@LateForLunch
Well, you implied you had some understanding of the subject, so I took that in consideration when communicating with you. Now that I see how elementary your understanding is, let's take it down yet another notch.
First, please let's hear your definition of "carbon forcing". [BTW, I don't use the IPCC definition, as IPCC is full of dreck.] But let's first get the definitions out of the way, so we know we're speaking of the same things.
I've looked up and down this thread and don't see that link.
(Sorry, but I'd missed that this thread had activity. I'll be out of town for a while, but will check back when I return.)
Ah there is the vituperation I expected! Bravo. RIGHT ON TIME!! Suppressed has got to be one of the most pompous, scientifically illiterate AGW ignorami (sic) have seen on this forum. He is so blatantly devoid of any willingness or ability to engage in substantive debate outside the childishly stilted parameters of his own horrendously deficient, yea semi-moronic focus upon the topic of physical geographical science, that his rambling, minutiae-obsessed, petulantly plaintive posts are not worthy of any further serious responses.
Maybe he has gone "out of town" (wow, impressive!) to chase down any intelligence he might have once possessed, since it has already taken leave of his skull for parts unknown. BTW, newsflash Suppressed, the Internet is EVERYWHERE now. You can get a laptop or pad device and access the Net even when you are "out of town"!! Unless by that you meant that you were venturing down the Amazon River, heading out to the Siberian Tundra or snow-catting to the South Pole! Even most of Death Valley has Net coverage (can you hear me now!?!) heh
Normal people answer requests for direct response, they do not simply ignore them then focus endlessly on having their own tangential, distraction-focused demands for discussion met. So obviously Suppressed is not normal.
For the benefit of anyone who may be following along in this discussion, (not for Suppressed satisfaction) let me define the effect of Radiative Forcing in the context of carbon dioxide and other trace gas effects which I prefer to call Carbon Forcing since that is the focus of the AGW /reality-denier's paranoia and alarmism.
Radiative Forcing refers to the amount of solar black-body radiation (heat) which is either forced back into space (reflected) or forced downward (absorbed by the atmosphere). The endlessly erroneous predictions the IPCC and other AGW fanatic-dominated organizations they used to make (but then stopped making because they were always horribly wrong) relied on the notion that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a direct or indirect correlation to downward forcing (retention of heat by the atmosphere).
Even in the Wikipedia article that one may reference regarding Radiative Forcing (which largely endeavors to complicate the issue with needlessly complex, tangential formulations and equations focused on debating the magnitude of forcing, not the basic validity of the claim that it has a significant effect relative to carbon) admits that the greater the concentrations of carbon dioxide the less their effect (aka the effect is logarithmic).
The glaring elephant in the room any time one of these mendacious kooks arrive on the scene is that CO2 concentrations were ten times higher on this planet during the period when the average temperature was the lowest (about 260 million years ago). The AGW fanatics try one slick trick after another to exaggerate the projected effects of carbon-driven radiative downward forcing in the atmosphere.
Whenever these people have it pointed out to them that their predictions have been consistently yea,
spectacularly wrong based on these notions of exponential (the opposite of logarithmic) effects of carbon concentrations on forcing, they retreat into demands that obscure, tangential issues be discussed without addressing any of the central issues whatsoever. Suppressed has already done that on this thread repeatedly. He is really good at ignoring direct questions which of course, he does because he cannot answer them.
That also explains why he is either unable or unwilling to communicate in direct, easily-understood terms but retreats, as most AGW fanatics, into obscure, abstruse digressions which serve only to distract from, not to clarify the central discussion. He can't or won't phrase his points (if he has any) or information in a way that people without much knowledge of technical jargon or mathematics can understand. That makes him unworthy of consideration and fully worthy of only of scorn and contempt.
