The New Climate Reality

That was a stupid thing to do, he thought the public wouldn't understand the subtleties (Which appears to be true on here) But it doesn't make every other climatologist across the globe in hundreds of countries a liar or a puppet.

 

Not only are they considered, the earth should be cooling.

 

Any "climate scientists" who defend Mann's blatant scientific malpractice -- and that seems to include most of the noisiest anti-fossil-fuel hysteria-mongers -- has proved that they are lying political propagandists, not scientists. That tells me something.

 

Circular logic at its finest!

 

And it has been for ~5 years:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/

 

OK, so you don't know what circular logic is, either.

 

False.

CH4 is WAY more of a problem when considered on a volume comparison basis. It's heat absorption is WAY more than that of CO2.

CH4 stays in our atmosphere far longer than you suggest. Breaking down to CO2 is good, but then properties of CO2 continue, obviously.

Plus, CH4 breaks down to ozone as well, and ozone is also a greenhouse gas.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

"CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG."

 

Why would anyone want to have any interaction with someone who falsely claims others deny that climate changes?

What everyone can see around them is the proof that those who claim there is some sort of climate "crisis" or "emergency" are just flat-out lying.

Are you that young, bored, or clueless? Those are the only categories I see you coming from.

 

Let's please recognize that any attempt to claim that climate change is about one individual could not be a more stupid argument.

It's pure avoidance.

You can hate Mann or Gore or anyone else you want to hate. I just doesn't help you.

 

This is just a false representation of the actual issues of climate change.

 

You just set a standard for your posts.

 

No, it is true.

No, volume comparison is meaningless because CH4 is orders of magnitude less abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, and that will not be changing.

No it doesn't. It oxidizes quickly.

I.e., its microscopic contribution to warming?

CH4 contains no oxygen, and therefore cannot break down to ozone.

CH4 is not a precursor to ozone as it contains no oxygen. And ozone is even less meaningful as a GHG than CO2 or CH4, as it does not get near the earth's surface in more than trace quantities.

 

No it isn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

 

So the fall in temperatures @Jack Hays graph shows humans caused temperature to fall. Isn't that what Democrats allege that humans can't control climate?

 

I guess that must be why you made it up.

It's pure avoidance.

Who mentioned hate? You just love makin' $#!+ up, don't you? But FTR, not trusting proved liars is probably going to help me a lot.

 

I have a number of times said about @Jack Hays he is perhaps the most informed on climate we have on the forum. I and he have never discussed what party we belong to.

 

Do you deny some parties have given us an average of all of Earth temperatures?

 

CH4 abundance is one factor. And, it is already an important factor, as Earth's ozone is mostly caused by CH4 degrading.

CH4 IS projected to increase, as melting tundra will decompose.

You need to do better than simply claiming that my source is wrong, because YOU believe it is wrong.

Here is an explanation of how CH4 breakdown leads to more ozone. It fact, it points out that methane production as the primary contributor to ozone.

https://www.envchemgroup.com/climate-change-methane-and-ozone.html

 

I hope you understood that when the average temperature of the earth increases, it doesn’t mean that everywhere on earth the temperature ave increases. If the average American is twenty pounds heavier today then 50 years ago, it does not mean that all groups of people gained weight. I hope that makes sense. It does to the “average person”

no the entire earth has not been cooling.

 

Of course not. A good number of climate science related groups have measurements of Earth's average surface temperature.

In fact, Hayes posted a chart that, if you look into it, leads to one way that scientists deal with determining what Earth's average temperature is moving.

Their techniques are far more sophisticated that "average of all Earth temperatures", obviously.

The "inside to the outside" idea is the real problem.

 

Only another repo had that honor. Trump passed him with flying colors.

 

I have many times brought up clouds as a vital part of earth temperature.

To help here this link will help all.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

1. INTRODUCTION
The main arguments for global warming being manmade go something like this: “What else COULD it be? After all, we know that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are sufficient to explain recent warming, so what’s the point of looking for any other cause?”

But for those who have followed my writings and publications in the last 18 months (e.g. Spencer et al., 2007; Spencer, 2008), you know that we are finding satellite evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) climate models suggest that it is. And if that is true, then mankind’s CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming we’ve seen over the last 100 years.

To show that we are not the only researchers who have documented evidence contradicting the IPCC models on the subject of climate sensitivity, I made the following figure (Fig. 1) to contrast the IPCC-projected warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the warming that would result if the climate sensitivity is as low as implied by various kinds of observational evidence.




Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

 

More of your peanut gallery antics, Robert.

 

Exposing yours.

 

Hands down, you're the master of the peanut gallery.