have that the current warming trend is "natural"?

and he continues to ignore hard evidence of NO Climate Emergency developing

This is a strawman fallacy. I have not been screaming about a climate emergency and you are not addressing the data I HAVE been presenting. The world is getting warmer and that is having consequences which are getting worse as temperatures continue to climb.

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?​

LINK

This is the article no warmist cultist can handle as they go apoplexy in their inability to address the content of it which is why run they away quickly spewing a bunch of names calling and fallacious statements.

Willis Eschenbach is a massage therapist. He has no scientific credentials AT ALL

This is 101 stuff they try hard to ignore as it completely destroys their climate delusions.

Here is the first of 62 charts many fully sourced:

View attachment 942840

Forecasting, satellite observations and improvements in construction have all dramatically reduced weather related casualties. There have been virtually no such improvements in response to earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. This and the rest of your 62 graphs are all Willis Eschenbach bullshit. When someone chooses to present deceptive and only indirectly related data rather than address the basics like temperatures and GHG levels you should know they're spouting pseudoscientific BS. Everyone else with even a basic science education does.

The feeble warm forcing effect of CO2 at the 430 ppm level when most of it was already set in a BILLION years ago when the first 100 ppm accumulated which is where most of the warm forcing developed in which is long known 101 stuff

No, it is not. You keep repeating this line but it is complete nonsense. The Earth's current temperature has ZERO to do with CO2 levels from a billion years ago. How many ice ages have we been through since then? The Earth's CO2 levels were stable for 3 million years before the Industrial Revolution began boosting them. That was more than enough time to reach ECS equilibrium.

but warmist/alarmists can't let go of the CO2 super molecule delusion,

It's not alarmism, it's BASIC SCIENCE.

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

View attachment 942847

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

boldings mine

That 278 ppm is responsible for the 59F of warming which prevents the planet from more closely resembling our partner at this location, the Moon. How is it that you do not see the deceptive intent of this graphic? Per the analysis below, the current 50% increase in CO2 is responsible for 1 centigrade degree of the observed warming.

That you should buy into the crap from Eschenbach and reject the work of real scientists doing real science ought to embarrass you.

 

[Dadoalex]

Don't hold your breath.

Wait...nevermind... definately hold your breath.

Always when MAGATS are near.
The smell breeds incurable stupidity.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick writes:

The model outputs and the measured temperatures are clearly labeled in the legends of all those graphs. Did you miss that? And, pray tell, what evidence do you have that the current warming trend is "natural"?

The models assume something that doesn't exist that is why many knows it is wrong, your inability to see it continues because you irrationally think CO2 warm forcing power is the same now as it was at the 100 ppm level that was set in a BILLION years ago.

Now he LIES here,

This is a strawman fallacy. I have not been screaming about a climate emergency and you are not addressing the data I HAVE been presenting. The world is getting warmer and that is having consequences which are getting worse as temperatures continue to climb.

No one denies a warming trend which I have made clear many times on my own.

You have ignored hard evidence that there is NO climate emergency developing which are dominantly shown by baseline databases.

Then he writes this stupid dodge since Willis posted charts many times in the article based on the data from the following EDMDAT, NASA several times, BOM, JMA, NOAA several times, Nature, U.N., CMA, EPA, IMBIE, Rutgers Snow Labs, PSMSL, IUCN, and more that you never saw because of your education fallacy making you stupid.

Willis Eschenbach is a massage therapist. He has no scientific credentials AT ALL

You dodged because you can't dispute these charts at all:

You write this who fails to post any actual counterpoints to his charts.

This and the rest of your 62 graphs are all Willis Eschenbach bullshit. When someone chooses to present deceptive and only indirectly related data rather than address the basics like temperatures and GHG levels you should know they're spouting pseudoscientific BS. Everyone else with even a basic science education does.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... you are a pathetic child who can't stop making a complete fool of himself as blanket statements are totally worthless.

You have ZERO science degree you hypocritical child!

He is a POLYMATH who has published a couple papers you ignoramus!

You haven't refuted shit!

One more time showing just how clueless he really is:

No, it is not. You keep repeating this line but it is complete nonsense. The Earth's current temperature has ZERO to do with CO2 levels from a billion years ago. How many ice ages have we been through since then? The Earth's CO2 levels were stable for 3 million years before the Industrial Revolution began boosting them. That was more than enough time to reach ECS equilibrium.

LOL, it has been at least 180 ppm for the last BILLION years which means the initial 30 degree C warm forcing was generated a billion years ago after the first 100 ppm built up in the atmosphere and has been with us ever since.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Continuing:

I already explained this at POST 22 in another thread

LINK

Here is the chart again you couldn't understand:

Already showed you the doubling CO2 rate effect is minimal at the 400 plus ppm level,

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

bolding mine

Then this recent FULL ACCESS paper showed up:

Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases​

Abstract​

This article provides a brief review of research on the impact of anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on Earth's climate. A simplified analysis of resonant radiation absorption in gases is conducted. Building upon the material from the cited articles, theoretical and empirical relationships between radiation absorption and the mass of the absorbing material are presented. The concept of saturation mass is introduced. Special attention is given to the phenomenon of thermal radiation absorption saturation in carbon dioxide. By comparing the saturation mass of CO2 with the quantity of this gas in Earth's atmosphere, and analyzing the results of experiments and measurements, the need for continued and improved experimental work is suggested to ascertain whether additionally emitted carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas.

LINK

 

[Missourian]

Always when MAGATS are near.
The smell breeds incurable stupidity.

Maybe it's just you.

MSN