• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Quaestio said:
LOL! Pretty much most of the models would show something similar. I guess you don't know much about models either.

So please please show us your calculations that with all CO2 removed from the atmosphere, the average surface temperature would "be 40 F or more".

I doubt you'll find any textbook or papers agreeing with such an absurd un-physical value. Did you just take a wild guess?
Click to expand...

I understand that. They still don't factor the variables in correctly, and even claim a low level of understanding. The models are only trusted by those who fit on the first part of the DK curve. These model cannot be assumed to be accurate until all the variables involved have a very high level of understanding. D-K... The German word Dummkopf comes to mind too...
 
Lord of Planar said:
I understand that. They still don't factor the variables in correctly, and even claim a low level of understanding. The models are only trusted by those who fit on the first part of the DK curve. These model cannot be assumed to be accurate until all the variables involved have a very high level of understanding. D-K... The German word Dummkopf comes to mind too...
Click to expand...

Anonymous poster critiques a published paper yet has nowhere near the experience of the authors, reviewers or editors on the topic.

The only way it can get stupider is for him to claim the *authors* are on the left hand side of the Dunning Kruger curve.

Aaaand... let’s see if he can go for the hat trick and double down!
 
Threegoofs said:
Anonymous poster critiques a published paper yet has nowhere near the experience of the authors, reviewers or editors on the topic.

The only way it can get stupider is for him to claim the *authors* are on the left hand side of the Dunning Kruger curve.

Aaaand... let’s see if he can go for the hat trick and double down!
Click to expand...

Actually, in this case, two of the authors I know to be activists. I think they are very skilled at deception.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Actually, in this case, two of the authors I know to be activists. I think they are very skilled at deception.
Click to expand...

You ‘know’ this?

Why?

Because they publish stuff that you don’t agree with, even though you have virtually no basis for being able to evaluate their work?
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . To the extent GCMs are getting some features of the surface climate correct as a result of their current tuning, they are doing so with a flawed structure. If tuning to the surface added empirical precision to a valid physical representation, we would expect to see a good fit between models and observations at the point where the models predict the clearest and strongest thermodynamic response to greenhouse gases. Instead we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic. Our interpretation of the results is that the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely the theoretically-based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical troposphere, is flawed."
Paper:


Click to expand...

That's completely irrelevant to the question of "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere". Try to pay attention. Or how about YOU answer the question?
 
Quaestio said:
That's completely irrelevant to the question of "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere". Try to pay attention. Or how about YOU answer the question?
Click to expand...

The point is that models are flawed.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I understand that. They still don't factor the variables in correctly, and even claim a low level of understanding. The models are only trusted by those who fit on the first part of the DK curve. These model cannot be assumed to be accurate until all the variables involved have a very high level of understanding. D-K... The German word Dummkopf comes to mind too...
Click to expand...

So you CAN'T show your calculations or explain the physical processes for your absurdly wrong answer of "about 40 F or more"?

I think you need to give yourself a stern talking to. Here you go:

Lord of Planar to Lord of Planar said:
My God you are ignorant.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
The point is that models are flawed.
Click to expand...

No, The point is you can't answer the question "what would be the surface temperature of the earth if all CO2 was removed?"

LOP accused Media Truth of getting it wrong (he wasn't) and of being "ignorant", then LOP got it wildly wrong himself and can't explain his answer. You don't actually need a model for the answer- it's physics.
 
Quaestio said:
That's completely irrelevant to the question of "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere". Try to pay attention. Or how about YOU answer the question?
Click to expand...
If you actually want to know the answer to "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere".
you would also have to eliminate the other variables.
Since your citation stated,
"After removing CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs (but not the condensing GHG water vapor), water vapor would end up dropping by about 90% and the earth would be pretty much a snowball with an average surface temperature of around -18C to -21C. "
you would have to strip out the water vapor and at least the CH4.
You would also have to decide where ZERO CO2 actually is, is it 1 part per million, or 1 part per billion?
It becomes important as it would take 10 doubling s to go from 1 ppm to near present level,
but almost 20 doubling s to go from 1 ppb.
No matter what the temp drop for zero CO2 is, it would have to be less than the aggregate of CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs ,
and include the 90% drop in water vapor described in their scenario.
 
Threegoofs said:
You ‘know’ this?

Why?

Because they publish stuff that you don’t agree with, even though you have virtually no basis for being able to evaluate their work?
Click to expand...

LOL! This is textbook stuff. But then again, has this self-proclaimed "expert" ever actually read any textbooks in this field?
 
Last edited:
longview said:
If you actually want to know the answer to "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere".
you would also have to eliminate the other variables.
Since your citation stated,
"After removing CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs (but not the condensing GHG water vapor), water vapor would end up dropping by about 90% and the earth would be pretty much a snowball with an average surface temperature of around -18C to -21C. "
you would have to strip out the water vapor and at least the CH4.
You would also have to decide where ZERO CO2 actually is, is it 1 part per million, or 1 part per billion?
It becomes important as it would take 10 doubling s to go from 1 ppm to near present level,
but almost 20 doubling s to go from 1 ppb.
No matter what the temp drop for zero CO2 is, it would have to be less than the aggregate of CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs ,
Click to expand...
Those were my words not a citation from the paper. Try reading the paper as you clearly don't understand the conversation and are just waffling inanely.
 
Threegoofs said:
Anonymous poster critiques a published paper yet has nowhere near the experience of the authors, reviewers or editors on the topic.

The only way it can get stupider is for him to claim the *authors* are on the left hand side of the Dunning Kruger curve.

Aaaand... let’s see if he can go for the hat trick and double down!
Click to expand...

When he gets the answer wildly and ignorantly wrong after saying to Media Truth who got it right: "My God you are ignorant", what else can he do but bluster and deflect?

(Well he could admit he was wrong and apologize to that poster, but hell would freeze over first)
 
Threegoofs said:
You ‘know’ this?

Why?

Because they publish stuff that you don’t agree with, even though you have virtually no basis for being able to evaluate their work?
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. LOP the self-proclaimed "expert" got something really basic wrong (yet again) and is flaying all over the place to try to save face.
 
Quaestio said:
Those were my words not a citation from the paper. Try reading the paper as you clearly don't understand the conversation and are just waffling inanely.
Click to expand...
The paper is clearly about zeroing out the non-condensing gasses, and including a fall in water vapor as a result to arrive at -18C to -21C.
The title says it "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature"
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_la09300d.pdf
Methane is the second most important noncondensing GHG
after CO2. Of the 2.9 W/m2of GHG radiative forcing from 1750 to 2000, CO
2 contributed 1.5 W/m2, methane 0.55 W/m2, and CFCs 0.3W/m2,
Click to expand...
whatever the case, to determine CO2's contribution, you would still have to eliminate the others,
and the result would be less than the total.
 
Quaestio said:
No, The point is you can't answer the question "what would be the surface temperature of the earth if all CO2 was removed?"

LOP accused Media Truth of getting it wrong (he wasn't) and of being "ignorant", then LOP got it wildly wrong himself and can't explain his answer. You don't actually need a model for the answer- it's physics.
Click to expand...

From your #1749:

Pretty much most of the models would show something similar. I guess you don't know much about models either.

Don't cite models as supporting your argument unless you're prepared to defend them.
 
Jack Hays said:
From your #1749:

Pretty much most of the models would show something similar. I guess you don't know much about models either.

Don't cite models as supporting your argument unless you're prepared to defend them.
Click to expand...

LOL.

You never defend anything.

You just spam blogs and pretend quotes are arguments.
 
Quaestio said:
So you CAN'T show your calculations or explain the physical processes for your absurdly wrong answer of "about 40 F or more"?

I think you need to give yourself a stern talking to. Here you go:
Click to expand...

I can, but I'm not going to write a 5,000 word explanation here for you. You would just deny the science anyway.
 
longview said:
If you actually want to know the answer to "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere".
you would also have to eliminate the other variables.
Since your citation stated,
"After removing CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs (but not the condensing GHG water vapor), water vapor would end up dropping by about 90% and the earth would be pretty much a snowball with an average surface temperature of around -18C to -21C. "
you would have to strip out the water vapor and at least the CH4.
You would also have to decide where ZERO CO2 actually is, is it 1 part per million, or 1 part per billion?
It becomes important as it would take 10 doubling s to go from 1 ppm to near present level,
but almost 20 doubling s to go from 1 ppb.
No matter what the temp drop for zero CO2 is, it would have to be less than the aggregate of CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs ,
and include the 90% drop in water vapor described in their scenario.
Click to expand...

Another thing ignored is that if the amplification is as great as they use, then H2O would sustain itself in the atmosphere, as it's spectra is 100% the same and CO2 only about 2/3rds. The best numbers they have claim that CO2 raises the temperature around 6 degrees, and that in my view is at least 4 times greater than reality. Especially since all new sensitivity studies have lower numbers than the old ones used by the IPCC et. al.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I can, but I'm not going to write a 5,000 word explanation here for you. You would just deny the science anyway.
Click to expand...

Hah! Yeah sure. You just got it wildly wrong and can't admit it. You could always cite a reference that supports what you said, but you can't because it was a silly ignorant claim.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Another thing ignored is that if the amplification is as great as they use, then H2O would sustain itself in the atmosphere, as it's spectra is 100% the same and CO2 only about 2/3rds. The best numbers they have claim that CO2 raises the temperature around 6 degrees, and that in my view is at least 4 times greater than reality. Especially since all new sensitivity studies have lower numbers than the old ones used by the IPCC et. al.
Click to expand...
We were discussing your wildly wrong answer about what would happen if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere. Now you're deflecting with complete nonsense and ignorant lies.

I guess you didn't actually read the climate sensitivity review paper I posted only 2 weeks ago or the CB article. You just whined and ignored it.

Quaestio said:
Science denying climate truthers just ignore what they don't want to see.

"The range of sensitivity across all of these studies has likely narrowed slightly over time, though the average has remained fairly close to 3C. Contrary to claims on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered."​

Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity

And the 2017 review paper in Nature the above article (which also includes a few more studies published since 2017) is based on:

Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., & Hegerl, G. C. (2017). Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity. Nature Geoscience, 10(10), 727.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nge...zPFdU4G&tracking_referrer=www.carbonbrief.org
Click to expand...
 
Quaestio said:
Hah! Yeah sure. You just got it wildly wrong and can't admit it. You could always cite a reference that supports what you said, but you can't because it was a silly ignorant claim.
Click to expand...

I quite frankly don't care what you believe. You simply are not worth my time to try to convince. You have proven to be a incompetent in these sciences already. If you had any sense of skepticism, which is what science is all about, you would seek the answers yourself.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I quite frankly don't care what you believe. You simply are not worth my time to try to convince. You have proven to be a incompetent in these sciences already. If you had any sense of skepticism, which is what science is all about, you would seek the answers yourself.
Click to expand...

LOL! You REALLY don't like it when someone shows you are wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I quite frankly don't care what you believe. You simply are not worth my time to try to convince. You have proven to be a incompetent in these sciences already. If you had any sense of skepticism, which is what science is all about, you would seek the answers yourself.
Click to expand...

Translation:

Come back to my peak on the DK curve! The view is great here!
 
Quaestio said:
We were discussing your wildly wrong answer about what would happen if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere. Now you're deflecting with complete nonsense and ignorant lies.

I guess you didn't actually read the climate sensitivity review paper I posted only 2 weeks ago or the CB article. You just whined and ignored it.
Click to expand...

I did read them. You obviously don't understand them. They cherry picked studies that attempted to quantify sensitivity. They left out all the studies that they didn't like, that shouwed low sensitivity. I went to look at the [Proistosescu and Huybers (2017); median and 90%] for example. Didn't find it, but found a study by Proistosecu that addressed the flipping of ice ages to warming time, and all CO2 does is change the trigger point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom