Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

[ClaireH]

No ... the typical Indiana farmer plows his fields every year so the forest doesn't grow back ... 95% of the state is under agriculture, nothing natural about that ...

I agree with you about carbon dioxide's effect on the atmosphere, my point is that it's not the only thing that causes climate change, deforestation is an example where local climate can be changed ...

Not quite 95%, and “agricultural” catch all is misleading as well with respect to IN.

• There are just over 94,000 farmers in Indiana.
• The average age of an Indiana farmer is 55.5 years old.
• Indiana's farmers cultivated just over 15 million acres of farmland in 2017.
• More than 80 percent of land in Indiana is devoted to farms, forests and woodland.
• 4.1 of Indiana’s 4.9 million forest acres are privately owned. There are 83,000 family forest ownerships in Indiana.
• Hoosier forests offer a sustainable and natural raw material for manufactures. Indiana statewide timber growth exceeds removals for harvest and natural tree mortality by 2.3 times.

About Indiana Agriculture

www.in.gov

 

[ReinyDays]

Not quite 95%, and “agricultural” catch all is misleading as well with respect to IN.

• There are just over 94,000 farmers in Indiana.
• The average age of an Indiana farmer is 55.5 years old.
• Indiana's farmers cultivated just over 15 million acres of farmland in 2017.
• More than 80 percent of land in Indiana is devoted to farms, forests and woodland.
• 4.1 of Indiana’s 4.9 million forest acres are privately owned. There are 83,000 family forest ownerships in Indiana.
• Hoosier forests offer a sustainable and natural raw material for manufactures. Indiana statewide timber growth exceeds removals for harvest and natural tree mortality by 2.3 times.

About Indiana Agriculture

www.in.gov

"At the time of European settlement in Indiana, about 90% (approximately 20 million acres) of the land base was forested. Early explorers to our state talked about traveling for days under a continuous canopy of trees broken occasionally where a tree or trees had fallen. Even when Indiana received statehood in 1816, it was still almost entirely forested.

By the early 1900's, however, this pristine picture of Indiana changed dramatically! Charles Deam, Indiana State Forester noted in the 1922 Department of Conservation Annual Report "Indiana contains 22,402,502 acres. The yearbook of Indiana for 1917 credits the state with 1,664,886 acres of timberland. This area had shrunk in 1920 to 1,387,248 acres- an average annual decrease of 92,456 acres. Our area of timber in 1920 was a little over 6% of our area. Deam went on to say that at the present rate of clearing, Indiana would be treeless in 15 years. Something had to be done!"

Jack Nelson, Indiana Division of Forestry, no date ... Linky-link

Yeah, no date on that statement ... but thank you for this correction, or update of outdated information on my part ...

I think my statement still stands even with this 20% figure ... 80% of Indiana's native forest is gone ... that has upward pressure on temperature by the hand of man in Indiana ... AGW in action ... though I doubt anyone in Indiana cares ...​

 

[ClaireH]

"At the time of European settlement in Indiana, about 90% (approximately 20 million acres) of the land base was forested. Early explorers to our state talked about traveling for days under a continuous canopy of trees broken occasionally where a tree or trees had fallen. Even when Indiana received statehood in 1816, it was still almost entirely forested.

By the early 1900's, however, this pristine picture of Indiana changed dramatically! Charles Deam, Indiana State Forester noted in the 1922 Department of Conservation Annual Report "Indiana contains 22,402,502 acres. The yearbook of Indiana for 1917 credits the state with 1,664,886 acres of timberland. This area had shrunk in 1920 to 1,387,248 acres- an average annual decrease of 92,456 acres. Our area of timber in 1920 was a little over 6% of our area. Deam went on to say that at the present rate of clearing, Indiana would be treeless in 15 years. Something had to be done!"

Jack Nelson, Indiana Division of Forestry, no date ... Linky-link

Yeah, no date on that statement ... but thank you for this correction, or update of outdated information on my part ...

I think my statement still stands even with this 20% figure ... 80% of Indiana's native forest is gone ... that has upward pressure on temperature by the hand of man in Indiana ... AGW in action ... though I doubt anyone in Indiana cares ...​

I wonder if Charles Deam was connected to namesake of Deam Lake (even though half of the locals continue to refer to it as Deam’s Lake or Deams Lake lol) ?

A most interesting history you’ve provided with IN tree canopy being so much greater in the past compared to now.

The part that I my question is about fellow Hoosiers not really caring what happens to the land. I’ve known about families fighting in court over 40 acres of low land that floods annually Hoosiers, in general, care very much about the land usage. As you likely know, the national forestry and large and even mid-sized parks continue to attract many bikers and joggers offering trail access of ranked difficulty. A loss of a well used, well-maintained park or section of a national forestry is a human tragedy regardless of its repurpose imo. In that respect, I’m with you all the way!

 

[Grumblenuts]

All my understanding of the radiative transfer of energy comes from astrophysics ...

So? Who asked you? Astoundingly, others likely gained theirs elsewhere without ever consulting you or Toobnuts. Climate experts measure stuff and proceed from there. All is made quite transparent on the interwebs:

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Not all of that heating is detectable yet at the surface

www.climate.gov

You should catch up instead of wasting everyone's time desperately trying to convince yourself here that the greenhouse effect has no significant impact upon AGW via heating of the oceans.

 

[flacaltenn]

That doesn't make sense ... higher albedo lowers temperature ... lower albedo raises temperatures ... albedo isn't a thing, it's a dimensionless ratio of reflected light over incident light ... roughly 0.3 for Earth ... or 30% of incoming solar radiation is reflected back out into space, and 70% is absorbed by the Earth's surface ...

Tend to agree here a bit. But Westwall is correct about the material properties thru which man has affected Albedo.. And it's not just the obvious. If you have LESS SNOW cover due to human development or farming, THAT also stores heat in the surface during winter.

One example of how complex it is -- is roads in Alaska.. Not a direct ALBEDO effect -- but it acts like one. And the morons have used pictures of "boggy roads" to show how global warming is "melting the permafrost". But they're morons as already stated.

The permafrost melts more and longer just because ANYTHING is on top of the ground not because of reflectivity, because there's no much LIGHT in Alaska in the cold seasons.. It's because the surface CANNOT LOSE HEAT to the heavens ever -- day or night. It's that silent SUCKING SOUND of conduction/convection heating UPWARDS to the sky that instead of FREEZING the ground --stores more heat into the surface. A white roof shed in Alaska can get "sinkholed" if you dont vent it properly.

The oceans are a better STORE of heat.. But sometimes what we do to the LAND also increases surface heating and not just thru albedo.

 

[ReinyDays]

Tend to agree here a bit. But Westwall is correct about the material properties thru which man has affected Albedo.. And it's not just the obvious. If you have LESS SNOW cover due to human development or farming, THAT also stores heat in the surface during winter.

One example of how complex it is -- is roads in Alaska.. Not a direct ALBEDO effect -- but it acts like one. And the morons have used pictures of "boggy roads" to show how global warming is "melting the permafrost". But they're morons as already stated.

The permafrost melts more and longer just because ANYTHING is on top of the ground not because of reflectivity, because there's no much LIGHT in Alaska in the cold seasons.. It's because the surface CANNOT LOSE HEAT to the heavens ever -- day or night. It's that silent SUCKING SOUND of conduction/convection heating UPWARDS to the sky that instead of FREEZING the ground --stores more heat into the surface. A white roof shed in Alaska can get "sinkholed" if you dont vent it properly.

The oceans are a better STORE of heat.. But sometimes what we do to the LAND also increases surface heating and not just thru albedo.

Maybe what you and Westwall aren't taking into consideration is that at higher latitudes: 1] we have fewer square meters and 2] insolance is lower ... we multiply the equatorial values by the cosine of latitude to get our annual averages ... once above 45º, these values then crash to zero quite quickly ...

We're modelling the Earth's surface as an ideal blackbody radiator ... and emperical data confirms this is nearly so ... the trick here is that the radiative properties of a blackbody is independent of the material ... the hydrogen on the Sun's surface behaves the same as the silicon dioxide on land masses and the water over the oceans ... for the same temperature, they all emit the same spectrum ... and this is very close to the calculated idealized blackbody ...

That's the radiative side of the affair ... if energy can conduct down into the soil or water, then it will ... but conduction (and absorption/re-emission) requires time to pass ... reflection is instantaneous ... that green photon is 1/3 the way to the Moon before the grass plant decides what to do with the red and blue photons it's absorbing ... and that green photon plays no role in Earth's thermodynamics ... including heat stored ...

Here's a puzzler for you ... what's the albedo at the North Pole right now (mid-November) ? ...

 

[LaDairis]

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.​

​

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.​

​

​

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.​

​

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!​

​

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?​

​

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.​

​

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.​

​

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!​

​

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!​

​

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?​

​

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.​

​

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.​

​

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.​

​

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).​

​

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.​

​

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?​

​

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).​

​

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).​

​

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.​

​

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?​

​

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.​

Article's from a couple of years ago. He makes a point I haven't ever seen discussed:

The atmosphere just can't hold enough heat to warm up the oceans.

Can anyone knowledgeable of thermodynamics point out any flaws in his reasoning?

Try these questions...


Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, is on average 50F colder than the other, and calves or puts 9 times the ice into the oceans vs the other, some 46 times the molecular h2o the Miss River dumps in the Gulf?

Once Earth polar circle cools Earth more than the other

Why?

90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
7% on Greenland

If Earth had two polar continents, two Antarcticas, it would be colder and oceans would be lower...


Ice is determined by land near the poles..... and LAND MOVES....

 

[Grumblenuts]

Climate for kids:

The Arctic is ocean surrounded by land. The Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean.

The ocean under the Arctic ice is cold, but still warmer than the ice! So the ocean warms the air a bit.

Antarctica is dry—and high. Under the ice and snow is land, not ocean. And it’s got mountains. The average elevation of Antarctica is about 7,500 feet (2.3 km). And the higher you go, the colder it gets.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The atmosphere doesn't heat the oceans. UV radiation from the Sun, does. It penetrates to a depth of around 500 meters and that is what warms the oceans.

Everything else is noise.

Green Is the Color of Bread Mold

It's a symphony of agenda-driven noise, performed by an orchestra of uncreative degenerates who hate human economic progress, conducted by rotating control-freaks who think Stalin didn't go far enough.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

An angry little girl at the UN said if we pay more taxes in America, the planet will be saved.

Sweden Sour

Greta calmed down after Bi-den sniffed her hair.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I wonder if Charles Deam was connected to namesake of Deam Lake (even though half of the locals continue to refer to it as Deam’s Lake or Deams Lake lol) ?

A most interesting history you’ve provided with IN tree canopy being so much greater in the past compared to now.

The part that I my question is about fellow Hoosiers not really caring what happens to the land. I’ve known about families fighting in court over 40 acres of low land that floods annually Hoosiers, in general, care very much about the land usage. As you likely know, the national forestry and large and even mid-sized parks continue to attract many bikers and joggers offering trail access of ranked difficulty. A loss of a well used, well-maintained park or section of a national forestry is a human tragedy regardless of its repurpose imo. In that respect, I’m with you all the way!

Trustfundie Treehuggers

The National Parks are a Nature Boy fantasy of the ruling class that covers up their real instinctive purpose: hoarding. By shutting off the source of high-paying jobs, high profits for their competitors, and inexpensive jobs, this artificial scarcity can only create a stagnant and decadent class superiority.

 

[ClaireH]

Trustfundie Treehuggers

The National Parks are a Nature Boy fantasy of the ruling class that covers up their real instinctive purpose: hoarding. By shutting off the source of high-paying jobs, high profits for their competitors, and inexpensive jobs, this artificial scarcity can only create a stagnant and decadent class superiority.

There is a stark distinction between a government land grab via declaring eminent domain and private ownership of land. Private land owners should only sell land when the offer is determined to pay enough to do so, and not one minute beforehand (doesn’t always happen). National forests deserve federal protection from primarily developers. There’s enough land elsewhere yet many await like sharks for legal changes over coveted land.

You can’t toss the baby out with the bath with your false claim that all people who want to protect land our “ trustfundie tree huggers”. A small minority of people would fall under such a category, and likely they aren’t planning to target parks and forests to demand the land lol There are numerous reasons people enjoy their state and national parks from all walks of life doing different things.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maybe what you and Westwall aren't taking into consideration is that at higher latitudes: 1] we have fewer square meters and 2] insolance is lower ... we multiply the equatorial values by the cosine of latitude to get our annual averages ... once above 45º, these values then crash to zero quite quickly ...

We're modelling the Earth's surface as an ideal blackbody radiator ... and emperical data confirms this is nearly so ... the trick here is that the radiative properties of a blackbody is independent of the material ... the hydrogen on the Sun's surface behaves the same as the silicon dioxide on land masses and the water over the oceans ... for the same temperature, they all emit the same spectrum ... and this is very close to the calculated idealized blackbody ...

That's the radiative side of the affair ... if energy can conduct down into the soil or water, then it will ... but conduction (and absorption/re-emission) requires time to pass ... reflection is instantaneous ... that green photon is 1/3 the way to the Moon before the grass plant decides what to do with the red and blue photons it's absorbing ... and that green photon plays no role in Earth's thermodynamics ... including heat stored ...

Here's a puzzler for you ... what's the albedo at the North Pole right now (mid-November) ? ...

Diff between water and ice isn't that great I would suspect. They are both fairly high. But since the ice hasn't "grown back yet" -- I'd suspect the answer you want is --- lower than in the summer?? LOL -- Or were expecting to pull a number out of my wallet?

Interesting thing happens when the ice in Arctic ocean goes away.. It's one of those NEGATIVE feedbacks that no warmer wants to talk about. And that is COLD OCEAN SURFACES are the LARGEST and most efficient CO2 SINKS on the planet. Something like 4 to 10 times BIGGER than similar acre of ancient forest.

So when the ice is NOT increasing the albedo effect, the Arctic Ocean is removing TONS more CO2 per acre...

By the way.. there is no one giant "climate zone" on the planet because of major differences between the polar regions, temperate and tropics. But, to make the case to the PUBLIC at the 4th grade level -- we all have hair on fire about ONE GLOBAL ANOMALY temperature number..

That's kinda like the argument that the Earth as a whole IS "a fairly perfect blackbody".. It only turns out that way BECAUSE of the variations in the many climate zones..

 

[Grumblenuts]

one of those NEGATIVE feedbacks that no warmer wants to talk about.

Similar to those "colders" (aka deniers) who never want to talk about POSITIVE feedbacks?

That's kinda like the argument that the Earth as a whole IS "a fairly perfect blackbody".. It only turns out that way BECAUSE of the variations in the many climate zones..

Yep, lazy, circular (spherical?) reasoning to put it mildly.

 

[ReinyDays]

Diff between water and ice isn't that great I would suspect. They are both fairly high. But since the ice hasn't "grown back yet" -- I'd suspect the answer you want is --- lower than in the summer?? LOL -- Or were expecting to pull a number out of my wallet?

Interesting thing happens when the ice in Arctic ocean goes away.. It's one of those NEGATIVE feedbacks that no warmer wants to talk about. And that is COLD OCEAN SURFACES are the LARGEST and most efficient CO2 SINKS on the planet. Something like 4 to 10 times BIGGER than similar acre of ancient forest.

So when the ice is NOT increasing the albedo effect, the Arctic Ocean is removing TONS more CO2 per acre...

By the way.. there is no one giant "climate zone" on the planet because of major differences between the polar regions, temperate and tropics. But, to make the case to the PUBLIC at the 4th grade level -- we all have hair on fire about ONE GLOBAL ANOMALY temperature number..

That's kinda like the argument that the Earth as a whole IS "a fairly perfect blackbody".. It only turns out that way BECAUSE of the variations in the many climate zones..

Yeah ... puzzler ... there's more to think about ... the answer would be "undefined" ... we can certainly set the reflected energy to zero, but if we try to set incident energy to zero, we wind up dividing by zero ... we can do this, just the value we get isn't defined under the real numbers ... the North Pole is currently in her two month winter night ... ha ha ... it's a puzzler, of course there's more to the story ...

I disagree with cold ocean sinking more than just a trivial amount of CO2 ... you might be right if the atmosphere was pure CO2 ... indeed the saturation level of CO2 dissolving in water is higher in colder water ... but with only 425 ppm CO2, we'll only see an equilibrium level of CO2 in the water, a level still far from saturation ... as far as the biology sinking CO2, I would think this happens faster in the warmer tropics, but then again I wouldn't put it past evolution to have balanced these values ... global warming means a greener more prosperous Earth ... "We're at the beginning of a new Golden Age of human existence, blah blah blah" ...

That's kinda like the argument that the Earth as a whole IS "a fairly perfect blackbody"

I've never herd that argument given in any seriousness ... a blackbody surface is just that, a surface ... it's measured in square meters or square feet, or acres ... it takes some mathematical trickery to get the surface of a sphere to behave like a plain, but it can be done ... it doesn't matter what the Earth is made of, or what the atmosphere is made of, or even if there's an atmosphere or not ... the Earth's radiative spectrum only depends on surface temperature, nothing else ... that's the temperature of the top layer of molecules of the Earth, not the bottom layer of molecules of the atmosphere ... there's a difference between the two ...

=====

Humans evolved having to be fearful of nature ... lions and tigers coming along and eating our children ... if we weren't afraid of nature, we would have died out ... in our war against nature, we have won ... there hasn't been a child eaten by a lion in Western Europe or Anglo America in 100 years ... it's been 50 years since we've seen famine here ... 30 years ago, the Soviet Union fell apart leaving us without anything to fear ... that's not how we evolved ...

First we had "Asteroid Attacks" ... and at the time we didn't know that much about asteroids, so we were afraid of the unknown ... well, we've done the research and now we know a lot about asteroids, and why it's been 65 million years since that last big collision ... last I heard, we're completely safe for the next 300 years, and it looks like we're clear for another 3,000 years ... and we know a lot about asteroids today because of the Hysteria ... so a happy ending ...

Today we've dreamed up "catastrophic climate change" to be afraid of ... for no other reason that, as above, this is a subject little researched before ... we don't know if the weather at the end of Cat's Cradle is possible or not ... if we want to be afraid, then 1ºC is as frightening as anything else ... like the twelve-year-old girl standing on the chair until papa kills that mean mouse ... again as above, we'll do the research and again find nothing to be afraid of, and we'll know a lot more about climate and weather and ... perhaps ... be able to make better forecasts ...

I find the whole thing funny ... otherwise smart people setting common sense aside ... global temperatures were higher during the agricultural revolution ... so it should be easy to demonstrate any and all catastrophes causes by warming temperatures ... evidence is mighty thin on that score ...

These Alarmist don't believe a word they're posting to the internet ... or they wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for the electricity to make the posts ... now would they? ...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There is a stark distinction between a government land grab via declaring eminent domain and private ownership of land. Private land owners should only sell land when the offer is determined to pay enough to do so, and not one minute beforehand (doesn’t always happen). National forests deserve federal protection from primarily developers. There’s enough land elsewhere yet many await like sharks for legal changes over coveted land.

Only the Developer Has Eminent Domain

Wasting the only source of potential widespread prosperity on a playground for self-indulgent Americans is a fatally degenerate policy. Those people can find a less anti-social way to entertain themselves.

Even worse, but from the same anti-American tradition, is cutting off our resources to protect useless wild animals, as in ANWR.

 

[ClaireH]

Only the Developer Has Eminent Domain

Wasting the only source of potential widespread prosperity on a playground for self-indulgent Americans is a fatally degenerate policy. Those people can find a less anti-social way to entertain themselves.

Even worse, but from the same anti-American tradition, is cutting off our resources to protect useless wild animals, as in ANWR.

Confusing premise of yours about only developer has imminent domain. Cities and states have eminent domain powers. It’s been recently used in my city to take land bought by a developer. He fought legally to keep his land but he lost. It was proven that the drainage problem would worsen with his plan that was already an issue. The city bought the land, maintained and planted more green space to reduce flooding, added a walking trail and a playground. It’s getting used daily by many families. I can tell you one thing that developer was not a happy camper, and I don’t blame him. As I stated before, unless he was compensated to the tune that satisfied him in dollar amount, he should’ve fought longer. This went on for over a year; his lawyer was a known shark type lawyer but lost this one. At no point could the developer claim to have eminent domain power to keep the land. The developer was the buyer. The city forced him to sell it to them once a few neighborhoods fought against it. It took attending every water/sewage meeting, every board meeting, many contacting mayor etc. for the community to win the case.

Your view that animals don’t matter (assessed from your words) and people are being selfish by enjoying exercise, nature, and sunlight by visiting parks is based on a limited mindset. People benefit greatly from outdoor exposure. Since you don’t enjoy the outdoors why complain about something supported by all ages? Just stay inside… you likely have low vitamin D.

 

[flacaltenn]

Similar to those "colders" (aka deniers) who never want to talk about POSITIVE feedbacks?

Yep, lazy, circular (spherical?) reasoning to put it mildly.

Oh heck -- I'm a LUKEwarmer personally, but anytime you want to talk about superpowers that some theorists give to CO2 -- I'm here. Like how GW accelerates if you unfreeze enough permafrost in the Arctic or under the Gulf of Mexico and how that positive feedback is gonna kill us all in less than XX years..

Try me.. LOL...

 

[flacaltenn]

Yep, lazy, circular (spherical?) reasoning to put it mildly.

Actually, pointing out there are MANY climate zones and the thermodynamic heat storage and TRANSFER across the globe is MORE complicated than a comparison to the Earth's similarity to a blackbody as a WHOLE is not spherical logic at all..

The storage rates, heat transfer mechanisms.reflectivities, emissabilities and time constants associated with Equilibriums ( long and short term) are REGIONAL AND COMPLEX.. And it's NOT the same as assuming ONE STUPID NUMBER for the emission of long wave IR from the planet..

Like we have ONE STUPID NUMBER for the Global Mean Average Surface Temperature (GMAST) anomaly that they use to freak everyone out about.. It's nowhere near that easy to reduce the complexities of UNDERSTAND "Global Thermo".. LOL...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually, pointing out there are MANY climate zones and the thermodynamic heat storage and TRANSFER across the globe is MORE complicated than a comparison to the Earth's similarity to a blackbody as a WHOLE is not spherical logic at all..

The storage rates, heat transfer mechanisms.reflectivities, emissabilities and time constants associated with Equilibriums ( long and short term) are REGIONAL AND COMPLEX.. And it's NOT the same as assuming ONE STUPID NUMBER for the emission of long wave IR from the planet..

Like we have ONE STUPID NUMBER for the Global Mean Average Surface Temperature (GMAST) anomaly that they use to freak everyone out about.. It's nowhere near that easy to reduce the complexities of UNDERSTAND "Global Thermo".. LOL...

Totally agree and I doubt anyone at NASA, NOAA, or the IPCC would seriously disagree. The reason for the GMAST has always been to have a baseline for comparison. There obviously needs to be one to compare ongoing historical data against graphically. Once defined and chosen, changing it seems ridiculous to me and I'd bet most climatologists as well, but sometimes shit happens and idiots will rule the day. And yes, the Earth is obviously not a blackbody period. Not as a whole nor in part. The Sun either, but at least an argument can be made for treating it as one to some extent since its outer atmosphere radiates in the UV and visible range more or less steadily. An "ideal" or "perfect" blackbody must radiate equal to what it absorbs, so clearly nothing ever really fits. Like the GMAST however, one simply must have some reference for comparison, cheap or otherwise, so one can't really blame them for using them in that way. Like I said before, problem is, in their minds anyway, they "got nowhere else to go." Many never move on to the regional, complex stuff. Once one starts presuming ideal this and that, they get stuck in a box of their own making, dragging us in with them.