johnnyAU

No you don't. You make unsubstantiated claims like I pointed out earlier. You have no argument.

Prove it. And then prove the scientists you have quoted/cited aren't continually funded by green $$ as long as they produce "acceptable" results.

Turn the question around on you. Do you believe the myriad of scientists and engineers that are skeptical are all funded by fossil fuel companies and are thus unethical?

Well, that is my error if I recall you stating you were retired. I apologize. Some folks are here so often that it appears to be the case even if it isn't

You don't notice. You are here like other retired folk much more often than the rest of us gainfully employed folk. We simply cannot afford the time to constantly post like some of you. Natural variations, oscillations etc...and the sun of course, dominate climatic changes. The oceans are warmed primarily by solar radiation, with some influx of volcanic activity. Variations in cloud cover (which are not modelled adequately) gate the incoming radiation. Downwelling long wave IR from CO2 cannot penetrate more than a few mm into the ocean surface. That energy from the thin skin is quickly taken away via convection. Only the sun contributes to the upper oceanic warming, and subsequent heat transfer to the air above. It isn't the other way around.

You are as ideologically blind as anyone I've ever encountered. And yes, you are ignorant if you believe the swill you propagate. No, we don't KNOW what the climate sensitivity is for the doubling of CO2. It's an estimation based on unverifiable assumptions. CO2 is claimed to feedback to warming, but there is not substantiated evidence that the effect is significant. Skeptical science is something you believe is a valid source, but it is propaganda at best. I've read every reference you have ever read or provided here. The vast majority is garbage, but funded garbage nonetheless. You have never provided FACTS, but it is clear you believe them to be facts as most cultists do. My kids will be just fine, as will their children, and theirs. What makes me grin, is that you are so spineless that you decided not to procreate and still virtue signal about it. Our society will be much better off without the weak minded progenies you would have left behind for the rest of us to prop up. We thank you for your service.

Predict incorrectly. The models clearly show considerably more warming than is actually occurring. Why? Because of the assumed climate sensitivity due to doubling of CO2 baked in the models are too high. You, or anyone else for that matter, have no idea what the temperature would be without CO2 increases since the dawn of the industrial age. We all know what a feedback loop is. However, there is no real scientific data showing the climate to be significantly altered due to increases of CO2 above the signal of natural variability. Unsubstantiated claims and unverifiable computer models are garbage science used as propaganda for the ignorant, like yourself.

Finally a true statement. However, you immediately jump to claims immediately afterwards. You have no idea how much CO2 amplifies warming, and you have no idea when the current warming would have started without increases in CO2.

Because he can't refute anything Dr. Happer has to say, and he knows it.

BS

LOL. No the arguments against AGW haven't been "debunked". That's not the case no matter how much you believe it and scream it to the top of your alarmist lungs. So pathetic.

For those who have never done it, get out and try it next year. It's a good time for a good cause. I think it's gone on now for around 12 or 13 years. I've personally done it at least 6 times, and brought my family to do it at least 2 of those years. It's a good way to reconnect with old friends, make new ones, relive old memories, exercise, have a little fun and give back to communities in need. You also get to witness arguably the best ambassador for a state or university we'll see in our lifetimes. WDE

Looks like most, if not all, of those ACE peaks are correlated with ENSO events, which makes sense.

She's an idiot, like many of the cultists

Coleman is a calm, highly intelligent voice of reason. We need more folks like him. Unfortunately, those traits have become an anomaly in our society.

No worries. I'm no MAGA, but I was technically referring to the Biden administration here. Although, in retrospect it could be applied to the whole of congress at this point and I expect the next administration, regardless of which candidate prevails.

You forgot incompetent...and in at least one case, incontinent.

Seal levels have been rising at an average of 2-3 mm/year since we began thawing from the ice age 11,000+ years ago. No amount of carbon taxes, political blustering or hyperbolic articles will do anything to slow it down.

It's like you're a child just discovering emojis. Perhaps you and Biden can go grab some ice cream together.

Well, of course you would. I'd expect nothing different from you. I'd choose the exact opposite. Anything is better than the circus in charge at the moment. We're walking the tightrope, and we're losing time at a break-neck pace. I'd MUCH rather have 2 very different options to choose from, but this is how far we've fallen. Three consecutive elections with ridiculous choices and no signs of improving.

BSME from Auburn University, PE, 30+ years in industry, partner in 2 companies, 1 science, 1 engineering, designed/installed instruments (and referenced by several scientific papers) at multiple universities/companies in US. And no, my name isn't "Johnny". What is your discipline?

That's 3 elections in a row with crap options. When will it end?

Biden is a puppet, and that was the intention from day one. If anyone seriously thinks he's in charge of anything, there's really no hope for you at this point.

Over-posting garbage is rhetoric of cultists. Spouting the same unscientific gibberish over and over isn't proof of anything, even if your belief in it is paramount. There isn't and never has been "consensus" on the magnitude of human influence on climate change because it is an unquantifiable measure. You have no legitimate science that backs up any direct correlation between emissions and climatic change. The mere existence of any attempt of trying to claim it without such proof is absolutely an indication of their own personal ignorance of the matter. To have any opinion, even though vetted through Nobel Prize winning scientists who happen to be leaders in the field of radiative physics, that is contrary to the overarching narrative brands you as a "denier" shows you exactly the mentality you are dealing with. Blind in scientific ignorance and ideology. Homer regurgitates but doesn't understand an iota of what he absorbs. It is the level of willing submission that we are faced with these days. Political science over real, quantifiable science...by any means necessary.

If anyone here is any more ideologically blind than you, I've not seen nor met them. The "studies" you have placed here are absolute garbage and they have been from the beginning from Cook and Orestes. The first was a paper by Oreskes claiming 75% of 1,000 or so papers she had reviewed agreed with the "consensus" favored by the IPCC. Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed the paper and found that only 45% endorsed the "consensus". Then along came Cook who published his "97% consensus" BS. They "reviewed" 11,944 papers related to climate change. Their finding was "97.1% endorses the scientific consensus on climate change." In reality, 7,930 of those papers took no stance on the subject at all. Upon further review, it was found that Cook and his assistants marked only 64 papers of the 11,944 they had said they read as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man made. 11,944 abstracts "reviewed" 7,930 gave no opinion 3,896 agree man causes "some" warming 64 agree man causes "most" of the warming 41 stated man caused "most" warming since 1950 0 were marked as endorsing man-made catastrophe So, around 33% agreed man causes "some" warming. Big deal, so do I. The disagreement is on how much and how severe. Less than 1% agree that man has caused "most" of the warming and nobody agreed we were in a "climate crisis". But, since that big ole "97%" number spouted off by Gore and later Obama resonated so much with apparently brain-dead sheep like you, well, they'll keep funding more of this garbage propaganda...because it apparently works.