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

[ding]

Closer to 12 billion years before the next step

The discussion was regarding TSI, not Milankovitch cycles and actual changes in TSI, though relatively large over the last few years, are microscopic in terms of the energy required to produce the changes observed over the last century.

How do those changes compare to the start of a glacial period? Or the end of a glacial period? Because if you believe the sun is responsible for that, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[Crick]

How do those changes compare to the start of a glacial period? Or the end of a glacial period? Because if you believe the sun is responsible for that, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I never said the sun was responsible for glacial cycles. Milankovitch cycles are not changes in the sun nor is the CO2 and water vapor that reinforce their forcing.

 

[ding]

I never said the sun was responsible for glacial cycles. Milankovitch cycles are not changes in the sun nor is the CO2 and water vapor that reinforce their forcing.

Solar forcing affect solar radiation, does it not?

My point is that if you believe solar radiation - no matter what the cause - is responsible for initiating and ending glacial cycles, it can't be as small of an effect as you are claiming.

 

[Crick]

Solar forcing affect solar radiation, does it not?

My point is that if you believe solar radiation - no matter what the cause - is responsible for initiating and ending glacial cycles, it can't be as small of an effect as you are claiming.

What the fuck are you talking about? Milankovitch cycles are oscillations in the EARTH's orbit. The changing aspect the Earth presents to the sun changes the Earth's temperature. NO changes in the sun's output are required and for all practical purposes, none take place.

 

[ding]

What the fuck are you talking about? Milankovitch cycles are oscillations in the EARTH's orbit. The changing aspect the Earth presents to the sun changes the Earth's temperature. NO changes in the sun's output are required and for all practical purposes, none take place.

Do you not see the relationship here? Orbital changes affect the amount of radiation the planet receives by changing distances. The point is that if you believe that then you must believe the sun can cause temperature changes of lower orders because you believe it is responsible for higher order changes.

 

[Crick]

Do you not see the relationship here? Orbital changes affect the amount of radiation the planet receives by changing distances. The point is that if you believe that then you must believe the sun can cause temperature changes of lower orders because you believe it is responsible for higher order changes.

Actually, the Milankovitch cycles do NOT involve changes in orbital radius, only the Earth's angle with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.

Obiously, if the sun dramatically increased or decreased its irradiance, it would affect conditions on the Earth. But it is NOT changing anywhere NEAR enough to be responsible for anything we've observed over the last century and a half.

 

[ding]

Actually, the Milankovitch cycles do NOT involve changes in orbital radius, only the Earth's angle with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.

Obiously, if the sun dramatically increased or decreased its irradiance, it would affect conditions on the Earth. But it is NOT changing anywhere NEAR enough to be responsible for anything we've observed over the last century and a half.

So you are saying orbital forcing in no way changes the distance solar rays travel before striking the surface of the planet? Because I am arguing it does.

Using phrases such as dramatic is not quantitative. Again... if you believe the sun is responsible for triggering and ending glacial periods, then obviously the sun is capable of causing lesser changes.

 

[Crick]

So you are saying orbital forcing in no way changes the distance solar rays travel before striking the surface of the planet? Because I am arguing it does.

Using phrases such as dramatic is not quantitative. Again... if you believe the sun is responsible for triggering and ending glacial periods, then obviously the sun is capable of causing lesser changes.

I just don't know what the fuck is wrong with you. Go look up Milankovitch cycles cause you don't want to believe anything I've got to say.

 

[ding]

I just don't know what the fuck is wrong with you. Go look them up cause you don't want to believe anything I've got to say.

Try me. I just want you to tell me how much of the forecast is from the actual physical vibration of CO2 molecules which heats the surrounding atmosphere and how much is from the feedback of those vibrating CO2 molecules which are heating the surrounding atmosphere. I don't believe this is an unreasonable request. It all starts with the theory of those vibrating CO2 molecules, right? So that seems like a reasonable and necessary starting point of the conversation. Especially since feedbacks are the part of their so called science that I question. I don't question the heat generated from vibrating CO2 molecules. I'm questioning what happens after that. So I'd like to know what the real starting point is. I say that their reports show slightly more than 1C per doubling of CO2 as their estimate of the heat generated from those vibrating CO2 molecules. What do you think their reports show for that? Because if you don't know, you are proving my point that it is intentionally hidden because even you can't find it.

 

[ding]

you don't want to believe anything I've got to say.

You have never said. That's the problem.

 

[Crick]

You have never said. That's the problem.

Buh-bye.

 

[ding]

Buh-bye.

And you still haven't. Because you can't figure it out from their reports. And that doesn't raise a red flag with you because you have drunk the Kool-Aid and refuse to question them on anything.

 

[Crick]

And you still haven't. Because you can't figure it out from their reports. And that doesn't raise a red flag with you because you have drunk the Kool-Aid and refuse to question them on anything.

You refuse to read Ch 3 or, as far as can be told, a single word of AR6, yet you think the Word is revealed in a 60 year old paper about early model development.

 

[ding]

You refuse to read Ch 3 or, as far as can be told, a single word of AR6, yet you think the Word is revealed in a 60 year old paper about early model development.

You should be able to answer the question. That is the point of this exercise. For you to state out loud the magnitude of the effect and the magnitude of the feedback. And to admit that you are good with it.

 

[Crick]

You should be able to answer the question. That is the point of this exercise. For you to state out loud the magnitude of the effect and the magnitude of the feedback. And to admit that you are good with it.

I have answered the question and the answer is Chapter 3. That you refuse to read Chapter 3 is YOUR failing, not mine.

 

[Libby von H]

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice.

What are the parameters of climate that can change?

Ocean levels
Atmospheric thickness
Temperature
Humidity


What controls those?

The amount of ice on the planet. Period. Ocean level is 100% inversely correlated to Earth ice content (on land, not sea ice, which is pathetically small) - duh. Trapped in ice age glacier is compressed gas. When it snows 10 feet, you can compress that into a few inches of ice, and the rest is air, which also gets compressed, when it is under 100k years of ice layers on top of it. When that ice melts, that compressed air is released back into the atmosphere, making it denser. Clearly more ice makes things colder, but it is the discrepancy between the polar circles today that is key to understanding Earth climate change and how it occurs.

90% of Earth Ice is on Antarctica
7% is on Greenland

97% of Earth ice is on the two land masses closest to the poles.... and land moves.

Air that passes over the Antarctic Circle cools 50F (58F from the above image) more than air that passes over Arctic.

Antarctica also puts 9 times the ice into the oceans, some 46 times the H2O the Mississippi River puts in the Gulf, and that ice is colder than Arctic ice.


The Antarctic Circle cools Earth much more than the Arctic Circle does.


All about land near the poles. And land moves.

If only you didn't speak so unscientifically. One cause has many effects, and one effect has many causes.
Don't say :

Co2 does nothing​

Don't end with: All about land near the poles

Climate change is crap but that way of speaking is NOT scientific

 

[Crick]

If only you didn't speak so unscientifically. One cause has many effects, and one effect has many causes.
Don't say :

Co2 does nothing​

Don't end with: All about land near the poles

Climate change is crap but that way of speaking is NOT scientific

Aside from the way he speaks, do you agree with any of his points?

 

[ding]

I have answered the question and the answer is Chapter 3. That you refuse to read Chapter 3 is YOUR failing, not mine.

The answer I am looking for from you are two numbers. I want to know what YOU believe those numbers are. I don't want to guess what you believe.

 

[Crick]

The answer I am looking for from you are two numbers. I want to know what YOU believe those numbers are. I don't want to guess what you believe.

Neither of us are climate scientists. Neither of us are conducting research. I have repeatedly stated that I accept the conclusions of the IPCC and that I don't take direction from fools like you. You have repeatedly claimed that they are making a mistake and overstating the effect of feedbacks. If you want my numbers, look to see what the IPCC says. Argue with the IPCC.

 

[Libby von H]

Another whopper your unscientific post makes. You cut off the causal chain as if all the things Co2 does affect do not have an effect

Again, Cllimate Change is horseshit, I agree
But even the Co2 folks disagree with you. Patrick Moore finds a very positive impact of Co2 worldwide. One great effect is the recovery of the sahara , a now -green area equal to the combined size of Germany and France

Recently, CO2 Science brought up a paper in Nature Communications.

Using satellite images, Venter et al. 2018 found an eight percent increase in woody vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa over the last three decades, underscoring the global “greening trend.”

That’s an area that’s almost as big as Germany and France combined! This is profound.

In other words, it’s well over 10,000 Manhattans!

If the added green area were effectively used for agriculture, it could produce enough food to feed the African continent