Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

The biggest influence on ocean salinity (and thus density) in today's world is the addition of fresh meltwater. Changes in wind patterns can increase ice blown away from the poles and into warmer water but other than that (or its converse) its unlikely to have any effect on salinity. There have basically been no changes in solar output and thus no need to mention it and the changes from MIlankovitch effects are effective insolation vs latitude.

Salinity and density changes happen in every interglacial period. You seem to keep forgetting that this glacial period is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods. Why do you do that?

I never said wind affects salinity or density. And you forgot to mention that density is also a function of temperature and not just salinity.

You do realize NASA has a low output solar variability dataset and a high output solar output dataset, right? So your statement implying that solar output should be ignored is asinine.

I'd love for you to create a thread explaining exactly how orbital forcing triggers glacial periods and interglacial periods. Because I haven't seen anyone actually do that yet. Probably because they can't figure out how atmospheric heat can cause such rapid changes in climate LIKE THE OCEAN CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT CIRCULATING HEAT TO THE ARCTIC.

 

[jc456]

The biggest influence on ocean salinity (and thus density) in today's world is the addition of fresh meltwater. Changes in wind patterns can increase ice blown away from the poles and into warmer water but other than that (or its converse) its unlikely to have any effect on salinity. There have basically been no changes in solar output and thus no need to mention it and the changes from MIlankovitch effects are effective insolation vs latitude.

Huh?

Salinity?

 

[Crick]

Salinity and density changes happen in every interglacial period. You seem to keep forgetting that this glacial period is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods. Why do you do that?

Because there is lots of variation in the maximum and minimum temperatures reached in these cycles. You have no reason to believe that we will still warm another 2C from glacial cycle forcing, particularly when we had been cooling for the last 5,000 years in an interglacial that has been much longer than any of its predecessors.

I never said wind affects salinity or density.

Yes you did.

Salinity and density changes due to temperature change coupled with changes to wind patterns brought about by solar variability - orbital or output.

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

And you forgot to mention that density is also a function of temperature and not just salinity.

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.

You do realize NASA has a low output solar variability dataset and a high output solar output dataset, right? So your statement implying that solar output should be ignored is asinine.

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.

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

I'd love for you to create a thread explaining exactly how orbital forcing triggers glacial periods and interglacial periods. Because I haven't seen anyone actually do that yet. Probably because they can't figure out how atmospheric heat can cause such rapid changes in climate LIKE THE OCEAN CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT CIRCULATING HEAT TO THE ARCTIC.

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.

 

[jc456]

Because there is lots of variation in the maximum and minimum temperatures reached in these cycles. You have no reason to believe that we will still warm another 2C from glacial cycle forcing, particularly when we had been cooling for the last 5,000 years in an interglacial that has been much longer than any of its predecessors.

Yes you did.

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

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.

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.
View attachment 877835
Total variation here is 7 W/m^-2 over 600 years or roughly half of one percent.

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.

Yet reality doesn’t match any models

 

[Crick]

Yet reality doesn’t match any models

Conclusion​

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

So, ESAD

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[jc456]

View attachment 877936

Figures , no science, only hockey

 

[Robert W]

I brought up the Coriolis effect and Crick told me, me paraphrased of course, shut you mouf chil, they do not do a thing.

So what do you know:

The Coriolis Effect: A (Fairly) Simple Explanation

stratus.ssec.wisc.edu

"The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations. This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand."

 

[Robert W]

Figures , no science, only hockey

I will say again. The hockey stick is a fraud. Why? The handle spans 150 years. The up tick is only 2 degrees C. A minute change as shown is nothing to fear. If the uptick was 50 degrees, enormous problem. But go outside. You can experience 2 degrees upward in a short time. So were you really in danger?

 

[jc456]

I will say again. The hockey stick is a fraud. Why? The handle spans 150 years. The up tick is only 2 degrees C. A minute change as shown is nothing to fear. If the uptick was 50 degrees, enormous problem. But go outside. You can experience 2 degrees upward in a short time. So were you really in danger?

It’s only a hockey stick because of the range used on the chart in dot degrees

 

[Stryder50]

View attachment 877876

View attachment 877877

View attachment 877878

View attachment 877879

View attachment 877880

View attachment 877881

View attachment 877882

View attachment 877883

Conclusion​

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

So, ESAD

A few decades of data does not a major climate change confirm.
Repeating once again, the context of hundreds of thousands of years at least helps to show a larger picture of Nature sans hypothetical human affect.

Better yet, millions to billions of years for scale. Note how the temperatures way back peaked much higher than today yet Earth and Life survived.

Source: Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once again, a reminder on basic math and basic science;
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) at 400 ppm(dry) i.e. Parts Per Million; produces this basic math equation;

400/1,000,000
Which reduces to 4/10,000; then to 1/2,500
Also could be expressed as CO2 equals 0.0004% of total atmosphere content. The rest is about 78% Nitrogen and about 21% Oxygen with the remaining 1% assorted gases, major one being Argon. That 1% is the same as 10,000ppm. As one can see, CO2 isn't even a significant portion of the 1% miscellaneous gases it's part of. As we see above, the other 2,499 parts are mostly the Nitrogen, Oxygen, and a few other gases.

The claim of the human-caused/anthropogenic "Climate Change"/"Global Warming" (ACC/AGW) fanatics and con-artists like "Crick" is that the slight heat retained at times (not always and not under all conditions) by the one part CO2 is going to transfer even and exact heat to the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere, and hence create that "global warming/climate change".

Meanwhile, no one has demonstrated in a laboratory how to get one part to make greenhouse gas effect &/or radiative physics transfer of the heat of the one part to the other 2,499 parts.

There is no real science supporting ACC/AGW.
There is a lot of hustle and hype preying upon general public ignorance and gullibility to generate fear and panic to push political agendas to destroy the West and modern industrial, technical Civilization. A ruse to advance and impose tyranny.

In a World where there is real justice, the agenda of persons like "Crick" would be criminal and such individuals would be paying a penalty for endangering humanity.

 

[Crick]

I brought up the Coriolis effect and Crick told me, me paraphrased of course, shut you mouf chil, they do not do a thing.

I never said or implied any such thing Robert. You claimed out of the blue that I knew nothing about Coriolis. I said I was familiar with it.

So what do you know:

The Coriolis Effect: A (Fairly) Simple Explanation

stratus.ssec.wisc.edu

"The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations. This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand."

It's only the details that get difficult. The force arises because, as the Earth spins, things near the equator are moving in a much larger circle than are things nearer the poles. It is what drives the North Atlantic basin current to circle in a clockwise direction and the South Atlantic basin in a counterclockwise direction. Same in the Pacific. Across the width of a toilet bowl, the force is absolutely microscopic and so does not determine which way water spins when you flush or open a drain.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The claim of the human-caused/anthropogenic "Climate Change"/"Global Warming" (ACC/AGW) fanatics and con-artists like "Crick" is that the slight heat retained at times (not always and not under all conditions) by the one part CO2 is going to transfer even and exact heat to the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere, and hence create that "global warming/climate change".

Sorry, but no. Someone's been paying you to be dumb, haven't they.

 

[Crick]

A few decades of data does not a major climate change confirm.

Those posts were in respons to the oft-repeated denier claim that climate models have consistently failed.

Repeating once again, the context of hundreds of thousands of years at least helps to show a larger picture of Nature sans hypothetical human affect.

Better yet, millions to billions of years for scale. Note how the temperatures way back peaked much higher than today yet Earth and Life survived.

Source: Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very nice. But those changes took place at a small fraction of the current rate of warming. As I and others have said here repeatedly, it is not the absolute temperatures that will be reached, it is the RATE at which these changes are taking place. A 5 degree warming that takes 10,000 years will harm no one. A 5 degree change over a century is a catastrophe.

Once again, a reminder on basic math and basic science;
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) at 400 ppm(dry) i.e. Parts Per Million; produces this basic math equation;

400/1,000,000
Which reduces to 4/10,000; then to 1/2,500
Also could be expressed as CO2 equals 0.0004% of total atmosphere content. The rest is about 78% Nitrogen and about 21% Oxygen with the remaining 1% assorted gases, major one being Argon. That 1% is the same as 10,000ppm. As one can see, CO2 isn't even a significant portion of the 1% miscellaneous gases it's part of. As we see above, the other 2,499 parts are mostly the Nitrogen, Oxygen, and a few other gases.

This line of argument is for grade schoolers. There are compounds that will kill you at thousandths of the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.

The claim of the human-caused/anthropogenic "Climate Change"/"Global Warming" (ACC/AGW) fanatics and con-artists like "Crick" is that the slight heat retained at times (not always and not under all conditions) by the one part CO2 is going to transfer even and exact heat to the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere, and hence create that "global warming/climate change".

You are attempting to deny absolutely fundamental thermodynamics. Such heat transfer has been observed thousands of times and if it weren't true, the human race wouldn't be here.

Meanwhile, no one has demonstrated in a laboratory how to get one part to make greenhouse gas effect &/or radiative physics transfer of the heat of the one part to the other 2,499 parts.

That is a blatant lie.

There is no real science supporting ACC/AGW.

Another blatant lie.

There is a lot of hustle and hype preying upon general public ignorance and gullibility to generate fear and panic to push political agendas to destroy the West and modern industrial, technical Civilization. A ruse to advance and impose tyranny.

The hustling going on here is coming from you.

In a World where there is real justice, the agenda of persons like "Crick" would be criminal and such individuals would be paying a penalty for endangering humanity.

The infantile learn from the infantile.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Crick does not understand the Coriolis effect.

For those in urgent need of edification:

Coriolis force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Long story short. The Coriolis "effect" is an actual "force" not just some silly "effect."

 

[ReinyDays]

Naw, I didn’t see anything different from any of the three options

Try it yourself ... any latitude ... which ever way you swirl the bathtub water, that's how the water will spin down the drain ... if you want the water to go straight down, you'll need to wait a week for all the currents to settle ...

If the tub is nearly infinitely narrow, then the rotation will be infinitely small ... and the pressure drop along the axis of rotation will be infinitely small ... which instantly condenses water vapor and releases that 2,100 J/g of energy ... all within an infinitely short time period ... if we then let time pass, then some of this latent energy will be applied to increasing the angular momentum of the rotation ... why cyclones spin ...

Coriolis force doesn't produce torque, therefore it cannot effect rotation ... we use convective force (cross product) pressure force = torque ...

 

[ReinyDays]

I am not going to apologize for accepting the conclusions of mainstream science.

New Speak changed? ... we now have 97% of all scientists world-wide CONCLUDING that AGW is real ... what happened to "consensus" for the folks who don't say one way or the other? ...

 

[Robert W]

I never said or implied any such thing Robert. You claimed out of the blue that I knew nothing about Coriolis. I said I was familiar with it.

It's only the details that get difficult. The force arises because, as the Earth spins, things near the equator are moving in a much larger circle than are things nearer the poles. It is what drives the North Atlantic basin current to circle in a clockwise direction and the South Atlantic basin in a counterclockwise direction. Same in the Pacific. Across the width of a toilet bowl, the force is absolutely microscopic and so does not determine which way water spins when you flush or open a drain.

Notice that I did not bring up water spin. I focused on climate. The impact the spin of the earth has on global climate. It has been a few months but I have also brought up a global presentation showing that different parts of earth have some huge changes in climate in relation to other parts.
Let me illustrate. Where the Sahara desert is, we can postulate, accurately of course, that it is a dry region that approximates the size of the United States of America. It has a climate that is drastically different from say Canada or areas north of Canada and areas south of Argentina. We do not find snow on the Sahara desert. Plant life there is unique to this hot area. Check out Death Valley, one of my favorites where even inside of CA, you see vastly different climate in the southern area than say where Santa Rosa north is like. Redwood trees do not grow south of a sort of demarcation point that is in northern CA. If they are planted in the South of CA, and surely some must be there, it is not mentioned. Because they are not natural of the South.

Anyway, the huge fight on this forum is do you want you, your children, your family, your friends ... to be blamed for climate or not? Will you tolerate a Government that persists on knocking you down and changing your life on the premise you are the party changing climate?

I say hell no. I will not go along with a Government doing this to me, my family and friends.

 

[Robert W]

New Speak changed? ... we now have 97% of all scientists world-wide CONCLUDING that AGW is real ... what happened to "consensus" for the folks who don't say one way or the other? ...

What amazes me is that Crick told us he is an engineer. I frankly have an enormous respect for engineers as a group.
I also respect true climate scientists. I however am no sheep.
I have presented many scientists, whose specialty is climate study. I present those who call BS to claims man is screwing the planet. I point out that Earth is not tiny. As a planet it is not massive. However it takes a full day to rotate once. It takes 365 rotations per year. In other words, this baby we live on is pretty damned huge. You can use your best telescope and yet you can see a limited distance. Because it is so huge, the earth curvature is not a hell of a long ways away from keeping you see the adjacent areas. Were you to have a gigantic ruler or level, and put it tangentially on earth, you would fast notice the huge change in what you can see in the distance. You experience some of this when you fly commercially. This to some might seem irrelevant. It is to show you climate is hugely varied. We do live on a planet with a climate. It has many climates. I talked to Professor Lindzen by email years back and hit him with some important questions. I asked him about stories he works for the oil interests. He may have given a talk or two. I don't recall that part of his explanation. But he never in his life was an employee of big oil. He is an academic. His pay came to him from MIT up to the time he retired. He lives on Earth. If anybody should tell us to be frightened, he is precisely the man who would sound the alarm.

He calls bullshit. So why don't you join him and me and call bullshit on this political nonsense?

 

[ReinyDays]

Notice that I did not bring up water spin. I focused on climate. The impact the spin of the earth has on global climate. It has been a few months but I have also brought up a global presentation showing that different parts of earth have some huge changes in climate in relation to other parts.
Let me illustrate. Where the Sahara desert is, we can postulate, accurately of course, that it is a dry region that approximates the size of the United States of America. It has a climate that is drastically different from say Canada or areas north of Canada and areas south of Argentina. We do not find snow on the Sahara desert. Plant life there is unique to this hot area. Check out Death Valley, one of my favorites where even inside of CA, you see vastly different climate in the southern area than say where Santa Rosa north is like. Redwood trees do not grow south of a sort of demarcation point that is in northern CA. If they are planted in the South of CA, and surely some must be there, it is not mentioned. Because they are not natural of the South.

Anyway, the huge fight on this forum is do you want you, your children, your family, your friends ... to be blamed for climate or not? Will you tolerate a Government that persists on knocking you down and changing your life on the premise you are the party changing climate?

I say hell no. I will not go along with a Government doing this to me, my family and friends.

The Sahara is dry because of latitude ... 30th Parallels are known as the Desert Belts for that reason ... areas north of Canada are drier ... Antarctic is the one of the driest places on Earth ... and it is the dry that causes high temperatures, not the other way around ... this is demonstrated by exceptionally cold temperatures over night, cold enough to snow, which it does in the Sahara {Cite} ...

The Earth's rotation (along with terrain) causes the prevailing winds ... which in turn causes weather patterns ... which aren't changing, unless you can point and say where ...