Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Crick]

I am not familiar with a current flat earth theory.

I bet you are. We all are. There's not much to it. And I hope you caught the winky-face there.

You seem to have forgot I am a pilot and even as a passenger in a commercial airliner, it is easy to see that the earth is round and not flat.

I'm not arguing the point.

I don't know of anybody who does not know about the greenhouse effect.

I didn't say you didn't know about it. I asked why - as you stated - you reject it.

Stop to think though. Climate is not dictated by a single effect.

Neither I nor mainstream science ever said it was.

As Ding tells you, the Ocean is a huge factor.

Being an ocean engineer, I know this quite well. But that does not mean the ocean is doing what Ding claims it is doing. Note I have asked him three times now to explain how the process he believes to be driving the glacial cycle produces periodic behavior and he has yet to provide a single word of explanation.

I mention Clouds and those are an enormous factor.

They are. And a mixed one as well. Clouds both cool the planet by reflecting incoming solar radiation and warm it by trapping outgoing IR.

Those who subscribe to the concept a single factor manages climate are simply not thinking well.

I say again, Robert, no one believes any such thing.

I mentioned the Coriolis effect which per my Aviation Weather book states this is also a known effect.

Coriolis is not involved in altering the world's climate for the simple reason that it is a CONSTANT.

 

[Robert W]

I didn't say you didn't know about it. I asked why - as you stated - you reject it.

That is not what I told you about the Greenhouse effect. Why would you talk as if I reject the Greenhouse effect?

Since you are an expert in oceans, I see you asking Ding questions about the Ocean. But if you really are an expert, why keep asking him only to have you tell him you are the expert?

 

[ding]

That is not what I told you about the Greenhouse effect. Why would you talk as if I reject the Greenhouse effect?

Since you are an expert in oceans, I see you asking Ding questions about the Ocean. But if you really are an expert, why keep asking him only to have you tell him you are the expert?

Apparently the "expert" on oceans doesn't believe the ocean affects the planet's climate at all.

He denies that the collapse of the AMOC would have global ramifications, including abrupt cooling across large parts of the northern hemisphere, changes in tropical rainfall, and non-linear changes in sea-level rise in the North Atlantic Ocean.

 

[ding]

Crick denies the AMOC is a complex system of ocean currents that distribute heat throughout the Atlantic by transporting warmer waters north and cooler waters south.

 

[ding]

Crick denies the AMOC, is a major part of a global “conveyor belt,” which helps regulate Earth’s climate; and through its impact on climate, the AMOC affects northern hemisphere temperatures.

 

[ding]

Crick believes the ocean circulation system isn't dependent on anything and can never change and if it did it wouldn't affect the planet's climate at all because only CO2 can do that.

 

[Robert W]

Apparently the "expert" on oceans doesn't believe the ocean affects the planet's climate at all.

He denies that the collapse of the AMOC would have global ramifications, including abrupt cooling across large parts of the northern hemisphere, changes in tropical rainfall, and non-linear changes in sea-level rise in the North Atlantic Ocean.

I see your point. Notice he seems not to talk about the Pacific ocean or the rest of the oceans and is currently focused only on the Atlantic? And he seems to think Clouds are not much of a problem so brushes off this part sorta.

 

[Crick]

That is not what I told you about the Greenhouse effect.

Yes it is.

Why do you think we don't believe in the greenhouse effect?

Why would you talk as if I reject the Greenhouse effect?

Because that's exactly what you said.

Why do you think we don't believe in the greenhouse effect?

Since you are an expert in oceans, I see you asking Ding questions about the Ocean. But if you really are an expert, why keep asking him only to have you tell him you are the expert?

I am not asking Ding for information about the oceans. I am asking how his hypothesis as to the cause of the glacial-interglacial cycle causes cyclical behavior. He is claiming that apparently spontaneous changes will lead to a collapse of the AMOC and PMOC (happy?) which will isolate the poles from equatorial thermal energy and begin a glaciation. If you look at one of those nice 400,000 or 800,000 year ice core records, you will see up to 12 glacial-interglacial cycles. If you toss out Milankovitch orbital forcing, as he has done, what drives HIS system into periodic behavior?

 

[Crick]

Apparently the "expert" on oceans doesn't believe the ocean affects the planet's climate at all.

That would be another Ding lie.

He denies that the collapse of the AMOC would have global ramifications,

And another Ding lie. I have OP'd multiple posts on just this topic, you ignorant fool.

including abrupt cooling across large parts of the northern hemisphere, changes in tropical rainfall, and non-linear changes in sea-level rise in the North Atlantic Ocean.

My posts on this issue have discussed all the likely consequences.

 

[Crick]

Crick denies the AMOC is a complex system of ocean currents that distribute heat throughout the Atlantic by transporting warmer waters north and cooler waters south.

Show us where I have said any such thing you lying piece of shit.

 

[Crick]

Crick believes the ocean circulation system isn't dependent on anything and can never change and if it did it wouldn't affect the planet's climate at all because only CO2 can do that.

And show us where I have said that you lying piece of shit.

 

[ding]

Show us where I have said any such thing you lying piece of shit.

It seems this is the only way I can get to be honest about anything.

 

[ding]

And show us where I have said that you lying piece of shit.

So glad you agree with the obvious.

 

[ding]

That would be another Ding lie.

And another Ding lie. I have OP'd multiple posts on just this topic, you ignorant fool.

My posts on this issue have discussed all the likely consequences.

So glad you agree that the heat is in the ocean and not the atmosphere. It's a start.

 

[Crick]

So glad you agree that the heat is in the ocean and not the atmosphere. It's a start.

I have never said otherwise you lying piece of shit.

But you have yet to provide a single word in explanation as to how your idea produces the periodic behavior of the glacial cycle, you lying piece of shit.

 

[ding]

I have never said otherwise you lying piece of shit.

But you have yet to provide a single word in explanation as to how your idea produces the periodic behavior of the glacial cycle, you lying piece of shit.

What’s happening with AMOC?

Scientists discuss the state of the Atlantic Ocean’s ‘conveyor belt’

www.whoi.edu

 

[Crick]

What’s happening with AMOC?

Scientists discuss the state of the Atlantic Ocean’s ‘conveyor belt’

www.whoi.edu

NEITHER of those explain how you get the periodic behavior that we all clearly see in graphs like these

you fucking lying piece of shit.

 

[koshergrl]

I like this thread. I have nothing to offer except a funny.

 

[Crick]

I like this thread. I have nothing to offer except a funny.

View attachment 879509

I asked Google how flat-earthers explained the appearance of other planets. It referred me to "the Flat-Earth Wiki" and said that it only claims that the Earth is flat. The other planets ARE spheres floating in space above the flat Earth. So, apparently, you've pegged it.

 

[ding]

NEITHER of those explain how you get the periodic behavior that we all clearly see in graphs like these

View attachment 879490


you fucking lying piece of shit.

Temperature dependent AMOC switch off based upon changes in salinity and density most certainly do. Then the NH freezes and albedo amplifies it. AMOC switches back on and it take a really long time to return to its pre-glacial trigger temperature where it happens all over again. And that's why we don't see logarithmic warming from a logarithmic GHG effect. Because it's not due to that at all. It was going to continue warming regardless because that's what it always does before it reverses itself. Been going on for millions of years.