2016 Arctic sea ice thread

[jc456]

Crick enjoy the read:

I read it. The guy got some very basic things wrong. For example, he claims the earth can't warm unless the sun warms, because it would make the earth radiate more, which would remove the heat. However, by that stupid logic, it's impossible for a blanket to make a person warmer, because the person would radiate more heat as he got warmer, removing the heat. Hence, that stupid logic is obviously wrong.

So, that source fails hard at elementary physics, just like all of your sources.

You'd be more convincing if, instead of just linking to conspiracy cult web pages and yelling "I WIN!", you'd actually explain your claim in your own words. So do so. Tell us, in your own words, why CO2 has a cooling effect. Now I could summarize the crackpot argument in a sentence, but you're the one who needs to do so. After all, if you don't even understand your own theory, why should we take you seriously?

Funny stuff tooth. again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers. Sorry.

 

[Olde Europe]

The report presented your sentence as an example of what _not_ to do ... so your cult web page did it, after stripping out the context that said not to do it. Then you saw it, and copied the mess here.

Yeah, that thing probably has been debunked millions of times, so often, actually, that the smarter deniers keep away from it. Some, seemingly, were out for lunch every time and still didn't get the memo. So, maybe that thing was resurrected the last time, and is really, really dead now.

 

[jc456]

The report presented your sentence as an example of what _not_ to do ... so your cult web page did it, after stripping out the context that said not to do it. Then you saw it, and copied the mess here.

Yeah, that thing probably has been debunked millions of times, so often, actually, that the smarter deniers keep away from it. Some, seemingly, were out for lunch every time and still didn't get the memo. So, maybe that thing was resurrected the last time, and is really, really dead now.

I love it that you can't prove your position. Love it. yeah the atmosphere is a blanket. yeppers only from the mouths of warmers. hahahaahahaha.

I wish you all would learn what the sun is.

BTW, Venus is your enemy on the subject.

 

[mamooth]

Funny stuff tooth. again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers. Sorry.

On the contrary, it's quite a good analogy, as both a blanket and greenhouse gases raise the temperature of a warm body by slowing heat flow out of the warm body. Your guy, being clueless, thinks a blanket can't make a person warmer.

Oh, you neglected to post your own short summary of why CO2 supposedly makes the earth colder. People are starting to think you have no idea of what you're babbling about, and that you're just mindlessly cutting-and-pasting and spewing insults to deflect away from that unpleasant fact. If you don't want to be thought of as a brainless cult parrot, you really need to explain, in your own words, the science which you claim is correct.

 

[jc456]

Funny stuff tooth. again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers. Sorry.

On the contrary, it's quite a good analogy, as both a blanket and greenhouse gases raise the temperature of a warm body by slowing heat flow out of the warm body. Your guy, being clueless, thinks a blanket can't make a person warmer.

Oh, you neglected to post your own short summary of why CO2 supposedly makes the earth colder. People are starting to think you have no idea of what you're babbling about, and that you're just mindlessly cutting-and-pasting and spewing insults to deflect away from that unpleasant fact. If you don't want to be thought of as a brainless cult parrot, you really need to explain, in your own words, the science which you claim is correct.

why, I posted the reason earlier, didn't you read it? here I thought you were responding to that post. wow.

Oh and no, the atmosphere is not like a blanket. A blanket doesn't evaporate nor does it circulate air. hmmmmmmm how can it be the same when a blanket is keeping heat in and heat leaves our world.

and one last thing, don't ever ask me for something until you post what 120 PPM of added CO2 does to temperature, how much hot does it add. that's been like three years I've been waiting, so you have some nerve to ask me for something when you have never presented what I asked for then.

 

[Crick]

If I ask for proof you're a human being for the next three years, can I get snitty about it when you don't deliver?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The next 3 weeks will be very important. If we're following near or below 2012 by the last week of this month it will be very hard for us to finish higher then 3rd lowest this year....There's a chance we will compete with 2012!

 

[Crick]

Crick enjoy the read:

I read it. The guy got some very basic things wrong. For example, he claims the earth can't warm unless the sun warms, because it would make the earth radiate more, which would remove the heat. However, by that stupid logic, it's impossible for a blanket to make a person warmer, because the person would radiate more heat as he got warmer, removing the heat. Hence, that stupid logic is obviously wrong.

So, that source fails hard at elementary physics, just like all of your sources.

You'd be more convincing if, instead of just linking to conspiracy cult web pages and yelling "I WIN!", you'd actually explain your claim in your own words. So do so. Tell us, in your own words, why CO2 has a cooling effect. Now I could summarize the crackpot argument in a sentence, but you're the one who needs to do so. After all, if you don't even understand your own theory, why should we take you seriously?

Funny stuff tooth. again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers. Sorry.

How does CO2 cool the planet?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Based on this map I'd say if we get to the 12th of June at below 2012 levels then we'll only need right around the avg decline of the 2000's to stay below into July.

 

[Crick]

jc, how does CO2 cool the planet?

 

[jc456]

Crick enjoy the read:

I read it. The guy got some very basic things wrong. For example, he claims the earth can't warm unless the sun warms, because it would make the earth radiate more, which would remove the heat. However, by that stupid logic, it's impossible for a blanket to make a person warmer, because the person would radiate more heat as he got warmer, removing the heat. Hence, that stupid logic is obviously wrong.

So, that source fails hard at elementary physics, just like all of your sources.

You'd be more convincing if, instead of just linking to conspiracy cult web pages and yelling "I WIN!", you'd actually explain your claim in your own words. So do so. Tell us, in your own words, why CO2 has a cooling effect. Now I could summarize the crackpot argument in a sentence, but you're the one who needs to do so. After all, if you don't even understand your own theory, why should we take you seriously?

Funny stuff tooth. again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers. Sorry.

How does CO2 cool the planet?

how does it heat it? .03% of the atmosphere, where is the power?

 

[jc456]

Crick enjoy the read:

I read it. The guy got some very basic things wrong. For example, he claims the earth can't warm unless the sun warms, because it would make the earth radiate more, which would remove the heat. However, by that stupid logic, it's impossible for a blanket to make a person warmer, because the person would radiate more heat as he got warmer, removing the heat. Hence, that stupid logic is obviously wrong.

So, that source fails hard at elementary physics, just like all of your sources.

You'd be more convincing if, instead of just linking to conspiracy cult web pages and yelling "I WIN!", you'd actually explain your claim in your own words. So do so. Tell us, in your own words, why CO2 has a cooling effect. Now I could summarize the crackpot argument in a sentence, but you're the one who needs to do so. After all, if you don't even understand your own theory, why should we take you seriously?

Funny stuff tooth. again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers. Sorry.

How does CO2 cool the planet?

2016 Arctic sea ice thread read again. Your answer is there I posted the excerpt. What is it you didn't understand?

 

[mamooth]

How does it heat it? .03% of the atmosphere, where is the power?

Through increased backradiation, which has been directly measured. And that's been pointed out to you before, with links and graphs, so we are not obligated to do so again. Quit the contrary, you need to explain why you've run from our links and data over and over.

Now you, you still haven't told us how CO2 cools the planet. You just keep coming up with new ways to avoid the issue. While your skill at evasion is impressive, it's pointless in the long run, as we're going to just keep coming back to the issue you're running from. Admit it. You have no idea of how your crazy theories supposedly work. You're brainlessly parroting the conspiracy blogs that your political cult approves of. It really is that obvious, and you're not fooling anyone.

So jc, how does CO2 cool the planet? Don't deflect by linking to a conspiracy blog. Explain it in your own words.

(The funny thing is how most everyone here could easily explain the theory of jc's nutblog in a sentence, and then explain where they got it wrong. We could, but we want to watch jc flail some more.)

 

[jc456]

How does it heat it? .03% of the atmosphere, where is the power?

Through increased backradiation, which has been directly measured. And that's been pointed out to you before, with links and graphs, so we are not obligated to do so again. Quit the contrary, you need to explain why you've run from our links and data over and over.

Now you, you still haven't told us how CO2 cools the planet. You just keep coming up with new ways to avoid the issue. While your skill at evasion is impressive, it's pointless in the long run, as we're going to just keep coming back to the issue you're running from. Admit it. You have no idea of how your crazy theories supposedly work. You're brainlessly parroting the conspiracy blogs that your political cult approves of. It really is that obvious, and you're not fooling anyone.

So jc, how does CO2 cool the planet? Don't deflect by linking to a conspiracy blog. Explain it in your own words.

(The funny thing is how most everyone here could easily explain the theory of jc's nutblog in a sentence, and then explain where they got it wrong. We could, but we want to watch jc flail some more.)

So jc, how does CO2 cool the planet? Don't deflect by linking to a conspiracy blog. Explain it in your own words.

See post #352

It actually blocks sunlight from reaching the surface, even NASA admits such. hmmmmmmm


"(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence."

Learn more: Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

 

[Olde Europe]

It actually blocks sunlight from reaching the surface, even NASA admits such. hmmmmmmm


"(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence."

Learn more: Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

Oh, for pity's sake! What NASA describes is a particle emission, not radiation:

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit.​

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the earth's energy budget. Moreover, it was never in dispute that the upper atmosphere radiates most of the IR radiation into space; the problem is that greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap most of the earth's outgoing surface radiation in the lower atmosphere.

There's a peril, you know, in picking up an internet fraud without checking or understanding what the issue is. It may make you look like a goof with little to no scientific understanding.

 

[mamooth]

As jc won't explain the theory he keeps invoking, I'll have to help him out.

His goof sources take the percent of energy the sun emits as IR, claim CO2 blocks some of that percentage from hitting the ground, and therefore that more CO2 prevents more IR from hitting the ground, cooling the earth.

The giant flaw with their method is lumping all IR in one category. Shortwave IR, which is where most of the energy is, isn't blocked by CO2. Hence, increasing CO2 doesn't stop it from reaching the surface, hence their theory is nonsense.

 

[jc456]

As jc won't explain the theory he keeps invoking, I'll have to help him out.

His goof sources take the percent of energy the sun emits as IR, claim CO2 blocks some of that percentage from hitting the ground, and therefore that more CO2 prevents more IR from hitting the ground, cooling the earth.

The giant flaw with their method is lumping all IR in one category. Shortwave IR, which is where most of the energy is, isn't blocked by CO2. Hence, increasing CO2 doesn't stop it from reaching the surface, hence their theory is nonsense.

And no back radiation, don't forget, that piece you.... You can't prove

 

[Crick]

Crick enjoy the read:

I read it. The guy got some very basic things wrong. For example, he claims the earth can't warm unless the sun warms, because it would make the earth radiate more, which would remove the heat. However, by that stupid logic, it's impossible for a blanket to make a person warmer, because the person would radiate more heat as he got warmer, removing the heat. Hence, that stupid logic is obviously wrong.

So, that source fails hard at elementary physics, just like all of your sources.

You'd be more convincing if, instead of just linking to conspiracy cult web pages and yelling "I WIN!", you'd actually explain your claim in your own words. So do so. Tell us, in your own words, why CO2 has a cooling effect. Now I could summarize the crackpot argument in a sentence, but you're the one who needs to do so. After all, if you don't even understand your own theory, why should we take you seriously?

Funny stuff tooth. again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers. Sorry.

How does CO2 cool the planet?

how does it heat it? .03% of the atmosphere, where is the power?

It is 0.04% of the atmosphere, up from 0.028% prior to the Industrial Revolution. As to the how, perhaps you've heard mention of the Greenhouse Effect? If not, we could give you a link to several good explanations.

 

[Crick]

Another comment from jc's Hockey Schtick story

"Finally, the IR radiation is not absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gases which make up 99% of the atmosphere, so a large fraction of it directly warms the Earth's surface. Some, is absorbed by the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and small amounts are absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

My understanding was that CO2 (much less water vapor, ozone and the rest of the greenhouse gases) had absorbed all available LWIR in their respective absorption spectras within a matter of a few meters passage through the atmosphere. This is a point that many deniers - yourself included jc - have used as an argument against greenhouse warming - that the effect was saturated. Sound familar? Yet this author contends that "a large fraction of [incoming IR] directly warms the Earth's surface". How, pray tell?

 

[Crick]

As jc won't explain the theory he keeps invoking, I'll have to help him out.

His goof sources take the percent of energy the sun emits as IR, claim CO2 blocks some of that percentage from hitting the ground, and therefore that more CO2 prevents more IR from hitting the ground, cooling the earth.

The giant flaw with their method is lumping all IR in one category. Shortwave IR, which is where most of the energy is, isn't blocked by CO2. Hence, increasing CO2 doesn't stop it from reaching the surface, hence their theory is nonsense.

And no back radiation, don't forget, that piece you.... You can't prove

Have you explained how Evans was able to directly measure what you say does not exist?