There has been no "global warming" for eight years

[mamooth]

It's empirical climate data.

Yes, that's what says you're totally wrong. But you don't care. You have _faith_. Good cultist.

Now, keep preaching ...

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

Not really correct. You have to consider natural variation as a possible cause no matter what.

And all scientists did consider that. And they studied it, and found that the data says that theory is wrong, and it's definitely not natural variation that we're seeing now.

And you don't care. You have your religious beliefs, as mandated by your political cult, and that settles it for you.

Now, chant that mantra again, to keep reality at bay.

 

[ding]

Yes, that's what says you're totally wrong. But you don't care. You have _faith_. Good cultist.

Now, keep preaching ...


Not really correct. You have to consider natural variation as a possible cause no matter what.

And all scientists did consider that. And they studied it, and found that the data says that theory is wrong, and it's definitely not natural variation that we're seeing now.

And you don't care. You have your religious beliefs, as mandated by your political cult, and that settles it for you.

Now, chant that mantra again, to keep reality at bay.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well Mr Scientist. You seem to be saying that the absorption spectrum changes when it is mixed with other gases. Would you care to explain how that happens?

Of course ... if water vapor is absorbing 2.4 µm light ... then carbon dioxide has less to absorb ...

This would be on the vertical axis of the typical light curve (and note these are log-log traces) ... we look at the total energy emitted by the Earth at 2.4 µm ... in pure carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide component will absorb all of it ... 100% ...

However ... in a solution of 5% water vapor in the atmospheric gas mixture ... some is absorbed by the water ... leaving something less than 100% for the carbon dioxide to absorb ... my question is HOW MUCH ??? ... and show your math ...

ETA - That was my comment above ... your traces give us 200% ... water will and carbon will ... we know that ... but now mix them together see if that's the same ...

 

[ReinyDays]

... as I don't care to guess.

Thank you for admitting you're just guessing ... that you're not capable of discussing the science ... being uneducated and all ...

 

[EMH]

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

View attachment 757971

View attachment 757972

All of that delicious looking fudge is completely blown out of the water as fudged FRAUD by the truth that

during the past million years

Greenland froze while North america thawed

and the co2 fudgebaking liars cannot explain that....

because co2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change

 

[Dagosa]

Brace yourselves, Greenies. Your whole nonsense about "man-made global warming" has been put to rest once and for all.

"Recently published data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that there has not been global warming for the past eight years. And NASA satellite data reportedly confirms that evidence, showing no global warming for eight years and five months, according to JunkScience’s Steve Milloy. But leftists are quick to warn people against drawing the obvious conclusion that the world isn’t about to become a burning ball of fire.



Recently published evidence also showed that there was actually a near-record low of major hurricanes in 2022, indicating that weather isn’t getting progressively and exponentially worse globally, despite the climate frenzy of the media and governments. And the Northeast is currently experiencing record cold in a harsh winter, with Mt. Washington, N.H., yesterday dropping to -45.5 degrees Fahrenheit and -107 degree wind chill.

Axios, which normally loves to scare-monger about global warming, reported today, “Arctic outbreak shatters records in Northeast.” I’m going to go out on a limb — or a glacier — and say that the Northeastern U.S. is definitely not about to suffer devastating effects from “global warming.”



Hot Air: No Global Warming for Eight Years

Wow, it was cold last night. Must be no global warming….. I see you posted no data or reference did you ? Just a dullard opinion piece. Aren‘t you the least bit embarrassed posting such tripe ?

 

[Dagosa]

Posted this up on FB today...

Flagged as "misinformation" within 10 seconds".

What does it mean?

Means we are at war folks. Just a matter of time until the shitshow starts. All I know is...some people are going to be losing all their stuff.


View attachment 754556

No one is caring about your bullshit.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Think about it for a minute. I'm sure you'll work it out.

Neither of you fellas realize that is a low-resolution chart which is why it is misleading both of you.

 

[ReinyDays]

Neither of you fellas realize that is a low-resolution chart which is why it is misleading both of you.

Which is why we use the math and calculate these values ... how many quantum transitions occur at 0.5 eV? ... (that's 8 x 10^-20 J) ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just spent an hour reading up on the posts in the last 10 pages. Not once do our alarmist friends address their misconceptions pointed out by Sunsettommy here: There has been no "global warming" for eight years

Disproven are the Intensity lie, the increased frequency lie, and the more sever lie. All three are excuses used by the left and alarmists to claim CAGW is happening. The Observed Empirical Evidence categorically disproves any Catastrophic, man induced, global warming.

The alarmists are running in circles. Has the globe warmed? Yes, 0.6 degrees C since 1880. What was expected from CO2 alone? 2.1Deg C. This means our atmosphere is dampening any expected reaction. This is the exact opposite of what the CAGW hypothesis and the GCM's say should happen.

Those Global Circulation Models require a 3/1 expectation of enhancement. What we see empirically is a 0.3/1, a reduction in affect. This is why they exaggerate the warming by a factor of ten in all GCM's. (Actual rise is 0.6 deg C when 2.1 deg C is expected. When reduced to lowest terms we see 0.3 deg C rise for each 1 deg C rise expected). The Climate Sensitivity (CS) number is why all predictions fail and temp rise is exaggerated.

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis is falsified by empirical observation and verification. Stop with the alarmist fear porn.

 

[Crick]

Of course ... if water vapor is absorbing 2.4 µm light ... then carbon dioxide has less to absorb ...

And if CO2 is absorbing it, the water has less to absorb. That WAS tricky.

This would be on the vertical axis of the typical light curve (and note these are log-log traces) ... we look at the total energy emitted by the Earth at 2.4 µm ... in pure carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide component will absorb all of it ... 100% ...

However ... in a solution of 5% water vapor in the atmospheric gas mixture ... some is absorbed by the water ... leaving something less than 100% for the carbon dioxide to absorb ... my question is HOW MUCH ??? ... and show your math ...

No.

ETA - That was my comment above ... your traces give us 200% ... water will and carbon will ... we know that ... but now mix them together see if that's the same ...

The 'meaning' of those data is that both water and CO2 will absorb 100% of the radiation at that frequency that strikes them. I get the feeling that you like to pad these comments - as with your log-log comment above - to look smarter. It would work better if you actually were. A log-log plot is logarithmic on both axes but you will note the vertical axes of that graph are linear.

If you don't want to get embarrassed, stick to what you actually know. That won't reveal your limitations the way pushing past them does.

 

[mamooth]

Thank you for admitting you're just guessing ... that you're not capable of discussing the science ... being uneducated and all ...

I didn't ask you to deflect and run. I asked you what the point of _this_ was.

We should know how much ... that's what's missing from your logic ... we can measure radiative forcing at 1.8 (±0.5) W/m^2, so how much is the rate of Earth's surface warming? ... and more important is what will forcing be when we reach 450 ppm CO2? ... or 500 ppm ...

Since you refused to answer, I think everyone assumes that that you don't have a point, that you're just babbling random technical terms as some sort of bluff. And I called you on it, so you haz a sad.

You can show people that's not the case. Just act like we do, and state your point there clearly and directly. Please proceed.

 

[mamooth]

I just spent an hour reading up on the posts in the last 10 pages. Not once do our alarmist friends address their misconceptions pointed out by Sunsettommy here: There has been no "global warming" for eight years

Sure we did. We pointed out that it's a shameless lie.

All three are excuses used by the left and alarmists to claim CAGW

There it is. "CAGW". That's part of the weirdass cult lingo that deniers use. It's how the cultists identify themselves to each other.

The alarmists are running in circles.

Back in reality, El Nino is coming, and deniers are soiling themselves. Like Billy here. He knows that his cult is already on its deathbed, and that Dr. Kevorkian is on the way.

 

[ding]

And if CO2 is absorbing it, the water has less to absorb. That WAS tricky.

The 'meaning' of those data is that both water and CO2 will absorb 100% of the radiation at that frequency that strikes them. I get the feeling that you like to pad these comments - as with your log-log comment above - to look smarter. It would work better if you actually were. A log-log plot is logarithmic on both axes but you will note the vertical axes of that graph are linear.

CO2 only adds to the total atmosphere at frequencies water vapor doesn't. That's how it works.

 

[Crick]

CO2 only adds to the total atmosphere at frequencies water vapor doesn't. That's how it works.

I assume you meant to say "adds to the EMF absorption of the total atmosphere at frequencies water vapor doesn't" and, no, that is not precisely how it works. Since CO2 absorbs frequencies that water doesn't, it adds to the energy absorbed, but additional absorption in frequency overlaps WILL reduce mean path lengths and thus increase warming, just not as significantly.

And how do you get to argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and then attempt to argue using details of its greenhouse process?

 

[ding]

I assume you meant to say "adds to the EMF absorption of the total atmosphere at frequencies water vapor doesn't" and, no, that is not precisely how it works. Since CO2 absorbs frequencies that water doesn't, it adds to the energy absorbed, but additional absorption in frequency overlaps WILL reduce mean path lengths and thus increase warming, just not as significantly.

And how do you get to argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and then attempt to argue using details of its greenhouse process?

I said it how I wanted to say it. There is no overlap for CO2. It's a numbers game. Water vapor dominates. It's only in the gaps of water vapor that CO2 has an effect.

I never argued CO2 wasn't a GHG or had no GHG effect, dummy. Just that the feedbacks - which are 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 - are wrong. How else could the planet have cooled for millions of years with CO2 > 600 ppm if increased water vapor wasn't a net negative feedback?

 

[Crick]

I said it how I wanted to say it. There is no overlap for CO2. It's a numbers game. Water vapor dominates. It's only in the gaps of water vapor that CO2 has an effect.

I never argued CO2 wasn't a GHG or had no GHG effect, dummy. Just that the feedbacks - which are 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 - are wrong. How else could the planet have cooled for millions of years with CO2 > 600 ppm if increased water vapor wasn't a net negative feedback?

Feedback is a dynamic process. If CO2 remained at a steady value, even a high value, eventually there would be no further change in water vapor levels and no further increase in greenhouse heating.

This is from your sig
"There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. "

I'm curious what "formal, defined dogma" you think exists for other economic systems and why your author might not have given credit to Marx's Das Kapital for being a foundational document of socialism.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Climate alarmists.........are the very best Cult candidates

 

[Billy_Bob]

Feedback is a dynamic process. If CO2 remained at a steady value, even a high value, eventually there would be no further change in water vapor levels and no further increase in greenhouse heating.

A feedback is either positive or negative to the potential energy.

The Current IPPC dogma states that there is a 3/1 enhancement of what CO2 is supposed to retain in energy somewhere in our atmosphere. The empirical evidence shows this is not the case.

2.1 deg C is what we should have seen by CO2 alone, without any other natural forcings or responses. What has been observed is just 0.6 deg C. IF it were all driven by CO2, which it is not, that would make the current climate sensitivity number 0.3/1 (observed rise over expected rise per deg C). As you cannot stop other natural forcings, this number is actually way to high as a CS number. IF we remove the 96% of other active factors and processes, we are left with a CS of 0.012/1 as a CS number. A number so small that it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

CO2, as a GHG, is incapable of driving anything. That is why we have glaciated, warmed, and glaciated again over and over again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Snowing in Los Angeles and Saudi Arabia....definitely Global warming. OMG! Is Guam still upright?