Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

[BackAgain]

LOL!!

Sun = constant

What does the Sun change on Earth?? Summer to Winter, yawn, that's not really a "change" since IT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR...

Clearly, counselor, your definition of "ice age" is incorrect, likely because it is PARROTED from conflicted taxpayer funded liars....

Go ahead and tell us Antarctica is not an ice age, never mind it is covered with 2 miles of ice now....

Or get a clue first, right here...

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

Zzzz

 

[Crick]

Zzzz

The sun has a couple things going on. First is the 11-year sunspot cycle which involves both the number of sunspots and the sun's luminosity. Then, as its normal stellar evolution, the sun's intensity is slowly (VERY slowly) increasing. Even at the finest scales, the sun's irradiance does not match the warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years. The sun does not cause the Earth's seasons by any change of its own. They are simply due to the Earth's 23 degree tilt. In half of the Earth's orbit, the Northern Hemisphere gets more sunlight. In the other half, the Southern Hemisphere gets more. That's it.

 

[ding]

The sun has a couple things going on. First is the 11-year sunspot cycle which involves both the number of sunspots and the sun's luminosity. Then, as its normal stellar evolution, the sun's intensity is slowly (VERY slowly) increasing. Even at the finest scales, the sun's irradiance does not match the warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years. The sun does not cause the Earth's seasons by any change of its own. They are simply due to the Earth's 23 degree tilt. In half of the Earth's orbit, the Northern Hemisphere gets more sunlight. In the other half, the Southern Hemisphere gets more. That's it.

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?

 

[EMH]

Zzzz

The counselor insists, I'm parroting an expert, so no, a continent covered with 2 miles of ice is NOT an "ice age" because my "expert" that I parrot says it isn't....

LOL!!!!

How is a continent covered under 2 miles of ice NOT an ice age?

LOL!!!!

Go find that "expert" and parrot whatever the "answer" is, which is much easier than passing high school science courses....

 

[EMH]

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?

So why do the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data show NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2?

Could it be that the atmosphere is not the cause of Earth climate change, but rather actual climate change causes the atmosphere to grow and shrink, which amplifies the effect?

 

[EMH]

The sun has a couple things going on. First is the 11-year sunspot cycle which involves both the number of sunspots and the sun's luminosity. Then, as its normal stellar evolution, the sun's intensity is slowly (VERY slowly) increasing. Even at the finest scales, the sun's irradiance does not match the warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years. The sun does not cause the Earth's seasons by any change of its own. They are simply due to the Earth's 23 degree tilt. In half of the Earth's orbit, the Northern Hemisphere gets more sunlight. In the other half, the Southern Hemisphere gets more. That's it.

And THERE you have it, the Co2 FRAUD loves LOVES

LOVES

the "solar cycle" bullshit since

a) the Co2 FRAUD put it out
b) it forces the Faux News parroting moron embracing it to ACCEPT the FUDGED DATA


Faux News and the Co2 Fraud are like the Cheney family and the Democrats....

 

[EMH]

Tens of thousands of temperature records recorded all over the planet show warming taking place

FUDGE is not "recorded" it is MADE UP...

Take the atmosphere...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling"


translation - the highly correlated satellite and balloon data, the ONLY data we have on atmospheric temps, both showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2 before being FUDGED in 2005 with pathetically laughable BULLSHIT.

 

[BackAgain]

The counselor insists, I'm parroting an expert, so no, a continent covered with 2 miles of ice is NOT an "ice age" because my "expert" that I parrot says it isn't....

LOL!!!!

How is a continent covered under 2 miles of ice NOT an ice age?

LOL!!!!

Go find that "expert" and parrot whatever the "answer" is, which is much easier than passing high school science courses....

Please feel obligated to point to any post of mine where I denied that a massive covering of ice over the continent wasn’t part and parcel of an ice age.

But you won’t. Because I never said or argued any such thing

Gfy.

 

[EMH]

Please feel obligated to point to any post of mine where I denied that a massive covering of ice over the continent wasn’t part and parcel of an ice age.

But you won’t. Because I never said or argued any such thing

Gfy.

Part of the Co2 Fraud is lying about the term ICE AGE.

Proper understanding of ICE AGE quickly outs Co2 (and atmosphere) as NOT THE CAUSE of Earth climate change....

 

[BackAgain]

Part of the Co2 Fraud is lying about the term ICE AGE.

Proper understanding of ICE AGE quickly outs Co2 (and atmosphere) as NOT THE CAUSE of Earth climate change....

Thanks for sharing.

 

[ding]

So why do the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data show NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2?

Could it be that the atmosphere is not the cause of Earth climate change, but rather actual climate change causes the atmosphere to grow and shrink, which amplifies the effect?

But the planet is warming. That's what it does during interglacial periods.

 

[EMH]

But the planet is warming

No evidence of this, unless you believe FUDGE is "evidence."

NO OCEAN RISE
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE
NO BREAKOUT IN CANE ACTIVITY


"interglacials" are complete McBULLSHIT already destroyed here on USMB....

 

[expat_panama]

But the planet is warming. That's what it does during interglacial periods.

The earth is about 3 million miles closer to the sun now than it was last July so you're probably right, the earth is warming. Then again, you're probably talking about something else. Some say the Earth is 1.5C hotter now than it was in the late 1800's and this has been caused by man made CO2 and the greenhouse effect. Do you believe that?

 

[Captain Caveman]

To name a few - Co2, methane, water vapour, Milankovitch cycles, earthquakes, post-glacial rebound, sink holes, volcanoes, contributes to climate change.

But according to alarmists, just Co2

 

[ding]

No evidence of this, unless you believe FUDGE is "evidence."

NO OCEAN RISE
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE
NO BREAKOUT IN CANE ACTIVITY


"interglacials" are complete McBULLSHIT already destroyed here on USMB....

You are a moron.

 

[ding]

The earth is about 3 million miles closer to the sun now than it was last July so you're probably right, the earth is warming. Then again, you're probably talking about something else. Some say the Earth is 1.5C hotter now than it was in the late 1800's and this has been caused by man made CO2 and the greenhouse effect. Do you believe that?

No, The physics of radiative forcing (1C per doubling of CO2) says ~0.5C of the warming is due to the radiative forcing of CO2 which means the rest of the warming is due to the planet naturally warming to its pre-glacial temperature as it fully exists the previous glacial period before cycling to the next glacial period.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[expat_panama]

No, The physics of radiative forcing (1C per doubling of CO2) says ~0.5C of the warming is due to the radiative forcing of CO2 which means the rest of the warming is due to the planet naturally warming to its pre-glacial temperature as it fully exists the previous glacial period before cycling to the next glacial period.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

ok, you don't go along w/ the popular narrative. Just the same you said...

But the planet is warming...

--so how much do you believe the planet has warmed over what period of time?

 

[EMH]

You are a moron.

WHERE is there a LANDMARK SINKING because of "ocean rise?"

 

[EMH]

The physics of radiative forcing (1C per doubling of CO2) says ~0.5C of the warming is due to the radiative forcing of CO2

Funny, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data, the only DATA we have on atmospheric temps, showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2....


Your first problem is that you do not understand the difference between DATA and FUDGE since all you ever post is either FUDGE or "temp data from ice cores from one place."

 

[ding]

ok, you don't go along w/ the popular narrative. Just the same you said...

--so how much do you believe the planet has warmed over what period of time?

Here's the unbiased data, you tell me.


"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

"...Kobashi et al. (2011) have reconstructed Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4,000 years (until 1993) at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet) with a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles (Figure B4, Appendix B). These data indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010). Therefore, it appears that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4,000 years. Schönwiese (1995)has reconstructed temperatures from ice cores in Greenland for the last 11,000 years (Figure B5,Appendix B). These reconstructions show that during the past 10,000 years temperatures over long periods were higher than they are today. The warmest phase occurred 4,000 to 8,000 years ago and is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum or the Atlantic Period..."

"...The preceding four interglacial periods are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf