The Arctic sea ice melting scam is rapidly unraveling, as the ice expands and thickens. Quite predictably, climate experts are ramping up their lies about the Arctic. @ScottAdamsSays https://realclimatescience.com/2019/01/watching-the-arctic-sea-ice-scam-unravel/ …pic.twitter.com/XKuTip3Ppt
-
-
As Knut Angstrom demonstrated in 1901, the CO2 spectra is already close to saturation. So adding more CO2 has minimal effect on the radiative transfer characteristics of the atmosphere. I suggest you talk to Dr. Happer, and can arrange it.
-
Everyone who works in radiative transfer understands this. That is why James Hansen had to come up with his feedback theories to generate alarm.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. That’s the way it is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes! How many examples are required from geological data on a variety of time scales do you need showing when CO2 change either did nothing to affect T or went the opposite way?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That’s what I believe. Due to the logarithmic behavior of CO2 absorption, almost all of the warming potential of CO2 is already accounted for below 200 ppm. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In vivo or in vitro? Man made or... There's many choices in this mosaic of science
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Amazing that Twitter blocked this and I had to change settings to view. It’s time for the government to force free speech on Twitter.pic.twitter.com/Ci7gKDqufA
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
All else being equal, where no other heat transfers take place, more CO2 added to atmospheric gas would cause warming. However, when solved simultaneously with other heat transfer mechanisms, it is not at all clear, but likely negligible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The effect of CO2 on temperature is thought to be logarithmic which is why sensitivity is stated "per doubling of CO2". Not linear, not exponential - you reach a certain point where adding more CO2 has no effect. Here's a typical log chart.pic.twitter.com/g9HnbRFSQc
-
This is why the actual sensitivity of CO2 to temp is important to know and unfortunately we don't really know what that is. Different studies are all over the place.pic.twitter.com/IkyjrnrAQA
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.