There's no doubt that CO2 is not heating up the planet. It's a settled question. It's been precisely measured.
People like fuji really are clueless and mindlessly repeating bullshit.
It's an absolute fact. Not debated
ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
People like fuji really are clueless and mindlessly repeating bullshit.
It's an absolute fact. Not debated
Throughout history preachers and others have been predicting doom, and followers have been repeating their facts. And it never happened.
How can you be so sure they have it right this time?
18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/
Interesting that someone may have gotten it right some earth days ago, but who is going to get worked up about this guys predictions. He can also forget about funding for his research.
Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the “environmental grievance hustlers.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html
Measured. Fact. It's no longer a prediction, it's not a theory. It's an empirical observation.
They were pretty cockamamie 'predictions' back in 1970, and only selected for your article because they were wacko eyeball grabbers, from tabloids and popular magazines, quoting hearsay from uncited sources. When you find a list of 18 peer-reviewed research papers that factually establish time-lines and project them fifty years forward, but have since been disproven by actual events do let us know. That won't be as easy, given that scientists and researchers aren't as fond of wild predictions as supermarket tabloids. Or the consumers of them.
Not to mention that in the almost fifty years since the alarms were sounded more than a few efforts have been made to head off the worst possibilities. And even back then, we were already coping with climate change in ways we hadn't had to as kids. Before we destroyed the Ozone Layer, a real tan was a status symbol, and no one needed to measure SPF — whatever that might be. But by 1974 they sure did.
Don't confuse the demonstrated over-excitement of alarmists with proof there's nothing wrong.
Expect would get a similar response filled with facts, if challenged, from anyone who has done the proper research into any number of serious issues.
List of conspiracy theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
I'm also concerned about rising CO2 levels and other climate issues, but have found that the real problems that bite you in the ass are ones that were not predicted.
I admit no such thing.
Indeed, I can come up with explanations other than the "conspiracy theory" nonsense to explain how someone who's passionately committed to AGW could look at the data and somehow conclude that the models "did a good job."
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...a-Scam!-quot&p=5874866&viewfull=1#post5874866
Clearly, that conclusion is not a realistic assessment of the data. But I don't need conspiracy theories to explain how someone looking at the data could be so obstinate.
Once again, Fuji cites a paper he doesn't understand.
The authors of that paper explicitly stated that the results in that study are only for the radiative forcings that can be directly attributed to CO2 -- they don't include the forcings from water vapour feedback, which is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the warming that was predicted in the computer models.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Furthermore, the newly released, peer-reviewed paper on AGW makes it quite clear that the assumptions about water vapour feedback were wrong and the computer model predictions were "substantially larger" than the observed results.
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html
The models got it completely wrong. There is no evidence of man-made warming.
Which may devastate the opponent you're debating with but doesn't change the fact that waters are rising and you daren't go out in daylight without SPF50 to protect you from God's Beautiful Sun. If you've looked at satellite photos and still think humans haven't deforested and desertified — changed climates — there's still some Florida wetland we once drained for farms that isn't yet permanently underwater. Great prices! Act Now!!
As with everything in life: It isn't so much about what you did. That's done. It's about what you're going to do.
That's the problem with the term, "climate change" -- like bad poetry, it seems to mean different things to different people.
The debate is really about anthropogenic global warming and the premise that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of whatever warming occurred after 1950 (mostly in the period from the late 1970s to the late 1990s). There is no evidence to support that premise.
On the broader discussion about whether human activity -- building large cities, etc. -- has affected the climate to some extent, I suspect most people would agree that is likely the case.
The indisputable point is this: it warmed up the earth by the exact amount predicted.
I note that with your link to the second nature article you have abandoned any disagreement with AGW and retreated to quibbling over precisely how fast it's happening. Not whether it's happening.
There's a big step back from the crazy positions you held a few years ago. You now seem to accept AGW (grudgingly) and want to quibble about it's parameters.
Let's just stop to reflect on you defeat over whether it's a real thing. Then we can proceed to discuss its parameters.
A good starting point would be to try to de-politicize the issue by scrapping the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change. The goal should be to take the political and economic agendas out of the discussion and focus on science.
No, it did NOT!
"Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed....[/QUOTE]
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html
You know nothing about science and you don't know how to read.
"One of its paramters"?
LMFAO!
The overwhelming majority of the warming in the models is attributed to the assumptions about water vapour feedback, which the authors acknowledge was wrong.
In fact, the paper you cited said that CO2 was only 10 per cent of the radiative forcing and most of the forcing is due to water vapour and clouds: https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
The predictions were completely off and the models are useless. Savour that reality all you like.
(Maybe Basketcase can come up with a conspiracy theory to explain why Fuji can't/won't accept the results of the peer-reviewed papers. :encouragement
I can't help you with your problems with comprehension, but I'll try and put this on simple terms for others who may be better able to think than you are:"One of its paramters"?
LMFAO!
The overwhelming majority of the warming in the models is attributed to the assumptions about water vapour feedback, which the authors acknowledge was wrong.
The predictions were completely off and the models are useless. Savour that reality all you like.
(Maybe Basketcase can come up with a conspiracy theory to explain why Fuji can't/won't accept the results of the peer-reviewed paper. :encouragement
The article argues that one particular cooling effect (influence of the stratosphere on the troposphere) were underestimated and need to be adjusted in the AGW model.
The article explicitly concluded that CO2 sensitivity in the model is correct and driving the overall rate of warming. (You need a subscription to nature to read that part.)
LMFAO!
You're making the same mistake you made last year (and then got upset when I pointed it out to you).
The calculation for water vapour feedback in the models -- and the reference to the radiative forcing in the paper you cited -- refers to a warming effect, not a "cooling" effect.
It has now been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Fuji doesn't know what he's talking about.
