Climate Change

[Frankfooter]

You may indeed be correct. Houghton 2002 also confirms that.

Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you | MIT Global Change

globalchange.mit.edu

This is where the 50% came from, I should have known better (Schmidt et al 2010)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2010JD014287?src=getftr

This of course is alarmist Gavin Schmidt's paper. He's a mathematician. 50% of warming is due to water vapor. 25% is clouds and 20% is CO2. But wait aren't clouds caused by water vapor??

And of course several university climate science depts. have parroted this 50% like its empirical. Wikipedia is even worse it says water vapor accounts for 36%-90% of greenhouse warming. What a joke.

You realize that article proves that larue is wrong, don't you?

This is consistent with the idea that much of the watervapor and cloud impacts in the climatological greenhouseeffect are feedbacks to the trace greenhouse gas contribu-tions. That implies that were CO 2 to be somehow com-pletely removed from the atmosphere, a large part of theother greenhouse constituents would be reduced as well,producing a cooling much greater than the “no‐feedback”response (at least according to this model). Indeed, a modelsimulation performed with zero GHGs gives a global meantemperature changes of about −35°C and produces an icecovered planet (A. Lacis, personal communication)

 

[JohnLarue]

You may indeed be correct. Houghton 2002 also confirms that.

Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you | MIT Global Change

globalchange.mit.edu

This is where the 50% came from, I should have known better (Schmidt et al 2010)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2010JD014287?src=getftr

This of course is alarmist Gavin Schmidt's paper. He's a mathematician. 50% of warming is due to water vapor. 25% is clouds and 20% is CO2. But wait aren't clouds caused by water vapor??

And of course several university climate science depts. have parroted this 50% like its empirical. Wikipedia is even worse it says water vapor accounts for 36%-90% of greenhouse warming. What a joke.

water is natures universal temperature regulator
co2 is a bit player and its absorption capability is saturated

 

[Frankfooter]

water is natures universal temperature regulator
co2 is a bit player and its absorption capability is saturated

Did you read the paper that Kirk posted?
Can you understand it?

 

[JohnLarue]

You realize that article proves that larue is wrong, don't you?

This is consistent with the idea that much of the watervapor and cloud impacts in the climatological greenhouseeffect are feedbacks to the trace greenhouse gas contribu-tions. That implies that were CO 2 to be somehow com-pletely removed from the atmosphere, a large part of theother greenhouse constituents would be reduced as well,producing a cooling much greater than the “no‐feedback”response (at least according to this model). Indeed, a modelsimulation performed with zero GHGs gives a global meantemperature changes of about −35°C and produces an icecovered planet (A. Lacis, personal communication)

my god you are soooooooo stunned
from the same article

That idea leads many to believe that global warming is natural and cannot be affected much by human activity. Reader Roy W. Rising of Valley Village writes: “Today's report focuses on a bundle of gases that comprise a very small part of total of ‘greenhouse’ gases. It totally disregards the long-known fact that about 95% of all ‘greenhouse’ gases is WATER VAPOR! Spending billions of dollars to alter a few components of the 5% won't affect the natural course of climate change.”

how many god damn times can you be so bloody wrong?
still using a tape measure to guess altitude ?
still clueless about where the greenhouse effect occurs ?
still pretending you are not a high school drop out?


get this straight
water is natures universal temperature regulator
co2 is a bit player and its absorption capability is saturated

 

[Frankfooter]

my god you are soooooooo stunned
from the same article

You're lying, larue, that's not in the article I quoted.

Why do you lie so much?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795946232864543196

 

[JohnLarue]

You're lying, larue, that's not in the article I quoted.

Why do you lie so much?

it is the same article

K Douglas said:

You may indeed be correct. Houghton 2002 also confirms that.
Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you | MIT Global Change

globalchange.mit.edu
This is where the 50% came from, I should have known better (Schmidt et al 2010)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2010JD014287?src=getftr
This of course is alarmist Gavin Schmidt's paper. He's a mathematician. 50% of warming is due to water vapor. 25% is clouds and 20% is CO2. But wait aren't clouds caused by water vapor??

And of course several university climate science depts. have parroted this 50% like its empirical. Wikipedia is even worse it says water vapor accounts for 36%-90% of greenhouse warming. What a joke.

You realize that article proves that larue is wrong, don't you?

why are you wrong all the time ?

That idea leads many to believe that global warming is natural and cannot be affected much by human activity. Reader Roy W. Rising of Valley Village writes: “Today's report focuses on a bundle of gases that comprise a very small part of total of ‘greenhouse’ gases. It totally disregards the long-known fact that about 95% of all ‘greenhouse’ gases is WATER VAPOR! Spending billions of dollars to alter a few components of the 5% won't affect the natural course of climate change.”

 

[Frankfooter]

it is the same article


why are you wrong all the time ?

That's not the article I quoted or that Kirk posted.
That's some newspaper opinion piece.

You really can't tell the difference between science and opinion.
You can't tell the difference between bullshit and reality.
And you can't even keep track of what you post or others post here.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795783927669375387

 

[JohnLarue]

That's not the article I quoted or that Kirk posted.

yes it is stupid

K Douglas said:
Click to expand...

You may indeed be correct. Houghton 2002 also confirms that.
Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you | MIT Global Change

globalchange.mit.edu
This is where the 50% came from, I should have known better (Schmidt et al 2010)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2010JD014287?src=getftr
This of course is alarmist Gavin Schmidt's paper. He's a mathematician. 50% of warming is due to water vapor. 25% is clouds and 20% is CO2. But wait aren't clouds caused by water vapor??

And of course several university climate science depts. have parroted this 50% like its empirical. Wikipedia is even worse it says water vapor accounts for 36%-90% of greenhouse warming. What a joke.
Click to expand...

why are you wrong all the time ?

That idea leads many to believe that global warming is natural and cannot be affected much by human activity. Reader Roy W. Rising of Valley Village writes: “Today's report focuses on a bundle of gases that comprise a very small part of total of ‘greenhouse’ gases. It totally disregards the long-known fact that about 95% of all ‘greenhouse’ gases is WATER VAPOR! Spending billions of dollars to alter a few components of the 5% won't affect the natural course of climate change.”

You really can't tell the difference between science and opinion.

sure i can
i can also tell the difference between science and propaganda

You can't tell the difference between bullshit and reality.

you spew the bullshit and do so with the intention of misleading others

And you can't even keep track of what you post or others post here.

i was able to keep track of what K Douglas posted, when you failed at that simple task

That's not the article I quoted or that Kirk posted.

K Douglas said:

Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you | MIT Global Change

globalchange.mit.edu

That idea leads many to believe that global warming is natural and cannot be affected much by human activity. Reader Roy W. Rising of Valley Village writes: “Today's report focuses on a bundle of gases that comprise a very small part of total of ‘greenhouse’ gases. It totally disregards the long-known fact that about 95% of all ‘greenhouse’ gases is WATER VAPOR! Spending billions of dollars to alter a few components of the 5% won't affect the natural course of climate change.”

no one takes you seriously on common sense issues let alone scientific matters


what you post here is guaranteed to be bullshit propaganda
go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on

 

[Frankfooter]

sure i can
i can also tell the difference between science and propaganda

No you can't.
You posted a newspaper opinion piece as if it were a science paper.
You're a total fool.

You lie constantly, can't figure out the fundamentals and can't read a single scientific paper.

 

[JohnLarue]

No you can't.
You posted a newspaper opinion piece as if it were a science paper.
You're a total fool.

You lie constantly, can't figure out the fundamentals and can't read a single scientific paper.

too funny

you got confused by altitude expressed in pressure
you would be totally lost reading a real scientific paper they contain fuzzy math which confuses you and tend to focus on the troposphere, which confuses you because ........ you live on the surface, despite having been informed many times the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere

you are the fool because you think you can fool others
the reality is watching you trying to pretend to have scientific understanding is like watching a turtle that has been flipped on its back
it is assuming for a while but it just becomes cruel

 

[JohnLarue]

a government agency, Statistics Norway, has published the manuscript “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?

https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/i-hvilken-grad-endrer-temperaturnivaet-seg-pa-grunn-av-klimagassutslipp/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.

temperature, as a temporal process, appears to have cycles that can last for decades (long memory), if not hundreds of years. It is for precisely this reason that even such a prolonged increase in recent observed temperature series should not simply be interpreted as a trend leading to permanent climate change

The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century

GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.

i.e. climate models are shite

we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

i.e. climate models are still shite

In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.

 

[Frankfooter]

too funny

you got confused by altitude expressed in pressure
you would be totally lost reading a real scientific paper they contain fuzzy math which confuses you and tend to focus on the troposphere, which confuses you because ........ you live on the surface, despite having been informed many times the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere

Holy shit, larue.
Why are you such a dishonest dipshit?

If you want to make this idiotic claim that climate change should only be measured in the clouds find predictions for changes there to measure it.
Stop this idiotic claim that you can compare surface temperature predictions with satellite measurements that ended in 2015 in the troposphere.

Its idiotic.
Don't compare apples to oranges.

 

[Frankfooter]

i.e. climate models are shite

You are a fool, the models are very accurate.
You are actively participating in fossil fuel disinformation that will make your kids lives worse.

 

[JohnLarue]

Holy shit, larue.
Why are you such a dishonest dipshit?

you are the most dishonest individual i have ever encountered

If you want to make this idiotic claim that climate change should only be measured in the clouds find predictions for changes there to measure it.

#1. My god you are stupid
#2 That is not my claim- DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME - you ignorant fool
#3 if you had being paying attention you would know cloud formation is next to impossible to predict

Stop this idiotic claim that you can compare surface temperature predictions with satellite measurements that ended in 2015 in the troposphere.

the satellite data is independently verified by weather balloon data . this means they are accurate.
the surface data record is
filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddled with
the surface data record is a mess

Its idiotic.
Don't compare apples to oranges.

so use the accurate satellite data set and stop using the inaccurate mess that is the surface data set

 

[JohnLarue]

You are a fool, the models are very accurate.
You are actively participating in fossil fuel disinformation that will make your kids lives worse.

https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/i-hvilken-grad-endrer-temperaturnivaet-seg-pa-grunn-av-klimagassutslipp/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century

GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.

i.e. climate models are shite

we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

i.e. climate models are still shite

In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.

the climate models do not stand up to INDEPENDANT statistical analysis, nor do they represent the atmospheric physics

 

[Frankfooter]

the satellite data is independently verified by weather balloon data . this means they are accurate.
the surface data record is
filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect

I don't care about your incredibly ignorant views on why you think a data set that ended in 2015 is 'more accurate'.

You are still acting like a dishonest dipshit.
Find projections for change in the troposphere if that's your metric.
Stop being an asswipe by trying to compare surface temperature projections to troposphere readings.

Its really stupid and really dishonest.

 

[Frankfooter]

i.e. climate models are shite

You are so wrong.

 

[roddermac]

 

[Frankfooter]

People are dying now from wet bulb temp heat waves.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797209888365396203

 

[JohnLarue]

I don't care about your incredibly ignorant views on why you think a data set that ended in 2015 is 'more accurate'.

simply because you do not understand the significance / important of independently verified data
it is really too bad for you that you dropped out of high school.

independent verification is scientific confirmation that the satellite data is accurate

You are still acting like a dishonest dipshit.

the are few words to describe your behaviour. none of them are complementary

Find projections for change in the troposphere if that's your metric.

how many times to you need to told?
our climate system is far too complex to predict with any significant degree of confidence

Stop being an asswipe by trying to compare surface temperature projections to troposphere readings.

so use the accurate satellite data set and stop using the inaccurate mess that is the surface data set

Its really stupid and really dishonest.

the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
it makes perfect sense to view tropospheric temperature anomaly's

what is very dishonest is insisting on using surface temperature data that you know is

filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddled with

you insist on using flawed data in order to maintain your false narrative and evil propaganda
that is as dishonest as it gets


now learn something from you favourite country Norway

https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/i-hvilken-grad-endrer-temperaturnivaet-seg-pa-grunn-av-klimagassutslipp/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century

GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.

i.e. climate models are shite

we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

i.e. climate models are still shite

In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.

the climate models do not stand up to INDEPENDANT statistical analysis, nor do they represent the atmospheric physics