10 Common Climate Change Denier Myths

[mamooth]

And we've got another denier who did the "DERP DERP DERP This is great I have to share it!" thing, not understand that it makes him look like a mental midget.

According to this logic, which most deniers praise, all science must be rejected because a virus is spreading. Yep, most deniers did eat lead paint chips by the bucket as a child. Normal people would note that theor conclusion has nothing to do with their premise, but these are deniers, and they're dumber than dogshit kind of by definition.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The best part is they skipped over the lab work and went right to the "science is settled"

 

[ReinyDays]

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half

As usual, CBS has all of this wrong.. I'll only address #1 because it's obvious they don't understand anything about the sun than Milosevich cycles....

But the pace of the recent temperature spike has been markedly faster — taking place over 150 years, with the majority happening over just the past few decades. At that same time, the sun's output has been going in the opposite direction, diverging from the direction in temperature. As this NASA graph shows, solar irradiance is down slightly from a peak in the 1950s.

THAT --- is a horrid explanation... The forcing due to CO2 responsible for GWarming and which I totally accept is about 3 watts/m2... This RUNUP in Total Solar Irradiance in their graph is about 1 watt/m2... And the fact that this SOLAR RISE plateaus in or around the 60s DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean that this higher level of solar irradiance --------------------------------------------------------------

1) Is NOT BEING STORED -- in the oceans like for GW or not ADDING DAILY to a new thermal equilibrium at the surface.. EVEN if it's PLATEAUED, it's still adding ENERGY (not just forcing power) into the system and boosting the temp... The Earth has too much inertia in it's thermo system to start or stop on a dime..

2) IS not SIGNIFICANT... Unlike the forcing from GHouse gases which retards the LOSS of heat from the surface 24/7/365 -- SOLAR forcing puts the energy INTO the system in the 1st place.. So it's a MORE LIKELY source of "heat in the oceans" and other storage mechanisms than LW InfraRed...

3) Because this is the ENERGY SOURCE, it's effect is over time.. NOT JUST the "resistance" to loss... And like your furnace being "stuck on" -- EVEN THO IT"S CONSTANT TEMPERATURE furnace air" it can cause TEMP RISES within the house -- NO MATTER WHAT INSULATION is retarding the loss...

4) Since for GW there are short and LONG term "climate sensitivities that PROLONG the GW effect and make it last LONGER than the forcing from CO2 today,, THE SAME REASON AND LOGIC applies to solar forcings.. It could be DECADES before the halt to the solar rise is "thermodynamically equalized"....

THAT'S what the fucking science says about "the sun"... What CBS wrote, is the "Idiot's Guide to Sun and GW"....

Bottom line is -- LIKELY SOME of the small blip in temperature DOES INDEED have to do with that 100 year increase in Total Solar Irradiance that they had no chance of understanding.....

The forcing due to CO2 responsible for GWarming and which I totally accept is about 3 watts/m2

My understanding is this is measured at 1.8 (± 0.5) W/m^2 ... that's only over 25 years, so a handful of salt over the shoulder please ... and this is the value the IPCC report uses in their predictions ...

That's a small amount of energy flow ... low power ... the Hysterical claims all ignore this ... for powerful events, we need power; global warming won't do it ... humans are going to have to really ramp up their CO2 output to increase this value to 4.5 W/m^2, the level I get my claim of +2ºC over the next 100 years from ... drive two hours south to see what your new climate will be then ...

One argument against the Bible is that it is full of some crazy batshit events, why does climate science get a pass on their crazy batshit predictions? ... hypercanes and hockey sticks, spend the $20 and get a clue ...

 

[flacaltenn]

According to your theory, the rate of increase should be decreasing.

Not true.. I explained why.. The sun is the PRIMARY source of heat for the Earths climate.. You turn up the heat above thermal equilibrium and LEAVE IT LEVEL and the system WILL continue to climb... Because the power is being INTEGRATED by ANY storage mechanism into stored ENERGY...

That "solar constant" that we USED to believe exists, doesn't really....And even a 1.3W/m2 increase over a 100 years is a LOT of energy into the 70% of the surface that is ocean...

And just like the climate theory goes with both short and long term "climate sensitivity" constants in the models, those SAME "persistence" and delay effects would mean that NOTHING CHANGES IMMEDIATELY with changes in a primary forcing.. Could be a hundred years before you start seeing a decline..

AND -- the "decline" since the 60s is a SMALL percent of the increase since the last solar minimum...

\

 

[flacaltenn]

#1 is running fast and loose with the facts ... we didn't measure the Sun's output 1 million years ago, it's impossible to tie that to climate ... the writers touch upon Milankovitch cycles, which are a set orbital cycles mostly unrelated to each other ... however none of the individual cycles correlates to the current glacial/interglacial cycles we've been seeing, despite what the article implies ... causation does equal correlation, and if not we have a serious problem ...

I agree that the claims of recent fluctuations, those in the past fifty years, are completely bogus ... the solar constant has been 1360 W/m^2 for the past 10 million years, up from 1350 W/m^2 ... maybe we'll hit 1370 in another 10 million years ...

#2 is our basic theory, demonstrating this theory is correct doesn't seemed to have happened yet ... (anyone with a citation is welcome to post it) ... the antithesis of the above, correlation never equals causation ... there's also a very serious break in the math; and in physics, the math has to be right or it ain't so ... theories without a rigid mathematical basis is generally called conjecture ...

The Temperature vs. Carbon Dioxide graph is fraudulent ... that's not the temperature curve and I believe CO2 has only been being regularly measured since 1945 (and I'd be happy to be wrong in that guess) ...

#3 is an example of selective pooling ... pick your sources for best results ... plus they count the "no comment" as positives ... maybe part of that 3% are folks who know something about computational fluid dynamics ... just a thought ...

[whimper]

#7 is agreeable to me ... NOAA's system isn't perfect but it is public ... read it yourself and find a better way ... it's the best we have right now ...

#8 is seriously misinformed ... on several different levels ... this insults me: "A recent study evaluated 17 climate model projections published between 1970 and 2007, with forecasts ending on or before 2017." ... what about the other 1700 climate model projections? ... that should be 14 of the 1717 projections are right, or 0.8% chance ...

Filthy lies ...

#9 and the Big Rip would too ... nothing like the entire universe disassociating into it's component Marinara sauce to ease the effects of climate change ...

#10 is the example that proves it's point ... the whole article does use "select bits of scientific data to fuel the impression of impending Armageddon." ... I can only give credit to the fact they didn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, 'cause that's annoying ...

Great job.. You have far more patience than I do addressing CBS news as a responsible authority on the science of ANYTHING...

As exhibit A of their "objectivity" and finding out "what the science says", I saw the TV special that CONTAINED this graphic and IMMEDIATELY KNEW --- they were given cover for "reporting this" by off the cuffs that James Hansen had made... Not ANY actual science behind it...

Save the graphic.. It's becoming much harder to find on the web... Just added it to my archive of "panic and doom"... LOL

 

[mamooth]

Not true.. I explained why.. The sun is the PRIMARY source of heat for the Earths climate.. You turn up the heat above thermal equilibrium and LEAVE IT LEVEL and the system WILL continue to climb... Because the power is being INTEGRATED by ANY storage mechanism into stored ENERGY...

The heat outflow increases as well, so temperature eventually levels off at a new higher equilibrium.

That "solar constant" that we USED to believe exists, doesn't really....And even a 1.3W/m2 increase over a 100 years is a LOT of energy into the 70% of the surface that is ocean..

Which is why temperatures gradually increased along with solar output, lagging it a bit. But then that stopped. From 1950 to 1970 temperatures were level, then after 1970 they began increasing rapidly again.

The "slow increase, then level, then fast increase" behavior is what your theory can't explain.

 

[flacaltenn]

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half

As usual, CBS has all of this wrong.. I'll only address #1 because it's obvious they don't understand anything about the sun than Milosevich cycles....

But the pace of the recent temperature spike has been markedly faster — taking place over 150 years, with the majority happening over just the past few decades. At that same time, the sun's output has been going in the opposite direction, diverging from the direction in temperature. As this NASA graph shows, solar irradiance is down slightly from a peak in the 1950s.

THAT --- is a horrid explanation... The forcing due to CO2 responsible for GWarming and which I totally accept is about 3 watts/m2... This RUNUP in Total Solar Irradiance in their graph is about 1 watt/m2... And the fact that this SOLAR RISE plateaus in or around the 60s DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean that this higher level of solar irradiance --------------------------------------------------------------

1) Is NOT BEING STORED -- in the oceans like for GW or not ADDING DAILY to a new thermal equilibrium at the surface.. EVEN if it's PLATEAUED, it's still adding ENERGY (not just forcing power) into the system and boosting the temp... The Earth has too much inertia in it's thermo system to start or stop on a dime..

2) IS not SIGNIFICANT... Unlike the forcing from GHouse gases which retards the LOSS of heat from the surface 24/7/365 -- SOLAR forcing puts the energy INTO the system in the 1st place.. So it's a MORE LIKELY source of "heat in the oceans" and other storage mechanisms than LW InfraRed...

3) Because this is the ENERGY SOURCE, it's effect is over time.. NOT JUST the "resistance" to loss... And like your furnace being "stuck on" -- EVEN THO IT"S CONSTANT TEMPERATURE furnace air" it can cause TEMP RISES within the house -- NO MATTER WHAT INSULATION is retarding the loss...

4) Since for GW there are short and LONG term "climate sensitivities that PROLONG the GW effect and make it last LONGER than the forcing from CO2 today,, THE SAME REASON AND LOGIC applies to solar forcings.. It could be DECADES before the halt to the solar rise is "thermodynamically equalized"....

THAT'S what the fucking science says about "the sun"... What CBS wrote, is the "Idiot's Guide to Sun and GW"....

Bottom line is -- LIKELY SOME of the small blip in temperature DOES INDEED have to do with that 100 year increase in Total Solar Irradiance that they had no chance of understanding.....

The forcing due to CO2 responsible for GWarming and which I totally accept is about 3 watts/m2

My understanding is this is measured at 1.8 (± 0.5) W/m^2 ... that's only over 25 years, so a handful of salt over the shoulder please ... and this is the value the IPCC report uses in their predictions ...

That's a small amount of energy flow ... low power ... the Hysterical claims all ignore this ... for powerful events, we need power; global warming won't do it ... humans are going to have to really ramp up their CO2 output to increase this value to 4.5 W/m^2, the level I get my claim of +2ºC over the next 100 years from ... drive two hours south to see what your new climate will be then ...

One argument against the Bible is that it is full of some crazy batshit events, why does climate science get a pass on their crazy batshit predictions? ... hypercanes and hockey sticks, spend the $20 and get a clue ...

The available empirical data says that the warming we've seen is NOT much different than the "basic" math/physics warming capability of 1.1DegC for every doubling of atmos CO2... So you're absolutely correct we'll have to POUR IT ON to get ANOTHER 1.1 DegC from CO2 emissions alone.. We haven't even reached the first doubling of CO2 in the atmos since the Industrial revolution ...

Where the horseshit gets deeper is the stuff built into modeling that gives CO2 "superpowers" ABOVE and BEYOND that basic Physics/Geometry modeling of the GHouse layer... That's where all the BIBLICAL faith creeps into this circus predicting accelerations and all positive feedbacks and doomsday "trigger temps"....

It's that load of crap that I "deny"... Not the warming, not the GHouse theory...

 

[flacaltenn]

The heat outflow increases as well, so temperature eventually levels off at a new higher equilibrium.

What causes a different "heat outfow" -- weakened GHouse gases or something?? NO. THere will be a build up of heat energy (barring increased CONVECTION losses thru more storms and such) and the RETARDATION of heat to space from GHouse will remain what it is..

Kinda like the "tipping point" adjunct theory of GW... If you TREAT the sun forcing as a CONSTANT -- everything is great... But if you EXCEED the ability to shed excess heat (ENERGY not POWER as a forcing) -- the temperature will rise even IF the forcing power feeding the energy storage is a constant.. (or new HIGHER constant) than it was...

Read your statement again... Not picking on you.. But ask yourself WHY that doesn't apply to the "excess heat" from GW induced "back radiation".. The difference is, the "back rad" is the INSULATION in the house.. And the sun is your furnace... One is a power source, the other just RETARDS the power loss...

So why doesn't the heat OUTFLOW increase for CO2 induced surface temp rises???? Hmmmmmm???

 

[ReinyDays]

Did your cult not send you the memo? Most deniers tell us that solar output is dropping, and the world will enter a new ice age soon. You're even out of step with your own cult.

At least they get part of that right. TSI has been dropping since the peak around 1970. That's not debatable, and yet here you are trying to debate it.

I got the memo ... and said the same thing, what ignorant drivel is this? ... pure insanity ... the energy output at any given wavelength depends solely on temperature ... the only way to reduce solar output is to reduce solar temperature ... CO2 in Earth's atmosphere won't do that ...

Does the sun look dimmer and redder? ... use your prism and tell me the solar spectrum has changed ... there's no debate, the solar constant is, in fact, constant ... that's why we call it a constant ... did you even manage to pass algebra? ...

Your graph is fraudulent, the vertical axis isn't labeled ... is that 70 Mickey Mouse points? ... just ignorant drivel ...

 

[Crick]

Oh look.... Another Crick regurgitation of false statements.... How many times must you be beat over the head, by your propaganda being destroyed, will it take to teach you that you believe a lie?

I'm still waiting for the first dear Billy. Which of these ten items from the OP would you care to demonstrate are not myths?

Myth #1: It's the sun.
Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.
Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.
Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?
Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?
Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable
Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.
Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.
Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

 

[Crick]

Anyone? I know it seems popular to use any thread as an excuse to argue about whatever is on your mind, but we're supposed to be talking about the material in the OP. Since the above listed items are the bulk of AGW deniers arguments, those of you in that category must have some points to make here. Let's hear them.

 

[Oddball]

Oh look.... Another Crick regurgitation of false statements.... How many times must you be beat over the head, by your propaganda being destroyed, will it take to teach you that you believe a lie?

I'm still waiting for the first dear Billy. Which of these ten items from the OP would you care to demonstrate are not myths?

Myth #1: It's the sun.
Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.
Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.
Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?
Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?
Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable
Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.
Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.
Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

#3 isn't a myth, and the 97% number is a total lie.....In fact, it was debunked by lunchtime on the day it was released.

#6 is only one example where the "experts" got things wrong, and demanded that the whole world re-arrange their lives around their errors.... The Catholic church, Malthus, Marx, JM Keyenes, JK Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich -just to name a few "experts"- were all wrong, yet their "research" was supposedly unassailable.

#8 is correct...Nobody needs anymore evidence than the fact that they have never ever been predictive.

Now get back to your sandwich board and bell...

 

[anynameyouwish]

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half

when it comes to climate change and the environment I confess I am not qualified to speak.

but I can say this;

there appear to be 3 sides on the issue;

1 side says " if we don't do something terrible things will happen! no more clean air! no more clean water! pollution! global warming, uncontainable forest fires! we must act now!"

side 2 says "I HATE ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKOS for trying to make me feel guilty about POLLUTING our air and water and not giving a shit about the future of the planet. In fact, I HATE them so much I talk about perpetrating violence upon them to shut them up!"



meanwhile...the 3rd group says;

"I guess I'll stay out of all that and just see what happens"


If I had to pick between side 1 and side 2....

NEVER side 2.

 

[ReinyDays]

Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.

Climate models take into consideration only known factors ... we don't include any of the many unknown factors that effect climate ... the biggest unknown factor is climate sensitivity ... we're just guessing what value this is and this is why the more honest computer runs give wide flat distribution curves ...

In computation fluid dynamics, we have something called a "unit volume" ... this is how we divide up our atmosphere into small parts and analyze climate ... of course, the smaller this unit volume, the more accurate the computer run results will be ... but that's balanced against how long it take to run on our fastest computers ... if we used cubic centimeters for our unit volume, we could very likely obtain very accurate results, but this takes 10,000 years to predict just 100 years from now ... what's the point? ... so we sacrifice accuracy to get results in a timely manner ... as of a few years ago, our unit volume was 7.5º x 7.5º x full height of atmosphere ... this unit volume is huge and completely ignores convection ... we have to gut accuracy to get timely results ...

When we plug in values into our climate models from 100 years ago ... they do not predict today's conditions ... if you have a citation that says otherwise, I'd honestly love to read it ... so climate models are inaccurate over the past ... there's nothing that says they will be accurate in the future ... this is an area of very active research ... we are getting better models with each passing season ... plus computers are still being tortured by Moore's Law (double transistors per square inch per year) ...

I already addressed the fraud in the article that claimed there were only 17 climate models over a 27 year period ... filthy lie ... there's been thousands of models developed in that time ... even cherry-picking the best of the best, the authors still could only find 14 that "worked" ... go ahead and look at the distribution curves, okay, sure, that "worked" at some level I suppose ...

Looks like the RCP6.5 scenario is all but abandoned by actual scientists as being crazy batshit ... RCP8.5 scenario is still used to create click-bait and get authors a spot on Opera's Coffee Clatch show right before General Hospital comes on ... there's cash value for Daytime Emma Awards, worth convincing folks the oceans will boil off in 30 years ...

Please rebut ... and show your math please ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Myth #1: It's the sun.

Total Solar IR-Radiance (TSI) is the total output of all bands the sun emits.

SHO has noted a shift is the power of some of the bands. 0.2um-0.6um has dropped by 6-18% while the bands around 1.2um-2.2um have increased by 3-5%.

#1 was shown to be true by empirical evidence...

Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

ACP - Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling

I find it funny that it was PV array engineers who identified the problem.

IN late August of 1998 two major solar arrays in the Nevada desert were perplexed by a three to five percent drop in their collected energy. The usual suspects were checked, dirt, rain, clouds, smoke, etc. None of these were identified as the cause.

NASA's ACE space craft had registered a rather odd shift in the solar spectrum which was ignored. It was a shift in energy output drop from 0.2um-0.5um and a corresponding increase around 1.0-1.2um. So subtle that no one even cared, except engineers of solar panels. The band pass of PV panels, which it converts to energy, is primarily in the 0.3 to 0.6 um wave length.

The Cause was a SPECTRAL SHIFT originating on the sun. The energy was simply not making it to earths surface.

 

[ReinyDays]

when it comes to climate change and the environment I confess I am not qualified to speak.
but I can say this;
there appear to be 3 sides on the issue;
1 side says " if we don't do something terrible things will happen! no more clean air! no more clean water! pollution! global warming, uncontainable forest fires! we must act now!"
side 2 says "I HATE ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKOS for trying to make me feel guilty about POLLUTING our air and water and not giving a shit about the future of the planet. In fact, I HATE them so much I talk about perpetrating violence upon them to shut them up!"
meanwhile...the 3rd group says;
"I guess I'll stay out of all that and just see what happens"
If I had to pick between side 1 and side 2....
NEVER side 2.

Apparently you are qualified to speak on social matters ... I disagree a little bit on your description of the third half of us ... those of us that see climate change as trivial at best, non-existent at worst ... the finest and most brilliant minds of atmospheric scientists are currently glued to Doppler Radar screens looking for the first hints of a tornado forming, their goal is to give folks a 15 minutes warning of their impending death, give them a chance to take cover and survive ...

Someday cheap fossil fuels will run out ... someday not-so-cheap fossil fuels will run out ... the day we start burning the hey-this-shit's-getting-expensive fossil fuels is a bad day to start with blank paper and start designing nuclear plants ... it can be argued we're already 20 years behind schedule, and we can make up this time by skipping safety ... is our future a Fukushima event every week? ... that's certainly more likely than deserts in the American Midwest ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Myth #1: It's the sun.

Total Solar IR-Radiance (TSI) is the total output of all bands the sun emits.
SHO has noted a shift is the power of some of the bands. 0.2um-0.6um has dropped by 6-18% while the bands around 1.2um-2.2um have increased by 3-5%.
#1 was shown to be true by empirical evidence...
Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

You cited yourself ... and what you cited was self-published ... I'm sorry my friend, but you are wrong, this claim defies Wein's Law unless you can explain in every little detail why it doesn't ...

As a test, go out and look at your grass ... are you seriously claiming it's 6-18% less green? ... plants don't emit green light, they reflect it, the only natural source for green light in our solar system is the sun ... I'll need a biologist to explain how blue light is used in photosynthesis ... I believe it is, thus again, 6-18% less primary production worldwide? ...

Remember ... we measure temperatures here on Earth to the nearest whole degree ... tiny changes in the sun's output is unnoticeable in the temperature record ... thus we use 1360 W/m^2 as being accurate enough for climate purposes ... the fancy egg-head sciency term for this is "three significant digits" ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

when it comes to climate change and the environment I confess I am not qualified to speak.
but I can say this;
there appear to be 3 sides on the issue;
1 side says " if we don't do something terrible things will happen! no more clean air! no more clean water! pollution! global warming, uncontainable forest fires! we must act now!"
side 2 says "I HATE ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKOS for trying to make me feel guilty about POLLUTING our air and water and not giving a shit about the future of the planet. In fact, I HATE them so much I talk about perpetrating violence upon them to shut them up!"
meanwhile...the 3rd group says;
"I guess I'll stay out of all that and just see what happens"
If I had to pick between side 1 and side 2....
NEVER side 2.

Apparently you are qualified to speak on social matters ... I disagree a little bit on your description of the third half of us ... those of us that see climate change as trivial at best, non-existent at worst ... the finest and most brilliant minds of atmospheric scientists are currently glued to Doppler Radar screens looking for the first hints of a tornado forming, their goal is to give folks a 15 minutes warning of their impending death, give them a chance to take cover and survive ...

Someday cheap fossil fuels will run out ... someday not-so-cheap fossil fuels will run out ... the day we start burning the hey-this-shit's-getting-expensive fossil fuels is a bad day to start with blank paper and start designing nuclear plants ... it can be argued we're already 20 years behind schedule, and we can make up this time by skipping safety ... is our future a Fukushima event every week? ... that's certainly more likely than deserts in the American Midwest ...

Interestingly there are a few alternatives that are much safer than the old heavy water reactors. The old movie meme's are hard to get past for some however.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Myth #1: It's the sun.

Total Solar IR-Radiance (TSI) is the total output of all bands the sun emits.
SHO has noted a shift is the power of some of the bands. 0.2um-0.6um has dropped by 6-18% while the bands around 1.2um-2.2um have increased by 3-5%.
#1 was shown to be true by empirical evidence...
Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

You cited yourself ... and what you cited was self-published ... I'm sorry my friend, but you are wrong, this claim defies Wein's Law unless you can explain in every little detail why it doesn't ...

As a test, go out and look at your grass ... are you seriously claiming it's 6-18% less green? ... plants don't emit green light, they reflect it, the only natural source for green light in our solar system is the sun ... I'll need a biologist to explain how blue light is used in photosynthesis ... I believe it is, thus again, 6-18% less primary production worldwide? ...

Remember ... we measure temperatures here on Earth to the nearest whole degree ... tiny changes in the sun's output is unnoticeable in the temperature record ... thus we use 1360 W/m^2 as being accurate enough for climate purposes ... the fancy egg-head sciency term for this is "three significant digits" ...

Try again.

The point of my post was to show that the region affected by loss is the region which penetrates and warms our oceans to depth.

It in no way invalidates Wein's Law. The region affected is in the UV spectrum. This loss of penetrating energy should cause our oceans to cool. As our oceans go so does our climate. Photosynthesis occurs due to total spectrum not just a very narrow upper UV slice.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-019-1172-2

The solar flux and heating rate in the ocean are greatest at the surface and decrease exponentially with depth, in accord with the Lambert–Bouguer–Beer Law, as described in Chapter 3. Under average conditions, the solar flux and heating rate are reduced to half of their surface value by a depth of about 1 m, but significant heating can still be present at more than 100 m below the surface. Since the solar heating is deposited over a depth of several tens of meters in the upper layers of the ocean, and cooling by evaporation and sensible heat transfer to the atmosphere occurs at the surface, an upward flux of energy in the upper ocean is required to maintain an energy balance between surface loss terms and subsurface heating.

(bolding emphasis mine)

Near Infrared Radiation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

 

[Crick]

Oh look.... Another Crick regurgitation of false statements.... How many times must you be beat over the head, by your propaganda being destroyed, will it take to teach you that you believe a lie?

I'm still waiting for the first dear Billy. Which of these ten items from the OP would you care to demonstrate are not myths?

Myth #1: It's the sun.
Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.
Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.
Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?
Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?
Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable
Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.
Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.
Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

#3 isn't a myth, and the 97% number is a total lie.....In fact, it was debunked by lunchtime on the day it was released.

#6 is only one example where the "experts" got things wrong, and demanded that the whole world re-arrange their lives around their errors.... The Catholic church, Malthus, Marx, JM Keyenes, JK Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich -just to name a few "experts"- were all wrong, yet their "research" was supposedly unassailable.

#8 is correct...Nobody needs anymore evidence than the fact that they have never ever been predictive.

The 97% figure is not a lie. Studies by Oreskes in 2004, Doran in 2009, Anderegg in 2010, Cook in 2013, Verheggen in 2014, stenhouse in 2014 and Carlton in 2015 all show consensus values between 91 and 100%. If you think you can debunk them all, have at it. Just saying it doesn't mean squat.

As to #6: can we conclude that you reject all experts? And if you do not reject them all, please explain how you pick and choose.

As to the accuracy of climate models, mentioned in Myth #8, refute the following: