I am so happy that i moved to Florida. Not only because of no state taxes, but the Snowmageddon that is coming. So much for Global Warming.

[marvin martian]

MSN

On another post earlier, i put up where in 2020, the "experts" had said that with Global Warming, that snow events would be less frequent and less overall snow. Now God, once again, proves that the "ex-spurts, former drips under pressure", have no clue on what the weather is going to be like year, to year.

View attachment 860086

They can't even predict the weather day to day, much less year to year.

 

[ding]

Why not? What about my explanation is wrong?

Because you are mixing and matching two different mechanisms; radiative forcing of CO2 which warms the surface of the planet; and AMOC switch off which disrupts heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic due to temperature effects on salinity and density. Two different things. AMOC switch off has been occurring for well over a million years, so how are you going to credit CO2 for that? You can't. It's been occurring naturally with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years.

When the AMOC switches off everyone will know it because it will be a real climate change. There will be no denying it.

As for CO2 the GHG effect of CO2 is relatively weak. Simple physics show for every doubling of CO2 - absent weather - there will theoretical increase in surface temperature of 1C. They arrive at their 3-5C increase by the year 2100 using feedbacks from their model which they call climate sensitivity, The feedback is 4 to 5 times the GHG effect of CO2. If you don't find that ridiculous, you aren't as intelligent as I think you are. At the minimum you should go and investigate for yourself just how much they are amplifying the GHG effect of CO2 using climate sensitivity. What I suspect you will find is that it will be hard to tell from their reports just how much is GHG effect of CO2 and how much is climate sensitivity or feedback from the GHG effect of CO2. That's because they know it would make people question their models.

You have to keep in mind that according to the simple physics the surface of the Earth should average a whopping 75 deg C warmer, but in reality, due to convective currents the surface of the Earth only averages about 33 deg C warmer than a planet with no atmosphere (Manabe and Strickler 1964).

So if the full GHG effect of the entire atmosphere is only able to heat the surface of the planet to 44% of it's theoretical value, how can an extra 300 ppm of CO2 heat the surface of the planet to 500% of its theoretical value?

 

[ding]

True we have natural climate cycles but we also have an ecosystem that is affected by what’s in it and I’m simply explaining some of the factors…. You asked how CO2 can cause more severe cooling and storms. I answered that question. Care to refute any of the points I’ve made?

Yes, I do.

Everything you have described is a consequence of temperature. Our present interglacial period is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods. So everything you are describing has already naturally occurred before. The planet is naturally warming. They are mistakenly attributing almost all of that warming to CO2. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends. Ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet climate fluctuations have increased in intensity and frequency. The present warming trend started 400 years ago after the end of the little ice age. That was 150 years before man started influencing atmospheric CO2. So the beginning of this warming trend could only have been from natural causes.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I was in Miami in 1982 and saw fish swimming on the coast Highway at high tide... this was at a time when global cooling was the culprit of the day....

King Tide Season returns to Florida's coast​

Spectrum News 13
https://www.mynews13.com › weather › 2023/10/04
Oct 7, 2023 — For Florida, our King Tide cycle occurs in the fall with a second, more minor, King Tide cycle in the spring. When King Tides occur, they .

 

[Slade3200]

Because you are mixing and matching two different mechanisms; radiative forcing of CO2 which warms the surface of the planet; and AMOC switch off which disrupts heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic due to temperature effects on salinity and density. Two different things. AMOC switch off has been occurring for well over a million years, so how are you going to credit CO2 for that? You can't. It's been occurring naturally with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years.

When the AMOC switches off everyone will know it because it will be a real climate change. There will be no denying it.

As for CO2 the GHG effect of CO2 is relatively weak. Simple physics show for every doubling of CO2 - absent weather - there will theoretical increase in surface temperature of 1C. They arrive at their 3-5C increase by the year 2100 using feedbacks from their model which they call climate sensitivity, The feedback is 4 to 5 times the GHG effect of CO2. If you don't find that ridiculous, you aren't as intelligent as I think you are. At the minimum you should go and investigate for yourself just how much they are amplifying the GHG effect of CO2 using climate sensitivity. What I suspect you will find is that it will be hard to tell from their reports just how much is GHG effect of CO2 and how much is climate sensitivity or feedback from the GHG effect of CO2. That's because they know it would make people question their models.

You have to keep in mind that according to the simple physics the surface of the Earth should average a whopping 75 deg C warmer, but in reality, due to convective currents the surface of the Earth only averages about 33 deg C warmer than a planet with no atmosphere (Manabe and Strickler 1964).

So if the full GHG effect of the entire atmosphere is only able to heat the surface of the planet to 44% of it's theoretical value, how can an extra 300 ppm of CO2 heat the surface of the planet to 500% of its theoretical value?

I wasn’t crediting CO2 for AMOC switch off. I was answering your question about the effects of rising surface temps

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, I do.

Everything you have described is a consequence of temperature. Our present interglacial period is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods. So everything you are describing has already naturally occurred before. The planet is naturally warming. They are mistakenly attributing almost all of that warming to CO2. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends. Ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet climate fluctuations have increased in intensity and frequency. The present warming trend started 400 years ago after the end of the little ice age. That was 150 years before man started influencing atmospheric CO2. So the beginning of this warming trend could only have been from natural causes.

You literally just backed up what I’ve been saying and then put somebody else’s argument in my mouth. You’re certainly not addressing or refuting anything I’ve written in this thread

 

[ding]

I wasn’t crediting CO2 for AMOC switch off. I was answering your question about the effects of rising surface temps

Ok, so if CO2 causes the surface temperatures to rise how does CO2 cause a cooling trend? Because there are no IPCC forecasts that show a cooling trend.

 

[ding]

You literally just backed up what I’ve been saying and then put somebody else’s argument in my mouth. You’re certainly not addressing or refuting anything I’ve written in this thread

Only if you believe their models are exaggerated am I backing up what you are saying.

Otherwise how exactly am I backing up what you are saying?

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, so if CO2 causes the surface temperatures to rise how does CO2 cause a cooling trend? Because there are no IPCC forecasts that show a cooling trend.

I didn’t say CO2 causes the cooling trend. I said it contributes to more severe weather events including storms

 

[ding]

I didn’t say CO2 causes the cooling trend. I said it contributes to more severe weather events including storms

So no different than any other interglacial period, right?

 

[Slade3200]

Only if you believe their models are exaggerated am I backing up what you are saying.

Otherwise how exactly am I backing up what you are saying?

I haven’t spoken about anybody’s models. Again you’re putting words in my mouth

 

[Slade3200]

So no different than any other interglacial period, right?

Well given previous cycles didn’t involve man made pollution then I’d say that’s a difference right there

 

[abu afak]

So no different than any other interglacial period, right?

Marcott, the AGW Spike, and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial."

`

 

[ding]

Marcott, the AGW Spike, and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial."

`

This shows the warming began 400 years ago which is 150 years before CO2 could have caused it.

 

[ding]

I haven’t spoken about anybody’s models. Again you’re putting words in my mouth

No, I'm not. I'm explaining to you that I did not state what you stated and explained the difference.

 

[ding]

Well given previous cycles didn’t involve man made pollution then I’d say that’s a difference right there

So then you are saying these events are NOT temperature related? Because they are. And you are assuming all warming is attributed to CO2 which is quite a stretch considering the warming trend started 400 years ago after the little ice age which was 150 years before CO2 could have caused it. Why do you dismiss natural climate variability when the geologic record is littered with such examples?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Marcott, the AGW Spike, and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial."

`

Now lets look at the whole picture, not just what a lying Globull Warming Zealot wants to show you.

What's the hottest Earth's ever been?
Geologists and paleontologists have found that, in the last 100 million years, global temperatures have peaked twice. One spike was the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago, about 25 million years before Earth’s last dinosaurs went extinct. Widespread volcanic activity may have boosted atmospheric carbon dioxide. Temperatures were so high that champsosaurs (crocodile-like reptiles) lived as far north as the Canadian Arctic, and warm-temperature forests thrived near the South Pole.

Another hothouse period was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55-56 million years ago. Though not quite as hot as the Cretaceous hothouse, the PETM brought rapidly rising temperatures. During much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle.

Not even close yet to the days when crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. Dont think any time soon, either....
The crooks of the Marxists who wants to steal the wealth from America. I would say, Shame on them, but Sociopaths feel no shame...

 

[abu afak]

Now lets look at the whole picture, not just what a lying Globull Warming Zealot wants to show you.

What's the hottest Earth's ever been?
Geologists and paleontologists have found that, in the last 100 million years, global temperatures have peaked twice. One spike was the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago, about 25 million years before Earth’s last dinosaurs went extinct. Widespread volcanic activity may have boosted atmospheric carbon dioxide. Temperatures were so high that champsosaurs (crocodile-like reptiles) lived as far north as the Canadian Arctic, and warm-temperature forests thrived near the South Pole.

Another hothouse period was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55-56 million years ago. Though not quite as hot as the Cretaceous hothouse, the PETM brought rapidly rising temperatures. During much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle.


View attachment 862533

Not even close yet to the days when crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. Dont think any time soon, either....
The crooks of the Marxists who wants to steal the wealth from America. I would say, Shame on them, but Sociopaths feel no shame...

You IDIOT!
You are one of THEE lowest IQ Newcomers, tho many have put up 500/600 Million year graphs. (Stryder/others is still posting them)
But...
What good is it (and could you even see it) if the last 200 years were sharply warmer/Man did it? NO.
You Moron
`

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You IDIOT
You are one of THEE lowest IQ Newcomers tho many have put 500 Million year graphs.
But...
What good is it (and could you even see it) if the last 200 years were sharply warming/Man did it?

`

Because you fucking moron, look at the whole graph, the cyclyes up and down, when MAN wasnt even around. Fuck you are such a Ranting and Raving, Globull Warming Zealot. Do US all a favor, if you believe man is the problem, go eliminate yourself, show US the way to bring CO2 down. But you chicken shit wont, because you know it is all a lie...


I have to edit this and tell the points of interest where the temperature rises at a sharp angle 450 million years ago (NO MAN) and 270 million years ago (NO MAN). And at that time the increase is a hell of a lot more than what is happening today. 1Deg Cent over 100 years....Bwaaahhhhaaaaaaaa....

 

[Moonglow]

MSN

On another post earlier, i put up where in 2020, the "experts" had said that with Global Warming, that snow events would be less frequent and less overall snow. Now God, once again, proves that the "ex-spurts, former drips under pressure", have no clue on what the weather is going to be like year, to year.

View attachment 860086

You have to pay state taxes.