better yet, simply base an objective understanding strictly on the direct experimental scientific evidence. But how as an AGW refusenik would one do that using only the results promoted by a very few outlying cynical non-reviewed scientists, against the overwhelming empirical scientific evidence compelling almost 100% of their peers to AGW consensus.
UK Met Office - 2014 NOT the hottest year ever
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
once again we see a troll. we have no science showing what adding man made co2 does. because the environment is complex.
we have observation showing co2 picks off certain wavelengths probably causing warming.
we also have observation which shows co2 blocks some of the suns energy.
we also know adding more becomes lagarithmically less effective at warming.
so we have no idea what the net is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ver-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/
According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level.
This inconvenient fact is well understood in the climate science community. It can be accurately modeled using the Modtran program maintained and supported at the University of Chicago.
The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).
The diminishing percentage effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas as acknowledged by the IPCC and its concomitant diminishing temperature effect are as follows:
increment cumulative
0-100 ppmv: according to David Archibald / Modtran data ~2.22°C ~2.22°C
100-200 ppmv: plants die below this level of CO2 +~0.29°C ~2.51°C
200-300 ppmv: noted as the preindustrial CO2 level +~0.14°C ~2.65°C
300-400 ppmv: current level IPCC attributes all as Man-made +~0.06°C ~2.71°C
400-600 ppmv: business as usual till 2100 +~0.08°C ~2.79°C
we have observation showing co2 picks off certain wavelengths probably causing warming.
we also have observation which shows co2 blocks some of the suns energy.
we also know adding more becomes lagarithmically less effective at warming.
so we have no idea what the net is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ver-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/
According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level.
This inconvenient fact is well understood in the climate science community. It can be accurately modeled using the Modtran program maintained and supported at the University of Chicago.
The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).
The diminishing percentage effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas as acknowledged by the IPCC and its concomitant diminishing temperature effect are as follows:
increment cumulative
0-100 ppmv: according to David Archibald / Modtran data ~2.22°C ~2.22°C
100-200 ppmv: plants die below this level of CO2 +~0.29°C ~2.51°C
200-300 ppmv: noted as the preindustrial CO2 level +~0.14°C ~2.65°C
300-400 ppmv: current level IPCC attributes all as Man-made +~0.06°C ~2.71°C
400-600 ppmv: business as usual till 2100 +~0.08°C ~2.79°C
Pretty much the same as...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
Busted AGAIN.
Science and reputable scientists start out doubting AGW. Disproving AGW would be key to finding out whether there is anything in it. Empirical scientific evidence for and against would either confirm or invalidate the AGW claim. It has rigorously confirmed it. Still does. No science has yet disproved it. It's why most reputable scientists, almost 100%, overwhelmingly agree AGW is real. The scientific method.
The rest is politics.
The rest is politics.
If scientists have "corrected" temperature data showing that the earth is warming then they should release their data for consumption by the scientific community Instead we have Mann and his cohorts refusing to release their data and all we have is emails about "how to hide the decline".
Are you saying that Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is merely an outlying non-reviewed scientist? Are you claiming that the Climate Department at MIT which as a whole has investigated and rejected AGW is merely a group outlying cynical non-reviewed scientists?
No matter how many times alarmists want to push the fabricated 97% consensus number, the actual facts demonstrate there is very limited empirical scientific evidence supporting AGW, and the evidence against AGW grows every year.
Last edited:
The percentage of scientists supporting AGW in surveys performed in 2013 and 2014 is a mere 53%. 2015 will be the year where the support for AGW drops to below 50% by scientists. It is clear to most scientists that there is growing scientific data each year that AGW does not exist - no matter how much particular politicians desire to push it.
stu with troll anti science comedy. just a few pages ago he acted like he had some science... not he is misrepresenting science and presenting some sort distortion of the null hypothesis.
but... not a shred... not even a link to science showing adding man made co2 causes warming.
I will tell you why... the science we have shows co2 trails change in ocean temps.
the science we have show the sun and the tides are a large part of warming.
the science we have shows us the earth has been a lot warmer with a lot more co2.
but... not a shred... not even a link to science showing adding man made co2 causes warming.
I will tell you why... the science we have shows co2 trails change in ocean temps.
the science we have show the sun and the tides are a large part of warming.
the science we have shows us the earth has been a lot warmer with a lot more co2.
What!? So confusing! I thought everything the scientist on the GW side state was accurate, correct and factual.
What I said was, your comments are if anything, merely a demonstration of the scientific method working. The scientific case for AGW was made a long time ago and as yet, no other science, whether from Dr. Judith Curry or MIT or whomsoever, has been able to overthrow the science behind it. That is why such a vast majority of scientists support the science that shows AGW to be real and are not convinced scientifically to support claims to the contrary.
I only need put the part of your unfounded assertions that contains the words "percentage of scientists supporting AGW in surveys performed in 2013 and 2014..." into Google to see what you say is just plain wrong and quite frankly, by most all other accounts, bullshit.