Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

Ground heating is quite another thing. We can measure that very well. However, once again, as compared to what? We can only guess at the long-term changes. We can only guess Solar output shifts and what they do to the surface temperatures. How much is caused by land mass use change? Deforestation? Dams and power generation, etc. You say it WILL affect the oceans but by how much as compared to 150 years ago. How much is actually GHG driven and how much is from land use change. Again, another area that the Global warming folks can not quantify or determine what the source really is.

As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago? where is the energy stored? So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago. Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.

Do they make logical sense that they could happen? Yes, but then we have observed evidence that it is not occurring at any statically significant rates compared to 150 years ago.

My premise is simple, show me where the energy is that is capable to do what you say. Quantify it.

Billy, you might know this answer, what's hotter, concrete and asphalt or dirt?

 

[Crick]

Before you folks continue this nonsensical claim that the ocean can't absorb IR radiation, I suggest you review the following paper:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351#:~:text=At%20the%20ocean%20surface%2C%20most,skin%20layer%20(TSL)%20exists.

Where you will find the following graphic:

In this study, cloud cover was used as a substitute for downwelling IR from greenhouse gases. Due to the temperature profile, the normal situation is for thermal energy to move into the Thermal Skin Lay (TSL) from below and then be lost to the atmosphere via radiation, convection and evaporation. Note the amount of energy moving from below on the left and right side of the diagram. When energy is added to the TSL by downwelling radiation, it replaces some of the energy formerly supplied from the deeper ocean. Less energy is lost from below and the ocean's equilibrium temperature increases.

 

[ding]

Temperature increase leading to sea level rise. Disrupted migrations. Distorted predator/prey relationships. Droughts. Flooding. Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons. What delays are you talking about? The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?

First of all that's weather. Nothing new there. Secondly, I suspect a 4C increase in temperature would cause sea levels to rise considerably more than 1m due to the thermal expansion of water and past climate records. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?

And lastly do you even know what the radiative forcing equation predicts the CO2 level would need to be to get a 4C rise in temperature? It's 3500 ppm.

You are making statements without sense checking them. So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.

 

[Billy_Bob]

First of all that's weather. Nothing new there. Secondly, I suspect a 4C increase in temperature would cause sea levels to rise considerably more than 1m due to the thermal expansion of water and past climate records. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?

And lastly do you even know what the radiative forcing equation predicts the CO2 level would need to be to get a 4C rise in temperature? It's 3500 ppm.

You are making statements without sense checking them. So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.

Crick does that a whole bunch.. Never checks the facts before posting and getting egg all over his face..

 

[ReinyDays]

You are making statements without sense checking them. So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.

I got as far as "sea level rise" ... actual data gives this as 22 inches by Year 2100 ... one guy with a shovel can completely protect Houston, Texas in 20 years tops ... it's not that hard piling up two feet of dirt ...

The IPCC is only giving us a 2ºC temperature increase out a good 300 years ... that's assuming we spew enough CO2 to drive climate forcing to 4.5 W/m^2 ... seems unlikely with these technological advances in both energy generation and conservation ...

"Migratory patterns" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... Mexicans will still flock to California every Spring from now until forever ... white people won't do that kind of work ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, you might know this answer, what's hotter, concrete and asphalt or dirt?

ITs pretty simple. Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less. Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be. The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.

 

[ding]

ITs pretty simple. Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less. Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be. The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.

We need to ban roads. Then we won't need cars.

 

[jc456]

First of all that's weather. Nothing new there. Secondly, I suspect a 4C increase in temperature would cause sea levels to rise considerably more than 1m due to the thermal expansion of water and past climate records. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?

And lastly do you even know what the radiative forcing equation predicts the CO2 level would need to be to get a 4C rise in temperature? It's 3500 ppm.

You are making statements without sense checking them. So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.

Off the shelf nonsense is what I like to call his responses!

 

[ding]

Off the shelf nonsense is what I like to call his responses!

He must be on a keto diet because he always has egg on his face.

 

[Sunsettommy]

ITs pretty simple. Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less. Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be. The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.

As a kid back in the 1960's-1970's learned that firsthand as I walked barefoot a lot asphalt was always the hottest and grass the coolest I spray a lot of water onto the blacktop to see it evaporate faster than it does on the sidewalk.

 

[jc456]

ITs pretty simple. Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less. Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be. The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.

So the pure existence of man increased heat when we made roads. Why didn’t god just kill us. The planet would be better off! But CO2 would still be over 400 ppm.

 

[jc456]

As a kid back in the 1960's-1970's learned that firsthand as I walked barefoot a lot asphalt was always the hottest and grass the coolest I spray a lot of water onto the blacktop to see it evaporate faster than it does on the sidewalk.

How about sand? Ouch

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Tides have always existed, so no, none of that is evidence of anything other than high tides still occur today. Project is not, has occurred. Come on man, scratch out some other no nothing information for us.

How cute..you conflate tides with long term sea level rise~

LOL@ "no nothing"

 

[jc456]

How cute..you conflate tides with long term sea level rise~

LOL@ "no nothing"

You presented it

 

[ReinyDays]

How cute..you conflate tides with long term sea level rise~

LOL@ "no nothing"

Sea levels have been falling over the long term ... they were 20 to 30 feet higher 10,000 years ago ... of course, with a tiny increase in temperatures we'll see a tiny rise in sea levels ... but just a couple feet, nothing catastrophic ...

The million dollars it takes to protect a city can be spent over 100 years ... that's one less cup of coffee every five years per person ... ouch ...

 

[jc456]

Sea levels have been falling over the long term ... they were 20 to 30 feet higher 10,000 years ago ... of course, with a tiny increase in temperatures we'll see a tiny rise in sea levels ... but just a couple feet, nothing catastrophic ...

The million dollars it takes to protect a city can be spent over 100 years ... that's one less cup of coffee every five years per person ... ouch ...

Well technically, the tectonic plates moving may contribute to sea levels.

 

[Crick]

Sea levels have been falling over the long term ... they were 20 to 30 feet higher 10,000 years ago ... of course, with a tiny increase in temperatures we'll see a tiny rise in sea levels ... but just a couple feet, nothing catastrophic ...

The million dollars it takes to protect a city can be spent over 100 years ... that's one less cup of coffee every five years per person ... ouch ...

Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today. When glaciers melt, sea level rises.

 

[ding]

Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today. When glaciers melt, sea level rises.

View attachment 646854

View attachment 646858

View attachment 646860

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make when you stated "Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today." The sea level has been rising at the same rate for the past 6,000 years. That 40 ft you are talking about occurred in the 4,000 years between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago.

Depending on the volume of ice, yes , when glaciers melt, sea level rises. Another driver is thermal expansion of water. Which is why this graphic is the best proxy for earth's temperature there is.

 

[jc456]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make when you stated "Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today." The sea level has been rising at the same rate for the past 6,000 years. That 40 ft you are talking about occurred in the 4,000 years between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago.

Depending on the volume of ice, yes , when glaciers melt, sea level rises. Another driver is thermal expansion of water. Which is why this graphic is the best proxy for earth's temperature there is.

View attachment 646923

movement of tectonic plates can cause sea level change.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today. When glaciers melt, sea level rises.

View attachment 646854

View attachment 646858

View attachment 646860

The lying asshole doesn't notice how flat the traces are recently ...