Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The TRUTH about climate change

    It is time Albertans learned the TRUTH about climate change. I'm going to lay down some irrefutable facts about it. The media is awash with exaggerations, confusion, and misnomers. All you get is hyperbole sound bites. If you want to REALLY LEARN THE FACTS watch for my posts, ask questions, and join the discussion. Hard science doesn't support CO2 will cause drastic warming. So let's bypass the media bites, the raging hyperbole, and learn some real, hard science facts about "climate change".

    Lets start with this little known fact:
    "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    HARD PHYSICS SAYS IF CO2 WENT TO 800 PPM WE'D ONLY GET 1(ONE) DEGREE OF WARMING!!!!
    How do they get 4, or 5, or 6, degrees of warming???????

    Here's how....... they pretend all the other things that affect climate (which accounts for >90% of the heat budget) will stay perfectly stable and CO2 will "tip" the whole "unstable" schmozzle into an exaggerated amount of warming.

    If this doesn't make sense to you (the tail wagging the dog), you're not alone.

    There's a LOT more to come. Stay tuned. Join the discussion.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-01-2018, 08:44 PM. Reason: Clarity
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  • #2
    MrOilers, is that you?
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

    Comment


    • #3
      Uh, Captain Conspiracy I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight. It's ~3 degrees for doubled CO2 (because you can't actually remove CO2 in the atmosphere from the feedbacks that are explicitly excluded in the sentence you quoted).

      The other new study this week, from Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, tries a variation on the theme of analyzing the historical temperature record. Instead of comparing greenhouse gas changes to the recorded warming trend, they decided to focus on how variable year-to-year global temperatures have been. Instead of teasing out the signal, they studied the noise.
      The idea is that climate models that are more sensitive to (comparatively) gradual changes in CO2 should also be more sensitive to short-term fluctuations in the balance of incoming and outgoing energy. In the 16 climate models they examined, there is a reasonable correlation between sensitivity and short-term variability.

      With that correlation worked out, the researchers repeated their short-term variability calculation for the actual record of global temperatures going back to 1880. Match up the real-world variability to the model correlation, and you can estimate the matching climate sensitivity.


      This estimate lines up well with the consensus best estimate of 3 degrees Celsius for doubled CO2, but it spans a narrower range than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have settled on. While the IPCC has long given a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, this new study estimates 2.2 to 3.4 degrees Celsius (with an average of 2.8 degrees Celsius).
      https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...o-co%E2%82%82/

      But no, we should listen to the rantings of someone who's already displayed a deficit in reading comprehension & critical thinking?

      Yeah, no. Take your claptrap elsewhere.
      Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

      Comment


      • #4
        OP Twisting the facts and then claims that he has the real facts.
        Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

        Comment


        • #5
          ^^^^

          sounds an awful lot like the arguments that were used to counter the chlorofluorocarbon/hole the ozone layer discussions before - and after - the montreal protocol was adopted.

          pseudoscience that is continuing to be proven wrong based on the hard evidence continuing to be generated every day.
          "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

          Comment


          • #6
            This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

            6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
            Last edited by Spudly; 19-01-2018, 01:16 PM.
            I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by noodle View Post
              Uh, Captain Conspiracy I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight. It's ~3 degrees for doubled CO2 (because you can't actually remove CO2 in the atmosphere from the feedbacks that are explicitly excluded in the sentence you quoted).

              The other new study this week, from Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, tries a variation on the theme of analyzing the historical temperature record. Instead of comparing greenhouse gas changes to the recorded warming trend, they decided to focus on how variable year-to-year global temperatures have been. Instead of teasing out the signal, they studied the noise.
              The idea is that climate models that are more sensitive to (comparatively) gradual changes in CO2 should also be more sensitive to short-term fluctuations in the balance of incoming and outgoing energy. In the 16 climate models they examined, there is a reasonable correlation between sensitivity and short-term variability.

              With that correlation worked out, the researchers repeated their short-term variability calculation for the actual record of global temperatures going back to 1880. Match up the real-world variability to the model correlation, and you can estimate the matching climate sensitivity.


              This estimate lines up well with the consensus best estimate of 3 degrees Celsius for doubled CO2, but it spans a narrower range than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have settled on. While the IPCC has long given a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, this new study estimates 2.2 to 3.4 degrees Celsius (with an average of 2.8 degrees Celsius).
              https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...o-co%E2%82%82/

              But no, we should listen to the rantings of someone who's already displayed a deficit in reading comprehension & critical thinking?

              Yeah, no. Take your claptrap elsewhere.
              First of all the feedbacks are unknown variables. Scientists that pretend to know what the feedback value of clouds will be 50 years from now are astrologists.
              Secondly, for CO2 to "control" the temperature, ALL the other variables have to be controlled by CO2. Does Canada control the US economy? No.
              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

                6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
                Get comfortable. I'm just gettin' started.
                "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                Comment


                • #9
                  Nope, rant on with your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

                  I for one, am not biting.
                  Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                    First of all the feedbacks are unknown variables. Scientists that pretend to know what the feedback value of clouds will be 50 years from now are astrologists.
                    It's like you're unaware of the concept of estimates or projections.


                    Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                    Secondly, for CO2 to "control" the temperature, ALL the other variables have to be controlled by CO2.
                    Uh no, that's not how it works. Ye gods, you're amazingly intentionally ignorant & around here that's quite an accomplishment given the high bar of intentional ignorance already in place.


                    Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                    Does Canada control the US economy? No.
                    Your analogies are as crap as your grasp of science, climate & logic.
                    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                      This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

                      6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
                      6 posts?

                      between them moahunter and MrOilers are pushing 50,000 and neither has hit my ignore list (on the other hand, no_one else has either).

                      my guess is that without much engagement MrCombust is likely to combust a lot sooner than some of our other friends even without a "thread ignore" option.
                      "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        you have a LOT more time on your hands than I do
                        I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                          This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

                          6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
                          That would be great, way too many Trump threads..☺
                          Animals are my passion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Geez folk. So I start fascinating threads like: “Why some people are so sure they're right, even when they are not“, and get absolutely zero, zilch, nadda comments, and here I’m already poster #14.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You gotta troll harder!
                              I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X