• 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!

Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

PoS said:
If a study finds no proof on AGW then its a negative on AGW's position. You cant deny that.
Click to expand...

Again, absurd. People calculating the average temperature in a paleoclimate period aren't making a position on AGW because it's outside the scope of their work.

By your logic, a paper on the health impacts of flavored vaping products is "a negative on AGW's position."
 
Deuce said:
Again, absurd. People calculating the average temperature in a paleoclimate period aren't making a position on AGW because it's outside the scope of their work.

By your logic, a paper on the health impacts of flavored vaping products is "a negative on AGW's position."
Click to expand...

You mean like the Hockey Team at CRU trying to erase the MWP?
 
Jack Hays said:
You mean like the Hockey Team at CRU trying to erase the MWP?
Click to expand...

Elaborate on what you think the connection is. Establishing an accurate paleoclimate record does not inherently express a stance on AGW, and it's ridiculous to imply that it does. Paleoclimate records would still exist regardless of AGW's existence. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you.
 
Deuce said:
Elaborate on what you think the connection is. Establishing an accurate paleoclimate record does not inherently express a stance on AGW, and it's ridiculous to imply that it does. Paleoclimate records would still exist regardless of AGW's existence. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you.
Click to expand...

Be honest.

You understand why.

We all do.
 
blarg said:
how many study climate and say man made global warming is real vs those who say its not

how do their published works compare.

lets do that math
Click to expand...

You tell me. Show me some links that back your silly claims up.

While youre at it, please show me which members in the IPCC have degrees in climatology: Authors — IPCC

Deuce said:
Again, absurd. People calculating the average temperature in a paleoclimate period aren't making a position on AGW because it's outside the scope of their work.

By your logic, a paper on the health impacts of flavored vaping products is "a negative on AGW's position."
Click to expand...

If a paper doesnt support AGW then its against it. Simple as that.
 
PoS said:
Nope, I dont need to do any of that. All I have to do is wait until you post a link that refutes any of the papers cited in the OP.
Click to expand...

Well, the 404 papers and the ones that apparently don't exist say nothing, and so are refuted by anything at all. Therefore this link:

YouTube

refutes all of those.

As for the comparative few that aren't 404 or that just go to the front page of a journal warehouse, here is a small list to get you started:

Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change | Nature

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans | Science

Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change | Nature

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 | PNAS

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.summary

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-007-9299-3

https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005075

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2000GL011601

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074006/meta

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.209

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2006EO240001

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0441-5

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378011000173

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683610386983

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3416

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2657

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.short

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...nepage&q=anthropogenic climate change&f=false

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3912.1

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764213477097

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5964/454

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1080

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...nepage&q=anthropogenic climate change&f=false

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327?cacheBust=1508262790376

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379108001042

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031383

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL032388

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18354.short

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo905

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04095

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL023619

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3382.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50673

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/379

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037810

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13739.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01257.x

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033670

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035/meta

I'll post more as I have time. Unlike the idiot who compiled the list you rely on, I try to read the papers first...see my previous posts in this thread for clarification if that remark mystifies you.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Of course it could, the simple change from analog to digital thermometers (High-low sampling, vs hour or second sampling)
could produce the observed warming. That would have to be included in Human activity.
Click to expand...

No, it could not. Pay careful attention to the words you are using. I would agree it is at least possible that the change in thermometers could result in an observation of warming. But "observation of warming" is not the same thing as "observed warming." The first is a phrase that makes no assertion about the actual state of affairs, except insofar as the denoted observations are part of the actual state of affairs. The phrase "observed warming" denotes actual warming that happens to be observed. A change in thermometers could not account for an actual warming that is observed.

The NASA site you were referencing clearly has the latter meaning in mind, not the former.

longview said:
CO2 can absorb photons between 13.5 and 16 um near sea level, the range get thinner as pressures drop,
Adding CO2 will shorten the mean free path of IR photons in the absorption window, but test run for missile research in the
50's and 60's, show near 100% absorption of 13.5 to 16 um at 10 miles.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the relevance of any of that is. You'll have to spell it out more carefully before I can comment.

longview said:
The response was already logarithmic, i.e CO2 is measured on doubling curve, but the ratio of warming to energy imbalance is linear,
as shown in the American Chemical Society formula.
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
ΔT ≈ Tp ΔF/[4(1 – α)Save] ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] ΔF (for Tp ≈ 288 Κ)
the .3K X Wm-2, describes a linear relationship.
CO2 is measures in parts per million volume not mass!
Click to expand...

I also don't see the relevance of any of that. I was saying that you seem to be assuming a linear relationship between the proportion (measured in volume, as you say--I think I may have said mass in a previous post) of CO2 in the atmosphere and radiative forcing in your previous response. I didn't say anything about the ratio of warming to energy imbalance--and as far as I can tell, until just now, you didn't either.
 
Jack Hays said:
Personally, I don't believe there's consensus because there's a compelling alternative climate hypothesis. (See thread in this subforum.)
I agree with Michael Crichton that the claim of consensus is a weapon used by advocates to shut down debate and delegitimize skeptics.
I therefore have a favorable view of the OP.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd say there's a compelling alternative hypothesis--there's no such hypothesis that compels me to believe it rather than the AGW one. I do agree that sometimes the claim of consensus is used that way (i.e. to shut down debate), but that's not how it's always used.

Something pretty much everyone in my profession recognizes is that it's always possible to formulate a skeptical position strong enough to deny any claim or proposition. And it is always possible to make such a skeptical position sound reasonable. Of course, if we believed even a small percentage of those skeptical positions, we'd quickly have to surrender way too much for comfort. Evaluating those positions, and arguments in general, then, goes beyond merely looking at which ones have apparently true premises and valid reasoning. It involves a certain amount of judgment, and in the political sphere particularly, it also involves prudential concerns.

I have access to one of the better research libraries in the world, and I've done a fair bit of reading on this topic late at night when insomnia strikes. There's just very little reason any more to believe the skeptical position. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know how it works as such. And we know that we're putting enough into the air to have an effect. Additionally, even now the lifestyle changes we would have to make to mitigate the worst effects of climate change wouldn't be all that great--we'd all still enjoy long healthy lives full of stimulation, intrigue, love, good food, and so on. It's a comparative small price to pay. On the other side, the macguffin we're risking is huge--if the skeptics are wrong, and we do nothing, the proverbial brown stuff is going to hit the proverbial spinning blades. In terms of practical decision making, there really is no decision here.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, the 404 papers and the ones that apparently don't exist say nothing, and so are refuted by anything at all. Therefore this link:

YouTube

refutes all of those.

As for the comparative few that aren't 404 or that just go to the front page of a journal warehouse, here is a small list to get you started:

Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change | Nature

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans | Science

Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change | Nature

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 | PNAS

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.summary

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-007-9299-3

https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005075

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2000GL011601

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074006/meta

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.209

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2006EO240001

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0441-5

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378011000173

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683610386983

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3416

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2657

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.short

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...nepage&q=anthropogenic climate change&f=false

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3912.1

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764213477097

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5964/454

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1080

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...nepage&q=anthropogenic climate change&f=false

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327?cacheBust=1508262790376

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379108001042

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031383

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL032388

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18354.short

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo905

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04095

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL023619

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3382.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50673

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/379

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037810

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13739.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01257.x

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033670

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035/meta

I'll post more as I have time. Unlike the idiot who compiled the list you rely on, I try to read the papers first...see my previous posts in this thread for clarification if that remark mystifies you.
Click to expand...

I clicked on the first link you posted, and its behind a paywall. Did you actually read the study? If so, then post it here so we all can access it.
 
PoS said:
I clicked on the first link you posted, and its behind a paywall. Did you actually read the study? If so, then post it here so we all can access it.
Click to expand...

That would be a breach of copyright; it would violate not only this board's rules but also the rules of my university and my profession. Most of the links that actually work at your list are also behind paywalls--a fact you obviously didn't notice.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Elaborate on what you think the connection is. Establishing an accurate paleoclimate record does not inherently express a stance on AGW, and it's ridiculous to imply that it does. Paleoclimate records would still exist regardless of AGW's existence. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The Hockey Team (especially Mann) was determined to erase the MWP to make a point about modern warming.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense. The Hockey Team (especially Mann) was determined to erase the MWP to make a point about modern warming.
Click to expand...

There have been dozens of other studies, none show a global warm period.

PAGES 2K and Marcott are definitive here.

ce2fad69e601871eb4a9b9bda560b1a6.jpg
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, the 404 papers and the ones that apparently don't exist say nothing, and so are refuted by anything at all. Therefore this link:

YouTube

refutes all of those.

As for the comparative few that aren't 404 or that just go to the front page of a journal warehouse, here is a small list to get you started:

Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change | Nature

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans | Science

Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change | Nature

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 | PNAS

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.summary

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-007-9299-3

https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005075

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2000GL011601

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074006/meta

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.209

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2006EO240001

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0441-5

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378011000173

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683610386983

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3416

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2657

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.short

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...nepage&q=anthropogenic climate change&f=false

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3912.1

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764213477097

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5964/454

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1080

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...nepage&q=anthropogenic climate change&f=false

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327?cacheBust=1508262790376

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379108001042

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031383

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL032388

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18354.short

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo905

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04095

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL023619

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3382.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50673

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/379

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037810

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13739.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01257.x

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033670

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035/meta

I'll post more as I have time. Unlike the idiot who compiled the list you rely on, I try to read the papers first...see my previous posts in this thread for clarification if that remark mystifies you.
Click to expand...

Please quote the part of any of those papers that explicitly show the impact is as the dogma claims.
 
PoS said:
I clicked on the first link you posted, and its behind a paywall. Did you actually read the study? If so, then post it here so we all can access it.
Click to expand...

The best that first paper has to claim that AGW is the primary driver is:

The IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report concluded
that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-twentieth century is very likely (.90% probability of
occurrence) to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations.
​

All they do is cite another reference. The Alarmist Bible. Most of the paper deals with warming observations. Not causality.

I find this interesting on page 355 under Discuission and conclusions:

The far fewer data series in Africa, Australia and Latin
America are closely co-located with warming, but these cannot yet
be attributed to anthropogenic climate forcing.
​

The miss pinning that tail on the donkey, even with their blindfolds off.

Funny, they don't mention greenhouse gasses here:

Land-use change, management practices, pollution and human
demography shifts are all—along with climate—drivers of environmental
change.
​
 
ashurbanipal said:
That would be a breach of copyright; it would violate not only this board's rules but also the rules of my university and my profession. Most of the links that actually work at your list are also behind paywalls--a fact you obviously didn't notice.
Click to expand...

Excuses excuses.

Just quote a small relevant part that applies.
 
Threegoofs said:
There have been dozens of other studies, none show a global warm period.

PAGES 2K and Marcott are definitive here.

ce2fad69e601871eb4a9b9bda560b1a6.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh lookie here...

Another image sourced from uploads dot tapatalk-cdn dot com

Probably an altered image.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm not sure I'd say there's a compelling alternative hypothesis--there's no such hypothesis that compels me to believe it rather than the AGW one. I do agree that sometimes the claim of consensus is used that way (i.e. to shut down debate), but that's not how it's always used.

Something pretty much everyone in my profession recognizes is that it's always possible to formulate a skeptical position strong enough to deny any claim or proposition. And it is always possible to make such a skeptical position sound reasonable. Of course, if we believed even a small percentage of those skeptical positions, we'd quickly have to surrender way too much for comfort. Evaluating those positions, and arguments in general, then, goes beyond merely looking at which ones have apparently true premises and valid reasoning. It involves a certain amount of judgment, and in the political sphere particularly, it also involves prudential concerns.

I have access to one of the better research libraries in the world, and I've done a fair bit of reading on this topic late at night when insomnia strikes. There's just very little reason any more to believe the skeptical position. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know how it works as such. And we know that we're putting enough into the air to have an effect. Additionally, even now the lifestyle changes we would have to make to mitigate the worst effects of climate change wouldn't be all that great--we'd all still enjoy long healthy lives full of stimulation, intrigue, love, good food, and so on. It's a comparative small price to pay. On the other side, the macguffin we're risking is huge--if the skeptics are wrong, and we do nothing, the proverbial brown stuff is going to hit the proverbial spinning blades. In terms of practical decision making, there really is no decision here.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Following the AGW alarmist path diverts resources from real problems and condemns billions of people to continuing poverty.
 
PoS said:
The usual refrain from climate cultists is this: "tens of thousands of scientists cant be wrong!" or "science is with us!"

They claim that so many scientists believe in AGW and that something must be done about it. But this is all a propagandic lie.

First off, there are literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published that calls into question this very notion that the world is somehow in danger, or that AGW is manmade and something can be done about it.

Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Check the links to these papers and find out.

Also, a petition was started in 1997, and has been updated over the years, and these have been signed by no less than tens of thousands of scientists who are experts in their respective fields, and they doubt the current AGW agenda that's sweeping the UN.

Global Warming Petition Project

Over 31 thousand scientists have signed this petition, and it proves that there is no consensus on AGW. Game over, chicken littles.
Click to expand...

It's a major scam to make money and change the government. The things they don't admit too prove they are lying. Even if the U.S. did all the things wanted by climate crazies the effect would be almost nil without major changes by China, India, Russia and that ain't happening.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Oh lookie here...

Another image sourced from uploads dot tapatalk-cdn dot com

Probably an altered image.
Click to expand...

Not my problem if you’re unfamiliar with the data that has been posted here hundreds of times.

Because it’s easier to write it off as ‘altered’ than face facts.
 
Threegoofs said:
Not my problem if you’re unfamiliar with the data that has been posted here hundreds of times.

Because it’s easier to write it off as ‘altered’ than face facts.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't notice minor alteration. You really need to provide us with an easy way to verify you aren't lying.

But if you don't care about your integrity, then OK.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, it could not. Pay careful attention to the words you are using. I would agree it is at least possible that the change in thermometers could result in an observation of warming. But "observation of warming" is not the same thing as "observed warming." The first is a phrase that makes no assertion about the actual state of affairs, except insofar as the denoted observations are part of the actual state of affairs. The phrase "observed warming" denotes actual warming that happens to be observed. A change in thermometers could not account for an actual warming that is observed.

The NASA site you were referencing clearly has the latter meaning in mind, not the former.



I'm not sure what the relevance of any of that is. You'll have to spell it out more carefully before I can comment.



I also don't see the relevance of any of that. I was saying that you seem to be assuming a linear relationship between the proportion (measured in volume, as you say--I think I may have said mass in a previous post) of CO2 in the atmosphere and radiative forcing in your previous response. I didn't say anything about the ratio of warming to energy imbalance--and as far as I can tell, until just now, you didn't either.
Click to expand...

As to the difference is sampling, try it, there is plenty of 24 hour data out there, look at the 24 hour average compared to the High -Low average,
in most places (not real dry) the 24 hour average is greater than the high-low average, yet all the old records are high-low.

The relevance of CO2 remaining capability is related to how much additional CO2 will do from our current level.
If as the Navy test showed the central band claimed for causing AGW is nearly 100% saturated, what remains will no longer be on the earlier log curve
but will be super-logarithmic, much less of a response than earlier increases.
While still not zero, it would be close to see much effect beyond background noise.
There is no real test to validate if 2XCO2 actually causes the predicted energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, or if the rate is logarithmic throughout it's range.
Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
what we know from tools like the line by line data bases is that we well into the flat portion of the response curve.
Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
fig1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom