Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Robert W]

I've used this analogy before but it's a good one; a cousin to the bucket and the leaky faucet.

Imagine water flowing into the top of a large tank. The water is solar energy and the tank is the Earth's energy content. Near the bottom of the tank, we have a drain line with an adjustable valve that lets the water back out. In the Beginning (da-da-da-dummmmmm), the tank was empty and the water started pouring in. When the water is shallow, there is very little water pressure down at that drain line and so not much flow. The water keeps rising because its coming in faster than its going out. But as the water gets deeper, the flow out the drain line increases. At a certain depth, that increasing depth will have gotten the flow out of the drain to equal the flow in. The water depth will stop changing and everything is stable. The system is at equilibrium.

Now, we change something. We could increase the rate that water is flowing in. That would cause the water level in the tank to rise till the increasing pressure had pushed the outflow to match. We'd have a new equilibrium at a new water depth. If we decreased the flow in, the reverse would happen and we would establish a new equilibrium at a lower water level. Alternatively, we could adjust that drain valve. If we open it up, the outflow will exceed the inflow and the water level will drop. If we close it down a bit, the opposite will happen and the new equilibrium will be at a higher water level. Or we could do both. Increase the inflow and increase the outflow. If you're careful, you might keep the equilibrium right where it was at. Or you could make the adjustments in opposite directions, making the water level change even faster.

This is why adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, even in small amounts, has a significant effect over the time scales under consideration here. We could close that valve just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit and it would look as if nothing was happening. But it has and that water level will rise and it will keep rising till it finds that new equilibrium. CO2 resists the escape of thermal energy from the Earth. It closes down that drain valve and raises the level at which the system will reattain equilibrium. And CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere: hundreds of years. Almost every bit of CO2 that humans have added to our air is still there. And keep in mind that when you want to look at a percentage change in temperature with regard to physical and chemical effects that will cause, you have to do that on one of the absolute scales. It is not correct, if yesterday was 70F and today it's 80, to say that it is (10/70)% warmer, because the zero on the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales are arbitrary. Zero temperature is absolute zero and thus, so far, global warming has only produced a change from 286.9 Kelvin to 288 Kelvin. That's enough to be seen and to have effects and, since we are closing that valve faster and faster, further and further every day, the rate of water level change, the rate of temperature change is still accelerating.

You would imagine then that Dr. Judith curry makes that same case. Why would a world renowned climatologist not use that example?

 

[Robert W]

The Earth has been warming since the Industrial Revolution due to the greenhouse effect acting on human CO2 emissions and methane release. The greenhouse effect involves gases in the Earth's atmosphere that absorb infrared light emitted by the land and sea warmed by the visible light of the sun. That absorption and reemission slows the escape of that energy to space and thus warms the planet. If not for the greenhouse effect, this planet would be a ball of ice. The hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere has caused a 1.1C increase in the Earth's temperature. Global warming is causing the oceans to rise from thermal expansion and the melting of the world's land-bound ice, from Antarctica and Greenland in particular.

Your water tank example can also tell a different story. Humans built your tank. Humans actively open or close the valve. They also observe the water rising.

Thus humans manage the amount of water in the tank.
You seem to believe humans manage global climate. Think about that. Why was there also a very near twin of current warming from 1910 to 1940? Do you not notice that emissions back then were far smaller than today? So can you explain the rise you allege is huge, came to us from 1910 to 1940? Can you blame man for that?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Climate Change Cult

climate-change-cult.blogspot.com

This website is a collection of facts I have compiled about the three decades of LIES told by the Cult to deceive and frighten the gullible, particularly the Left.

 

[Crick]

You would imagine then that Dr. Judith curry makes that same case. Why would a world renowned climatologist not use that example?

Perhaps she has a better example. The question ought to be, did you understand the analogy?

 

[Robert W]

Perhaps she has a better example. The question ought to be, did you understand the analogy?

You have no faith at all in humans unless they do as you order.

 

[Robert W]

Perhaps she has a better example. The question ought to be, did you understand the analogy?

Curry does not sell poor science. She does not preach the shit has hit the fan. She admits climate is far too complex to even model it.

If a hunter misses 9 of 10 shots, we do not praise him as if he hit 9 out of 10.

 

[BackAgain]

Curry does not sell poor science. She does not preach the shit has hit the fan. She admits climate is far too complex to even model it.

If a hunter misses 9 of 10 shots, we do not praise him as if he hit 9 out of 10.

Really good baseball batters “miss” 7 out of 10 times. We tend to “praise” them for only failing 70% of the time.

Meteorologists are right about half the time.

Climatologists claiming that we are doomed due to the effects of humankind on planetary climate change are all but always dead wrong. But their nonsense is salvaged on the basis of “consensus.”

 

[Robert W]

Really good baseball batters “miss” 7 out of 10 times. We tend to “praise” them for only failing 70% of the time.

Meteorologists are right about half the time.

Climatologists claiming that we are doomed due to the effects of humankind on planetary climate change are all but always dead wrong. But their nonsense is salvaged on the basis of “consensus.”

Your points are well taken.

 

[jc456]

Really good baseball batters “miss” 7 out of 10 times. We tend to “praise” them for only failing 70% of the time.

Meteorologists are right about half the time.

Climatologists claiming that we are doomed due to the effects of humankind on planetary climate change are all but always dead wrong. But their nonsense is salvaged on the basis of “consensus.”

consensus is how they survive, they tell everyone we all said so and agree so fk you all!!

 

[Robert W]

Really good baseball batters “miss” 7 out of 10 times. We tend to “praise” them for only failing 70% of the time.

Meteorologists are right about half the time.

Climatologists claiming that we are doomed due to the effects of humankind on planetary climate change are all but always dead wrong. But their nonsense is salvaged on the basis of “consensus.”

That is why I did not use the baseball hitters analogy. When I sponsored the Granada Realty men's fastpitch softball team, I learned a lot about players and hitting and defense, etc.
YES, a poor hitter by hitting over 300 is deemed a good hitter. But those hitting 700 to 900 are outstanding hitters. A player hitting 700 is extremely good and they do this a few times each season.
Climate is very complex as I am positive you agree. In fact even in areas the size of the SF Bay area is said to have around 5 to 6 climates.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Great thread. Now all it needs is a flush handle.

 

[BackAgain]

That is why I did not use the baseball hitters analogy. When I sponsored the Granada Realty men's fastpitch softball team, I learned a lot about players and hitting and defense, etc.
YES, a poor hitter by hitting over 300 is deemed a good hitter. But those hitting 700 to 900 are outstanding hitters. A player hitting 700 is extremely good and they do this a few times each season.
Climate is very complex as I am positive you agree. In fact even in areas the size of the SF Bay area is said to have around 5 to 6 climates.

Strained analogies are the worst.

What was the highest year end batting average ever in the Major Leagues? Some say it was Ted Williams at .406 in 1941.

A player in 1901 had about 20 more points.

Those are incredible achievements. A failure rate of “only” about 60%.

 

[BackAgain]

Great thread. Now all it needs is a flush handle.

Sometimes you just don’t go down after one flush, though.

 

[Robert W]

Strained analogies are the worst.

What was the highest year end batting average ever in the Major Leagues? Some say it was Ted Williams at .406 in 1941.

A player in 1901 had about 20 more points.

Those are incredible achievements. A failure rate of “only” about 60%.

Exactly. I simplified it to a pair of hunters.
While it might puzzle non fans why your examples show batters as high rated hitters, the high rate of failure is of course then ignored.

 

[ReinyDays]

That is why I did not use the baseball hitters analogy. When I sponsored the Granada Realty men's fastpitch softball team, I learned a lot about players and hitting and defense, etc.
YES, a poor hitter by hitting over 300 is deemed a good hitter. But those hitting 700 to 900 are outstanding hitters. A player hitting 700 is extremely good and they do this a few times each season.
Climate is very complex as I am positive you agree. In fact even in areas the size of the SF Bay area is said to have around 5 to 6 climates.

Where in the Bay Area does it regularly rain in summer? ... no where? ... then it's all the same climate: Mediterranean ... Köppen Class Csa ... the Csb line is in southern Mendocino County, then Csc up in Canada ...

Microclimates aren't a scientific thing ... just more commercial bullshit ... we can tell because there's no scientific definitions for microclimates ... so these can change to suit the advertising goals ...

 

[ReinyDays]

A failure rate of “only” about 60%.

What the hell? ...

This is science ... if we're only 60% accurate adding two numbers .. then it's accounting ... the scientific peer-review process includes seven or eight math experts checking all the arithmetic ... so it's always 100% in published media, they also check citations, so those are 100% accurate ...

Matt Olsen of the Braves had only 8 errors in 1296 chances last year ... 99.4% ... Ted Williams only managed 97.4%, one extra dropped ball every game, so he had to have a good batting average, make up for his idiocy in the field ...

ETA: If batting average and home runs mattered ... then why didn't Barry Bonds win tons of World Series? ... because he wasn't a team player ... it's "teams" who win championships ... the only value of the baseball analogy is to highjack a thread that desperately needs highjacking ...

Ohtoni to the Dirty Dodgers, say it ain't so ... comments? ...

 

[Robert W]

Where in the Bay Area does it regularly rain in summer? ... no where? ... then it's all the same climate: Mediterranean ... Köppen Class Csa ... the Csb line is in southern Mendocino County, then Csc up in Canada ...

Microclimates aren't a scientific thing ... just more commercial bullshit ... we can tell because there's no scientific definitions for microclimates ... so these can change to suit the advertising goals ...

It is not just rain. Marin County gets much more rain than Alameda County gets. Napa Valley is hotter than Alameda County. Anyway what I said was said often until the Democrats made Climate an issue.

I want to HIGHLIGHT that I said the SF Bay Area and not just San Francisco.

It is so real that there are articles discussing the varied climates.

CLIMATE OF SAN FRANCISCO NARRATIVE

ggweather.com

 

[Robert W]

Where in the Bay Area does it regularly rain in summer? ... no where? ... then it's all the same climate: Mediterranean ... Köppen Class Csa ... the Csb line is in southern Mendocino County, then Csc up in Canada ...

Microclimates aren't a scientific thing ... just more commercial bullshit ... we can tell because there's no scientific definitions for microclimates ... so these can change to suit the advertising goals ...

Why does the Bay Area have so many microclimates?


The sharp topography and maritime surroundings of San Francisco combine with the unique California climate to produce a number of extremely varied microclimates within its 46 square miles. California's location in the middle latitudes and on the west coast of the North American continent, places it in the relatively ...

 

[Crick]

You have no faith at all in humans unless they do as you order.

You haven't demonstrated a strong science background. I will assume you understood my analogy. So, the more CO2 we put into our atmosphere, the warmer the planet will become. And it won't happen instantaneously but it IS happening much, much faster than analogous natural processes to which life has some time to adopt.

 

[Robert W]

You haven't demonstrated a strong science background. I will assume you understood my analogy. So, the more CO2 we put into our atmosphere, the warmer the planet will become. And it won't happen instantaneously but it IS happening much, much faster than analogous natural processes to which life has some time to adopt.

Why you low down earth harmer, you.