Poor loves. My heart bleeds for those sensitive souls, whose only altruistic ambition is to inform the public of the ‘settled science’ of global warming and how they should be afraid, be very afraid, of bad weather, melting ice and rising sea levels. Their reward for such selfless philanthropism? They get vicious abuse from a sceptical public, in the form of sarcastic comments, outright cynicism and - OMG, the very worst! - the questioning of their
Here is the definition of "climate sensitivity" according to the IPCC:
"the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration."
Here are the most recent estimates of "climate sensitivity" (which you won't see quoted by the IPCC):
Now extrapolate the ECS and TCR trends out to 2025 - 2030.
It is entirely beyond me how any scientist can conclude that there is a problem, given the basic theory of "Greenhouse Warming" which is that each additional increment of temperature increase - call it Y deg. C - requires a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
So let's say the first addition of CO2 is X ppm which creates a rise in temperature of Y deg. C.;
Now to produce a total increase of 2Y deg. C will require a further 2X ppm, so now we have 1+2=3X ppm;
So to produce an increase of 3Y deg. C will require a further 4X ppm, so now we have 1+2+4=7X ppm;
And to produce an increase of 4Y deg. C will require a further 8X ppm, so now we have 1+2+4+8=15X ppm;
Thus to produce an increase of 5Y deg. C will require a further 16X ppm, so now we have 1+2+4+8+16=31X ppm.
Now let's plot the values on a graph, we see a logarithmic curve which will very soon approximate to a line parallel to the X axis ie it becomes asymptotic.
So it is obvious that the effect of the CO2 is self-limiting, each incremental addition of CO2 has half the effect of the preceding one.
This is really basic stuff, how come "climate scientists" don't understand it?
“UK experts”
that’s like junior propagandist level 1, rite?
This brought me joy. Thank you!
Here is the definition of "climate sensitivity" according to the IPCC:
"the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration."
Here are the most recent estimates of "climate sensitivity" (which you won't see quoted by the IPCC):
https://postlmg.cc/47w6x3Cg
Now extrapolate the ECS and TCR trends out to 2025 - 2030.
It is entirely beyond me how any scientist can conclude that there is a problem, given the basic theory of "Greenhouse Warming" which is that each additional increment of temperature increase - call it Y deg. C - requires a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
So let's say the first addition of CO2 is X ppm which creates a rise in temperature of Y deg. C.;
Now to produce a total increase of 2Y deg. C will require a further 2X ppm, so now we have 1+2=3X ppm;
So to produce an increase of 3Y deg. C will require a further 4X ppm, so now we have 1+2+4=7X ppm;
And to produce an increase of 4Y deg. C will require a further 8X ppm, so now we have 1+2+4+8=15X ppm;
Thus to produce an increase of 5Y deg. C will require a further 16X ppm, so now we have 1+2+4+8+16=31X ppm.
Now let's plot the values on a graph, we see a logarithmic curve which will very soon approximate to a line parallel to the X axis ie it becomes asymptotic.
So it is obvious that the effect of the CO2 is self-limiting, each incremental addition of CO2 has half the effect of the preceding one.
This is really basic stuff, how come "climate scientists" don't understand it?
We need our pro slinger of sarcastic comments back on Twitter!
We rank amatures just barely sting their tender hides.
They won't debate you, they cannot refute you, so they ban you...
Cowards and charlatans and phoneys
Poor darlings no longer have a safe space.