Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. It was supposed to show you the error of your logic.


Every human. See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf


No. But then, no one is trying to do so.

It was supposed to show you the error of your logic.

By posting your own errors. Very sneaky!

Every human.

Why do you hate every human?

 

[abu afak]

Funny coming from someone who regularly posts in bad-faith ... strawman is your specialty ...

Reply #2 just the bad faith:
"Regular Bad Faith" by me???
You provided NO examples when challenged. Zero.
You (were here) and Whiffed on my Long Post on the last page Lying Boy.

Let's see how YOU do on response#2. Just Bad Faith.
YOUR Bad Faith. Not to mention impugning NOAA.
I can only find ONE recent thread start for you and... it IS "Bad Faith." (or partisan stupid)

NOAA comes clean ...

NOAA has been posting the annual global temperature by late February or early March ... these new turbo-charged computers make this work easy ... so I was genuinely curious as to why they were taking so long this year ... well, now they have and it's bad news folks ... Posted June 28th, 2022...

www.usmessageboard.com

(7/4/22) NOAA has been posting the annual global temperature by late February or early March ...
This is just a single year drop ... or just a Seven Year Break from climbing temperatures ... if this is inexplicable, then we must admit we don't know very much about the climate system ... because CO2 emissions haven't taken a break ...

That's odd because one of the highlights on the left side of YOUR LINK says

• The nine years from 2013 through 2021 rank among the 10 warmest years on record.

What "7 year break"? The fact we had a spike year in 2016 (app matched in 2020) to interrupt basic climb before and after it?

Who posts in "Regular Bad Faith"?
You Hypocrite MFer!

`

 

[Crick]

It was supposed to show you the error of your logic.

By posting your own errors. Very sneaky!

Every human.

Why do you hate every human?

Not one of your better repartees Todd.

These data are accepted by almost every scientist on this planet

And, interestingly, at the top of this figure you will see that the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 has culminated in approximately 2 Wcm-2 forcing which, all by itself, has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of global warming. This sounds like an answer to jc456's incessant whinging.

 

[jc456]

Not one of your better repartees Todd.

These data are accepted by almost every scientist on this planet
View attachment 711990

And, interestingly, at the top of this figure you will see that the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 has culminated in approximately 2 Wcm-2 forcing which, all by itself, has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of global warming. This sounds like an answer to jc456's incessant whinging.

Again, there you go, almost every scientist, yet you can’t say how many that is. How could you possibly know that count to make that nonsense comment. I posted 1200 don’t follow your nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not one of your better repartees Todd.

These data are accepted by almost every scientist on this planet
View attachment 711990

And, interestingly, at the top of this figure you will see that the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 has culminated in approximately 2 Wcm-2 forcing which, all by itself, has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of global warming. This sounds like an answer to jc456's incessant whinging.

And?

 

[Crick]

And?

What can I do for you Todd?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What can I do for you Todd?

More CO2, a bit warmer. And?

 

[ReinyDays]

And, interestingly, at the top of this figure you will see that the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 has culminated in approximately 2 Wcm-2 forcing which, all by itself, has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of global warming. This sounds like an answer to jc456's incessant whinging.

That depends on how the computers are programmed ...

I'm guessing you're trying to write out 2 W/m^2 ... why do you say this alone produced 1ºC warming ... just a reminder: we're only reading 1.8 W/m^2 climate forcing from ALL sources ... mainly H2O and some from CO2 ... nothing else registers on our instruments ...

... and we've only seen a single degree warming from all causes ...

 

[Crick]

That depends on how the computers are programmed ...

Doesn't everything?

I'm guessing you're trying to write out 2 W/m^2 ...

Wm-2 is the same unit as W/M^2 but with less characters. Besides, it keeps out the riff-raff.

why do you say this alone produced 1ºC warming ... just a reminder: we're only reading 1.8 W/m^2 climate forcing from ALL sources ...

Have another look at the graph. It is broken into components having both positive and negative radiative forcing factors and the warming and cooling for each component is provided in isolation.
Additionally, your info is out of date.
From AR6's Technical Summary of The Physical Science Basis, page 67: "The total anthropogenic effective radiative forcing (ERF) in 2019, relative to 1750, was 2.72 [1.96 to 3.48] W m–2 (medium confidence) and has likely been growing at an increasing rate since the 1970s." Warming since 1850 is 1.1C

mainly H2O and some from CO2 ... nothing else registers on our instruments ...

Your instruments? Are you a climate scientist?

... and we've only seen a single degree warming from all causes ...

The AR6 data shows 1 centigrade degree of warming between 1750 and 2019 solely from added CO2. Again, this is in isolation. Aerosols provide cooling and the net sum is 1.1C of warming. AR6 updates the values provided in AR5.

 

[EMH]

No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong..

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps - satellites and balloons.

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."



Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not. And then we had the MOST CONFLICTED FUDGE JOB in SCIENCE HISTORY....

"orbit wobble" fudge the satellites higher
"shade issues" that were there the whole time - apples to apples - fudge the balloons higher

YOUR SIDE has NO EVIDENCE AT ALL except FUDGE. Co2 does NOTHING. The only "denial" is those who DENIED THE ACTUAL DATA DOCUMENTING THAT TRUTH.


Earth climate evidence:

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ongoing NET ICE MELT
NO Breakout in Canes
NO OCEAN RISE

Earth climate is dictated by how much ice it has. Ice dictates ocean levels, temperature, atmospheric thickness, and humidity = CLIMATE

Ice is all about WHERE LAND IS RELATIVE TO A POLE

Antarctica = 90% of Earth Ice
Greenland = 7%
Ellesmere Island (Canada) = 0.3%

and LAND MOVES.... IQ of 10 required to figure it out.

Earth with two polar oceans has no ice.



Our side has truth. Your side has fudge, fraud, and conflicted taxpayer funded liars...

 

[ReinyDays]

Does it occur to you that the Greenhouse Effect has the opposite action above the halfway point in the atmosphere? ...

I know ... college science ... you wouldn't understand ... if your math is wrong, then you are wrong ... easy peasy ... so please show your math if you have any to show ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps - satellites and balloons.

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."



Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not. And then we had the MOST CONFLICTED FUDGE JOB in SCIENCE HISTORY....

"orbit wobble" fudge the satellites higher
"shade issues" that were there the whole time - apples to apples - fudge the balloons higher

YOUR SIDE has NO EVIDENCE AT ALL except FUDGE. Co2 does NOTHING. The only "denial" is those who DENIED THE ACTUAL DATA DOCUMENTING THAT TRUTH.


Earth climate evidence:

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ongoing NET ICE MELT
NO Breakout in Canes
NO OCEAN RISE

Earth climate is dictated by how much ice it has. Ice dictates ocean levels, temperature, atmospheric thickness, and humidity = CLIMATE

Ice is all about WHERE LAND IS RELATIVE TO A POLE

Antarctica = 90% of Earth Ice
Greenland = 7%
Ellesmere Island (Canada) = 0.3%

and LAND MOVES.... IQ of 10 required to figure it out.

Earth with two polar oceans has no ice.



Our side has truth. Your side has fudge, fraud, and conflicted taxpayer funded liars...

The Climate Change Cult hereby denies you (and me for that matter) entry into its nefarious and ignorant ranks for oblivious reasons, precluding but unlimited to: too many facts, making them cry, scientificalness incomprehensible, and denial of the "97% Myth".

 

[multivita-man]

Does it occur to you that the Greenhouse Effect has the opposite action above the halfway point in the atmosphere? ...

?

You're so smart, explain what you think you know.

 

[jc456]

?

You're so smart, explain what you think you know.

Why don’t you?

 

[multivita-man]

Why don’t you?

He made a vague claim. I want him to clarify and expand on this, and show his work.

 

[jc456]

He made a vague claim. I want him to clarify and expand on this, and show his work.

Why do you get off not explaining your position?

 

[ReinyDays]

?

You're so smart, explain what you think you know.

Meteorology class ... and yourself? ...

 

[multivita-man]

Meteorology class ... and yourself? ...

What's your point, tard? Express it like an educated adult. I bet you wouldn't know what a cumulonimbus cloud is if you bent over and got a billion joules of energy zapped into your ass.

 

[ReinyDays]

What's your point, tard? Express it like an educated adult. I bet you wouldn't know what a cumulonimbus cloud is if you bent over and got a billion joules of energy zapped into your ass.

My my ... knickers in a knot? ... cumulonimbus from a negatively tilted atmosphere? ... did you read this thread, maybe you'll learn something about radiative physics ... though it's much the same as you'd get in any college science class ...

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jc456]

What's your point, tard? Express it like an educated adult. I bet you wouldn't know what a cumulonimbus cloud is if you bent over and got a billion joules of energy zapped into your ass.

So two objects at the same temperature can warm each other?

Hahaha haha hahaha