New IPCC report is out

[_DoubtingThomas]

You're not explaining the equation and how it literally equates to your "explanation."

- Doc

I did.

[Guest]

You're not explaining the equation and how it literally equates to your "explanation."

- Doc

I did.

DT,

You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functional understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.

- Doc

[Guest]

I don't feel like teasing DT about logarithms or whatever.

Natural logarithms.

What DT doesn't get. And what I'd argue many others here also don't get. Is that the UN is a political body. The IPCC is a political organization. Might as well be citing the Discovery Institute in a discussion about evolution.

Is the UN controlling the Republicans scientists? And why are there so few scientists like Richard Lindzen?

DT brings up this formula he doesn't understand. Why I have no clue.

What makes you think I do not understand it? Please explain.

I'm waiting for him to discover that there are multiple formulas for forcing

Of course.

The radiative forcing is the change in temperature that will result from adding CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas). The ln part of the equation is the natural log. Because the equation is logarithmic, the sensitivity of temperature to changes in the atmosphere is commonly phrased as the effect of doubling the amount of the greenhouse gas.

Thank You!

[_Res Ipsa]

WD, let’s start with your 17 year cooling trend. Show me the data and the computation of the trend.

[_DoubtingThomas]

DT,

You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functioning understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.

- Doc

Alright man! Jesus Christ!

ΔF = αln(C/Co)

Radiative forcing= (5.35) log e (CO2 level (parts per million)/pre-industrial level (parts per million))
Do you have more questions?

[_Res Ipsa]

Here’s an article that shows why Lindzen is not a credible source. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... scepticism

It’s like, his opinion man, and not backed by science.

[_honorentheos]

I listened to an interesting discussion on NPR here in Arizona where one of the participants in writing the report spoke with local reporters. She is a professor at the U of A and shared that the expection on the part of the committee is we will "overshoot" the 2% threshold given the political environment and technical challenges involved in preventing it but believe it's likely at some point the effects will force action so that the resulting forced action will hopefully result in a stabilizing at a lower final average than 2% global average increase. So the policy concerns she discussed had to do with what agencies and government officials needed to plan for in order to deal with almost certain dangerous consequences as the overshoot can begin to correct back to something hopefully more livable. The takeaway being those in the know don't see us keeping the increase to even 2% let alone the 1.5% mark of the study.

[_Res Ipsa]

WD posted:

What is the response to this?

In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001

Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which WD deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.

So, WD, what’s your excuse this time? Which demonrat forced you to delete the last sentence?

[_honorentheos]

I feel like we've had the argument with Water Dog before.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 30#p863230

Yup.

[Guest]

I don't feel like teasing DT about logarithms or whatever. If you want a lecture on WTF "forcing" is, among other things, watch this 4 part lecture.

Why Youtube videos?

And then I'd like DT to delve into earth response, how is carbon release due to warming factored in? Hint, it's not. But what I'd really like DT to do is explain the difference between inference and observation. IPCC determines that an increase in CO2 results in an increase in global temperature. How do they know that?
Well, they don't. It's all based on models, not empirical observation. The observations contradict their models, in fact.

You tell me in your own words dog. It is well established that more CO2 increases global temperatures. We can know by studying the history of earth's climate.