Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Crick]

How many times do I have to say I don't believe orbital cycles trigger glacial events but play a role in them. I don't know anyone who believes orbital forcing triggers interglacial periods. So why do you keep arguing that I do?

I'm not arguing that you do. I'm arguing that you SHOULD.

 

[ding]

I'm not arguing that you do. I'm arguing that you SHOULD.

Why? The ocean is what drives abrupt changes; specifically the collapse of the AMOC which disrupts heat flow from the Atlantic to the Arctic. Maybe you should read up on that. Because if you do you will discover it WILL cause an abrupt and dramatic change in the NH's climate.

But please do feel free to explain how orbital cycles causes abrupt changes to the planet's climate. And make sure to detail why you believe that happens specifically in the Arctic.

 

[Crick]

Only if they ignore the ocean and its ability to transfer heat to the arctic from the Atlantic. D-O events are conclusive evidence that the ocean it was triggers glacial periods and then the return to interglacial periods. What ever role the sun plays in variability affects the wind patterns which affects the ocean circulation. There's not enough temperature variation in solar output to trigger these events. It has to be the ocean (which is where most of the heat resides) that causes these abrupt changes. So when circulation patterns change it affects the climate especially in the arctic region.

Look up AMOC collapse to educate yourself.

Are you claiming that the warming coincident with the Industrical Revolution was produced by the start up of the AMOC?

The Amoc has not been shut off for 12,000 years.” The Amoc collapsed and restarted repeatedly in the cycle of ice ages that occurred from 115,000 to 12,000 years ago. It is one of the climate tipping points scientists are most concerned about as global temperatures continue to rise.Jul 25, 2023

Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests

A collapse would bring catastrophic climate impacts but scientists disagree over the new analysis

www.theguardian.com

 

[Crick]

Again... I'm not arguing that dummy. I'm arguing the sun's role in this - whether solar output variation or orbital forcing - is to affect wind patterns which affects ocean currents. So as the planet naturally warms up to its peak interglacial temperature, salinity and density changes coupled with changes in wind patterns switches off the heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic. And this is what triggers the glacial period and ends the glacial period when circulation returns to what we would call normal.

You've just said that Milankovitch forcing drives the glacial cycle - a contradiction from your previous statements.

 

[ding]

Are you claiming that the warming coincident with the Industrical Revolution was produced by the start up of the AMOC?

No. I am claiming the AMOC was responsible for the glacial event and that the planet has been warming up ever since but in a chaotic fashion with warming and cooling trends occurring along the way but ultimately an overall return to the peak interglacial temperature at which time changes in density and salinity trigger another disruption of heat flow from the Atlantic to the Arctic thus triggering the next glacial period as has been occurring for the past 3 million years.

 

[Crick]

You aren't listening to what I am saying. As the planet naturally warms up to its peak interglacial temperature, salinity and density changes coupled with changes in wind patterns switches off the heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic. And this is what triggers the glacial period and ends the glacial period when circulation returns to what we would call normal.

Naturally warms up how?

 

[ding]

You've just said that Milankovitch forcing drives the glacial cycle - a contradiction from your previous statements.

No, I haven't been saying that. That is an idea that has been widely believed but no one has ever really considered the mechanics. The heat is in the ocean. The Arctic only needs a disruption of that heat to trigger extensive continental glaciation. Then albedo kicks in. So even after heat transport resumes it still takes a very long time for the planet to equilibrate back to it's pre-glaciation temperature.

 

[ding]

Naturally warms up how?

The condition which triggered the disruption to heat to the Arctic ends. Heat flow returns to the Arctic from the Atlantic. The ice melts. Albedo changes.

 

[ReinyDays]

Thanks, but no. The subject is "Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics." -- I deny neither. You?

If you don't think radiative physics has to do with energy, then you're posting in the wrong thread ... try "religion" ...

 

[ding]

The Amoc has not been shut off for 12,000 years.” The Amoc collapsed and restarted repeatedly in the cycle of ice ages that occurred from 115,000 to 12,000 years ago. It is one of the climate tipping points scientists are most concerned about as global temperatures continue to rise.Jul 25, 2023

Even after heat transport resumes it still takes a very long time for the planet to equilibrate back to it's pre-glaciation temperature.

The Arctic only needs a disruption of heat from the Atlantic to the Arctic to trigger glaciation in the Arctic. Then albedo kicks in and glaciation spreads to extensive NH continental glaciation. That's the abrupt change. Then the disruption to heat to the Arctic ends. Heat flow returns to the Arctic from the Atlantic. The ice melts. Albedo changes. But it takes a very long time for the planet to return to its pre-glacial temperature. At which point the next glacial period is triggered by salinity and density changes and the cycle begins anew.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you don't think radiative physics has to do with energy, then you're posting in the wrong thread ... try "religion" ...

Wow, cheap straw. Even for you. You just quoted me explicitly stating that I deny neither greenhouse effects nor radiative physics.

"Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics." -- I deny neither. You?

Whatever you and ding are smoking, I'd stop if I were you.

 

[ding]

Wow, cheap straw. Even for you. You just quoted me explicitly stating that I deny neither greenhouse effects nor radiative physics.

Whatever you and ding are smoking, I'd stop if I were you.

I never said you denied it. I asked you if you believe in their ridiculous exaggeration of the GHG effect. So maybe you should put down the pipe.

 

[ding]

The thing is that neither Crick or Grumblenuts have not disputed anything I have written.

 

[Crick]

The thing is that neither Crick or Grumblenuts have not disputed anything I have written.

I totally dispute your contention that net warming feedback is zero. I believe I have made that clear repeatedly and do not believe you could have missed that point.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I never said you denied it. I asked you if you believe in their ridiculous exaggeration of the GHG effect. So maybe you should put down the pipe.

My response was to ReinyDays. Having a rainy day are you?

The thing is that neither @Crick or @Grumblenuts have not disputed anything I have written.

Well that's coherent. What not neither of us have not disputed as to what far as we've never written, crack pipe?

 

[ding]

I totally dispute your contention that net warming feedback is zero. I believe I have made that clear repeatedly and do not believe you could have missed that point.

Well... there's no physics for it like there is instantaneous radiative forcing. You understand that physics, right? Atoms vibrating and heating the surrounding air because their movement creates friction. The GHG effect is a deterministic physical phenomenon. Feedbacks aren't. So you can't just assume all warming is feedback which is how they are determining their feedback. They are zeroing out natural variability when the geologic record is littered with natural variability and the current interglacial is still warming up to the temperature of previous interglacial periods.

So on what basis do you dispute each of these independent and unique statements of which I count 6 such statements. Make sure to address all six.

 

[ding]

My response was to ReinyDays. Having a rainy day are you?

Well that's coherent. What not neither of us have not disputed as to what far as we've never written, crack pipe?

But you included me. You brought me in.

I think the crack pipe must be yours if you believe an increase of 280 ppm of CO2 would be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect, when the atmosphere in its entirety is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect. Seriously, you'd have to be a moron not to see the flaw in that logic. It's not magic gas. They didn't buy it from the same guy Jack bought his beans from.

 

[Crick]

Well... there's no physics for it like there is instantaneous radiative forcing. You understand that physics, right? Atoms vibrating and heating the surrounding air because their movement creates friction. The GHG effect is a deterministic physical phenomenon. Feedbacks aren't. So you can't just assume all warming is feedback which is how they are determining their feedback. They are zeroing out natural variability when the geologic record is littered with natural variability and the current interglacial is still warming up to the temperature of previous interglacial periods.

So on what basis do you dispute each of these independent and unique statements of which I count 6 such statements. Make sure to address all six.

The feedbacks in this case are added CO2 and water vapor, whose added volumes per warming are deterministic, feeding the greenhouse effect which, as you have informed us, is also deterministic.

 

[ding]

The feedbacks in this case are added CO2 and water vapor, whose added volumes per warming are deterministic, feeding the greenhouse effect which, as you have informed us, is also deterministic.

So what? You didn't dispute anything I wrote. Besides I think you are confusing stochastic with deterministic.

If the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect because of weather, why do you believe an increase of 280 ppm of CO2 would be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect? So much for feedback, huh?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well... there's no physics for it like there is instantaneous radiative forcing. You understand that physics, right? Atoms vibrating and heating the surrounding air because their movement creates friction. The GHG effect is a deterministic physical phenomenon. Feedbacks aren't. So you can't just assume all warming is feedback which is how they are determining their feedback. They are zeroing out natural variability when the geologic record is littered with natural variability and the current interglacial is still warming up to the temperature of previous interglacial periods.

So on what basis do you dispute each of these independent and unique statements of which I count 6 such statements. Make sure to address all six.

Number them, then supply links and quotes from respectable sources stating the same within reason. Otherwise, keep attracting only flies by plucking strictly from your own butt.