[mustang19]

Here is your weather forecast
https://i.ibb.co/tbxcvLT/AA86-A694-9427 ... 4-B9-E.jpg

[Gmark]

Here is your weather forecast
https://i.ibb.co/tbxcvLT/AA86-A694-9427 ... 4-B9-E.jpg

You provide an image without any citation. You can't write a coherent argument, just comments without any support.

You've said you're an engineer but I doubt it. At least not a technical engineer.

Maybe you have the word "engineer" somewhere in your job title, but it could easily be "Domestic Engineer" or "Sandwich Engineer".

[Plantagenet]

I guess it's hard to give up those old climate change denier tricks eh planty?

I guess its hard for you to give up lying eh scannie?

As for your, blame the scientists (climate sensitivity) - more meaningless games.

I didn't "blame the scientists", you ninny. I pointed out that most atmospheric scientists have been assuming a value for climate sensitivity that is lower then value for climate sensitivity that Dr. James Hansen determined based on paleoclimatic data.

And accurately determining climate sensitivity is not "a meaningless game" as you claim. Accurately determining the value of climate sensitivity is necessary to improve the accuracy of global climate models. And improving the accuracy of global models is a major global scientific goal, as its central to understanding and predicting just how bad global warming is going to get.


Dr. James Hansen is 100% correct---- Accurately determining the value of climate sensitivity is necessary to improve the accuracy of global climate models

Do you get it now?

Cheers!

[mustang19]

Here is your weather forecast
https://i.ibb.co/tbxcvLT/AA86-A694-9427 ... 4-B9-E.jpg

You provide an image without any citation. You can't write a coherent argument, just comments without any support.

You've said you're an engineer but I doubt it. At least not a technical engineer.

Maybe you have the word "engineer" somewhere in your job title, but it could easily be "Domestic Engineer" or "Sandwich Engineer".

I already gave the citation your just a noob

[mustang19]

The ozone layer is the opposite of the greenhouse effect and is more sensitive and smaller than the co2 level. Also, cars raise ozone. So human activity would only ever cause cooling, not warming, and even if we ignore how silly global warming is because it's like wrapping yourself in five miles of blankets without diminishing returns, it defeats itself.

[FamousDrScanlon]

Extreme weather takes climate change models ‘off the scale’

Scientists say the shifting pattern of the jet stream is exacerbating the effects of climate change

Fires, floods, heatwaves and droughts. The deadly weather that has unfolded in recent weeks has left climate scientists “shocked” and concerned that extreme events are arriving even faster than models predicted.

In southern Oregon, a fire over an area 25 times the size of Manhattan has raged for weeks, aided by a record-shattering heatwave. In China, floods left 51 dead after a year’s worth of rain fell in a single day in the central city of Zhengzhou causing more than $10bn in damages.

And in Russia, a state of emergency has been declared in Yakutia in the Far East, where authorities are creating artificial rain by seeding clouds with silver iodine in an attempt to put out more than 200 fires.

Climate scientists say the severity of these events is simply “off scale” compared with what atmospheric models forecast — even when global warming is fully taken into account.

“I think I would be speaking for many climate scientists to say that we are a bit shocked at what we are seeing,” said Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London. “There is a dramatic change in the frequency with which extreme [weather] events occur.”

From the deadly flooding in Germany last week, to scorching heat in Canada, and a deluge in the Black Sea region, the pace and scale of catastrophic damage has been almost unimaginable, even for experts who have spent their lives studying it.

https://www.ft.com/content/9a647a51-ede ... f14ad878b7

Yabut sun spots-N-stuff

[Gmark]

The ozone layer is the opposite of the greenhouse effect and is more sensitive and smaller than the co2 level. Also, cars raise ozone. So human activity would only ever cause cooling, not warming, and even if we ignore how silly global warming is because it's like wrapping yourself in five miles of blankets without diminishing returns, it defeats itself.

You're still confused.

The ozone layer is not the opposite of the greenhouse effect. Where did you get that? Link?

No, the ozone layer is not more sensitive and smaller than the CO2 level. Where did you get that? Link?

Yes, cars and other pollution can lead to tropospheric ozone creation. The ozone layer is in the stratosphere and is a different thing.

You still are confused about your ignorant R value for CO2 aren't you? Just can't believe that physics says you're out to lunch?

Would you like a bag of chips with that sandwich?

[mustang19]

The ozone layer is the opposite of the greenhouse effect and is more sensitive and smaller than the co2 level. Also, cars raise ozone. So human activity would only ever cause cooling, not warming, and even if we ignore how silly global warming is because it's like wrapping yourself in five miles of blankets without diminishing returns, it defeats itself.

You're still confused.

The ozone layer is not the opposite of the greenhouse effect. Where did you get that? Link?

No, the ozone layer is not more sensitive and smaller than the CO2 level. Where did you get that? Link?

Yes, cars and other pollution can lead to tropospheric ozone creation. The ozone layer is in the stratosphere and is a different thing.

You still are confused about your ignorant R value for CO2 aren't you? Just can't believe that physics says you're out to lunch?

Would you like a bag of chips with that sandwich?

Greenhouse layer passes high energy photons. Ozone absorbs them.

It's obvious, the ozone is smaller.

I mean you're obviously a troll, dumb questions.

[Gmark]

The ozone layer is the opposite of the greenhouse effect and is more sensitive and smaller than the co2 level. Also, cars raise ozone. So human activity would only ever cause cooling, not warming, and even if we ignore how silly global warming is because it's like wrapping yourself in five miles of blankets without diminishing returns, it defeats itself.

You're still confused.

The ozone layer is not the opposite of the greenhouse effect. Where did you get that? Link?

No, the ozone layer is not more sensitive and smaller than the CO2 level. Where did you get that? Link?

Yes, cars and other pollution can lead to tropospheric ozone creation. The ozone layer is in the stratosphere and is a different thing.

You still are confused about your ignorant R value for CO2 aren't you? Just can't believe that physics says you're out to lunch?

Would you like a bag of chips with that sandwich?

Greenhouse layer passes high energy photons. Ozone absorbs them.

It's obvious, the ozone is smaller.

I mean you're obviously a troll, dumb questions.

Weak on physics, weak on mathematics, and not so good at reading either!

I thought these ideas you come up with were something you read on flakey websites, but i think you're just making it up as you go along. You can't provide sources, and you maybe grasp a small portion of something and then leap to conclusions.

It's kind of interesting in a bang-your-head-against-the-wall kind of way.

[dissident]

The denier loons are the poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect. The ozone layer acts as the thermal driver for the stratosphere but has negligible effect on the troposphere and surface insolation. Ozone does not absorb the visible band solar radiation that accounts for basically all of the surface heating. Ozone absorbs in some IR bands which intercepts some of solar IR emissions. But the Sun does not heat the Earth through IR.

The stratosphere is a nice example of the impact of CO2. Even though deniers attempt to paint CO2 as having no relevance for the energy balance of the atmosphere, you can see it directly in the stratosphere. As the troposphere has been warming, the stratosphere has been cooling. Increased CO2 in the stratosphere increases the emission loss of IR to space. This IR results form the thermalization of the shortwave energy absorbed by ozone through molecular collisions. The radiative equilibrium temperature in the stratosphere is the balance between O3 heating and CO2 cooling. CO2 does not act as an effective thermal blanket in the stratosphere (above 16 km) because its density is low enough to be optically thin in the IR range. So the primary radiative transfer mode in the stratosphere for CO2 is emission to space as opposed to the troposphere where it both emits and absorbs sufficiently to delay the emission of IR to space and keep temperatures higher.

[Gmark]

The denier loons are the poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect. The ozone layer acts as the thermal driver for the stratosphere but has negligible effect on the troposphere and surface insolation. Ozone does not absorb the visible band solar radiation that accounts for basically all of the surface heating. Ozone absorbs in some IR bands which intercepts some of solar IR emissions. But the Sun does not heat the Earth through IR.

The stratosphere is a nice example of the impact of CO2. Even though deniers attempt to paint CO2 as having no relevance for the energy balance of the atmosphere, you can see it directly in the stratosphere. As the troposphere has been warming, the stratosphere has been cooling. Increased CO2 in the stratosphere increases the emission loss of IR to space. This IR results form the thermalization of the shortwave energy absorbed by ozone through molecular collisions. The radiative equilibrium temperature in the stratosphere is the balance between O3 heating and CO2 cooling. CO2 does not act as an effective thermal blanket in the stratosphere (above 16 km) because its density is low enough to be optically thin in the IR range. So the primary radiative transfer mode in the stratosphere for CO2 is emission to space as opposed to the troposphere where it both emits and absorbs sufficiently to delay the emission of IR to space and keep temperatures higher.

Dissident: kudos for having the patience to write this.

Mustang19 should read this, memorize it, and read some more until he can understand it.

[mustang19]

The denier loons are the poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect. The ozone layer acts as the thermal driver for the stratosphere but has negligible effect on the troposphere and surface insolation. Ozone does not absorb the visible band solar radiation that accounts for basically all of the surface heating. Ozone absorbs in some IR bands which intercepts some of solar IR emissions. But the Sun does not heat the Earth through IR.

The stratosphere is a nice example of the impact of CO2. Even though deniers attempt to paint CO2 as having no relevance for the energy balance of the atmosphere, you can see it directly in the stratosphere. As the troposphere has been warming, the stratosphere has been cooling. Increased CO2 in the stratosphere increases the emission loss of IR to space. This IR results form the thermalization of the shortwave energy absorbed by ozone through molecular collisions. The radiative equilibrium temperature in the stratosphere is the balance between O3 heating and CO2 cooling. CO2 does not act as an effective thermal blanket in the stratosphere (above 16 km) because its density is low enough to be optically thin in the IR range. So the primary radiative transfer mode in the stratosphere for CO2 is emission to space as opposed to the troposphere where it both emits and absorbs sufficiently to delay the emission of IR to space and keep temperatures higher.

It's the difference between five feet of blankets and five miles. Global warming is obviously fake, insulation doesn't work that way, your own actions prove you don't believe what you're saying because if insulation was linear you'd be dead.

But of course words mean nothing to you because you don't believe anything you're saying. Temperature is colder than 1800.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemper ... nce%201659

So keep babbling, you're talking to a wall, the people listening are brain dead.

[FamousDrScanlon]

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason

“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.

Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... -our-minds

See? It's not the deniers fault - evolution what dun it.

[Gmark]

But of course words mean nothing to you because you don't believe anything you're saying. Temperature is colder than 1800.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemper ... nce%201659

So keep babbling, you're talking to a wall, the people listening are brain dead.

That's an interesting link! Ole Humlum is a glaciologist, and argues that climate change is happening, but that it's part of a normal cycle and driven by the sun and moon, and phase changes. He tries to read significant things out of the first derivatives of CO2 and Air Temperature. It is a climate denial site, but that can be ignored for some of the neat data presentations. He is well known for making a number of predictions, none of which came to pass.

"Temperature is colder than 1800." Your reference disagrees with you. Didn't you read it?

[mustang19]

But of course words mean nothing to you because you don't believe anything you're saying. Temperature is colder than 1800.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemper ... nce%201659

So keep babbling, you're talking to a wall, the people listening are brain dead.

That's an interesting link! Ole Humlum is a glaciologist, and argues that climate change is happening, but that it's part of a normal cycle and driven by the sun and moon, and phase changes. He tries to read significant things out of the first derivatives of CO2 and Air Temperature. It is a climate denial site, but that can be ignored for some of the neat data presentations. He is well known for making a number of predictions, none of which came to pass.

"Temperature is colder than 1800." Your reference disagrees with you. Didn't you read it?

Temperature is not even higher than 1987 anymore.

[Gmark]

But of course words mean nothing to you because you don't believe anything you're saying. Temperature is colder than 1800.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemper ... nce%201659

So keep babbling, you're talking to a wall, the people listening are brain dead.

That's an interesting link! Ole Humlum is a glaciologist, and argues that climate change is happening, but that it's part of a normal cycle and driven by the sun and moon, and phase changes. He tries to read significant things out of the first derivatives of CO2 and Air Temperature. It is a climate denial site, but that can be ignored for some of the neat data presentations. He is well known for making a number of predictions, none of which came to pass.

"Temperature is colder than 1800." Your reference disagrees with you. Didn't you read it?

Temperature is not even higher than 1987 anymore.

I think that may be the problem. You don't define temperature the way the rest of us do.

[mustang19]

But of course words mean nothing to you because you don't believe anything you're saying. Temperature is colder than 1800.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemper ... nce%201659

So keep babbling, you're talking to a wall, the people listening are brain dead.

That's an interesting link! Ole Humlum is a glaciologist, and argues that climate change is happening, but that it's part of a normal cycle and driven by the sun and moon, and phase changes. He tries to read significant things out of the first derivatives of CO2 and Air Temperature. It is a climate denial site, but that can be ignored for some of the neat data presentations. He is well known for making a number of predictions, none of which came to pass.

"Temperature is colder than 1800." Your reference disagrees with you. Didn't you read it?

Temperature is not even higher than 1987 anymore.

I think that may be the problem. You don't define temperature the way the rest of us do.

I refuted you easily. Your posts are nothing but spam.

Instead of weakly trolling this forum perhaps go mine crypto whatever you pretend to do.

[mustang19]

"CO2 emissions set to hit record levels in 2023 and there’s ‘no clear peak in sight,’ IEA says"
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/co2-emi ... -says.html

"Looking ahead, the Paris-based organization estimated that, under current spending plans, the planet’s carbon dioxide emissions would be on course to hit record levels in 2023 and continue to grow in the ensuing years. There was, its analysis claimed, “no clear peak in sight.”"

I can't help but pray for a more deadly virus to attack us as soon as possible! The SARS-CoV-2 virus was only good enough to stop growth for one year. What a pitiful virus!

Global warming is silly, it's the difference between five feet of blankets and five miles. Insulation has no effect and any retard can see that your thing is fake.

If you believe insulation is linear how would you even survive? You're just refuting your retardation by even existing.

Furthermore looking at co2 levels is really stupid and irrelevant, of course they increase, what matters is temperature is falling.

[Gmark]

Global warming is silly, it's the difference between five feet of blankets and five miles. Insulation has no effect and any retard can see that your thing is fake.

If you believe insulation is linear how would you even survive? You're just refuting your retardation by even existing.

Furthermore looking at co2 levels is really stupid and irrelevant, of course they increase, what matters is temperature is falling.

Hah! Hah! You're still just flailing about!

You obviously don't know what you don't know, and you don't know a lot.

And with no technical skills, you just keep misunderstanding or misrepresenting the facts and the data. The internet has lots of resources explaining the psychology of why people do that. Loneliness, looking for attention, ideology, politics, tribalism, etc.

It is kind of comical, that you express such strong opinions, but don't even try to provide evidence. And that's on a site where everyone else is always posting evidence!

I must have read over 100 of your posts by now, and I don't think there's been a single time where someone agreed with you. That's a pretty amazing track record!

And you complain that sites are banning you! Hah! Hah!

[mustang19]

Global warming is silly, it's the difference between five feet of blankets and five miles. Insulation has no effect and any retard can see that your thing is fake.

If you believe insulation is linear how would you even survive? You're just refuting your retardation by even existing.

Furthermore looking at co2 levels is really stupid and irrelevant, of course they increase, what matters is temperature is falling.

Hah! Hah! You're still just flailing about!

You obviously don't know what you don't know, and you don't know a lot.

And with no technical skills, you just keep misunderstanding or misrepresenting the facts and the data. The internet has lots of resources explaining the psychology of why people do that. Loneliness, looking for attention, ideology, politics, tribalism, etc.

It is kind of comical, that you express such strong opinions, but don't even try to provide evidence. And that's on a site where everyone else is always posting evidence!

I must have read over 100 of your posts by now, and I don't think there's been a single time where someone agreed with you. That's a pretty amazing track record!

And you complain that sites are banning you! Hah! Hah!

Instead of your pointless, liberal existence why not post on my blog?