Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Crick]

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.

If you had read chapter 3, you wouldn't be out here asking stupid questions.

 

[ding]

If you had read chapter 3, you wouldn't be out here asking stupid questions.

And yet you can't tell me how much of their future temperature prediction is from the GHG effect of CO2 and how much is from the feedback from the GHG effect of CO2, right?

So apparently reading chapter 3 hasn't explained that to you, right? Because if it did you would be able to state each component separately. Which you can't because you don't know.

 

[Crick]

And yet you can't tell me how much of their future temperature prediction is from the GHG effect of CO2 and how much is from the feedback from the GHG effect of CO2, right?

So apparently reading chapter 3 hasn't explained that to you, right? Because if it did you would be able to state each component separately. Which you can't because you don't know.

And yet you're afraid to read chapter 3.

 

[ding]

And yet you're afraid to read chapter 3.

I'm not. I don't need to. I figured it out another way. The ratio is 3.5C feedback to 1C GHG effect of CO2 by the year 2100. Now prove me wrong using Chapter 3.

 

[Crick]

I'm not. I don't need to. I figured it out another way. The ratio is 3.5C feedback to 1C GHG effect of CO2 by the year 2100. Now prove me wrong using Chapter 3.

I'm curious how you explain the observed warming without feedback.

 

[ding]

I'm curious how you explain the observed warming without feedback.

How many times do I have to tell you?

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

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.

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

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.

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

and I have very good reason to do so. Very good reason to do what? If you are trying to say you have very good reason to believe it using simple physics like which can be done for GHG effect, then lay it on me. If you tell me your reason is modelling then that's not the same thing. That's...

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

and I have very good reason to do so. Very good reason to do what? If you are trying to say you have very good reason to believe it using simple physics like which can be done for GHG effect, then lay it on me. If you tell me your reason is modelling then that's not the same thing. That's...

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

and I have very good reason to do so. Very good reason to do what? If you are trying to say you have very good reason to believe it using simple physics like which can be done for GHG effect, then lay it on me. If you tell me your reason is modelling then that's not the same thing. That's...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Crick]

How many times do I have to tell you?

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

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.

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

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.

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

and I have very good reason to do so. Very good reason to do what? If you are trying to say you have very good reason to believe it using simple physics like which can be done for GHG effect, then lay it on me. If you tell me your reason is modelling then that's not the same thing. That's...

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

and I have very good reason to do so. Very good reason to do what? If you are trying to say you have very good reason to believe it using simple physics like which can be done for GHG effect, then lay it on me. If you tell me your reason is modelling then that's not the same thing. That's...

www.usmessageboard.com

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

and I have very good reason to do so. Very good reason to do what? If you are trying to say you have very good reason to believe it using simple physics like which can be done for GHG effect, then lay it on me. If you tell me your reason is modelling then that's not the same thing. That's...

www.usmessageboard.com

Once would be enough. None of your links answers that question.

 

[ding]

Once would be enough. None of your links answers that question.

Sure they did.

1. Glacial periods are triggered by disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
2. Increased albedo amplifies the cooling.
3. Extensive continental glaciation occurs.
4. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic is restored.
5. Decreased albedo amplifies the warming.
6. Continental glaciation recedes.
7. It takes a very long time for the planet to warm up to the conditions which triggered disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
8. The same warming trend occurs after every glacial period.
9. The same natural causes that occurred in the past are still occurring today.

 

[Crick]

Sure they did.

1. Glacial periods are triggered by disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
2. Increased albedo amplifies the cooling.
3. Extensive continental glaciation occurs.
4. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctice is restored.
5. Decreased albedo amplifies the warming.
6. Continental glaciation recedes.
7. It takes a very long time for the planet to warm up to the conditions which triggered disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
8. The same warming trend occurs after every glacial period.
9. The same natural causes that occurred in the past are still occurring today.

View attachment 872925

How do you explain the rate both of CO2 and temperature increase? They are both many, many times anything that has taken place in the last 3 million years unless you care to claim this is a D-O Event.

And your list above does NOT answer the question.

 

[ding]

How do you explain the rate both of CO2 and temperature increase? They are both many, many times anything that has taken place in the last 3 million years unless you care to claim this is a D-O Event.

And your list above does NOT answer the question.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature.
Post industrial revolution CO2 correlates to emissions.

No, temperature is not "many, many times anything that has taken place in the last 3 million years."

 

[Crick]

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature.
Post industrial revolution CO2 correlates to emissions.

No, temperature is not "many, many times anything that has taken place in the last 3 million years."

View attachment 872927

View attachment 872928

I said the RATE of CO2 and temperature increase. So, aside from D-O events, YES, the current situation is unprecedented in at least3 million years.

 

[ding]

I said the RATE of CO2 and temperature increase. So, aside from D-O events, YES, the current situation is unprecedented in at least3 million years.

And I explained the reason for the rate increase in CO2 which has divorced itself from temperature.

As for your perception that temperature increase is unusual, the warming trend began 400 years ago. Well before man could have influenced it. There's nothing unusual about it. Your mistake is attributing all warming to CO2 which is not supported by the physics of the GHG effect. It is only an artifact of the models which can't distinguish between natural warming and warming from CO2.

 

[Crick]

And I explained the reason for the rate increase in CO2 which has divorced itself from temperature.

As for your perception that temperature increase is unusual, the warming trend began 400 years ago. Well before man could have influenced it. There's nothing unusual about it. Your mistake is attributing all warming to CO2 which is not supported by the physics of the GHG effect. It is only an artifact of the models which can't distinguish between natural warming and warming from CO2.

CO2 by itself will not produce all the observed warming. What actual process do you believe has boosted the temperature beyond the greenhouse warming?

 

[ding]

CO2 by itself will not produce all the observed warming. What actual process do you believe has boosted the temperature beyond the greenhouse warming?

The same ones it has always been as the planet returns to its pre-glacial temperature. These conditions and temperatures are not unusual. The present temperature isn't warmer than the Holocene Climate Optimum and it is still considerably cooler than the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods.

 

[ding]

And your list above does NOT answer the question.

It did though. What do you believe albedo is? It's a feedback. And what triggers the warming and the cooling? Heat circulation to the Arctic from the Atlantic. So what are those temperature responses to disruption and restoration of heat transport to the Arctic? Feedback.

 

[ChemEngineer]

 

[Crick]

The same ones it has always been as the planet returns to its pre-glacial temperature. These conditions and temperatures are not unusual. The present temperature isn't warmer than the Holocene Climate Optimum and it is still considerably cooler than the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods.

You're dodging and we can all see it. Identify the process you believe responsible for the additional warming.

 

[Crick]

It did though. What do you believe albedo is? It's a feedback. And what triggers the warming and the cooling? Heat circulation to the Arctic from the Atlantic. So what are those temperature responses to disruption and restoration of heat transport to the Arctic? Feedback.

So you believe the additonal warming is due to melted ice?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Important Climate Change Mystery Solved by Scientists

www.rutgers.edu

 

[ding]

You're dodging and we can all see it. Identify the process you believe responsible for the additional warming.

I didn't dodge. The same conditions which drove every previous interglacial period temperature increase are the same ones that are driving today's temperature increase. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic, decreasing albedo in the NH and about 0.5C from a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2. Why do you keep forgetting that the planet is still 2C colder than previous interglacial periods?