Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ReinyDays]

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?

Because your daughter is much much smarter than you? ... fake a stroke and move in with her ...

Why is it cold here?

So the propeller will dig into the air harder and throw you back into your seat better ...

 

[Robert W]

Because your daughter is much much smarter than you? ... fake a stroke and move in with her ...

She wanted me to live with her and her husband and 2 kids. She is brilliant. Thanks for your compliment to her. All i have to do is bring it up and it is fine with her. I spent 10 days this summer living with her. She is doing fine with me living here in the cold.
My remark to clear this up was vs the dude here who fears climate. All he has to do is relocate to where he likes it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Winter 2023/2024 Final Forecast: Cold arrives early across the United States and Europe and is likely to return as we head into the next year

Winter 2023/2024 start with early cold across the United States and Europe, with increasing seasonal influence from the strong El Niño event

www.severe-weather.eu

 

[Robert W]

Winter 2023/2024 Final Forecast: Cold arrives early across the United States and Europe and is likely to return as we head into the next year

Winter 2023/2024 start with early cold across the United States and Europe, with increasing seasonal influence from the strong El Niño event

www.severe-weather.eu

Here is their global warming.

 

[Crick]

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.

Says who?

 

[Crick]

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?

12 December?

 

[Robert W]

12 December?

Sure, it is also 12 December where she lives and the sun won't be up for several hours there.

 

[ReinyDays]

She wanted me to live with her and her husband and 2 kids. She is brilliant. Thanks for your compliment to her. All i have to do is bring it up and it is fine with her. I spent 10 days this summer living with her. She is doing fine with me living here in the cold.
My remark to clear this up was vs the dude here who fears climate. All he has to do is relocate to where he likes it.

My location was picked for good clean water ... without all that damn snow ... just sometimes tomatoes won't ripen ... rains every day all day long ... thus the good clean water everyplace bubbling up out of the grown where maybe we don't want water bubbling up out of the ground ... no basements, just cisterns ... too much mountain fresh spring water is a nuisance ...

Oregon whities are truly white ... only the eye color betrays them as not albinos ... even the darkies get pale the longer they live here ...

 

[Robert W]

My location was picked for good clean water ... without all that damn snow ... just sometimes tomatoes won't ripen ... rains every day all day long ... thus the good clean water everyplace bubbling up out of the grown where maybe we don't want water bubbling up out of the ground ... no basements, just cisterns ... too much mountain fresh spring water is a nuisance ...

Oregon whities are truly white ... only the eye color betrays them as not albinos ... even the darkies get pale the longer they live here ...

Frankly you and I are virtually neighbors as i live east in Idaho. We also have splendid water but the rain is not as much as you have. When parts of Oregon become Idaho, then you can have our wonderful state government.

 

[ding]

Says who?

The IPCC report (i.e. GHG effect versus feedbacks from the GHG effect), the geologic record and the physics of radiative forcing of GHG's.

 

[ReinyDays]

Frankly you and I are virtually neighbors as i live east in Idaho. We also have splendid water but the rain is not as much as you have. When parts of Oregon become Idaho, then you can have our wonderful state government.

Paying 6% sales tax is better? ...

We're better off splitting off both Oregon and California's conservative regions, no sales taxes ... and that would send two more Republican Senators to Washington DC ... Jefferson is better than Idaho, we have Humboldt County and all she has to offer ... and what's wrong with a State Constitution that prohibits the State Legislature from ever meeting? ... you know that saves on taxpayer dollars ... [wink wink nudge nudge] ...

The point remains ... where ever it's 72ºF before sunset is better than either Oregon or Idaho ...climatologically speaking ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

The scientific ignorance of the Cult is almost as great as its wretched misrepresentation.
Take water vapor, please. They call it "only a feedback."
This is simply wordplay.
In chemistry, compounds can be measured for various reactions or interactions.
Take absorption of electromagnetic radiation, please.

No chemist or physicist can honestly say "carbon dioxide is more important and more critical at capturing energy because, well, the water vapor is only "feedback."
Compound these values for water by 37 because the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is 37 times that of carbon dioxide.

THAT is why foggy nights are warm and clear nights are cold. "FEEDBACK" water vapor is the difference.

Meanwhile eco-hypocrites fly private jets, 1500+ in number, to every climate eco-hypocrite conference.

 

[Crick]

The IPCC report (i.e. GHG effect versus feedbacks from the GHG effect), the geologic record and the physics of radiative forcing of GHG's.

The IPCC report (i.e. GHG effect versus feedbacks from the GHG effect), the geologic record and the physics of radiative forcing of GHG's.

You and AR6 are completely at odds over feedback. You have still to provide the name of a single scientist who believes as you believe.

 

[ding]

You and AR6 are completely at odds over feedback. You have still to provide the name of a single scientist who believes as you believe.

I gave you every opportunity in the world to share your understanding of just how much feedback comprised of their total estimate and you never ever even once attempted to answer.

Now you want to question it?

I've looked at the reports and as near as I can tell their estimate of the instantaneous GHG effect of CO2 is slightly more than 1C per doubling of CO2.

But because they disingenuously combine the two components, it's not easy to find, but it is there. Even the language they use to label it is misleading. That's just dishonest as fuck.

 

[Crick]

The scientific ignorance of the Cult is almost as great as its wretched misrepresentation.
Take water vapor, please. They call it "only a feedback."
This is simply wordplay.
In chemistry, compounds can be measured for various reactions or interactions.
Take absorption of electromagnetic radiation, please.

View attachment 871990

No chemist or physicist can honestly say "carbon dioxide is more important and more critical at capturing energy because, well, the water vapor is only "feedback."
Compound these values for water by 37 because the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is 37 times that of carbon dioxide.

THAT is why foggy nights are warm and clear nights are cold. "FEEDBACK" water vapor is the difference.

Meanwhile eco-hypocrites fly private jets, 1500+ in number, to every climate eco-hypocrite conference.
View attachment 871993

View attachment 871994

View attachment 871995

As has been explained to you here on several occasions, humans cannot directly change the amount of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere. They can and have changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

I gave you every opportunity in the world to share your understanding of just how much feedback comprised of their total estimate and you never ever even once attempted to answer.

Now you want to question it?

I've looked at the reports and as near as I can tell their estimate of the instantaneous GHG effect of CO2 is slightly more than 1C per doubling of CO2.

But because they disingenuously combine the two components, it's not easy to find, but it is there. Even the language they use to label it is misleading. That's just dishonest as fuck.

You've been answered you every time the radiative forcing diagram has been posted

 

[ReinyDays]

I gave you every opportunity in the world to share your understanding of just how much feedback comprised of their total estimate and you never ever even once attempted to answer.

Now you want to question it?

I've looked at the reports and as near as I can tell their estimate of the instantaneous GHG effect of CO2 is slightly more than 1C per doubling of CO2.

But because they disingenuously combine the two components, it's not easy to find, but it is there. Even the language they use to label it is misleading. That's just dishonest as fuck.

Which is why the IPCC is intolerant of dissent ... typical politics ... science requires dissent ...

Scientific method - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

You've been answered you every time the radiative forcing diagram has been posted

No, you have yet to acknowledge the two components the IPCC combines or to break them into their individual components; GHG effect of CO2 and feedback from GHG effect of CO2. Because if you did you would see the ridiculous ratio of the two.

 

[Crick]

No, you have yet to acknowledge the two components the IPCC combines or to break them into their individual components; GHG effect of CO2 and feedback from GHG effect of CO2. Because if you did you would see the ridiculous ratio of the two.

No, you have not done your required reading. See Chapter 3 of the Technical Summary of The Physical Science Basis as I have repeatedly directed you.

 

[ding]

No, you have not done your required reading. See Chapter 3 of the Technical Summary of The Physical Science Basis as I have repeatedly directed you.

If that were true you would be able to state the GHG effect of CO2 and the feedback from the GHG effect of CO2. Which you have never done before, despite being asked to do so at least a dozen times.