Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

Where have you gotten the absurd idea that climate scientists are unaware of and/or do not incorporate convective processes in current climate calculations? M & S's paper is to be found in the libraries of NOAA and NAS and the AMS. It's not like the hidden wisdom of the fucking pyramids.

Because their model results are outlandish.

 

[Robert W]

Where have you gotten the absurd idea that climate scientists are unaware of and/or do not incorporate convective processes in current climate calculations? M & S's paper is to be found in the libraries of NOAA and NAS and the AMS. It's not like the hidden wisdom of the fucking pyramids.

Got any examples of pyramids having sex?

 

[Crick]

Because their model results are outlandish.

Says who? Show us some qualified scientists who agree with you.

 

[Crick]

Got any examples of pyramids having sex?

No. Pointedly, they are extraordinarily discrete.

 

[Crick]

It's not my fault that neither of you are capable of reading their paper and understanding what they are writing. Which is weird because the title is a dead give away.

The title does say almost everything you've brought forth from this paper. Have you quoted a single word from it? Any plots? The Conclusion?

 

[Crick]

Were you aware of that information in that acknowledgement? That this study was a part of an effort to construct a general circulation model? This was not an effort to investigate the greenhouse effect or to check the validity of other models. In section 2 they tell us that they used average annual insolation! No seasons! No latitudinal variation! No days and nights! By the standards of modern GCMs this thing was absolutely stone age. And this was nothing but an exploration of the factors and processes that needed to be included in a GCM to obtain realistic results. Did you note that Manabe and Strickler both work for the US Weather Bureau's General Circulation Research Laboratory?

This wasn't atmospheric or climatic research. It was model development.

 

[ding]

Says who?

The 3.5 to 1 ratio of feedbacks to radiative forcing of CO2. The millions of years the planet cooled with CO2 at 600 ppm. The atmosphere only being effective at trapping 44% of its theoretical GHG effect. The geologic record being littered with examples of warming trends that were not due to CO2. That's who.

 

[ding]

Show us some qualified scientists who agree with you.

Why? I just showed you the real world data. Do you believe their computer models more than you believe actual empirical climate data?

 

[ding]

The title does say almost everything you've brought forth from this paper. Have you quoted a single word from it? Any plots? The Conclusion?

View attachment 871616

View attachment 871617

View attachment 871618

View attachment 871619

View attachment 871620

View attachment 871621

Are you admitting you can't figure it out even though that is literally what the paper is about? Modelling to correct for the difference between theoretical radiative forcing and observed radiative forcing?

 

[ding]

Were you aware of that information in that acknowledgement? That this study was a part of an effort to construct a general circulation model? This was not an effort to investigate the greenhouse effect or to check the validity of other models. In section 2 they tell us that they used average annual insolation! No seasons! No latitudinal variation! No days and nights! By the standards of modern GCMs this thing was absolutely stone age. And this was nothing but an exploration of the factors and processes that needed to be included in a GCM to obtain realistic results. Did you note that Manabe and Strickler both work for the US Weather Bureau's General Circulation Research Laboratory?

This wasn't atmospheric or climatic research. It was model development.

Did you ever read page 363, I think it was? Or was it 362 that I told you to read? If so, did anything on that page jump out to you? Keeping in mind what the paper was about of course.

 

[Crick]

Did you ever read page 363, I think it was? Or was it 362 that I told you to read? If so, did anything on that page jump out to you? Keeping in mind what the paper was about of course.

Forget it. This is a 60 year old paper about the development of a very early GCM. It is as irrelevant as irrelevant can be. This conversation is over.

 

[ding]

Forget it. This is a 60 year old paper about the development of a very early GCM. It is as irrelevant as irrelevant can be. This conversation is over.

It's not that hard. Did you at least get from it why surface temperatures are less than theoretical?

 

[Crick]

What is the greenhouse effect? - NASA Science

The greenhouse effect is the process through which heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by substances known as ‘greenhouse gases.’ Imagine these gases as a cozy blanket enveloping our planet, helping to maintain a warmer temperature than it would have otherwise. Greenhouse gases consist of...

climate.nasa.gov

What is the greenhouse effect?​

Credit: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The greenhouse effect is the process through which heat is trapped near Earth's surface by substances known as 'greenhouse gases.' Imagine these gases as a cozy blanket enveloping our planet, helping to maintain a warmer temperature than it would have otherwise. Greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor. Water vapor, which reacts to temperature changes, is referred to as a 'feedback', because it amplifies the effect of forces that initially caused the warming.

Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability of Earth's atmosphere. If carbon dioxide were removed, the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse, and Earth's surface temperature would drop significantly, by approximately 33°C (59°F).
Greenhouse gases are part of Earth's atmosphere. This is why Earth is often called the 'Goldilocks' planet – its conditions are just right, not too hot or too cold, allowing life to thrive. Part of what makes Earth so amenable is its natural greenhouse effect, which maintains an average temperature of 15 °C (59 °F) . However, in the last century, human activities, primarily from burning fossil fuels that have led to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, have disrupted Earth's energy balance. This has led to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades and traps extra heat near Earth's surface, causing temperatures to rise

 

[Crick]

What is the greenhouse effect? - NASA Science

The greenhouse effect is the process through which heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by substances known as ‘greenhouse gases.’ Imagine these gases as a cozy blanket enveloping our planet, helping to maintain a warmer temperature than it would have otherwise. Greenhouse gases consist of...

climate.nasa.gov

What is the greenhouse effect?​

Credit: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The greenhouse effect is the process through which heat is trapped near Earth's surface by substances known as 'greenhouse gases.' Imagine these gases as a cozy blanket enveloping our planet, helping to maintain a warmer temperature than it would have otherwise. Greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor. Water vapor, which reacts to temperature changes, is referred to as a 'feedback', because it amplifies the effect of forces that initially caused the warming.

Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability of Earth's atmosphere. If carbon dioxide were removed, the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse, and Earth's surface temperature would drop significantly, by approximately 33°C (59°F).
Greenhouse gases are part of Earth's atmosphere. This is why Earth is often called the 'Goldilocks' planet – its conditions are just right, not too hot or too cold, allowing life to thrive. Part of what makes Earth so amenable is its natural greenhouse effect, which maintains an average temperature of 15 °C (59 °F) . However, in the last century, human activities, primarily from burning fossil fuels that have led to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, have disrupted Earth's energy balance. This has led to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades and traps extra heat near Earth's surface, causing temperatures to rise

I want to point out the boldened sentences above to all the people who have tried to argue that the amount of CO2 in the air is so small that it couldn't possible have any effect. The original 280 ppm was enough to warm the planet 59F.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[ReinyDays]

The original 280 ppm was enough to warm the planet 59F.

Denying water vapor's roll now? ... that's the only way this works buddy-boy ...

You deny water ... what a bastard ...

 

[Crick]

Denying water vapor's roll now? ... that's the only way this works buddy-boy ...

You deny water ... what a bastard ...

Nary a drop to drink.

Cause it's only a feedback, remember?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I want to point out the boldened sentences above to all the people who have tried to argue that the amount of CO2 in the air is so small that it couldn't possible have any effect. The original 280 ppm was enough to warm the planet 59F.

The original 280 ppm was enough to warm the planet 59F.

False, fossil fuel breath!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nary a drop to drink.

Cause it's only a feedback, remember?

Liar!

 

[Robert W]

I want to point out the boldened sentences above to all the people who have tried to argue that the amount of CO2 in the air is so small that it couldn't possible have any effect. The original 280 ppm was enough to warm the planet 59F.

It is 35 degree here. My daughter lives where it is 3 hours earlier than here and it is 73 degrees. Why is it cold here?