I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Aivar Usk: 
 

Doubling of atmospheric CO2 will add to GHG radiative forcing about 3.5 W/m2 =  2.2% increase, just a nudge! 

Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?

 

Surface will radiate 401.5 W/m2 instead of the current 398 W/m2, causing additional warming of 0.75 degC or 0.6 degC 

Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?

I would humbly recommend to check the argumentum ad hominem definition. 

I had no intention to start debating the basics within this thread. Since I am not a scientist researching relevant topics, I can point you to the sources for such information 

The trouble is, so far you have been pointing to a bunch of dubious sources. At some point, I have to ask why on earth you believe this stuff. If you can't give any reason (despite having been asked) then that tells us you are not able to judge the scientific worth of the material you are pointing us to. For example:

- for instance, here one can find pointers to climate research and media articles form both the "realist" and "orthodox" lairs, summarized on the weekly basis:

http://sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

Any organisation which wants to lecture us on the application of what they call the Scientific Method is patently willing to express public opinions on stuff they know absolutely nothing about. There is to date no identifiable “Scientific Method” that stands up to much scrutiny. Apparently they don't know that but they write about it anyway. I wonder if it's similar with the rest of what they write?

Maybe so. I notice this week's summary discusses a paper by Richard Lindzen, one of the people you have mentioned. Apparently the paper begins : 

[Lindzen] For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria. We have correctly noted: 1) The exaggerated sensitivity, 2) The role of other processes and natural internal variability, 3) The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record, and 4) The absence of evidence for increased extremes, droughts, floods, wild-fires, and so on.

Look at point 4). Apparently this gentleman doesn't read the newspapers. He wouldn't be ablt to say that in a lecture anywhere in California. Or, I imagine, many places in Louisiana. Or in the Eifel. And it passes in this supposed review also without comment. So there are at least two people not reading newspapers :-)

And I wonder what Lindzen makes of the methodology of estimating increased risk of adverse events, which has been established now for 15 years? If we take point 4) literally, he wouldn't consider those results “evidence”.  

 

I would also remind the ClimateGate - these revelations had only short-lived positive effect on cleaning up the climate science but should not be forgotten:

Politics is fascinating, I admit. But I prefer to discuss here the physical phenomenon/phenomena and imputed phenomena of climate change.

Aivar Usk: 
 

Doubling of atmospheric CO2 will add to GHG radiative forcing about 3.5 W/m2 =  2.2% increase, just a nudge! 

Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?

 

Surface will radiate 401.5 W/m2 instead of the current 398 W/m2, causing additional warming of 0.75 degC or 0.6 degC 

Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?

I would humbly recommend to check the argumentum ad hominem definition. 

I had no intention to start debating the basics within this thread. Since I am not a scientist researching relevant topics, I can point you to the sources for such information 

The trouble is, so far you have been pointing to a bunch of dubious sources. At some point, I have to ask why on earth you believe this stuff. If you can't give any reason (despite having been asked) then that tells us you are not able to judge the scientific worth of the material you are pointing us to. For example:

- for instance, here one can find pointers to climate research and media articles form both the "realist" and "orthodox" lairs, summarized on the weekly basis:

http://sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

Any organisation which wants to lecture us on the application of what they call the Scientific Method is patently willing to express public opinions on stuff they know absolutely nothing about. There is to date no identifiable “Scientific Method” that stands up to much scrutiny. Apparently they don't know that but they write about it anyway. I wonder if it's similar with the rest of what they write?

Maybe so. I notice this week's summary discusses a paper by Richard Lindzen, one of the people you have mentioned. Apparently the paper begins : 

[Lindzen] For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria. We have correctly noted: 1) The exaggerated sensitivity, 2) The role of other processes and natural internal variability, 3) The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record, and 4) The absence of evidence for increased extremes, droughts, floods, wild-fires, and so on.

Look at point 4). Apparently this gentleman doesn't read the newspapers. He wouldn't be ablt to say that in a lecture anywhere in California. Or, I imagine, many places in Louisiana. Or in the Eifel. And it passes in this supposed review also without comment. So there are at least two people not reading newspapers :-)

And I wonder what Lindzen makes of the methodology of estimating increased risk of adverse events, which has been established now for 15 years? If we take point 4) literally, he wouldn't consider those results “evidence”.  

 

I would also remind the ClimateGate - these revelations had only short-lived positive effect on cleaning up the climate science but should not be forgotten:

Politics is fascinating, I admit. But I prefer to discuss here the physical phenomenon/phenomena and imputed phenomena of climate change.