Lake Erie Today

[Lockback]

Lake Erie this time of year is cold.
And water is wet.
The End.

 

[Anomalism]

Lake Erie this time of year is cold.
And water is wet.
The End.

True, and also, climate scientists aren't lying about the climate.

 

[Lockback]

True, and also, climate scientists aren't lying about the climate.

Yeah.
Right.

 

[Anomalism]

Yeah.
Right.

Care to provide an argument for why you don't believe the positions of scientists the world over?

 

[Lockback]

Care to provide an argument for why you don't believe the positions of scientists the world over?

Well, I think they're full of shit.
But I don't have the time at the moment.
Maybe later.

 

[Anomalism]

Maybe later.

Uh huh...

 

[Lockback]

Uh huh...

(I couldn't care less).

 

[odanny]

I live on the lake. We have only had two years in the last twenty with good ice. Last year and this year. Otherwise my ice fishing gear and my snow mobiles have done nothing but collecting dust unless I go the upper peninsula on lake Michigan. These are polar vortex events we are having. Not natural weather. Only happening because the North Pole is much warmer than it should be.

That’s all true.

 

[westwall]

That’s not a lie. It's a quantified physical claim with multiple independent lines of evidence behind it. We directly measure the increase in atmospheric CO2, we directly measure its isotopic signature, showing it comes from fossil carbon, and we directly measure the infrared absorption bands of CO2 from space and from the surface. On top of that, we measure the planet’s energy imbalance: more energy coming in than going out, and the excess accumulating almost entirely in the oceans. That is exactly what greenhouse forcing predicts, down to the spectral fingerprints.

If you want to call it a lie, you need an alternative mechanism that explains all of those observations at once, rising CO2 with fossil signatures, observed radiative trapping at CO2 wavelengths, tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling, and steadily increasing ocean heat content. “They’re fudging data” isn’t a theory, it’s just a vibe. A real scientific challenge would require a coherent model that fits the measurements better than greenhouse physics does, and nobody on the denial side has ever produced one. They just declare fraud and hope physics resigns.

No, it isn't. Every claim is based on computer models. Computer models ARE NOT DATA, thus they are not "quantifiable", they are fiction, nothing more.

Your claims are based on models, NOT empirical data. It tells me a great deal about just how scientifically illiterate you are, that you run to models, instead of actual scientific data.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I love the politics of science.

We know there are climate cycles so there is always climate change.

AGW has, unfortunately, been the victim of decades of out of synch predictions and demands which have really obscured the whole argument (and allowed it to become very political in nature).

I have thought about a thread on climate change vs. climate alarmism and why some will simply not accept the idea that, at the very least, the earth might be reacting an increase in human made CO2.

However, what that means and how to respond to it will never get a fair conversation because both sides are pretty entrenched (for very different reasons).

 

[westwall]

I love the politics of science.

We know there are climate cycles so there is always climate change.

AGW has, unfortunately, been the victim of decades of out of synch predictions and demands which have really obscured the whole argument (and allowed it to become very political in nature).

I have thought about a thread on climate change vs. climate alarmism and why some will simply not accept the idea that, at the very least, the earth might be reacting an increase in human made CO2.

However, what that means and how to respond to it will never get a fair conversation because both sides are pretty entrenched (for very different reasons).

There is zero empirical data to support the claim that the paltry 5% (and I am being generous with even that much) of the global CO2 budget of the planet that mankind adds, has any effect whatsoever.

In fact ALL empirical data says that CO2 has no measurable impact at all. Yes, CO2 is GHG, however the amount is so minute that the true GHG that helps maintain the global temperature, water vapor, completely absorbs whatever infinitismal amount of warming that CO2 imparts.

It's literally lost in the noise of the water vapor.

 

[Anomalism]

No, it isn't. Every claim is based on computer models. Computer models ARE NOT DATA, thus they are not "quantifiable", they are fiction, nothing more.

Your claims are based on models, NOT empirical data. It tells me a great deal about just how scientifically illiterate you are, that you run to models, instead of actual scientific data.

There is zero empirical data to support the claim that the paltry 5% (and I am being generous with even that much) of the global CO2 budget of the planet that mankind adds, has any effect whatsoever.

In fact ALL empirical data says that CO2 has no measurable impact at all. Yes, CO2 is GHG, however the amount is so minute that the true GHG that helps maintain the global temperature, water vapor, completely absorbs whatever infinitismal amount of warming that CO2 imparts.

It's literally lost in the noise of the water vapor.

Lol

You're a scientist?

What you said is just flatly wrong. The core evidence for greenhouse warming is empirical measurement, not models..Satellites directly observe reduced outgoing infrared radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths; surface instruments directly measure increased downward longwave radiation; isotopic data directly shows the added carbon is fossil; ocean heat content is directly measured by Argo floats; and the vertical temperature pattern is directly observed by radiosondes and satellites. Models are used to integrate these measurements, not to invent them. The greenhouse effect itself was measured in the 19th century, long before climate models existed.

The “water vapor cancels CO2" argument is also physically backwards. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Its concentration depends on temperature, and CO2 is what sets the baseline that allows more water vapor to exist. If water vapor “swamped” CO2, then adding CO2 would change nothing, and satellites would not show increasing radiative trapping at CO2 specific wavelengths, but they do. And the “5% of the carbon cycle” line is irrelevant. Small fluxes can dominate a system if they are net additions to a balanced cycle. Humans aren’t most of the flow, they’re almost all of the imbalance. The atmosphere doesn’t care about your percentages; it cares about radiative physics, and that part is measured, not simulated.

What kind of scientist are you exactly? Clearly not one that actually understands this domain.

 

[westwall]

Lol

You're a scientist?

What you said is just flatly wrong. The core evidence for greenhouse warming is empirical measurement, not models..Satellites directly observe reduced outgoing infrared radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths; surface instruments directly measure increased downward longwave radiation; isotopic data directly shows the added carbon is fossil; ocean heat content is directly measured by Argo floats; and the vertical temperature pattern is directly observed by radiosondes and satellites. Models are used to integrate these measurements, not to invent them. The greenhouse effect itself was measured in the 19th century, long before climate models existed.

The “water vapor cancels CO2" argument is also physically backwards. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Its concentration depends on temperature, and CO2 is what sets the baseline that allows more water vapor to exist. If water vapor “swamped” CO2, then adding CO2 would change nothing, and satellites would not show increasing radiative trapping at CO2 specific wavelengths, but they do. And the “5% of the carbon cycle” line is irrelevant. Small fluxes can dominate a system if they are net additions to a balanced cycle. Humans aren’t most of the flow, they’re almost all of the imbalance. The atmosphere doesn’t care about your percentages; it cares about radiative physics, and that part is measured, not simulated.

What kind of scientist are you exactly? Clearly not one that actually understands this domain.

The claim that AGW cultists make is that the atmosphere returns the long wave IR back to Earth which in turn warms the Earth.

We know this is impossible because the the long wave IR they claim warms everything can not pierce the skin of water. It can't penetrate a single millimeter into the water bodies of this planet. It is the oceans, specifically that control global temperature. No heaty the oceans, no heaty the world.

Take a physics class, sport.

Learn something.

 

[SaxonJackson]

You're obviously in the crowd that thinks the scientists are lying. Let's have a conversation. Quit dodging.

Scared?

Which scientists are you referring to? The ones that support your position or the ones that don't?

 

[Anomalism]

The claim that AGW cultists make is that the atmosphere returns the long wave IR back to Earth which in turn warms the Earth.

We know this is impossible because the the long wave IR they claim warms everything can not pierce the skin of water. It can't penetrate a single millimeter into the water bodies of this planet. It is the oceans, specifically that control global temperature. No heaty the oceans, no heaty the world.

Take a physics class, sport.

Learn something.

You’re wrong again.

The IR from CO2 doesn’t need to penetrate meters of water to matter. It heats the very thin surface layer, which then mixes that energy downward through conduction, convection, and turbulence. Even a millimeter of surface warming affects the oceans, which are the planet’s heat reservoir. Ocean heat content is measurably rising, and that’s exactly what radiative forcing predicts.

CO2 forcing is adding energy to the system. The oceans, atmosphere, and ice all absorb and redistribute that energy. Saying IR can’t heat water ignores how surface energy balance actually works. This is basic physics.

I'm very curious about you claiming to be a scientist now, since you don't understand basic science.

 

[westwall]

You’re wrong again.

The IR from CO2 doesn’t need to penetrate meters of water to matter. It heats the very thin surface layer, which then mixes that energy downward through conduction, convection, and turbulence. Even a millimeter of surface warming affects the oceans, which are the planet’s heat reservoir. Ocean heat content is measurably rising, and that’s exactly what radiative forcing predicts.
CO2 forcing is adding energy to the system. The oceans, atmosphere, and ice all absorb and redistribute that energy. Saying IR can’t heat water ignores how surface energy balance actually works. This is basic physics.

I'm very curious about you claiming to be a scientist now, since you don't understand basic science.

What a joke. No, you ignore simple physics.

HEAT RISES. No matter how feverishly you try and mix the water, the heat will never go down, it is always going to rise so no heat will enter the water.

It's a physical impossibility. Like I said, take a physics class. You literally know nothing.

 

[Anomalism]

What a joke. No, you ignore simple physics.

HEAT RISES. No matter how feverishly you try and mix the water, the heat will never go down, it is always going to rise so no heat will enter the water.

It's a physical impossibility. Like I said, take a physics class. You literally know nothing.

This is basic confusion about fluid dynamics. Heat doesn’t disappear when it rises. It transfers via conduction, convection, and mixing. In the oceans, surface heating drives turbulence, wind-driven mixing, and convection currents, which carry energy downward. It’s literally how the oceans store excess heat from any surface energy input, including CO2-driven infrared radiation.

Saying “heat always rises so no heat will enter water” is a complete misunderstanding. Surface warming instantly sets up vertical gradients that move energy downward. This is observed in Argo float data, in ocean heat content measurements, and in real world energy budgets. Satellite-measured radiative forcing corresponds to measurable increases in ocean heat.

You're still misunderstanding basic physics, Mr "scientist."

 

[westwall]

This is basic confusion about fluid dynamics. Heat doesn’t disappear when it rises. It transfers via conduction, convection, and mixing. In the oceans, surface heating drives turbulence, wind-driven mixing, and convection currents, which carry energy downward. It’s literally how the oceans store excess heat from any surface energy input, including CO2-driven infrared radiation.

Saying “heat always rises so no heat will enter water” is a complete misunderstanding. Surface warming instantly sets up vertical gradients that move energy downward. This is observed in Argo float data, in ocean heat content measurements, and in real world energy budgets. Satellite-measured radiative forcing corresponds to measurable increases in ocean heat.

You're still misunderstanding basic physics, Mr "scientist."

Argo float data that has been massaged through a computer model you meant to say.

The actual raw data shows nothing of the sort. So your heroes created a model to "find the missing deep ocean heat" they claimed existed, but were never able to actually find.

And once again, no ACTUAL data is being presented by you.

EVERY claim you make is based on computer models.

I base my arguments on simple, well known laws of physics.

You base yours in hand waving and dancing.

 

[Anomalism]

Argo float data that has been massaged through a computer model you meant to say.

The actual raw data shows nothing of the sort. So your heroes created a model to "find the missing deep ocean heat" they claimed existed, but were never able to actually find.

And once again, no ACTUAL data is being presented by you.

EVERY claim you make is based on computer models.

I base my arguments on simple, well known laws of physics.

You base yours in hand waving and dancing.

You’re still fundamentally misunderstanding basic physics. Heat doesn’t vanish just because it’s at the surface, and it’s not optional. In fluids like the ocean, surface heating drives conduction, convection, and turbulence, which mix energy downward. Even a millimeter of warmed water creates gradients that carry energy deeper. IR absorption by CO2 only deposits energy at the very surface, but that energy is immediately redistributed throughout the water column via real, measurable fluid dynamics. This isn’t speculation or model hand waving. Argo floats, temperature profiles, and direct ocean heat content measurements confirm it. Saying “heat always rises so no heat enters water” is just incompatible with thermodynamics and well-established laboratory and field physics.

In other words, you're misunderstanding science that isn't even controversial or limited to climate science.

 

[westwall]

You’re still fundamentally misunderstanding basic physics. Heat doesn’t vanish just because it’s at the surface, and it’s not optional. In fluids like the ocean, surface heating drives conduction, convection, and turbulence, which mix energy downward. Even a millimeter of warmed water creates gradients that carry energy deeper. IR absorption by CO2 only deposits energy at the very surface, but that energy is immediately redistributed throughout the water column via real, measurable fluid dynamics. This isn’t speculation or model hand waving. Argo floats, temperature profiles, and direct ocean heat content measurements confirm it. Saying “heat always rises so no heat enters water” is just incompatible with thermodynamics and well-established laboratory and field physics.

In other words, you're misunderstanding science that isn't even controversial or limited to climate science.

I never claimed it vanished. There you go lying about what I said. I merely stated that the heat from the long wave IR wasn't capable of penetrating the skin of water. Thus the fundamental mechanism of AGW theory fails at its first test.