Scientists Simulate "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" That Turns Earth Into Uninhabitable Hell

[Crick]

No, it’s the “Climate change happened naturally, so any claim that humans are causing it now must be supported with evidence of causation, not merely evidence of change” argument.

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 877855

Cool chart, bruh.

Are you sure the used the same instruments in 2010 as they did in 1860?

If the numbers are valid that is evidence of change, not evidence of causation.

 

[Crick]

Cool chart, bruh.

Are you sure the used the same instruments in 2010 as they did in 1860?

If the numbers are valid that is evidence of change, not evidence of causation.

Are you unfamiliar with the greenhouse effect?

 

[jc456]

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent. That's why I can do it so well. You're a cult imbecile, so you just look butthurt when you try

And yet, you are the most condescending prick in here with mac

 

[jc456]

Are you unfamiliar with the greenhouse effect?

You are

 

[jc456]

No, it’s the “Climate change happened naturally, so any claim that humans are causing it now must be supported with evidence of causation, not merely evidence of change” argument.

Same goes for forest fires, btw, Smokey the Bear notwithstanding. Although at least there is evidence oh humans causing Forrest fires, often illegal sliens making campfires after crossing the border.

It’s not the “because I say so” argument. It’s the “show me the evidence” argument.

I’ll wait.

Also, I’ve never been paid a penny for questioning the pseudo-science of global warming. I must be missing out. Do you know where I’m supposed to go for my check? I know where the alarmist “researchers” get theirs.

Exactly, a fking mile of ice melted without humanity

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you unfamiliar with the greenhouse effect?

I’m aware of that theory.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Are you unfamiliar with the greenhouse effect?

It's what stabilizes the temperatures on Earth. It's why the temperature doesn't drop to below minus 200° F. every night, and rise to over 250° F. every day; as happens on the Moon. It's why most of the Earth's surface stays at temperatures in a range where it is possible for life to exist.

 

[Crick]

It's what stabilizes the temperatures on Earth. It's why the temperature doesn't drop to below minus 200° F. every night, and rise to over 250° F. every day; as happens on the Moon. It's why most of the Earth's surface stays at temperatures in a range where it is possible for life to exist.

Almost. It raises the Earth's temperature about 60 Fahrenheit (33 Centigrade) degrees above what it would be if the Earth's atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases. The moon cycles between extremes because it has no atmosphere at all.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Almost. It raises the Earth's temperature about 60 Fahrenheit (33 Centigrade) degrees above what it would be if the Earth's atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases. The moon cycles between extremes because it has no atmosphere at all.

Thank God for greenhouse gases, then!

But . . . I just search for "where do greehouse gases come from, and by far the number one answer was "human activity, such as burning fossil fules."

So before we started burning fossil fuels, we cycled between extremes?

 

[Crick]

Thank God for greenhouse gases, then!

But . . . I just search for "where do greehouse gases come from, and by far the number one answer was "human activity, such as burning fossil fules."

So before we started burning fossil fuels, we cycled between extremes?

No. The atmosphere, with or without greenhouse gases, prevents that from happening. The moon (and any airless body) acts like that because it gets unfiltered sunlight blasting it during the day and at night radiates completely unchecked to a sky at about 2C above absolute zero.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No. The atmosphere, with or without greenhouse gases, prevents that from happening. The moon (and any airless body) acts like that because it gets unfiltered sunlight blasting it during the day and at night radiates completely unchecked to a sky at about 2C above absolute zero.

So, greenhouse gases did not exist before humans started burning fossil fuels?

 

[Crick]

So, greenhouse gases did not exist before humans started burning fossil fuels?

Of course they did. Any form of atmosphere will prevent the extreme highs and lows seen on the moon. Greenhouse gases have existed in the Earth's atmosphere since the planet formed. Their only function is warming the planet by trapping infrared radiation from the surface, just like a blanket when you climb into bed at night.

 

[Crick]

Of course they did. Any form of atmosphere will prevent the extreme highs and lows seen on the moon. Greenhouse gases have existed in the Earth's atmosphere since the planet formed. Their only function is warming the planet by trapping infrared radiation from the surface, just like a blanket when you climb into bed at night.

Three situations

1) Planet with NO atmosphere: gets extremely hot when the sun shines, gets extremely cold when it the sun goes down

2) Planet with atmosphere but NO greenhouse gases: relatively stable temperatures but very cold

3) Planet with atmosphere containing greenhouse gases: relatively stable and significantly warmer temperatures

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course they did. Any form of atmosphere will prevent the extreme highs and lows seen on the moon. Greenhouse gases have existed in the Earth's atmosphere since the planet formed. Their only function is warming the planet by trapping infrared radiation from the surface, just like a blanket when you climb into bed at night.

Three situations

1) Planet with NO atmosphere: gets extremely hot when the sun shines, gets extremely cold when it the sun goes down

2) Planet with atmosphere but NO greenhouse gases: relatively stable temperatures but very cold

3) Planet with atmosphere containing greenhouse gases: relatively stable and significantly warmer temperatures

So, we're in the right spot then.

Your chart shows an increase, over 170 years, of under two degrees at the same time as there was a 40% increase in the parts per million carbon dioxide in the air.

That is such a small increase in temp compared to the increase in Carbon PPM, that a true believer in carbon-caused global warming would have to suspect that either the temperature instruments, or the atmospheric carbon instruments of modern day do not calibrate well with those from as far back as 1850.

Of course, simple common sense tells us that before we even look at the numbers.

 

[Crick]

So, we're in the right spot then.

Your chart shows an increase, over 170 years, of under two degrees at the same time as there was a 40% increase in the parts per million carbon dioxide in the air.

View attachment 878060

That is such a small increase in temp compared to the increase in Carbon PPM, that a true believer in carbon-caused global warming would have to suspect that either the temperature instruments, or the atmospheric carbon instruments of modern day do not calibrate well with those from as far back as 1850.

Of course, simple common sense tells us that before we even look at the numbers.

The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is logarithmic and there are both positive and negative feedbacks to the process. When the Earth's temperature rises - from whatever cause - it increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is also a powerful greenhouse gas. Additionally, gases dissolve in water, in the oceans, but they have the opposite relationship with temperature as do dissolved solids (as sugar in tea). As the temperature of the oceans increase, they can hold less and less dissolved gases and so CO2 comes out of solution. The same effect can release enormous amounts of methane, another greenhouse gas, from the world's tundras.

Anyway, the results of it all, based on a great deal of science, are two measures called Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR).

ECS is defined as the amount of warming expected if CO2 were hypothetically, instantaneously doubled and sustained from preindustrial levels (taken as 280 ppm) and the climate was then left to reach complete equilibrium. The latest best estimate is a value of 3C within a likely range of 2.5C to 4C and a very likely range of 2C to 5C

TCR is defined as the amount of warming that would take place by the time CO2 had doubled from pre-industrial levels, after increasing at a hypothetical steady rate of 1% per year to that point. I don't actually know how many years that would require but the best estimates of that value are 1.8C with a likely range between 1.4C and 2.2 C and a very likely range of 1.2C to 2.4C

 

[jc456]

No. The atmosphere, with or without greenhouse gases, prevents that from happening. The moon (and any airless body) acts like that because it gets unfiltered sunlight blasting it during the day and at night radiates completely unchecked to a sky at about 2C above absolute zero.

A mile of ice over Chicago isn’t extreme?

 

[mamooth]

That is such a small increase in temp compared to the increase in Carbon PPM,

How exactly did you come to such a bizarre conclusion? I ask because your conclusion in no way follows from your premise.

Run the numbers and write it out for us. According to your logic, if AGW theory is correct, how much should temperature rise following 40% CO2 rise?

 

[jc456]

How exactly did you come to such a bizarre conclusion? I ask because your conclusion in no way follows from your premise.

Run the numbers and write it out for us. According to your logic, if AGW theory is correct, how much should temperature rise following 40% CO2 rise?

And Leon’s getting larger

 

[mamooth]

And Leon’s getting larger

The grownups are talking. The kiddie table is that way. Here's a juice box.