THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR

[hollodero]

(12-18-2016, 06:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You know the old saying you can't prove a negative?  Why don't you link me studies that you think prove climate change, and I will critique them. 

And, hopefully, you understand what you're linking and not just copy-pasta or why even engage you?

By the way, don't even waste our time with anything less than 95% R-sq (and if you don't understand why, google it)....because I will summarily reject that study with that very one sentence.  And to make it simple: Less than 95% R-sq = nothing (and most likley garbage) and less, or no R-sq at all = something even less.

So, now, please...regale me with studies that support your view. I will wait.

Donald? Is it you?
You're amazing!

So let's see. You say you get your opinion from studies you've read. You attack people who believe the "climate change lie" as little Hitlers and whatnot (that is amazing by itself). Then some more bragging of how much you understand and what little lights all others here are compared to you.
And yet you won't even do the simple thing and post links to those studies - which really is all I asked you for. And which would take way less time then keep posting condescending insults towards those that go with the opinion of merely all scientists in this world. Where are these studies? Why should I take anything you say seriously when you won't even show me a single study that allegedly exists and that you allegedly read and understood? Really, why should anyone?
Right now... you have done NOTHING but running a big mouth. You do not provide anything to support your view, you offer insults, proofless claims and a huge sense of self-confidence. Which makes me guess your hands are fairly small.
And you obviously just hope that people shy away because you use some scientific expressions you consider fancy.

I mean, cool, R². What does that even mean without any context. Guess you talk about the coefficient of determination here; posting just that without making clear what you're even referring to does not make any sense.
-- I will give you one thing right away: Predictions are indeed something different than facts. Climate models are predictions and of course do have margin of errors (or even more fundamental uncertainties). I definitely wouldn't defend a singulary prediction that is out there up to the very letter. That's all I can say to "R squared" at this point.
- I even give you a second thing: I am not really a scientist. But unlike your republican geniusses, I take from that that I'd better listen to those who actually are.

So that's that. I am aware you posted a follow-up which is somehow way more interesting than the bunch of hot air you put in here untl then. Please allow me to answer later, I can't get into it right now.

---------------------------


Well, I'll be damned to give a response right now, without having really the time to do so.

(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or we can break it down even simpler and you tell me:

That seems like a good start.

(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The % of CO2 in the atmosphere and how fast it is increasing

Well, % is tricky as I hope you know. Volume %, weight %? Anyway, the easy answer would be about 0,04%. Measuring in parts per million therefore makes more sense, as you know (I hope). Right now we have about 400 ppm (using volume as the benchmark).
in 1850, this number was more like 280 ppm, a value that was quite stable for at least 10.000 years. You know there were flucuation in earth's history, but none of the former increases was nearly as sharp, i.e. did not happen in such a short period of time.
It's man causing that increase. When you doubt that, let me know (I have no idea as of yet what exactly you are doubting in the first place).
- Increase rate about 2ppm/anno.

(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: How much of the annual CO2 emissions man constitutes

About 3.5 % of annual natural CO2 emissions, from what I understand. I might be wrong on that one, but I'm running out of time to get the exact numbers.
As you know, that is additional CO2 compared to those natural sources that have emitted there for a long time, forming a pretty steady circle in the last 10.000 years or so (again, if that's what you want to talk about, I willingly get into more detail here).

(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: What is the CO2 log warming equation

Sorry, honestly don't get you here. If you talk about logarithmic amplification, then well, the heating effect of CO2 doesn't go linear with its atmospheric concentration. It adds up logarithmically to the "warming" (let's say the downward forcing), i.e. double concentrations do not lead to a doubled warming effect. To talk about the main stuff heuristically, I know this is not the most exact stuff here. I do not remember the equation behind it now, but I gladly look it up if you want to deepen the conversation on that one.

(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And a general teaser on your thoughts on negative forcing and amplification effects....with a qualifying nod to sunspots and solar maximums

WEl, the amplication effects. It seems like a little bit of a guessing game still. I won't look it up now, just from the top of my head. There are amplification effects that could reduce the warming effect - like a warmer soil produces more evaporation, hence more clouds, hence less direct irradiance, hence less heating. Increased CO2 levels might also lead to an increase in vegetation, hence additional CO2 might be bound in more plants. Third one I remember is warmer oceans could also provide a larger CO2 sink, i.e. could hold more CO2 (but that last one might still be devastating, see sour oceans, and from what I heard is under some considerable doubt now).

The acclerating amplifications include mainly a lessened earth albedo (ice that reflects sunlight melts and goes away, hence less sunlight is reflected directly fom earth's surface, hence more absorption and more IR radiation), melting tundras/permafrost surfaces releasing methane (big one), and that more evaporation might lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect (since water is a way more potent greenhouse gas).

As for the sunspots, I can look it up later, right now I just can report on my knowledge that these are considered and probably were responsible for some warming in the earth's past, but are not considered responsible for our current warming period. Really have to leave that one to a later discussion, if there is one.

Your turn. I did you the favor and answered the questions quite commonly. I'm sure (and hope) you had something special in mind here, so let's just see it.