lee wrote on May 23
rd, 2022 at 1:47pm:
What have I denied? I have said quite clearly that theoretically CO2 will cause warming. That the earth is NOT a greenhouse.
Those two propositions are contradictory. Try again.
You are a denier of AGW caused by CO2 emissions.
Quote:Ah yes averaging. Put one leg in a bucket of boiling water and the other in a bucket of ice. On average you are comfortable. No one lives in an average temperature.
But the planet (inc atmosphere)
is a single whole....currently with an average increasing temp, according to "lots of/some climate scientists".
Quote:No dear. It is you who doesn't understand. IF CO2 is the control knob, as hypothesised, then temperature should also rise during Los Ninas.
Still wrong. CO2 is only the "knob' which humans can control in our lifetimes. There are other factors determining climate.
Quote:Exactly. It is disputed by a lot but accepted by a lot. And that is not a recipe doing any thing. The earth is not going to have runaway warming.
So YOU say, other scientists disagree (confirming climate science is infinitely more complex than planetary-motion science)
Quote:Show us the PROOF that it is due to CO2. There isn't any. Climate models are not proof of anything.
Some "lots of scientists" you mentioned above DO theorize an AGW-CO2 effect.
Quote:Even Zeke Hausfather is coming to that conclusion. The IPCC insists on an ensemble of climate models. Only one model can be correct.
"One study suggests Arctic rainfall will become dominant in the 2060s, decades earlier than expected. Another claims air pollution from forest fires in the western United States could triple by 2100. A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.
All three studies, published in the past year, rely on projections of the future produced by some of the world’s next-generation climate models. But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast. Although modelmakers are adapting to this reality, researchers who use the model projections to gauge the impacts of climate change have yet to follow suit. That has resulted in a parade of “faster than expected” results that threatens to undermine the credibility of climate science, some researchers fear.
Scientists need to get much choosier in how they use model results, a group of climate scientists argues in a commentary published today in Nature. Researchers should no longer simply use the average of all the climate model projections, which can result in global temperatures by 2100 up to 0.7°C warmer than an estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “We need to use a slightly different approach,” says Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at payment services company Stripe and lead author of the commentary. “We must move away from the naïve idea of model democracy.” Instead, he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates."
The closest model is the Russian on (INM-CM5) which shows about 1.8C per doubling of CO2.
(Not surprising a Russian researcher would produce that model). But given the complexity,
consensus proof is difficult.
Quote:Which climate related ones? Flooding - weather. Bushfire- mostly human caused , whether accidental or arson. Heatwaves another weather related event.
You left out the 10 year drought which led to the massive 2019 fire burning the length of the GDR, with smoke seeping into Sydney's homes with doors and windows shut, for a week - never before experienced. The non-scientific population is inclined to follow those scientists who do see AGW-CO2.
Quote:According to the WMO climate is an average of 30 years not 4.
And according to many scientists, average temp (which you clearly don't understand), has been trending upward for a century, due to man-made CO2.
Quote:Now we wait to see what they try to or do accomplish. Being elected is a small step.
They COULD achieve 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030, if Labor come on board.
Quote:Wow. A poisoned desert. That must mean the government is lying.
Ok...correction: poisoned local areas surrounding coal plants and ash disposal sites.
(google):
https://indiaclimatedialogue.net/2020/07/27/coal-ash-poses-serious-environmental... Coal ash is a serious hazard to our health and the environmentby Shailendra Yashwant | Jul 27, 2020
Quote:"Production of horticulture crops in India reached a record 331.05 million metric tonnes (MMT) in 2020–21 (as per 3rd advance estimate), an increase of 10.5 million metric tonnes over FY20"
https://www.ibef.org/industry/agriculture-india (google)
4 May 2022 — The heat wave has, for now, thrown those plans into doubt. Indian farmers have estimated that 10 to 15 percent of their crop has died, ...
Quote: ...untruths....
refuted above.
Forum
Pages: 
