Europe In Deep Freeze As Kerry Warns Of Rampant Global Warming

submitted by [deleted] from modernity.news

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

CO2 isn't a strong enough GHG to cause any concern.

You're wrong about that.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 3°C per doubling. It's strong enough to have caused most of the observed warming.

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

False, CO2's heat trapping capacity isn't anywhere close to that. You don't even understand your own doomsday conjecture. ("Theory" is too strong a word since it's completely untestable.)

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

False, CO2's heat trapping capacity isn't anywhere close to that.

Oh, you think that all the different ways of estimating climate sensitivity are all wrong?

  • The impact of volcanoes, paleoclimate reconstructions, first principles physics, from climate models. I read one paper where it was estimated with a neural net.

And you've got the correct figure, but just haven't published yet, and it's much smaller that all the other estimates?

Brilliant. What's your new methodology, that's overturning all the science?

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Oh, you think that all the different ways of estimating climate sensitivity are all wrong?

It actually doesn't matter what anyone thinks because it's pure, untestable conjecture.

But it's clear you still don't understand how your doomsday prediction works because CO2 simply doesn't have the radiative efficiency you're claiming.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It actually doesn't matter what anyone thinks because it's pure, untestable conjecture.

Oh, you think the temperature can't be measured?

Bulb thermometers have been around for 400 years. Your mind is going to be blown when you learn about thermocouples.

We'll have to leave satellite MSUs for later. The new information might kill you.

But it's clear you still don't understand how your doomsday prediction works because CO2 simply doesn't have the radiative efficiency you're claiming.

That paper looking at CO2 sensitivity again: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200722112648.htm

Don't read it all at once. The information might disrupt your whole fixed notion of the effect of increasing CO2 on the temperature.

You haven't discussed your new methodology for calculating the ECS of CO2. Where do you get this claim from that it's "nowhere near" it's true value?

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Radiative efficiency can be determined precisely in a lab. You are using numbers that are completely made up to fit a panic narrative created by people who want to control the world.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Radiative efficiency can be determined precisely in a lab.

Not quite right. Radiative efficiency depends on the all other shit in the atmosphere, and for CO2 depends a lot on water vapor content, which varies a lot, including being related to temperature.

But also not quite relevant. Equilibrium climates sensitivity is related to radiative efficiency. But the increase in temperature due to an increase in radiative forcing encompasses a lot of feedback systems on the earth.

You are using numbers that are completely made up to fit a panic narrative created by people who want to control the world.

ECS is not made up. There's a long history of calculations by a large range of methods: Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’

But feel free to say some more wrong shit. It's getting funny.

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

For many years, estimates have put climate sensitivity somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C of warming for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels. This range has remained stubbornly wide, despite many individual studies claiming to narrow it.

They have no fucking clue.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Good one.

You've offered exactly no estimate of ECS. So it's fucking hilarious that you reckon that they have no clue.

See, unlike you they have used real world data to make the estimate.

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The lower bound of that estimate is no big deal. The actual lower bound should be lower but they de-personed Lindzen and Curry. Either way, it is just a wild guess.