Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

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 not science. That's modelling. You can't count on anything other than the quantifiable instantaneous GHG effect. That's all science says you can take credit for. And you certainly can't assume there are no natural forcings in effect when the geologic record is littered with non-CO2 and non-orbital forcings that have caused cooling and warming trends. Taking credit for all warming as feedback from CO2 is a massive error in logic and grossly exaggerates the GHG effect of CO2.

 

[ding]

Your favorite glacial cycles are evidence: the Milankovitch forcing on its own is inadequate to produce the warming that took place.

First of all I don't believe orbital forcing is what is driving the climate. As near as I can tell that is a gradual phenomenon and couldn't come close to causing enough of a temperature effect as to trigger a glacial period. It does however add to mix. The only reasonable explanation for our planet's whacky glacial periods is the ocean. Or more specifically how the ocean transfers heat to the arctic which is the most climate sensitive region on the planet. So from that regard wind plays a role. And solar plays a role in wind. All of which interplay until the planet naturally heats up enough to trigger AMOC switch off which is what triggers an abrupt climate change in the northern hemisphere. Evidence for this are the D-O events which could have only occurred due to changes in ocean heat circulation to the northern hemisphere.

So I agree with you that the "Milankovitch forcing on its own is inadequate to produce the warming that took place" because the warming took place naturally once the ocean circulation returned to normal. In other words we are still naturally warming up from the last glacial period, CO2 has slightly warmed the planet by ~0.5C, and the planet will continue to warm about another 2C until the AMOC switches off.

 

[ding]

No science supports your contention of zero net feedback.

I disagree. The surface temperature of the planet should be 75C due to the GHG effect of the entire atmosphere. But in reality the surface temperature of the planet is only 33C due to convective currents. Or what is more commonly known as weather. So weather prevents the full GHG effect of the ENTIRE atmosphere from being realized. How is this not a negative feedback? So to put this in perspective, the GHG effect of the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping heat and you believe that an increase of 280 ppm (280 to 560) will result in an effective trapping of heat of 450%.

So, Yes, science does support that GHG can have a negative feedback and we call this feedback weather.

 

[Crick]

Very good reason to do what?

As I clearly stated, to believe that the ECS is 3C.

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.

Historically, climate sensitivity has been estimated primarily as a derived parameter from model runs. But for AR6:

Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been​

made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate​

sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and​

quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental​

record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate​

change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their​

dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance​

is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of​

evidence, supporting a best estimate of equilibrium climate​

sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. The​

likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely​

range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}​

If you tell me your reason is modelling then that's not the same thing. That's not science.

Models are a tool of science. I don't give a fuck what you think of them.

That's modelling. You can't count on anything other than the quantifiable instantaneous GHG effect.

You'd like that, wouldn't you.

That's all science says you can take credit for.

I'm not taking credit for any science.

And you certainly can't assume there are no natural forcings in effect when the geologic record is littered with non-CO2 and non-orbital forcings that have caused cooling and warming trends. Taking credit for all warming as feedback from CO2 is a massive error in logic and grossly exaggerates the GHG effect of CO2.

Feedback from CO2 coming out of solution and from increased water vapor are both discernible in the geological record. Milankovitch forcing is NOT sufficient to produce the observed warming without such feedbacks. You error is thinking you can just ignore that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't deny that a doubling of CO2 will result in 1C of atmospheric warming.

Surface or TOA? Regardless, that's a start.

I do deny that that 1C of warming will cause another 3.5C of warming. You?

I don't think warming causes warming, no. Somehow I find the Sun largely responsible for "instantaneous radiative forcing." CO2 may reflect and refract lots of heat, but I refuse to believe it radiates any.

 

[ding]

As I clearly stated, to believe that the ECS is 3C.

Historically, climate sensitivity has been estimated primarily as a derived parameter from model runs. But for AR6:

Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been​

made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate​

sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and​

quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental​

record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate​

change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their​

dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance​

is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of​

evidence, supporting a best estimate of equilibrium climate​

sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. The​

likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely​

range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}​

Models are a tool of science. I don't give a fuck what you think of them.

You'd like that, wouldn't you.

I'm not taking credit for any science.

Feedback from CO2 coming out of solution and from increased water vapor are both discernible in the geological record. Milankovitch forcing is NOT sufficient to produce the observed warming without such feedbacks. You error is thinking you can just ignore that.

They can't just assume the warming is due to feedbacks. And that is exactly what they are doing with their models. The only thing they can count on is the instantaneous GHG effect. That's it.

 

[ding]

Surface or TOA? Regardless, that's a start.

I don't think warming causes warming, no. Somehow I find the Sun largely responsible for "instantaneous radiative forcing." CO2 may reflect and refract lots of heat, but I refuse to believe it radiates any.

Surface temperatures.

 

[Crick]

I don't think warming causes warming, no. Somehow I find the Sun largely responsible for "instantaneous radiative forcing." CO2 may reflect and refract lots of heat, but I refuse to believe it radiates any.

Temperature changes drive processes that act as both negative and positive feedbacks. The solubility of gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and tundra is temperature dependent and in the opposite direction as solids. Warmer water can dissolve less gas. When the Earth's oceans warm, CO2 comes out of solution.

The amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold is temperature dependent. As the Earth warms, the amount of water vapor in the air increases.

And, as we know, CO2 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases.

Both compounds absorb and radiate infrared light.

 

[ding]

Milankovitch forcing is NOT sufficient to produce the observed warming without such feedbacks. You error is thinking you can just ignore that.

I already addressed this and you ignored it.

I don't believe orbital forcing is what is driving the climate. As near as I can tell that is a gradual phenomenon and couldn't come close to causing enough of a temperature effect as to trigger a glacial period. It does however add to mix. The only reasonable explanation for our planet's whacky glacial periods is the ocean. Or more specifically how the ocean transfers heat to the arctic which is the most climate sensitive region on the planet. So from that regard wind plays a role. And solar plays a role in wind. All of which interplay until the planet naturally heats up enough to trigger AMOC switch off which is what triggers an abrupt climate change in the northern hemisphere. Evidence for this are the D-O events which could have only occurred due to changes in ocean heat circulation to the northern hemisphere.

So I agree with you that the "Milankovitch forcing on its own is inadequate to produce the warming that took place" because the warming took place naturally once the ocean circulation returned to normal. In other words we are still naturally warming up from the last glacial period, CO2 has slightly warmed the planet by ~0.5C, and the planet will continue to warm about another 2C until the AMOC switches off.

 

[ding]

Temperature changes drive processes that act as both negative and positive feedbacks. The solubility of gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and tundra is temperature dependent and in the opposite direction as solids. Warmer water can dissolve less gas. When the Earth's oceans warm, CO2 comes out of solution.

The amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold is temperature dependent. As the Earth warms, the amount of water vapor in the air increases.

And, as we know, CO2 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases.

Both compounds absorb and radiate infrared light.

If the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect because of weather, why do you believe an increase of 280 ppm of CO2 would be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect?

 

[Crick]

First of all I don't believe orbital forcing is what is driving the climate.

Milankovitch cycles are caused by orbital forcings. They are responsible for triggering the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 3 million years. However the Milankovitch forcing is not sufficient to produce all the warming the geological record shows us. As every denier has told us, CO2 lags the Milankovitch warming. So does water vapor. The positive feedback pushes the planet to the interglacials you know and love.

As near as I can tell that is a gradual phenomenon and couldn't come close to causing enough of a temperature effect as to trigger a glacial period.

The actual scientists disagree.

It does however add to mix. The only reasonable explanation for our planet's whacky glacial periods is the ocean. Or more specifically how the ocean transfers heat to the arctic which is the most climate sensitive region on the planet. So from that regard wind plays a role. And solar plays a role in wind. All of which interplay until the planet naturally heats up enough to trigger AMOC switch off which is what triggers an abrupt climate change in the northern hemisphere.

The sun's luminosity has not changed in a manner that would drive the glacial cycle. Wind and ocean currents do not change on their own. Plate tectonics change them but certainly not on the cyclical period the glacial cycle shows. The algebraic sum of the Milankovitch cycles do. Contrarianism is not a rational scientific strategy.

Evidence for this are the D-O events which could have only occurred due to changes in ocean heat circulation to the northern hemisphere.

Are you claiming that D-O events drive the glacial cycle?

So I agree with you that the "Milankovitch forcing on its own is inadequate to produce the warming that took place" because the warming took place naturally once the ocean circulation returned to normal. In other words we are still naturally warming up from the last glacial period, CO2 has slightly warmed the planet by ~0.5C, and the planet will continue to warm about another 2C until the AMOC switches off.

The glacial cycle has been COOLING for the last 5,000 years. You are failing to account for another 0.7C of warming that certainly wasn't the result of any D-O event. And the AMOC certainly didn't just start 150 years ago. So to what "natural warming" do you refer?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Temperature changes drive processes that act as both negative and positive feedbacks. The solubility of gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and tundra is temperature dependent and in the opposite direction as solids. Warmer water can dissolve less gas. When the Earth's oceans warm, CO2 comes out of solution.

The amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold is temperature dependent. As the Earth warms, the amount of water vapor in the air increases.

And, as we know, CO2 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases.

Both compounds absorb and radiate infrared light.

Indeed and I understand the confusion. I was only attempting to address the literal notion of "instantaneous radiative forcing." To me anyway, absorbing then radiating some accumulated amount of light energy must take significant time. No matter how fleeting, it's not going to be "instantaneous." In general, macro quantities of CO2 and water vapor are obviously going to take less time than liquids or solids do to shed their excess heat, but the "effect" sure as hell isn't "instantaneous." Plus they are reactionary borrowers at best, not sources of heat in any sense.

Yes, climate scientists appear to have no such issue when using the term which just makes me sad. Meanwhile, from what I've read, it takes millions of years for the excess heat generated within the cores of both the Earth and Sun to simply radiate, conduct, and convect outward to their own surfaces before it can possibly be radiated further. That makes sense.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, so just to go nuts.. I do have a reputation to maintain after all..

they are reactionary borrowers at best, not sources of heat in any sense.

They meaning GHGs like CO2 and vaporous H2O. Like the glass on a greenhouse or any blanket, they "trap" heat beneath them, keeping us warmer. They are rather passive, like sheep as opposed to "forcing" things. You get the point. But now I'll meander into the twilight zone.. just for kicks and giggles. See, having brought up refraction earlier, I can't just let it go.

General explanation

A correct explanation of refraction involves two separate parts, both a result of the wave nature of light.

Here, notice how "instantaneously" Wikipedia "forces" a fine introductory adjective like "General" down into unscientific, egotistical fart land? Already? "A correct"? Hold on, why not "The correct"? Are they suggesting they'd consider more than one "correct explanation"? Shirley they jest? Or do they simply mean that any of myriad, potentially "correct" explanations may exist. But each must involve "two separate parts, both" premised upon "the wave nature of light"?

It just gets worse. Much worse.. But that'll do for now.

 

[ding]

Milankovitch cycles are caused by orbital forcings. They are responsible for triggering the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 3 million years. However the Milankovitch forcing is not sufficient to produce all the warming the geological record shows us. As every denier has told us, CO2 lags the Milankovitch warming. So does water vapor. The positive feedback pushes the planet to the interglacials you know and love.

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?

 

[ding]

The actual scientists disagree.

Only if they ignore the ocean and its ability to transfer heat to the arctic from the Atlantic. D-O events are conclusive evidence that the ocean it was triggers glacial periods and then the return to interglacial periods. What ever role the sun plays in variability affects the wind patterns which affects the ocean circulation. There's not enough temperature variation in solar output to trigger these events. It has to be the ocean (which is where most of the heat resides) that causes these abrupt changes. So when circulation patterns change it affects the climate especially in the arctic region.

Look up AMOC collapse to educate yourself.

 

[ding]

The sun's luminosity has not changed in a manner that would drive the glacial cycle. Wind and ocean currents do not change on their own. Plate tectonics change them but certainly not on the cyclical period the glacial cycle shows. The algebraic sum of the Milankovitch cycles do. Contrarianism is not a rational scientific strategy.

Again... I'm not arguing that dummy. I'm arguing the sun's role in this - whether solar output variation or orbital forcing - is to affect wind patterns which affects ocean currents. So as the planet naturally warms up to its peak interglacial temperature, salinity and density changes coupled with changes in wind patterns switches off the heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic. And this is what triggers the glacial period and ends the glacial period when circulation returns to what we would call normal.

 

[ding]

The glacial cycle has been COOLING for the last 5,000 years. You are failing to account for another 0.7C of warming that certainly wasn't the result of any D-O event. And the AMOC certainly didn't just start 150 years ago. So to what "natural warming" do you refer?

You aren't listening to what I am saying. As the planet naturally warms up to its peak interglacial temperature, salinity and density changes coupled with changes in wind patterns switches off the heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic. And this is what triggers the glacial period and ends the glacial period when circulation returns to what we would call normal.

 

[ding]

Indeed and I understand the confusion. I was only attempting to address the literal notion of "instantaneous radiative forcing." To me anyway, absorbing then radiating some accumulated amount of light energy must take significant time. No matter how fleeting, it's not going to be "instantaneous." In general, macro quantities of CO2 and water vapor are obviously going to take less time than liquids or solids do to shed their excess heat, but the "effect" sure as hell isn't "instantaneous." Plus they are reactionary borrowers at best, not sources of heat in any sense.

Yes, climate scientists appear to have no such issue when using the term which just makes me sad. Meanwhile, from what I've read, it takes millions of years for the excess heat generated within the cores of both the Earth and Sun to simply radiate, conduct, and convect outward to their own surfaces before it can possibly be radiated further. That makes sense.

Instantaneous as the physical process that starts the atoms vibrating. That vibration produces heat in the surrounding atmosphere. That is the instantaneous affect of GHG. If you could magically double atmospheric CO2 overnight, the instantaneous affect would be 1C of warming. It's simple physics and it is well known.

 

[ding]

Milankovitch cycles are caused by orbital forcings. They are responsible for triggering the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 3 million years. However the Milankovitch forcing is not sufficient to produce all the warming the geological record shows us. As every denier has told us, CO2 lags the Milankovitch warming. So does water vapor. The positive feedback pushes the planet to the interglacials you know and love.

The actual scientists disagree.

The sun's luminosity has not changed in a manner that would drive the glacial cycle. Wind and ocean currents do not change on their own. Plate tectonics change them but certainly not on the cyclical period the glacial cycle shows. The algebraic sum of the Milankovitch cycles do. Contrarianism is not a rational scientific strategy.

Are you claiming that D-O events drive the glacial cycle?

The glacial cycle has been COOLING for the last 5,000 years. You are failing to account for another 0.7C of warming that certainly wasn't the result of any D-O event. And the AMOC certainly didn't just start 150 years ago. So to what "natural warming" do you refer?

If the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect because of weather, why do you believe an increase of 280 ppm of CO2 would be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect?

 

[ding]

The glacial cycle has been COOLING for the last 5,000 years. You are failing to account for another 0.7C of warming that certainly wasn't the result of any D-O event. And the AMOC certainly didn't just start 150 years ago. So to what "natural warming" do you refer?

That's an idiotic statement. Glacial periods are abrupt changes in climate triggered by loss of heat from the Atlantic to the Arctic. The result is extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere and a long period of frigid temperatures as it slowly makes it way to warming up to interglacial temperatures. The planet is still warming up from the last glacial period and is 2C cooler than peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods. At which time changes in ocean salinity and densities coupled with changes in wind patterns due to solar variability - whether orbital or output or sun spot activity - triggers the next glacial period.