Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[EMH]

What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"

It froze because it was absorbing EM?

As Pluto moved further and further away from the sun, it absorbed less and less of whatever part of EM nitrogen gas was absorbing...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As Pluto moved further and further away from the sun, it absorbed less and less of whatever part of EM nitrogen gas was absorbing...

Or the surface absorbed less...........

Climate Science Investigations South Florida - Energy: The Driver of Climate

The Florida Center for Environmental Studies (CES) Climate Science Investigations of South Florida.

www.ces.fau.edu

Darn, transparent to incoming solar radiation.
Like the stuff Pluto gets.

 

[EMH]

Or the surface absorbed less...........

View attachment 717180

Climate Science Investigations South Florida - Energy: The Driver of Climate

The Florida Center for Environmental Studies (CES) Climate Science Investigations of South Florida.

www.ces.fau.edu

Darn, transparent to incoming solar radiation.
Like the stuff Pluto gets.

Unlikely.

We could disprove that by putting a jar of nitrogen in space...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unlikely.

We could disprove that by putting a jar of nitrogen in space...

What's unlikely?

 

[EMH]

What's unlikely?

That nitrogen absorbs none of the em spectrum. It likely absorbs something from the very weak end of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That nitrogen absorbs none of the em spectrum. It likely absorbs something from the very weak end of it.

Likely?
That doesn't sound like evidence.

 

[Crick]

What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"


Hint - Pluto has an elliptical orbit and has been moving away from the sun, so something about the sun i.e. EM was being absorbed by gaseous nitrogen...

Pluto has a very eccentric orbit which gives it seasons. Let's see a link to a source discussing this change.

 

[ding]

It a very little known process known as the Greenhouse Effect.

So dumb. You either don’t understand how what you said makes no sense or you are being dishonest.

No. The GHG effect is not why CO2 was a proxy for temperature prior to the industrial revolution and lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.

 

[Crick]

So dumb. You either don’t understand how what you said makes no sense or you are being dishonest.

No. The GHG effect is not why CO2 was a proxy for temperature prior to the industrial revolution and lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.

That wasn't the question. This was.

ding said:
What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution? Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened. The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.

As we all know, there are two processes involving CO2 and temperature. 1) CO2 added to the atmosphere increases the heat retention of the greenhouse effect and raises the world's temperatures. 2) Increasing temperatures reduce gas solubility in liquids so less CO2 is held in the world's oceans. The two best reconstructions of temperatures throughout the Holocene are the works of Jeremy Shakun and Shaun Marcotte. What they found was the dominant effect throughout history is heating from Milankovitch cycle effect that then raise CO2 levels. However, they also found that pulses of CO2 from volcanism or possibly clathrate events (CH4 vice CO2, but same warming process) led to their own heating. The geological record displays both processes taking place.

And if you can't take a joke, even that bad of a joke, move on, eh?

 

[ding]

That wasn't the question. This was.

ding said:
What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution? Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened. The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.

As we all know, there are two processes involving CO2 and temperature. 1) CO2 added to the atmosphere increases the heat retention of the greenhouse effect and raises the world's temperatures. 2) Increasing temperatures reduce gas solubility in liquids so less CO2 is held in the world's oceans. The two best reconstructions of temperatures throughout the Holocene are the works of Jeremy Shakun and Shaun Marcotte. What they found was the dominant effect throughout history is heating from Milankovitch cycle effect that then raise CO2 levels. However, they also found that pulses of CO2 from volcanism or possibly clathrate events (CH4 vice CO2, but same warming process) led to their own heating. The geological record displays both processes taking place.

And if you can't take a joke, even that bad of a joke, move on, eh?

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature because of solubility of CO2 in the oceans versus temperature.

Post industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 correlates to emissions.

 

[Crick]

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature because of solubility of CO2 in the oceans versus temperature.

Post industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 correlates to emissions.

Have a read: https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

 

[ding]

Have a read: https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

Thumbnail it for me.

 

[Crick]

Thumbnail it for me.

Don't be lazy. Read the abstract.

 

[ding]

Don't be lazy. Read the abstract.

If you can’t state it simply maybe you don’t understand it.

 

[Crick]

If you can’t state it simply maybe you don’t understand it.

Maybe you can't understand it because you can't read. Just read the fucking thing and comment on THAT instead of all the fucking ad hominem. It's one paragraph.

 

[Crick]

Maybe you can't understand it because you can't read. Just read the fucking thing and comment on THAT instead of all the fucking ad hominem. It's one paragraph.

Here:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene iceages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an anti-phased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

This should be right up your alley. Wasn't it you that had the obsession that the geographical differences between the poles drove all sorts of things?

 

[ReinyDays]

Have a read: https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

The conclusions of this paper state that carbon dioxide follows temperature ... see figure 5 ... so no correlation ... again, stupid LIAR just reads the abstract because she's TOO STUPID to understand anything else ...

 

[ding]

Maybe you can't understand it because you can't read. Just read the fucking thing and comment on THAT instead of all the fucking ad hominem. It's one paragraph.

Thumbnail it for me and I’ll comment.

 

[Crick]

Thumbnail it for me and I’ll comment.

Yo, asshole, it is posted in it's entirety about six inches up your screen in #1056

 

[ding]

Yo, asshole, it is posted in it's entirety about six inches up your screen in #1056

I have no idea what the point is you are trying to make. You have to actually make your point. I am not going to guess at the point you are trying to make.