Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Again very curious that someone who professes to be knowledgeable on a subject has no opinion on the climate sensitivity of CO2 ??

 

LOL .. you just can't help yourself, can you? Please show me where I made any such claim. In fact, I just wrote an entire paragraph explaining that It is not, in fact, a requirement to have any knowledge at all in order to identify the faults in your assertions. Maybe you should go ahead and print that out as well for future ease of reference.

Wait, wait .. I sense another opportunity to show off my prognostication skills ... I hereby predict that AFM will provide no such data.(It is starting to scare me how good I am getting at this future prediction stuff)

 

Lot's of bluster but again no answer. Why is that ??

 

I told you why ... twice now. Do you want me to tell you again? I will. (Any engineer wouldn't need something explained 3 times ... but I'm game)

BTW .. My prediction was right again!! Horray!!

BTW2: 'Bluster' doesn't mean what you think it means ... My comments have been more derisive than bluster.

derisive
expressing contempt or ridicule.

bluster
talk in a loud, aggressive, or indignant way with little effect.

 

It's a simple question and for someone who claims to be knowledgeable it should be easy to answer. Surely you must have formed some idea of what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is ??

 

Didn't we already do this question? Let me search that real quick ...... oh ya, it was way back in post #526

Do you really not get the difference between someone saying "I think you are wrong" and someone saying "You have not sufficiently supported your claim". Or is that just inconvenient for you? Again, sorry if that bar is too high for you.

 

So basically you're saying you cannot answer the question.

 

Or will not for some perverse reason. Climate sensitivity to CO2 would be something that anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time studying the issue of global warming would have an informed opinion on.

 

What I get is that you refuse to disclose your informed opinion on what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is.

 

For someone who contributes 20-40% of each of these climate change threads you sure don't have a lot of studies or sources to back your comments.
You and Hoosier are the best advocates for AGW... Anyone reading these threads will quickly see who the fools are. The two paid deniers who infest every thread that touches on AGW.

 

Whenever I think someone might post something dumb in this thread you come along.

 

Oh look ...it's Mr. Fled-the-discussion-about-falsifiability himself come to add his wrong-think to the discussion.

This would be a great taunt ... for a 2nd grader. The answer, as anyone who actually read what I wrote would know, is: No, that is not basically what I said at all. Sorry If the bar was set too high for you as well but pouting won't help.

 

It's funny that you think that someone else making an unsupported assertion would somehow make your unsupported assertions more valid. Your claim stands or falls on it's own evidence.

BTW: What you are trying to do here is yet another of your logical fallacies. I would be happy to make a reference list for you of these to help you appear a little more engineer-like if you want. Onus probandi - from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim).

 

My irony meter just pegged.

 

And again there is avoidance of the question: What is your informed opinion on the value of the climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? I'm sure that your extensive list of references could provide the basis for an answer to this straight forward question.

 

What is your informed opinion on the value of the climate sensitivity to CO2 ??

 

And like a second grader you go off on a hissy fit and still cannot answer the question.

- - - Updated - - -

Face it, he will just keep throwing a tantrum.

 

Yes, there seems to be a great aversion to actual numbers. The story goes - humans contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 contributes to warming of the atmosphere which is detrimental to the environment, therefore any increase in CO2 is bad because it is detrimental to the environment. Anyone who claims that global warming is beneficial to the human race faces the wrath of the environmentalists and are labelled paid denialists because nobody could possibly believe that was true and must be on the payroll of BIG COAL/OIL.

 

LOL that you think that is either a "hissy fit" or a "tantrum" ... you two are priceless. LOL

Gaius Marius is spot on ... The biggest asset for the proponent side of the debate is definitely you two. By all means keep it coming!

Now .. on to your red herring (another logical fallacy btw. I really need to make a list for you two to print out).

First let me say that your phrasing of this is hilarious. It brings to mind that I have an opinion somehow locked away and hiding ... like it's with Trump's tax returns or something.

I have no idea why you think that this is such a 'gotcha' question. Why on earth would you ever be interested in what a random person on the internet says about the climate sensitivity of CO2. How does my opinion on the matter make your case any stronger? If you want to know a good answer to a question about climate ... ask a climate scientist. I have said this since post #2.

Let's say hypothetically that I asserted that it was ~1ºC. Does that make your assertion any stronger? No it doesn't. Just because random person agrees with you does not mean you are right.
Let's say hypothetically that I assert that it is at the top of the range at ~4.5ºC. Does that make your assertion any stronger or weaker? Nope. In fact if I did that you would rightly ask me for proof of my position, right?
Let's say that I asserted it is an astronomical 10ºC. Is your position now right because mine is off the chart? Nopers.

Lets go even further than that .. lets say that I am really just a 6 year old girl and that I know absolutely nothing about science and you prove definitively that I am wrong ... would that make your assertion true by default? Nopearoonie.
What if I was really Stephen Hawking? Would that make me automatically correct? Nyet (Hawking is not a climate scientist)
What if I said that I was a climate scientist ... does that make my number correct no matter what it is? Nein! (I would still have to back up whatever claim I made)

<shrug> You guys make the claims, you have to back it up ... sorry if the bar is too high for you, but that's how it works in the real world.

So there you have it. Question answered. Now maybe Hoosier will answer the question about falsifiability .... HAHAHAHhahahaha I Crack my self up!! We all know he won't.

 

It's not a gotcha question. It's a question which anyone who professes knowledge and understanding of the global warming issue should be able to answer. The climate sensitivity of CO2 goes directly to the magnitude of the global warming effect and combined with a CO2 atmospheric concentration scenario (there are several defined by the IPCC to choose from) goes to the rate of global warming temperature increase. However all you seem capable of is bluster with no content.

 

Anyone on the planet can answer it ... that's my point ... a chicken pecking a random point on a wheel can answer .. but how does any of those answers make YOUR assertions any more or less valid? (LOL ... bluster) You seem quite irritated by the height of the bar .. maybe you need a safe-space?

 

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is not the only thing to consider. You must also consider feedbacks and forcings. History should prove that the climate is very sensitive to CO2. concentrations.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html You will see in the link that a doubling of CO2 = a five degree C. rise in temperature.

 

Apparently not.

- - - Updated - - -

That's all built into the climate sensitivity to CO2. I'd recommend some homework on the definition of the climate sensitivity to CO2. It has a precise mathmatical meaning.

- - - Updated - - -

Look up the meaning of the word "may". Now do some homework on the climate sensitivity to CO2 from the last ~ 150 years.

 

LMAO .. it is precisely 3.271.

ok .. now what? How does that change the veracity of your assertion?