Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

Number them, then supply links and quotes from respectable sources stating the same within reason. Otherwise, keep attracting only flies by plucking strictly from your own butt.

1. The GHG effect is a deterministic physical phenomenon.
2. Atoms vibrating and heating the surrounding air because their movement creates friction.
3. There's no physics (i.e. atoms quantitatively vibrating) for feedback like there is instantaneous radiative forcing.
4. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends.
5. IPCC models assume all warming is due to feedback
6. The current interglacial is still warming up to the temperature of previous interglacial periods.

 

[Robert W]

Number them, then supply links and quotes from respectable sources stating the same within reason. Otherwise, keep attracting only flies by plucking strictly from your own butt.

I and others see nothing at all from you that provides accurate information. Maybe those flies are holding you back?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Temperature leads carbon dioxide, not the reverse. The lag time is 800 to 1500 years.
Game over.The shart spike at 300,000 years ago leads the sharp blue spike of carbon dioxide.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 869508
Temperature leads carbon dioxide, not the reverse. The lag time is 800 to 1500 years.
Game over.The shart spike at 300,000 years ago leads the sharp blue spike of carbon dioxide.

Yes. No one has ever denied that was what takes place in the paleoclimatological records. That CO2 was released from solution in the world's oceans by warming driven by Milankovitch forcing and provided positive feedback to the glacial cycle.

Thanks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Game over.The shart spike at 300,000 years ago leads the sharp blue spike of carbon dioxide.

Lol, "shart spike"
Then notice all the ones between that and 800 million that go weeeoorr all over the place, some lagging many millions of years.. Then the most recent that barely lag at all.. Can you say, epitome of "cherry picked"? I knew you could.

 

[ding]

Lol, "shart spike"
Then notice all the ones between that and 800 million that go weeeoorr all over the place, some lagging many millions of years.. Then the most recent that barely lag at all.. Can you say, epitome of "cherry picked"? I knew you could.

So prior to the industrial revolution, what was the mechanism for CO2 leading temperature? Because CO2 solubility in water is the mechanism for CO2 lagging temperature.

 

[ding]

Yes. No one has ever denied that was what takes place in the paleoclimatological records. That CO2 was released from solution in the world's oceans by warming driven by Milankovitch forcing and provided positive feedback to the glacial cycle.

Thanks.

It seems that grumblenuts is disputing that.

But I think you misunderstand orbital cycles. I'm pretty sure they play a role in triggering glacial periods and not interglacial periods.

But putting that aside, D-O events are the key to understanding the main driver for plunging temperatures and they could not have been cause by orbital forcing. Which leaves the ocean as the main driver for glaciation occurring in the northern hemisphere. Which makes sense; an abrupt plunge in temperature, extensive continental glaciation amplifying the effect and long periods to warm back up.

 

[Grumblenuts]

1. The GHG effect is a deterministic physical phenomenon.
2. Atoms vibrating and heating the surrounding air because their movement creates friction.
3. There's no physics (i.e. atoms quantitatively vibrating) for feedback like there is instantaneous radiative forcing.
4. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends.
5. IPCC models assume all warming is due to feedback
6. The current interglacial is still warming up to the temperature of previous interglacial periods.

Ah great, you responded.. Uh oh, you forget the supportive quotes and links from respected climate experts who agree with you.. Okay, hwell then, here's my quick, in kind, non-expert 2¢, non answers:

1. The GHG effect is definitely a phenomenon.
2. Molecular bonds definitely vibrate more when heated.
3. There's literally no "instantaneous" radiative forcing.
4. Literally no one would suggest that "The geologic record" was not "littered with examples of warming and cooling trends." -- until you came along.
5. Models obviously have to assume things. That's what they're for.
6. The current rate of surface global temperature increase is unprecedented.

 

[Crick]

It seems that grumblenuts is disputing that.

I think he is not.

But I think you misunderstand orbital cycles. I'm pretty sure they play a role in triggering glacial periods and not interglacial periods.

They are cyclical. The cycle contains glacial and interglacial phases. If I say glacial cycle or even interglacial cycle, I am talking about the whole kit and caboodle.

But putting that aside, D-O events are the key to understanding the main driver for plunging temperatures and they could not have been cause by orbital forcing. Which leaves the ocean as the main driver for glaciation occurring in the northern hemisphere. Which makes sense; an abrupt plunge in temperature, extensive continental glaciation amplifying the effect and long periods to warm back up.

D-O events consist of dramatic warming, not cooling. And from what I've read, they've only been noted as occurring during glacial periods. We are not in a glacial period so that odds that the warming of the last 150 years is a D-O event are extraordinarily thin.

 

[Flash]

1. The current rate of surface global temperature increase is unprecedented.

We don't know that because the data from more that a few decades ago is very sketchy at best and not able to measure the temperature precise enough to make that conclusion. In addition to that we have the very real fact that much of the historical and current data has been fabricated and cherry picked.

Also, I'm sure that if anybody was paying attention to it they would have said that the rise in temperature during the Roman and Medieval Warming periods were "unprecedented". That does not include the numerous times before that.

Climate change is real. Man made climate change is a scam without any defensible scientific basis.

 

[ding]

They are cyclical. The cycle contains glacial and interglacial phases. If I say glacial cycle or even interglacial cycle, I am talking about the whole kit and caboodle.

They trigger glacial events. Not interglacial events. Glacial events take a really long time to warm back up to their pre-interglacial temperature. There's no trigger which melts all the ice in a short period of time.

 

[ding]

D-O events consist of dramatic warming, not cooling. And from what I've read, they've only been noted as occurring during glacial periods. We are not in a glacial period so that odds that the warming of the last 150 years is a D-O event are extraordinarily thin.

Incorrect. Warm up and cool down. Driven by disruption of heat transport to the Arctic from the Atlantic AND by the return of heat transport to the Arctic from the Atlantic. All occurring over the course of several decades. So pretty damn fast events from a climate change perspective.

Dansgaard–Oeschger event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think he is not.

I know I'm not.

Regarding D-O events:

They are cyclical. The cycle contains glacial and interglacial phases. If I say glacial cycle or even interglacial cycle, I am talking about the whole kit and caboodle.

D-O events consist of dramatic warming, not cooling. And from what I've read, they've only been noted as occurring during glacial periods. We are not in a glacial period so that odds that the warming of the last 150 years is a D-O event are extraordinarily thin.

Yes, it seems (link)

In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period.

As opposed to Heinrich events which

only occur in the cold spells immediately preceding D-O warmings

There appears to be little consensus regarding either's major cause. Far as ding's "original" theorizing here, NASA itself suggests students consider the oceans driving climate change as an exercise. It's nothing new.

 

[Grumblenuts]

We don't know that because the data from more that a few decades ago is very sketchy at best and not able to measure the temperature precise enough to make that conclusion.

All occurring over the course of several decades. So pretty damn fast events from a climate change perspective.

As Abu recently posted elsewhere {Link}

Scientists also know through sophisticated methods of examining copious climate clues in proxy data like tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, etc. that Earth’s average temperature has not been this warm since the ice age ended 20,000 years ago.

The message is quite simple and stark, when seen on the visual below. Earth’s temperature has skyrocketed since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and it’s projected to keep climbing.

(WFLA/Jeff Berardelli, adapted from Don’t Mention the Emergency)
The rate of warming today is unprecedented in the 20,000 years shown. In fact, coming out of the last ice age, it took 10,000 years for the Earth’s average temperature to warm 3 degrees C.


Astonishingly, humans — due to the burning of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions — will likely cause the same amount of warming in 200 years. That means our current warming rate is 50 times that of the natural warming rate that proceeded the most recent ice age.

Between 10,000 years ago and today’s rapid man-made warming, Earth’s average temperature was relatively constant, allowing human civilizations to thrive. There were disruptive regional cooling episodes like the disparate Little Ice Age events, but the impact on overall global temperature was relatively minor.

That graph well illustrates the pertinent context needed to fully appreciate the impact of AGW. It shows just how unprecedented the global surface temperature increase has truly been since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Naturally caused my ass.
What's that?

There were disruptive regional cooling episodes like the disparate Little Ice Age events, but the impact on overall global temperature was relatively minor.

Indeed. Those hockey sticks always pissed you off? Try a framing square.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think he is not.

They are cyclical. The cycle contains glacial and interglacial phases. If I say glacial cycle or even interglacial cycle, I am talking about the whole kit and caboodle.

D-O events consist of dramatic warming, not cooling. And from what I've read, they've only been noted as occurring during glacial periods. We are not in a glacial period so that odds that the warming of the last 150 years is a D-O event are extraordinarily thin.

For example, the sudden warming episode that occurred approximately 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cool period, increased temperatures by about 5–7 °C (9–12.6 °F). This increase took place over roughly 30–40 years, peaking by as much as 8 °C (14.4 °F) over 40 years.

Dansgaard-Oeschger event | Definition, Causes, & Facts | Britannica

Dansgaard-Oeschger event, any of several dramatic but fleeting global climatic swings characterized by a period of abrupt warming followed by a period of slow cooling that occurred during the last ice age. As many as 25 Dansgaard-Oeschger events may have occurred during the most recent 120,000...

www.britannica.com

I thought the warming since the Industrial Revolution was much, much faster than ever happened in history?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As Abu recently posted elsewhere {Link}

That graph well illustrates the pertinent context needed to fully appreciate the impact of AGW. It shows just how unprecedented the global surface temperature increase has truly been since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Naturally caused my ass.
What's that?

Indeed. Those hockey sticks always pissed you off? Try a framing square.

That graph well illustrates the pertinent context needed to fully appreciate the impact of AGW. It shows just how unprecedented the global surface temperature increase has truly been since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Naturally caused my ass.

1.2 degrees since the start of the industrial revolution?
Doesn't seem incredibly fast. Or unprecedented.

For example, the sudden warming episode that occurred approximately 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cool period, increased temperatures by about 5–7 °C (9–12.6 °F). This increase took place over roughly 30–40 years, peaking by as much as 8 °C (14.4 °F) over 40 years.

 

[Flash]

View attachment 870001

That graph well illustrates the pertinent context needed to fully appreciate the impact of AGW. It shows just how unprecedented the global surface temperature increase has truly been since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Naturally caused my ass.

1.2 degrees since the start of the industrial revolution?
Doesn't seem incredibly fast. Or unprecedented.

For example, the sudden warming episode that occurred approximately 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cool period, increased temperatures by about 5–7 °C (9–12.6 °F). This increase took place over roughly 30–40 years, peaking by as much as 8 °C (14.4 °F) over 40 years.

That graph is not based upon reliable data. It is based on piss poor analyst of past data and fraudulent and cherry picked present data from sources that have either admitted they lied or have been caught lying.

Scammers doing scamming stuff.

 

[Flash]

As Abu recently posted elsewhere {Link}

That graph well illustrates the pertinent context needed to fully appreciate the impact of AGW. It shows just how unprecedented the global surface temperature increase has truly been since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Naturally caused my ass.
What's that?

Indeed. Those hockey sticks always pissed you off? Try a framing square.

That silly ass hockey stick graph was created with cherry picked ice core and tree ring data and was debunked a couple of decades ago.

The "evidence" for this stupid AGW scam consist of:

1. A correlation that was created with cherry picked data.

2. Shit in-shit out computer models that are never accurate and are paid for by Environmental Wacko funding.

3. A tremendous amount of false and fraudulent data by the Principle Climate Scientists that admitted falsifying data and from government agencies like NASA, NOAA and the UN Climate Commission that have been caught lying.

Climate change is real. Man made climate change is a scam.

 

[ding]

As Abu recently posted elsewhere {Link}

That graph well illustrates the pertinent context needed to fully appreciate the impact of AGW. It shows just how unprecedented the global surface temperature increase has truly been since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Naturally caused my ass.
What's that?

Indeed. Those hockey sticks always pissed you off? Try a framing square.

It's a ridiculous graph is what it is. It's so ridiculous even you yourself chose not to discuss it. Other than to say, "OMG, look at this!"

That's a cartoon. It's not a real graph. I'll share real temperature data with you so you can stop using cartoons. Fair enough?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how CO2 could have led temperature prior to the industrial revolution. Because there's no mechanism for that.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how 120 ppm of extra CO2 can be 450% effective at trapping their theoretical GHG effect when the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect.

 

[Crick]

For example, the sudden warming episode that occurred approximately 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cool period, increased temperatures by about 5–7 °C (9–12.6 °F). This increase took place over roughly 30–40 years, peaking by as much as 8 °C (14.4 °F) over 40 years.

Dansgaard-Oeschger event | Definition, Causes, & Facts | Britannica

Dansgaard-Oeschger event, any of several dramatic but fleeting global climatic swings characterized by a period of abrupt warming followed by a period of slow cooling that occurred during the last ice age. As many as 25 Dansgaard-Oeschger events may have occurred during the most recent 120,000...

www.britannica.com

I thought the warming since the Industrial Revolution was much, much faster than ever happened in history?

The Younger Dryas was caused by the shrinking Laurentide Ice Sheet rerouting its meltwater from the Mississippi to the St Lawrence and/or the McKenzie rivers, impacting the AMOC by dumping freshwater further north in the stream. That caused the equator to warm and the North Atlantic, Canada and Europe to chill. When riverine flows returned to their original state on the elimination of the Laurentide, the AMOC flow resumed and temperatures returned to where they had been.

Does someone want to suggest this is what is happening now? I asked Ding a couple days back if he was claiming that current warming was a D-O event or if he thought the AMOC had just restarted coincident with the Industrial Revolution but as usual, his answer was incomprehensible.