AND So, It Begins.... WINTER 2022-23

[jc456]

The twit is an internet expert. I have exposed two of his socks as frauds before.

This is his 2nd attempt at trying to be a geologist.

My hat off to you brother.

All he is a rat hole troll.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting. So you don't think gas laws, Henry's Law, Roault's Law and solubility of gases as a function of temperature isn't science?

You are truly uneducated.

Well Mr. Wizard. Please explain how a gas that emits its energy at 12-16um can penetrate the oceans to depth. Physics tells us that only wavelengths of 0.2 to 0.6um make it beyond the first ten microns of the ocean's surface, more commonly known as the evaporation layer. The layer directly below this layer is colder than it is. This creates a thermocline barrier. Please explain how CO2 defeats this. This means that both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermal dynamics is at play. Explain how CO2's emissions of energy warm to depth, I'll wait...

 

[abu afak]

Did you know that:

1. Until 1860 CO2 lagged temperature on both increase and decrease! In fact there is a 450,000 year long data set that proves this. Moreover at the times when CO2 is peaking, temperatures are falling and continues to fall for 10,000 years.
2. Chinese CO2 is different. American CO2 is melting the ice caps, causing floods and fires (don't ask), causes the oceans to rise

I explained this to you just days ago you DISHONEST POS to NO REPLY

• Sep 13, 2022

Can you explain how CO2 LAGGED temperature on both increase and decrease for the prior 450,000 years, but suddenly it now drives temperature.

Yes, I've explained it many times you low IQ Kweationist.

Who do you think collected the data for your graphic and noted the "lag?"
Hark! It's the Same Scientists who are telling us THIS warming is uniquely Human caused.
Hark!

Again: (10?) In my own words.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

Gameover.
My even answering a 75 IQer like you was a gift...
- - - - - - - - -
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I explained this to you just days ago you DISHONEST POS to NO REPLY

• Sep 13, 2022

Yes, I've explained it many times you low IQ Kweationist.

Who do you think collected the data for your graphic and noted the "lag?"
Hark! It's the Same Scientists who are telling us THIS warming is uniquely Human caused.
Hark!

Again: (10?) In my own words.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

Gameover.
My even answering a 75 IQer like you was a gift...
- - - - - - - - -
`

Soooooo CO2 does NOT drive temperature????

 

[jc456]

I explained this to you just days ago you DISHONEST POS to NO REPLY

• Sep 13, 2022

Yes, I've explained it many times you low IQ Kweationist.

Who do you think collected the data for your graphic and noted the "lag?"
Hark! It's the Same Scientists who are telling us THIS warming is uniquely Human caused.
Hark!

Again: (10?) In my own words.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

Gameover.
My even answering a 75 IQer like you was a gift...
- - - - - - - - -
`

what is this mumbo jumbo salad supposed to prove exactly?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I explained this to you just days ago you DISHONEST POS to NO REPLY

• Sep 13, 2022

Yes, I've explained it many times you low IQ Kweationist.

Who do you think collected the data for your graphic and noted the "lag?"
Hark! It's the Same Scientists who are telling us THIS warming is uniquely Human caused.
Hark!

Again: (10?) In my own words.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

Gameover.
My even answering a 75 IQer like you was a gift...
- - - - - - - - -
`

I am going to explain this to you one more time... The actions of CO2 are driving NOTHING. The current Climate Sensitivity number is 0.3 Deg C. The current expected rise in temperatures, expected from CO2 alone is 0.6 to 0.8 degrees C.



This means that the other GHG's in the atmosphere are either dampening the actions of CO2 or CO2 cannot do what you claim. Our atmosphere is dampening the expected effects of CO2. There is no enhancement of that action.

Your whole AGW premise and hypothesis is laid waste with just this point of empirically observed evidence.

Please explain how you think CO2 is driving the climate and explain away empirically observed evidence.

 

[jc456]

I am going to explain this to you one more time... The actions of CO2 are driving NOTHING. The current Climate Sensitivity number is 0.3 Deg C. The current expected rise in temperatures, expected from CO2 alone is 0.6 to 0.8 degrees C.

View attachment 698869

This means that the other GHG's in the atmosphere are either dampening the actions of CO2 or CO2 cannot do what you claim. Our atmosphere is dampening the expected effects of CO2. There is no enhancement of that action.

Your whole AGW premise and hypothesis is laid waste with just this point of empirically observed evidence.

Please explain how you think CO2 is driving the climate and explain away empirically observed evidence.

well it seems he doesn't know what logarithmic means.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Well Mr. Wizard. Please explain how a gas that emits its energy at 12-16um can penetrate the oceans to depth.

Ocean currents you dimwit (they transport up and down as well as side-to-side). Jeezus...take an oceanography class!

Physics tells us that only wavelengths of 0.2 to 0.6um make it beyond the first ten microns of the ocean's surface, more commonly known as the evaporation layer. The layer directly below this layer is colder than it is. This creates a thermocline barrier. Please explain how CO2 defeats this. This means that both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermal dynamics is at play. Explain how CO2's emissions of energy warm to depth, I'll wait...

Wow. You are about the most stupid person I've met in a long time. And you think you have a science degree?????

 

[abu afak]

I am going to explain this to you one more time... The actions of CO2 are driving NOTHING. The current Climate Sensitivity number is 0.3 Deg C. The current expected rise in temperatures, expected from CO2 alone is 0.6 to 0.8 degrees C.

View attachment 698869

This means that the other GHG's in the atmosphere are either dampening the actions of CO2 or CO2 cannot do what you claim. Our atmosphere is dampening the expected effects of CO2. There is no enhancement of that action.

Your whole AGW premise and hypothesis is laid waste with just this point of empirically observed evidence.

Please explain how you think CO2 is driving the climate and explain away empirically observed evidence.

I also Shut YOU up on your topic on the same day/same thread

Climate Scientists Wrong: Arctic Warming Faster Than Predicted.

I am genuinely curious why a professional physicist would feel the need to reference a blog by someone. Why not go to the actual data? Because he references EMPERICAL DATA not the approved by government bull shit.. It's called empirical verification and is much more reliable than the modeled...

www.usmessageboard.com

So did Crick

Climate Scientists Wrong: Arctic Warming Faster Than Predicted.

Mises' Morons? Hey, you can save everyone lots of time now. Just link directly to Hatewatch from now on. They'll wind up there anyway! Hate on, MFers. Yes, this PhysicYst is using Mises (a Lew Rockwell website) and an equally wrong writer using material so dated, he has now been proven wrong by...

www.usmessageboard.com

and it SHUT YOU THE F*** UP.

"Climate sensitivity" is pp 5-10x Your Bogus number
`
`

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I am going to explain this to you one more time... The actions of CO2 are driving NOTHING. The current Climate Sensitivity number is 0.3 Deg C.

Wrong-o.

Climate sensitivity estimates for CO2 are currently at between 2-5degC.

Go ahead, tell us how MIT is wrong and only YOU are right!

Climate Sensitivity

Climate sensitivity describes the extent to which rising levels of greenhouse gases affect the Earth’s temperature.

climate.mit.edu

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ocean currents you dimwit (they transport up and down as well as side-to-side). Jeezus...take an oceanography class!



Wow. You are about the most stupid person I've met in a long time. And you think you have a science degree?????

LOL... How do they defeat the thermocline barriers, of which there are many, in the ocean. You're making a broad claim without facts to back them up.

Our submarines use these thermoclines to hide from other submarines and EM energy is reflected. Sonar is smaller in wavelength than CO2's LWIR.. The bigger wave cannot beat the barriers.

You are just spouting bull shit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong-o.

Climate sensitivity estimates for CO2 are currently at between 2-5degC.

Go ahead, tell us how MIT is wrong and only YOU are right!

Climate Sensitivity

Climate sensitivity describes the extent to which rising levels of greenhouse gases affect the Earth’s temperature.

climate.mit.edu

NO.. That is the failed modeling number, not the empirically observed number... Like I told you, I deal in facts, not fantasy numbers.



You have no idea what it is your posting...

 

[abu afak]

I am going to explain this to you one more time... The actions of CO2 are driving NOTHING. The current Climate Sensitivity number is 0.3 Deg C. The current expected rise in temperatures, expected from CO2 alone is 0.6 to 0.8 degrees C.

View attachment 698869

This means that the other GHG's in the atmosphere are either dampening the actions of CO2 or CO2 cannot do what you claim. Our atmosphere is dampening the expected effects of CO2. There is no enhancement of that action.

Your whole AGW premise and hypothesis is laid waste with just this point of empirically observed evidence.

Please explain how you think CO2 is driving the climate and explain away empirically observed evidence.

September 8, 2020​

Making Sense of ‘Climate Sensitivity'​

New Study Narrows the Range of Uncertainty in Future Climate Projections​

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
[.................]

Q. Your team was able to narrow the range of estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity by more than 43%, from the previously Accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5 Kelvin first established in 1979 (roughly 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit), to a narrower range of 2.6 to 3.9 Kelvin (roughly 4.5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit). Why is it important for scientists to narrow this range of uncertainty? What does it mean in practical terms to be able to reduce uncertainties in measuring climate sensitivity?​

Schmidt: “Scientists would like to reduce that uncertainty so that we can have more confidence in how we need to mitigate and adapt to future changes. For instance, how much sea level might rise, or how heat waves will get worse, or rainfall patterns change, are tied to the climate sensitivity combined with our actions in changing the atmosphere. A higher climate sensitivity would mean we would have to do more to avoid big changes, while a lower value would mean we’d have more time to adapt. It’s useful to note that we expect to reach double carbon dioxide levels later this century, and that while a few degrees might not seem like much, it's a big deal for the planet. The difference between forests beyond the Arctic Circle or glaciers extending down to New York City is only a range of about 8 K (about 14 degrees Fahrenheit) in the global average, while it changes sea level by 150 meters (more than 400 feet)!”
[...........]

Making Sense of ‘Climate Sensitivity' - NASA Science

New Study Narrows the Range of Uncertainty in Future Climate Projections

climate.nasa.gov

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

September 8, 2020​

Making Sense of ‘Climate Sensitivity'​

New Study Narrows the Range of Uncertainty in Future Climate Projections​

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
[.................]

Q. Your team was able to narrow the range of estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity by more than 43%, from the previously accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5 Kelvin first established in 1979 (roughly 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit), to a narrower range of 2.6 to 3.9 Kelvin (roughly 4.5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit). Why is it important for scientists to narrow this range of uncertainty? What does it mean in practical terms to be able to reduce uncertainties in measuring climate sensitivity?​

Schmidt: “Scientists would like to reduce that uncertainty so that we can have more confidence in how we need to mitigate and adapt to future changes. For instance, how much sea level might rise, or how heat waves will get worse, or rainfall patterns change, are tied to the climate sensitivity combined with our actions in changing the atmosphere. A higher climate sensitivity would mean we would have to do more to avoid big changes, while a lower value would mean we’d have more time to adapt. It’s useful to note that we expect to reach double carbon dioxide levels later this century, and that while a few degrees might not seem like much, it's a big deal for the planet. The difference between forests beyond the Arctic Circle or glaciers extending down to New York City is only a range of about 8 K (about 14 degrees Fahrenheit) in the global average, while it changes sea level by 150 meters (more than 400 feet)!”

Making Sense of ‘Climate Sensitivity' - NASA Science

New Study Narrows the Range of Uncertainty in Future Climate Projections

climate.nasa.gov

`

Another model that failed. You guys just can't win.. You keep posting up modeling and nothing with actual empirical evidence. why is that?

Do you all do anything with real world any more? You seem to live in fantasy world and never look out the damn window.

 

[jc456]

Climate sensitivity estimates for CO2 are currently at between 2-5degC.

so how warm is 120 PPM of CO2?

 

[jc456]

September 8, 2020​

Making Sense of ‘Climate Sensitivity'​

New Study Narrows the Range of Uncertainty in Future Climate Projections​

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
[.................]

Q. Your team was able to narrow the range of estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity by more than 43%, from the previously Accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5 Kelvin first established in 1979 (roughly 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit), to a narrower range of 2.6 to 3.9 Kelvin (roughly 4.5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit). Why is it important for scientists to narrow this range of uncertainty? What does it mean in practical terms to be able to reduce uncertainties in measuring climate sensitivity?​

Schmidt: “Scientists would like to reduce that uncertainty so that we can have more confidence in how we need to mitigate and adapt to future changes. For instance, how much sea level might rise, or how heat waves will get worse, or rainfall patterns change, are tied to the climate sensitivity combined with our actions in changing the atmosphere. A higher climate sensitivity would mean we would have to do more to avoid big changes, while a lower value would mean we’d have more time to adapt. It’s useful to note that we expect to reach double carbon dioxide levels later this century, and that while a few degrees might not seem like much, it's a big deal for the planet. The difference between forests beyond the Arctic Circle or glaciers extending down to New York City is only a range of about 8 K (about 14 degrees Fahrenheit) in the global average, while it changes sea level by 150 meters (more than 400 feet)!”

Making Sense of ‘Climate Sensitivity' - NASA Science

New Study Narrows the Range of Uncertainty in Future Climate Projections

climate.nasa.gov

`

guesses without evidence. amazing. give us your money and we will tell you. hahahahahahahhahah

 

[Billy_Bob]

I find it very funny that i post up well-established science for the log of CO2 and the AGW zealots ignore it like the plague... They go right around it and ignore it.

 

[jc456]

I find it very funny that i post up well-established science for the log of CO2 and the AGW zealots ignore it like the plague... They go right around it and ignore it.

they have to, it tells the actual story other than their fiction.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

LOL... How do they defeat the thermocline barriers, of which there are many, in the ocean. You're making a broad claim without facts to back them up.

I was fortunate enough to be a chem tech on an ocean cruise in the North Atlantic. We were measuring a point in the North Atlantic where currents dipped down carrying water from the surface where it absorbed various trace gases and then transported them down to the bottom of the North Atlantic. This is called the North Atlantic Deep Water. We measured the tracer gas to see when the water was last at the surface.

So, yeah, ocean currents move water up and down. Quite effectively.

Want to see it?

Our submarines use these thermoclines to hide from other submarines and EM energy is reflected.

You're talking about the acoustic channel. Yes that is real. No, it doesn't mean water can't move up and down in the water column in the ocean.

Sonar is smaller in wavelength than CO2's LWIR.. The bigger wave cannot beat the barriers.

You are just spouting bull shit.

Well, I've actually been out there, and measuring that data. I've had that water from the bottom of the Atlantic on my hands as I sampled it from a Rosette with NIskin bottles. So I think I'll trust my experience over someone who doesn't even have a science degree.

 

[jc456]

I was fortunate enough to be a chem tech on an ocean cruise in the North Atlantic.

You spent the night in Holiday Inn Express huh?