Antarctica has grown ice for more than 2.7 million years, disproving "interglacials" completely

[Stryder50]

You're not making a claim. You just posted a bunch of graphics you don't actually understand. Lol

They show that not everyone presents/displays the (same) data the same way. Those presentations can vary and leave the viewer to chose which one they think might be correct.
They also show that there is much variation in global temperatures, such as with the past couple millions of years, and the sharp rise and drop of the graphs lines show that thinks can get warm, or cold, very quickly.

One take away is we should be cautious and geoengineering when we are still only partially knowledgeable about how it all works.

You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer

 

[Anomalism]

They show that not everyone presents/displays the (same) data the same way. Those presentations can vary and leave the viewer to chose which one they think might be correct.
They also show that there is much variation in global temperatures, such as with the past couple millions of years, and the sharp rise and drop of the graphs lines show that thinks can get warm, or cold, very quickly.

One take away is we should be cautious and geoengineering when we are still only partially knowledgeable about how it all works.

You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer

You’re still not actually making an argument, just waving your hands. Yes, temperature varies over time, nobody disputes that.

Geoengineering talk is premature when the causal mechanisms and energy budgets are well understood. CO2 forcing, ocean heat uptake, radiative spectra, those aren’t mysteries. You're appealing to caution because you don’t grasp the data.

 

[Stryder50]

You’re still not actually making an argument, just waving your hands. Yes, temperature varies over time, nobody disputes that.

Geoengineering talk is premature when the causal mechanisms and energy budgets are well understood. CO2 forcing, ocean heat uptake, radiative spectra, those aren’t mysteries. You're appealing to caution because you don’t grasp the data.

CO2 forcing does not apply to or effect the whole atmosphere.*
It has not been proven to do such, as in laboratory replication.
Common sense also would indicate that unless we're getting into atomic energy (fission/fusion) one molecule will not transfer energy to 2,500 other molecules on scale equal to what it retains.

* I suggested in a couple of posts how to test CO2 forcing to show if it could or could not affect ALL of the other component molecule types in the atmosphere.

Note that the O2 of CO2 is two atoms of oxygen, atomic weight of 8 each for a total of 16.
C is for one atom of carbon, atomic weight of 6.
Oxygen, O2, is 20% of atmosphere volume and the O2 of CO2 is not going to be "forcing" the basic 'free' oxygen.
That leaves the carbon, which is about a quarter of the atomic weight of a CO2 molecule see we have an even smaller mass that could be transferring any heat to the rest of the atmosphere.

If you can't explain or understand the science in a way to present to the 95% of the population who aren't very schooled in science than you aren't going to persuade them to approve policy and funding for your anti-ACC/AGW pseudo-science agenda.

 

[Anomalism]

CO2 forcing does not apply to or effect the whole atmosphere.*
It has not been proven to do such, as in laboratory replication.
Common sense also would indicate that unless we're getting into atomic energy (fission/fusion) one molecule will not transfer energy to 2,500 other molecules on scale equal to what it retains.

* I suggested in a couple of posts how to test CO2 forcing to show if it could or could not affect ALL of the other component molecule types in the atmosphere.

Note that the O2 of CO2 is two atoms of oxygen, atomic weight of 8 each for a total of 16.
C is for one atom of carbon, atomic weight of 6.
Oxygen, O2, is 20% of atmosphere volume and the O2 of CO2 is not going to be "forcing" the basic 'free' oxygen.
That leaves the carbon, which is about a quarter of the atomic weight of a CO2 molecule see we have an even smaller mass that could be transferring any heat to the rest of the atmosphere.

If you can't explain or understand the science in a way to present to the 95% of the population who aren't very schooled in science than you aren't going to persuade them to approve policy and funding for your anti-ACC/AGW pseudo-science agenda.

CO2 forcing doesn’t need to “push” every other molecule to be real. Greenhouse physics is about radiation: CO2 absorbs specific infrared wavelengths emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-emits them in all directions, including back toward the surface. That energy interacts statistically with the rest of the atmosphere, not molecule by molecule, but via collisions and thermal equilibration. That’s exactly how a trace gas can measurably warm the entire air column, despite being 0.04-0.05% of the atmosphere.

Laboratory spectroscopy, atmospheric radiometry, and satellite spectra all confirm CO2’s absorption bands and the resulting energy retention. O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR at those wavelengths, so their mass fraction doesn’t negate the effect; energy gets redistributed through collisions, raising the average kinetic energy (temperature) of the air. It’s not about atomic weight or counting atoms. It’s about photons, absorption/emission, and energy balance, which are directly measurable and repeatable. This is physics you can observe in the lab, in the atmosphere, and from space.

 

[Stryder50]

CO2 forcing doesn’t need to “push” every other molecule to be real. Greenhouse physics is about radiation: CO2 absorbs specific infrared wavelengths emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-emits them in all directions, including back toward the surface. That energy interacts statistically with the rest of the atmosphere, not molecule by molecule, but via collisions and thermal equilibration. That’s exactly how a trace gas can measurably warm the entire air column, despite being 0.04-0.05% of the atmosphere.

Laboratory spectroscopy, atmospheric radiometry, and satellite spectra all confirm CO2’s absorption bands and the resulting energy retention. O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR at those wavelengths, so their mass fraction doesn’t negate the effect; energy gets redistributed through collisions, raising the average kinetic energy (temperature) of the air. It’s not about atomic weight or counting atoms. It’s about photons, absorption/emission, and energy balance, which are directly measurable and repeatable. This is physics you can observe in the lab, in the atmosphere, and from space.

O2 and N2 are 99% of the "air" and you just said "energy gets redistributed through collisions, raising the average kinetic energy (temperature) of the air."

So what part of the "air" is absorbing then if not the O2 and N2. ???
Some form of "ether" ... ???

Or is it the water vapor, which is another @10% additional volume that already is a GHG and loaded with 'temperature'. ?

Also "That energy interacts statistically with the rest of the atmosphere, not molecule by molecule,"

When did a mathematical concept: "statistically", acquire substance/mass for energy to interact with ???

What "rest of the atmosphere" if not the 99% of N2 and O2 ???*
* Which is what has the temperature that is being measured when we determine the warmth/coolness of the air.

You are chattering nonsense and trying to pedal it as knowledge ...

 

[Anomalism]

O2 and N2 are 99% of the "air" and you just said "energy gets redistributed through collisions, raising the average kinetic energy (temperature) of the air."

So what part of the "air" is absorbing then if not the O2 and N2. ???
Some form of "ether" ... ???

Or is it the water vapor, which is another @10% additional volume that already is a GHG and loaded with 'temperature'. ?

Also "That energy interacts statistically with the rest of the atmosphere, not molecule by molecule,"

When did a mathematical concept: "statistically", acquire substance/mass for energy to interact with ???

What "rest of the atmosphere" if not the 99% of N2 and O2 ???*
* Which is what has the temperature that is being measured when we determine the warmth/coolness of the air.

You are chattering nonsense and trying to pedal it as knowledge ...

Didn't you just rage quit in the other thread and say you weren't going to waste any more time on me? That didn't take long.

CO2 absorbs specific infrared wavelengths emitted by the Earth’s surface, not O2 or N2. That’s where the energy enters the system. After absorption, collisions between CO2 and the bulk air molecules redistribute that energy as heat. “Statistically” just means we’re talking about the average effect over billions of molecular collisions, not that air molecules themselves are abstract math. The mass of O2 and N2 doesn’t prevent warming; they’re the medium that receives the energy via kinetic interactions.

Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas and amplifies warming, but its concentration depends on temperature, so it’s a feedback, not a primary driver. CO2 forcing is measurable: satellites detect less outgoing IR at CO2 absorption bands, radiosondes show tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling exactly as theory predicts, and ocean heat content is rising. This is the physics of photon absorption, emission, and energy transfer in a gas mixture.

 

[Stryder50]

Didn't you just rage quit in the other thread and say you weren't going to waste any more time on me? That didn't take long.

CO2 absorbs specific infrared wavelengths emitted by the Earth’s surface, not O2 or N2. That’s where the energy enters the system. After absorption, collisions between CO2 and the bulk air molecules redistribute that energy as heat. “Statistically” just means we’re talking about the average effect over billions of molecular collisions, not that air molecules themselves are abstract math. The mass of O2 and N2 doesn’t prevent warming; they’re the medium that receives the energy via kinetic interactions.

Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas and amplifies warming, but its concentration depends on temperature, so it’s a feedback, not a primary driver. CO2 forcing is measurable: satellites detect less outgoing IR at CO2 absorption bands, radiosondes show tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling exactly as theory predicts, and ocean heat content is rising. This is the physics of photon absorption, emission, and energy transfer in a gas mixture.

I'm getting you to show how much nonsense you are making;
"collisions between CO2 and the bulk air molecules redistribute that energy as heat."
The "bulk air molecules" are the N2 and O2 which earlier you said don't get heated by the warmer CO2.
You are creating energy out of thin air~nothing and contradicting yourself.

 

[Anomalism]

I'm getting you to show how much nonsense you are making;
"collisions between CO2 and the bulk air molecules redistribute that energy as heat."
The "bulk air molecules" are the N2 and O2 which earlier you said don't get heated by the warmer CO2.
You are creating energy out of thin air~nothing and contradicting yourself.

I never said they don't get heated at all. CO2 heats N2 and O2 through collisions. The energy isn’t “created from thin air”; it’s transferred. CO2 absorbs IR photons, gets excited, and then bumps into surrounding N2 and O2 molecules billions of times per second. Each collision transfers kinetic energy, raising the average temperature of the air. O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR at those wavelengths directly, but they do acquire energy from the CO2 that does. That’s standard molecular physics. The warming of the bulk air is entirely consistent with greenhouse theory and lab measurements.

 

[Stryder50]

I never said they don't get heated at all. CO2 heats N2 and O2 through collisions. The energy isn’t “created from thin air”; it’s transferred. CO2 absorbs IR photons, gets excited, and then bumps into surrounding N2 and O2 molecules billions of times per second. Each collision transfers kinetic energy, raising the average temperature of the air. O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR at those wavelengths directly, but they do acquire energy from the CO2 that does. That’s standard molecular physics. The warming of the bulk air is entirely consistent with greenhouse theory and lab measurements.

So one molecule of CO2 has enough energy, from that absorbed IR to go bumping into ALL the 2,499 other molecules of N2 and O2, constantly, and those collisions all transfer heat. ?!
That's a lot of "heat"/"energy" in one little molecule.
Especially when it only retains the IR briefly, then re-emits it.

Amazing that those N2 and O2 molecules aren't also passing on a lot of kinetic energy when they are bumping into each other.
Amazing how only CO2 is able to pass on kinetic energy by bumping into other element's molecules.

 

[Anomalism]

So one molecule of CO2 has enough energy, from that absorbed IR to go bumping into ALL the 2,499 other molecules of N2 and O2, constantly, and those collisions all transfer heat. ?!
That's a lot of "heat"/"energy" in one little molecule.
Especially when it only retains the IR briefly, then re-emits it.

Amazing that those N2 and O2 molecules aren't also passing on a lot of kinetic energy when they are bumping into each other.
Amazing how only CO2 is able to pass on kinetic energy by bumping into other element's molecules.

You’re completely missing basic molecular physics. CO2 doesn’t magically heat N2 and O2 by itself. It transfers energy through ordinary collisions, just like any molecule exchanging kinetic energy. Every molecule in the air is constantly bumping into its neighbors; CO2 just injects extra energy at specific IR wavelengths. The fact that it’s a trace gas doesn’t matter. Statistical collisions across billions of molecules add up to measurable warming.

CO2 isn't the only molecule doing anything. Every N2 and O2 molecule is already exchanging energy all the time. CO2 just shifts the energy balance slightly upward. That’s how greenhouse physics works.

 

[EMH]

That’s the Eocene, one of the warmest periods of the last 65 million years

It was warm 65 million years ago because Antarctica had not yet gotten to 600 miles of South Pole and North America had not gotten within 600 miles of North Pole, hence neither was in ice age at the time.

Tectonics doesn’t explain glaciation at all;

but you still cannot find one single piece of land on Earth that violates the 600 miles to the pole law.

Actually, if you are claiming that tectonics isn't the answer, you need to find a refutation, and you can't, which means you have no claim at all...

 

[EMH]

You’re completely missing basic molecular physics. CO2 doesn’t magically heat N2 and O2 by itself. It transfers energy through ordinary collisions, just like any molecule exchanging kinetic energy. Every molecule in the air is constantly bumping into its neighbors; CO2 just injects extra energy at specific IR wavelengths. The fact that it’s a trace gas doesn’t matter. Statistical collisions across billions of molecules add up to measurable warming.

CO2 isn't the only molecule doing anything. Every N2 and O2 molecule is already exchanging energy all the time. CO2 just shifts the energy balance slightly upward. That’s how greenhouse physics works.

IR is weak EM.

UV is 10k more powerful

O3 ozone absorbs UV.

 

[Anomalism]

It was warm 65 million years ago because Antarctica had not yet gotten to 600 miles of South Pole and North America had not gotten within 600 miles of North Pole, hence neither was in ice age at the time.







but you still cannot find one single piece of land on Earth that violates the 600 miles to the pole law.

Actually, if you are claiming that tectonics isn't the answer, you need to find a refutation, and you can't, which means you have no claim at all...

IR is weak EM.

UV is 10k more powerful

O3 ozone absorbs UV.

Tectonics explains latitude, but it doesn’t explain glaciation. Glacial ice grows and melts in response to temperature, precipitation, and insolation, not just distance from the pole. During the Eocene, Antarctica and North America were indeed closer to their current latitudes, but the planet was much warmer overall due to high greenhouse gas concentrations, so ice sheets didn’t form. The “600 miles to the pole” claim ignores paleoclimate data showing polar warmth in the Eocene despite continental positions.

As for IR versus UV: the greenhouse effect doesn’t rely on UV. IR is the relevant wavelength because the Earth emits longwave radiation in the infrared, and gases like CO2 absorb and re-emit these specific wavelengths. Ozone absorbs UV, protecting life from high energy photons, but it doesn’t replace CO2’s role in trapping infrared energy. The strength of a photon depends on wavelength, but greenhouse physics is about energy balance at the wavelengths the Earth actually emits, not UV intensity.

 

[EMH]

so ice sheets didn’t form. The “600 miles to the pole” claim ignores paleoclimate data showing polar warmth in the Eocene despite continental positions

False, as neither AA nor NA was within 600 miles of a pole during Eocene.

 

[EMH]

As for IR versus UV: the greenhouse effect doesn’t rely on UV.

CLASSIC CO2 BULLSHIT...

Only the weaker EM matters, the stronger EM doesn't...

TOO FUNNY!!!

One UV photon is absorbed by O3 in atmosphere. One IR photon is absorbed by CO2 in atmosphere.

Which one adds more heat to atmosphere, the one that absorbed the photon with 10k fold more energy, or the one absorbing the weaker EM?

LOL!!

IQ over 5 required...

 

[Anomalism]

False, as neither AA nor NA was within 600 miles of a pole during Eocene.

CLASSIC CO2 BULLSHIT...

Only the weaker EM matters, the stronger EM doesn't...

TOO FUNNY!!!

One UV photon is absorbed by O3 in atmosphere. One IR photon is absorbed by CO2 in atmosphere.

Which one adds more heat to atmosphere, the one that absorbed the photon with 10k fold more energy, or the one absorbing the weaker EM?

LOL!!

IQ over 5 required...

Energy per photon isn’t the full story. UV photons carry more energy, but almost all of them are absorbed in the stratosphere by ozone, not the troposphere or surface. That energy doesn’t heat the lower atmosphere, it drives chemical reactions and some stratospheric warming, but it largely bypasses the ocean and lower air.

Infrared photons from CO2, while lower energy per photon, are absorbed right in the troposphere where the air and surface actually interact. That’s where the greenhouse effect matters: repeated absorption and re-emission in the IR bands traps energy in the lower atmosphere and heats the oceans over time. It’s cumulative energy transfer, not single-photon energy, that drives warming.

 

[EMH]

Energy per photon isn’t the full story. UV photons carry more energy, but almost all of them are absorbed in the stratosphere by ozone, not the troposphere or surface. That energy doesn’t heat the lower atmosphere, it drives chemical reactions and some stratospheric warming, but it largely bypasses the ocean and lower air.

Infrared photons from CO2, while lower energy per photon, are absorbed right in the troposphere where the air and surface actually interact. That’s where the greenhouse effect matters: repeated absorption and re-emission in the IR bands traps energy in the lower atmosphere and heats the oceans over time. It’s cumulative energy transfer, not single-photon energy, that drives warming.

except there is NO WARMING .... and that's CO2 FRAUD's biggest problem.

 

[Hafar1014]

Energy per photon isn’t the full story. UV photons carry more energy, but almost all of them are absorbed in the stratosphere by ozone, not the troposphere or surface. That energy doesn’t heat the lower atmosphere, it drives chemical reactions and some stratospheric warming, but it largely bypasses the ocean and lower air.

Infrared photons from CO2, while lower energy per photon, are absorbed right in the troposphere where the air and surface actually interact. That’s where the greenhouse effect matters: repeated absorption and re-emission in the IR bands traps energy in the lower atmosphere and heats the oceans over time. It’s cumulative energy transfer, not single-photon energy, that drives warming.

There is more ice

 

[Anomalism]

except there is NO WARMING .... and that's CO2 FRAUD's biggest problem.

The warming is directly measured. Satellites, radiosondes, and surface instruments all show tropospheric warming; ocean heat content from Argo floats shows massive, monotonic energy gain. The physics isn’t hypothetical. “No warming” ignores all independent, converging observations across multiple systems.

Calling it fraud because the warming isn’t visible in a single cherry.picked metric, or because someone misinterprets instrument corrections, is just denial of straightforward thermodynamics and measurement.

 

[Hafar1014]

The warming is directly measured. Satellites, radiosondes, and surface instruments all show tropospheric warming; ocean heat content from Argo floats shows massive, monotonic energy gain. The physics isn’t hypothetical. “No warming” ignores all independent, converging observations across multiple systems.

Calling it fraud because the warming isn’t visible in a single cherry.picked metric, or because someone misinterprets instrument corrections, is just denial of straightforward thermodynamics and measurement.

There is no warming going on in fact its colder