Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

If that were so Aus would not have come up with a diet additive for cattle that will reduce methane by up to 90%

https://www.dsm.com/corporate/sustainability/our-purpose/minimizing-methane-from-cattle.html#https://www.dsm.com/corporate/sustainability/our-purpose/minimizing-methane-from-cattle.html#

 

Sure. Arrhenius thought the effect of increased CO2 on surface temperature would be determined by its own infrared absorption properties rather than how it would affect the infrared absorption properties of atmospheric air. The modern CO2 climate narrative is based on that rather naive 19th century physics error, which Angstrom corrected early in the 20th century with an experiment whose results can be confirmed by any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab.

 

How science advanced in the 20th and 21st centuries? Or how a 19th century artifact became central to the AGW narrative?

 

The difference between the left and right as regards science is that the left wish to use science as cudgel to beat people into line while the right sees science as a useful tool with which to better people's lives.

 

No links so ignored

 

You tell me! I mean this is an effect that MYTHBUSTERS proved lols!

 

No one, even the IPCC denies feedback mechanisms

 

Why would you expect IPCC, to deny anything; they're in the business of distortion climate data to foster global government and destroying capitalism.

 

Lols! Why not count the rabbits while you are down the hole! Lols!!!

So all the contributors from all the different countries across the world are only doing it to “foster global government and destroying capitalism” lols! Does that include those scientists working for private industry?? How about the economists who contribute to the IPCC? Big industry also can have a say you know!

You have never actually looked at who the authors of the IPCC actually are have you??

https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.php?q=37&p=

 

That is simply not true,
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

 

Okay - here is mythbusters showing the effect of increased CO2 within a controlled environment

 

"within a controlled environment"
Sorry, not relevant.

 

More than you, I'd bet. And read more about its foundation and organization and its moving from a scientific organization into a social action organization with a slight climate interest.

 

Lols! Where did you read that? Twitter/x-crement? Tik Tok? Or Alex Jones??

 

Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja
by Judith Curry
Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

 

Nope. There are several books that trace the progress. Also a few that address the "Noble Lie". which entails distorting or outright lying about scientific finding to support the AGW panic.

 

Ahhhh! Sources you cannot link and are highly probably funded by fossil fuel industries. Hate to tell you but writing denialist books is bloody lucrative, does not require the author to have any qualifications in anything, are not peer reviewed and even require citations

 

One of my favorites. She works hard to provide a balanced and factual report. Her career span from college department chief to CEO of an environment adaptation company speaks volumes.

 

you're continual refu"sal to accept any source other than official AGW / CO2 is evil catechism suggests it would be a waste of my time.

 

You asked for an explanation, not links, and I will thank you to remember it. My explanation merely showed why your belief system is trash, so of course you have to ignore it. Simple.

 

No but I DO have a hierarchy of criteria based on academic standards


Books are often a far far cry from a systematic review

 

Links are the baseline of academic writing - you have to prove your point before others will accept it

 

BWAHAHHAHHAHAAAAA!

What they conspicuously did NOT do with their "controlled environment" was measure the effect of adding CO2 or methane to ordinary sea level atmospheric air.

Soooo busted.

 

News flash: I am not engaged in academic writing here, and I know you will not accept the truth no matter how many links I provide -- Jack has certainly proved that -- so that was not my goal. I was merely trying to explain a fairly subtle science error in terms that even the scientifically naive could understand. Guess I overestimated you.

 

Whether a book is a systematic review or not depends on what is in it, not whether it matches your criteria of academic orthodoxy.