IPCC Report say Panic Now

[jem]

why don't you read it again... and explain how it shows that man made co2 is causing a net warming. Using failed models and guestimations about an energy budget is not science... especially since those models are 10 years old... and they did not know clouds and water vapor had such a big impact.

here is a quote from your "science"...


"Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

"Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. "

and here is another quote... again... a model...


Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters."

Here's another chance to look like a fool. Read this and then say there is no science. Just one more time.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

 

[LEAPup]

Jem, you're trying to educate a guy who once went to the "beach" in Orlando:

There's no help for a lunatic like that besides a rubber room.

 

[futurecurrents]

why don't you read it again... and explain how it shows that man made co2 is causing a net warming. Using failed models and guestimations about an energy budget is not science... especially since those models are 10 years old... and they did not know clouds and water vapor had such a big impact.

here is a quote from your "science"...


"Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

"Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. "

and here is another quote... again... a model...


Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters."

I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

 

[jem]

I knew you would not answer the simple question. Show us the science showing man made co2 causes warming. models that fail are not science.

 

[Lucrum]

 

[futurecurrents]

I knew you would not answer the simple question. Show us the science showing man made co2 causes warming. models that fail are not science.

No, the burden of proof is on you to show that somehow two hundred years of climate science is wrong and that CO2 does NOT cause warming and that virtually the entire world's science community is wrong about a common sense thing that a ten year old can understand. But righties can't for some reason.

Besides I just showed you the science and you ignore the science so what's the point?

All you are is a delusional deranged ideologue.

 

[jem]

hey troll, if read your article you would realize you don't subtract 280 from 390 divide by years and get co2s impact or climate sensitivity. Which is pretty much what that model does.
Only true believing morons would still trot that bullshit out and try to call it science.

That is a 6th grade word problem. Now, just a few years later even the crazy agw nutters admit the sun and the tides have a strong influence on climate. Everyone agrees the climate is not as sensitive as those crooked models claimed.

We have a complex dynamic system. Science does not even know how clouds work right now and they are they are probably the biggest "forcing" in the system.

No, the burden of proof is on you to show that somehow two hundred years of climate science is wrong and that CO2 does NOT cause warming and that virtually the entire world's science community is wrong about a common sense thing that a ten year old can understand. But righties can't for some reason.

Besides I just showed you the science and you ignore the science so what's the point?

All you are is a delusional deranged ideologue.

 

[futurecurrents]

dipshit if read what your article you would realize you don't subtract 280 from 350 divide by years and get (co2s impact) climate sensitivity. Which is pretty much what that model does.

that is so fricken stupid its unreal. That is not science. That is a 6th grade world problem. That concept was is so dumb it has already been abandoned by climate scientists. Now everyone admits the sun and the tides have an influence on climate its not just co2.

We have a complex dynamic system. Science does not even know how clouds work right now and they are they are probably the biggest "forcing" in the system.

Yes douchebag, CO2 stopped being a greenhouse gas the entire world's science community is wrong but you are right.

You're such an asshole.

 

[gwb-trading]

 

[jem]

There are only a handful of scientists who would even claim to have any science showing man made co2 causes warming. The models failed land temps did not go up even though the models claimed they would if co2 was the factor.

come back when you have some science to show us. Your consensus is a fraudulent mis representation of facts and even then it says man impacts warming. It does not claim man made co2 causes warming.

Yes douchebag, CO2 stopped being a greenhouse gas the entire world's science community is wrong but you are right.

You're such an asshole.