Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

It may not have been your intent, but it is what you said.

Incorrect. Again... quote it. Or you can just waste more time by going back on forth like a 2nd grader.

 

[ding]

Temperature changes will not be localized and thus will not affect density driven circulation. The AMOC has not been affected by the warming of the polar waters nearly as much as by the meltwater that has diluted it.

AMOC switch off affects the northern hemisphere for good reasons that you know nothing about because you are ignorant about what drives the planet's climate or the processes at work. But you keep parsing my posts like the cultural marxist critical theorist that you are to keep those bananas in your ears.

 

[ding]

I believe the difference between those two is not magnitude but variability. Actual solar output has varied a great deal in recent years ON A RELATIUVE BASIS. Absolute TSI variation is insignificant, particularly compared to the radiative forcing of increased CO2.

That's nice.

A 2C temperature swing in the Arctic can occur by disrupting heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic because the ocean is where the vast majority of heat is stored and explains the cyclical behavior of the past 3 million years.

If orbital cycles are playing a role they are most likely affecting wind patterns which play a role in disrupting ocean circulation patterns. Now you know.

Orbital changes effect the distance the solar radiation travels. Different distances traveled affect the strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface. So whether we are talking about changes to solar output or solar flares or orbital forcing it all effects the effective strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface which can influence or affect wind patterns which can then affect ocean circulation patterns.

The sun powers the wind by heating up parts of the earth more than others. Wind is the movement of air. The sun heats the air, and the warm air rises. This rising warm air makes the cooler air from the surrounding areas come in to replace it.

Orbital forcing involves the redistribution of incoming solar energy, both latitudinally and seasonally. Thus, there are differential effects on the climate system that can lead to circulation changes, and there may be different responses to the forcing in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

Winds drive currents that are at or near the ocean's surface. Near coastal areas winds tend to drive currents on a localized scale and can result in phenomena like coastal upwelling. On a more global scale, in the open ocean, winds drive currents that circulate water for thousands of miles throughout the ocean basins.

 

[ding]

Total variation here is 7 W/m^-2 over 600 years or roughly half of one percent.

And doesn't affect anything I have said. In fact, if anything it proves that could not be the trigger for glacial periods or interglacial periods either.

It's the heat in the ocean and how it affects the NH, dummy.

 

[ding]

What do you believe stops the ocean from circulating heat to the Arctic? The collapse of the AMOC. What causes the collapse of the AMOC? Melted ice. And what causes melted ice? Warming. And does Milankovitch produce enough warming to do that? No. What does? Milankovitch and positive feedback from CO2 and water vapor.

I already explained this. Temperature affects ocean water salinity and density. Those changes coupled with changes in wind patterns are what affect the circulation patterns. The only possible explanation for the glacial cycles that have been repeating is heat from the ocean. There is nothing else out there.

 

[Robert W]

And doesn't affect anything I have said. In fact, if anything it proves that could not be the trigger for glacial periods or interglacial periods either.

It's the heat in the ocean and how it affects the NH, dummy.

I will chip in too. I believe Ding is correct in saying the Ocean is prime. I mention clouds but where is the major source of water for Clouds? The Ocean. We feel a change in temperature when clouds appear above us. And if clouds are triggered, water falls that also cools us. If one watches Professor Lindzen much, he will talk to them about Clouds and how the major driver of climates is in the Tropics. And he does not blame the USA inhabitants for any global warming.

 

[Crick]

That's nice.

A 2C temperature swing in the Arctic can occur by disrupting heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic because the ocean is where the vast majority of heat is stored and explains the cyclical behavior of the past 3 million years.

If orbital cycles are playing a role they are most likely affecting wind patterns which play a role in disrupting ocean circulation patterns. Now you know.

Orbital changes effect the distance the solar radiation travels. Different distances traveled affect the strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface. So whether we are talking about changes to solar output or solar flares or orbital forcing it all effects the effective strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface which can influence or affect wind patterns which can then affect ocean circulation patterns.

The sun powers the wind by heating up parts of the earth more than others. Wind is the movement of air. The sun heats the air, and the warm air rises. This rising warm air makes the cooler air from the surrounding areas come in to replace it.

Orbital forcing involves the redistribution of incoming solar energy, both latitudinally and seasonally. Thus, there are differential effects on the climate system that can lead to circulation changes, and there may be different responses to the forcing in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

Winds drive currents that are at or near the ocean's surface. Near coastal areas winds tend to drive currents on a localized scale and can result in phenomena like coastal upwelling. On a more global scale, in the open ocean, winds drive currents that circulate water for thousands of miles throughout the ocean basins.

Why have the glacial cycles been cycles? You claim that there is no thermal forcing yet the planet cycles between glacial and interglacial. Are you claiming that the heat is transported from the equator to the poles and then, a hundred thousand years later, is transported back? Then Rinse, Lather, Repeat? You're fooking insane.

 

[ding]

Why have the glacial cycles been cycles? You claim that there is no thermal forcing yet the planet cycles between glacial and interglacial. Are you claiming that the heat is transported from the equator to the poles and then, a hundred thousand years later, is transported back? Then Rinse, Lather, Repeat? You're fooking insane.

I am claiming that compared to the atmosphere the vast majority of heat is in the ocean. Do you dispute this?

 

[Crick]

I am claiming that compared to the atmosphere the vast majority of heat is in the ocean. Do you dispute this?

No shit sherlock. Now in your hypothesis, what causes it to cycle from the poles to the equator and back?

 

[ding]

No shit sherlock. Now in your hypothesis, what causes it to cycle from the poles to the equator and back?

It's hilarious watching you cling to your failed theories and ignoring real science.

 

[ding]

what causes it to cycle from the poles to the equator and back?

How many times do I have to keep answering the exact same questions?

Temperature dependent salinity and density changes to ocean waters and changes to wind patterns due to changes in effective solar radiation due to either solar forcing or changes in solar output. Is this beyond your ability to comprehend?

 

[ReinyDays]

It more than likely that we will not notice climate change during our lifetime. I will give you 3 examples. Yosemite park is there due to climate change. 3 Times they tell us glaciers came and carved then vanished. The last glacier left us what we see there today.
The Great lakes. Those are where a huge glacier used to be.
New York City in Central park has ancient rocks that were carved by glaciers. Today due to climate change the city is not covered by a glacier.

You got me there ... what does ice on the ground have to do with atmospheric physics? ...

Yosemite's climate has nothing to do with temperature ... everything to do with orographic lifting ... it hasn't rained in Yosemite in July for the past 120,000,000 years ... it has a Mediterranean climate caused by the summertime sub-tropical jet stream forming a persistent high pressure region in the East Pacific ... the Westerlies are forces up and over and any storms or low pressure cyclones in the air stream make landfall in British Columbia ... not Southern California ...

Glaciers have nothing to do with this ...

 

[koshergrl]

here we go again.....

what do you consider 'alt science'......??

~S~

Real science.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[ReinyDays]

Real science.

"6,000-year-old Flat Earth" is real science? ... Plank's Radiation Law requires a roundish Earth, spinning on her axis ... orbiting the Sun ...

... with an atmosphere ... where gas laws apply ... just because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect doesn't mean there is no greenhouse effect ... science doesn't care if you like it or not ...

 

[Robert W]

You got me there ... what does ice on the ground have to do with atmospheric physics? ...

Yosemite's climate has nothing to do with temperature ... everything to do with orographic lifting ... it hasn't rained in Yosemite in July for the past 120,000,000 years ... it has a Mediterranean climate caused by the summertime sub-tropical jet stream forming a persistent high pressure region in the East Pacific ... the Westerlies are forces up and over and any storms or low pressure cyclones in the air stream make landfall in British Columbia ... not Southern California ...

Glaciers have nothing to do with this ...

I'm surprised you think that about glaciers. When the temp outside is 100 vs the temp for the Glacier is 31, you don't think that is relevant?

 

[Robert W]

"6,000-year-old Flat Earth" is real science? ... Plank's Radiation Law requires a roundish Earth, spinning on her axis ... orbiting the Sun ...

... with an atmosphere ... where gas laws apply ... just because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect doesn't mean there is no greenhouse effect ... science doesn't care if you like it or not ...

Why do you think we don't believe in the greenhouse effect?

 

[Crick]

Why do you think we don't believe in the greenhouse effect?

Because it conflicts with flat-earth theory? ; - ) I don't know Robert. Why don 't you believe in the greenhouse effect?

 

[Robert W]

Because it conflicts with flat-earth theory? ; - ) I don't know Robert. Why don 't you believe in the greenhouse effect?

I am not familiar with a current flat earth theory. You seem to have forgot I am a pilot and even as a passenger in a commercial airliner, it is easy to see that the earth is round and not flat.
I don't know of anybody who does not know about the greenhouse effect.

Stop to think though. Climate is not dictated by a single effect. As Ding tells you, the Ocean is a huge factor. I mention Clouds and those are an enormous factor. Those who subscribe to the concept a single factor manages climate are simply not thinking well. I mentioned the Coriolis effect which per my Aviation Weather book states this is also a known effect.

 

[koshergrl]

"6,000-year-old Flat Earth" is real science? ... Plank's Radiation Law requires a roundish Earth, spinning on her axis ... orbiting the Sun ...

... with an atmosphere ... where gas laws apply ... just because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect doesn't mean there is no greenhouse effect ... science doesn't care if you like it or not ...

That's a lot of spluttering and gibbering in one breath.