Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Crick]

That silly ass hockey stick graph was created with cherry picked ice core and tree ring data and was debunked a couple of decades ago.

No it was not.

The "evidence" for this stupid AGW scam consist of:

1. A correlation that was created with cherry picked data.

No it was not

2. Shit in-shit out computer models that are never accurate and are paid for by Environmental Wacko funding.

No, no and no.

3. A tremendous amount of false and fraudulent data by the Principle Climate Scientists that admitted falsifying data and from government agencies like NASA, NOAA and the UN Climate Commission that have been caught lying.

No, they did not.

Climate change is real. Man made climate change is a scam.

Flash is real. Flash is an idiot.

 

[ChemEngineer]

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's a ridiculous graph is what it is. It's so ridiculous even you yourself chose not to discuss it. Other than to say, "OMG, look at this!"

Keep lying. I just reposted and discussed it. Only you said, "OMG, look at this!" just now.

 

[ding]

Keep lying. I just reposted and discussed it. Only you said, "OMG, look at this!" just now.

That graph was a joke. You should be ashamed for posting it.

Here's the unbiased data, you tell me what it shows.


"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

"...Kobashi et al. (2011) have reconstructed Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4,000 years (until 1993) at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet) with a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles (Figure B4, Appendix B). These data indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010). Therefore, it appears that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4,000 years. Schönwiese (1995)has reconstructed temperatures from ice cores in Greenland for the last 11,000 years (Figure B5,Appendix B). These reconstructions show that during the past 10,000 years temperatures over long periods were higher than they are today. The warmest phase occurred 4,000 to 8,000 years ago and is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum or the Atlantic Period..."

"...The preceding four interglacial periods are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Younger Dryas was caused by the shrinking Laurentide Ice Sheet rerouting its meltwater from the Mississippi to the St Lawrence and/or the McKenzie rivers, impacting the AMOC by dumping freshwater further north in the stream. That caused the equator to warm and the North Atlantic, Canada and Europe to chill. When riverine flows returned to their original state on the elimination of the Laurentide, the AMOC flow resumed and temperatures returned to where they had been.

Does someone want to suggest this is what is happening now? I asked Ding a couple days back if he was claiming that current warming was a D-O event or if he thought the AMOC had just restarted coincident with the Industrial Revolution but as usual, his answer was incomprehensible.

Does someone want to suggest this is what is happening now?

I want to suggest that the warming since the industrial revolution is not the fastest ever.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Younger Dryas was caused by the shrinking Laurentide Ice Sheet rerouting its meltwater from the Mississippi to the St Lawrence and/or the McKenzie rivers, impacting the AMOC by dumping freshwater further north in the stream. That caused the equator to warm and the North Atlantic, Canada and Europe to chill. When riverine flows returned to their original state on the elimination of the Laurentide, the AMOC flow resumed and temperatures returned to where they had been.

Does someone want to suggest this is what is happening now? I asked Ding a couple days back if he was claiming that current warming was a D-O event or if he thought the AMOC had just restarted coincident with the Industrial Revolution but as usual, his answer was incomprehensible.

The Toddster's own link states:

Radiocarbon dating of glacial moraines, measurements of oxygen isotopes in ice cores and in stalactites and stalagmites in caves, and pollen records indicate that climate shifts of various kinds took place during the Younger Dryas throughout the globe. Data show that the cooling was limited primarily to the Northern Hemisphere, specifically the North Atlantic region, which included Europe and eastern North America.

The context is limited to a fraction of the globe. Stuff like Greenland ice core data is mentioned. Average global surface temperature impact is clearly not.
These clowns never even attempt to compare apples with apples. They pretend to give a shit about "radiative physics" then throw anything they can grab and toss it at the wall, hoping it somehow sticks. W h a t a b u n c h o f c l o w n s !

 

[ding]

The Toddster's own link states:

The context is limited to a fraction of the globe. Stuff like Greenland ice core data is mentioned. Average global surface temperature impact is clearly not.
These clowns never even attempt to compare apples with apples. They pretend to give a shit about "radiative physics" then throw anything they can grab and toss it at the wall, hoping it somehow sticks. W h a t a b u n c h o f c l o w n s !

You do realize the polar regions are the regions warming the most, right, and show the biggest climate fluctuations, right? Especially the arctic. It's literally the most critical region on the planet for climate changes. You'd know that if you actually studied what drove the planet's climate. Instead of sucking IPCC dick.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You do realize the polar regions are the regions warming the most, right, and show the biggest climate fluctuations, right? Especially the arctic. It's literally the most critical region on the planet for climate changes. You'd know that if you actually studied what drove the planet's climate. Instead of sucking IPCC dick.

You do realize that you're now reduced to making stupid dick jokes.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here's the unbiased data, you tell me what it shows.

Truly shocking!

Climate4You is Ole Humlum's misinformation organ.

 

[ding]

You do realize that you're now reduced to making stupid dick jokes.

Sure, but it beats ass fucking science like you do.

 

[ding]

Truly shocking!

Only a moron would believe that 280 ppm of CO2 would be 450% percent effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect when the entoire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect. That is what is truly shocking.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 870202

The Keeling Curve is not a "Whoopee" graph, it is scaled properly to convey information.

Keeling's data was valuable and useful. The process of determining the origin of CO2 in the atmosphere is a complex process. Others have done it quite thoroughly. Your claim that Keeling failed by not including that information is simple bullshit.

Humans are responsible for almost every molecule of CO2 above the 280 ppm, pre-industrial level. Given that we are now at 420 ppm, humans are responsible for 50% of the CO2 currently in the air we breathe. You have made this 4% claim on multiple occasions but I have never seen you provide any supporting links. Let's see what you got. Something like this, that supports my claims

The Rising Threat of Atmospheric CO2: A Review on the Causes, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies

The increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have become a major environmental challenge due to their contribution to global warming. The primary drivers of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural...

www.mdpi.com

Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas but being a chemical engineer you understand that being a precipitable component of the atmosphere there is no way to change its level in the Earth's atmosphere except by changing the Earth's temperature, which, of course, we ahave been doing through the addition of another 140 ppm of CO2. Water vapor is the primary positive feedback to CO2's greenhouse warming. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Humans are responsible for almost every molecule of CO2 above the 280 ppm, pre-industrial level. Given that we are now at 420 ppm, humans are responsible for 50% of the CO2 currently in the air we breathe.

33%

 

[Crick]

33%

33%.

"Dee-ya-a-a-a-g NAB-it!!!"

--Amos McCoy

 

[ding]

The Keeling Curve is not a "Whoopee" graph, it is scaled properly to convey information.

Keeling's data was valuable and useful. The process of determining the origin of CO2 in the atmosphere is a complex process. Others have done it quite thoroughly. Your claim that Keeling failed by not including that information is simple bullshit.

Humans are responsible for almost every molecule of CO2 above the 280 ppm, pre-industrial level. Given that we are now at 420 ppm, humans are responsible for 50% of the CO2 currently in the air we breathe. You have made this 4% claim on multiple occasions but I have never seen you provide any supporting links. Let's see what you got. Something like this, that supports my claims

The Rising Threat of Atmospheric CO2: A Review on the Causes, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies

The increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have become a major environmental challenge due to their contribution to global warming. The primary drivers of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural...

www.mdpi.com

Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas but being a chemical engineer you understand that being a precipitable component of the atmosphere there is no way to change its level in the Earth's atmosphere except by changing the Earth's temperature, which, of course, we ahave been doing through the addition of another 140 ppm of CO2. Water vapor is the primary positive feedback to CO2's greenhouse warming. Thanks for the tip.

Except the theoretical GHG effect of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2 not 4.5C. So not really a big deal at all.

 

[Crick]

Except the theoretical GHG effect of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2 not 4.5C. So not really a big deal at all.

ECS is 3C. Live with it.

 

[ding]

ECS is 3C. Live with it.

You said 5C by 2100. The IPCC says 4.5C by 2100. Can't you guys make up your mind?

But the theoretical GHG effect of CO2 says 1C by 2100. Deal with it.

 

[ding]

ECS is 3C. Live with it.

Do you know what the theoretical GHG effect temperature is for the entire atmosphere and all of it's GH gases?

 

[Crick]

Do you know what the theoretical GHG effect temperature is for the entire atmosphere and all of it's GH gases?

New climate record is a reminder: Earth used to be way hotter, the oceans way higher (USA Today)

l.smartnews.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Study co-author Gabriel Bowen, a professor at the University of Utah, said "it’s clear we have already brought the planet into a range of conditions never seen by our species."

That should give the deniers pause. It won't.

What's "a range of conditions"?
What do you mean "never seen"?
Define "our species"?
Blah, blah, bleh!