Its called NATURE!!!!

[ding]

The ocean is creating CO2 in the atmosphere?

No. The ocean is moving heat around the planet. For example, the UK would be frigid without the heat transfer from the ocean.

"...Rene van Westen, a climate scientist and oceanographer at Utrecht University, predicts that in the summer, UK temperatures will be about 5.4°F to 9°F (3°C to 5°C) lower than they are now. Meanwhile, winter temperatures could be 18°F to 27°F (10°C to 15°C) lower on average, although certain parts of Britain would bear the brunt of it. For example, if the yearly average surface temperature over London fell by 12.6°F (7°C), the temperature change would be larger (down to -21.6°F/-12°C) further northward, such as in Scotland, van Westen said..."

What will happen to the UK if the Gulf Stream collapses in 2025?

In The Day After Tomorrow, characters are frozen under layers of snow. But what would actually happen here in the UK if the Gulf Stream collapsed?

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[ding]

Sure, sure.

The ocean and the sun causing a spike in CO2 in the atmosphere.

How?

Nope. Has nothing to do with CO2, dummy.

"...Jonathan Bamber, a professor of Earth observation at the University of Bristol, agreed that if the AMOC were to collapse, the climate of northwest Europe would be 'unrecognizable compared to what it is today'. 'It would be several degrees cooler so that winters would be more typical of Arctic Canada,' he told MailOnline..."

What will happen to the UK if the Gulf Stream collapses in 2025?

In The Day After Tomorrow, characters are frozen under layers of snow. But what would actually happen here in the UK if the Gulf Stream collapsed?

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Crick]

Nope. Has nothing to do with CO2, dummy.

"...Jonathan Bamber, a professor of Earth observation at the University of Bristol, agreed that if the AMOC were to collapse, the climate of northwest Europe would be 'unrecognizable compared to what it is today'. 'It would be several degrees cooler so that winters would be more typical of Arctic Canada,' he told MailOnline..."

What will happen to the UK if the Gulf Stream collapses in 2025?

In The Day After Tomorrow, characters are frozen under layers of snow. But what would actually happen here in the UK if the Gulf Stream collapsed?

www.dailymail.co.uk

And you think the reason it doesn't have anything to do with CO2 is because you reject the feedback from water vapor? You seem to be rejecting some basic, demonstrable, calculable science there buddy boy. If that's your intent, you've got a tough row to hoe and all you seem to have are your fingernails.

 

[otto105]

Because they are two different phenomenon. One is the calculated immediate temperature effect of vibrating molecules (1C per doubling of CO2). The other is their model estimate of feedback from vibrating molecules.

Vibrating molecules are adding CO2 to our atmosphere to push levels to 442ppm and rapidly increase temperature of the planet…

What’s causing them to vibrate more?

 

[otto105]

Nope. Has nothing to do with CO2, dummy.

"...Jonathan Bamber, a professor of Earth observation at the University of Bristol, agreed that if the AMOC were to collapse, the climate of northwest Europe would be 'unrecognizable compared to what it is today'. 'It would be several degrees cooler so that winters would be more typical of Arctic Canada,' he told MailOnline..."

What will happen to the UK if the Gulf Stream collapses in 2025?

In The Day After Tomorrow, characters are frozen under layers of snow. But what would actually happen here in the UK if the Gulf Stream collapsed?

www.dailymail.co.uk

The AMOC is a symptom of the human caused rapid warming not a cause.

 

[otto105]

No. The ocean is moving heat around the planet. For example, the UK would be frigid without the heat transfer from the ocean.

"...Rene van Westen, a climate scientist and oceanographer at Utrecht University, predicts that in the summer, UK temperatures will be about 5.4°F to 9°F (3°C to 5°C) lower than they are now. Meanwhile, winter temperatures could be 18°F to 27°F (10°C to 15°C) lower on average, although certain parts of Britain would bear the brunt of it. For example, if the yearly average surface temperature over London fell by 12.6°F (7°C), the temperature change would be larger (down to -21.6°F/-12°C) further northward, such as in Scotland, van Westen said..."

What will happen to the UK if the Gulf Stream collapses in 2025?

In The Day After Tomorrow, characters are frozen under layers of snow. But what would actually happen here in the UK if the Gulf Stream collapsed?

www.dailymail.co.uk

So, your argument that ocean is causing our rapid warming is bullshit.

Okay, what is the cause of 442ppm in our atmosphere that is driving temperatures?

 

[otto105]

Nope. Has nothing to do with CO2, dummy.

"...Jonathan Bamber, a professor of Earth observation at the University of Bristol, agreed that if the AMOC were to collapse, the climate of northwest Europe would be 'unrecognizable compared to what it is today'. 'It would be several degrees cooler so that winters would be more typical of Arctic Canada,' he told MailOnline..."

What will happen to the UK if the Gulf Stream collapses in 2025?

In The Day After Tomorrow, characters are frozen under layers of snow. But what would actually happen here in the UK if the Gulf Stream collapsed?

www.dailymail.co.uk

Really

Are you that old and stupid?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Really

Are you that old and stupid?

Yep, ding relies upon the Daily Fail.

 

[ding]

And you think the reason it doesn't have anything to do with CO2 is because you reject the feedback from water vapor? You seem to be rejecting some basic, demonstrable, calculable science there buddy boy. If that's your intent, you've got a tough row to hoe and all you seem to have are your fingernails.

I don't reject feedback. I reject that they know it is a net positive feedback. Water vapor and clouds are a very complicated system. They are both positive and negative feedbacks. It's dynamic. The planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm of CO2. That fact right there says increased water vapor is not net positive. I also reject the magnitude of their net positive feedback. The entire atmosphere only traps 44% of its theoretical temperature surface temperature because convective currents whisks heat away from the surface into the upper atmosphere. There's no way that 120 ppm is going to be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical surface temperature.

You asked for proof of how I know they lumped modeled feedback in with the physical phenomenon of the radiative forcing of GHG, right? And what did I say? I said the proof is that they don't report them separately. Do you deny that they are two different phenomenon? Do you deny that they don't report them separately? Can you tell me what the two values are? If not, why?

 

[ding]

Yep, ding relies upon the Daily Fail.

Be better.

 

[ding]

Vibrating molecules are adding CO2 to our atmosphere to push levels to 442ppm and rapidly increase temperature of the planet…

What’s causing them to vibrate more?

Vibrate more? What are you talking about? Do you not understand the physics of GHG's? Do you really think they vibrate more? Go learn some science.

 

[ding]

The AMOC is a symptom of the human caused rapid warming not a cause.

No, it's an ocean circulation pattern of heat transport that is affected by salinity, density and wind. Go learn some science.

 

[ding]

So, your argument that ocean is causing our rapid warming is bullshit.

Actually it's the sun heating the ocean like it always does and the planet naturally returning to its pre-glacial temperature like it's been doing for the past 3 million years. The glacial period - while long in duration - is not the planet's equilibrium state. While the planet's configuration is uniquely configured for colder temperatures, those conditions only occur when heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic gets disrupted. And when it does it rapidly cools and then takes a really long time for it to reach its equillibrium state before the next glacial period is triggered by salinity, density and wind with the changes in wind patterns due to changes in solar radiation and orbital forcing.

 

[ding]

Okay, what is the cause of 442ppm in our atmosphere that is driving temperatures?

The theoretical surface temperature of 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 is 0.5C. Based on the effectiveness of convective currents whisking away heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere we can expect 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 to trap 0.22 C at the surface. Everything above 0.22C is from the earth naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature like it's been doing for the last 3 million years.

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

Really

Are you that old and stupid?

I've forgotten more science than you ever knew.

 

[otto105]

I don't reject feedback. I reject that they know it is a net positive feedback. Water vapor and clouds are a very complicated system. They are both positive and negative feedbacks. It's dynamic. The planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm of CO2. That fact right there says increased water vapor is not net positive. I also reject the magnitude of their net positive feedback. The entire atmosphere only traps 44% of its theoretical temperature surface temperature because convective currents whisks heat away from the surface into the upper atmosphere. There's no way that 120 ppm is going to be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical surface temperature.

You asked for proof of how I know they lumped modeled feedback in with the physical phenomenon of the radiative forcing of GHG, right? And what did I say? I said the proof is that they don't report them separately. Do you deny that they are two different phenomenon? Do you deny that they don't report them separately? Can you tell me what the two values are? If not, why?

Your just a doubt pusher and an idiot.

 

[otto105]

Vibrate more? What are you talking about? Do you not understand the physics of GHG's? Do you really think they vibrate more? Go learn some science.

It’s your catalyst fuckup.

The moon must be in there somewhere too with all that tides thing making all those molecules rub against each other cresting heat.

 

[otto105]

No, it's an ocean circulation pattern of heat transport that is affected by salinity, density and wind. Go learn some science.

And those things must be increasing the CO2 to 442ppm so hard right.

 

[otto105]

The theoretical surface temperature of 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 is 0.5C. Based on the effectiveness of convective currents whisking away heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere we can expect 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 to trap 0.22 C at the surface. Everything above 0.22C is from the earth naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature like it's been doing for the last 3 million years.

Dude, don’t try to change a cut and paste to a giant boner.