Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Crick]

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.

What caused the change in salinity you ignorant lying piece of shit?

 

[ding]

What caused the change in salinity you ignorant lying piece of shit?

Increasing temperature and melt water as the planet warms back up to its pre-glacial temperature.

 

[Crick]

And what is driving the warming you lying piece of shit? Let me guess. Natural climate variations.

PS, meltwater is anathema to AMOC, fool.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warming is better than cooling. A new ice age would kill billions.

 

[Crick]

Warming is better than cooling. A new ice age would kill billions.

If it occurred at a normal rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it occurred at a normal rate.

You still can't find the rate of all those other 173-year periods, can you?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Warming is better than cooling. A new ice age would kill billions.

Such an alarmist! Meanwhile, "a period of milder climate" and "continuing a long-term cooling trend" do not equal "A new ice age."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Such an alarmist! Meanwhile, "a period of milder climate" and "continuing a long-term cooling trend" do not equal "A new ice age."

Colder climate in the recent past caused starvation and plague.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Colder climate in the recent past caused starvation and plague.

Doh! Still not an ice age.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm surprised you think that about glaciers. When the temp outside is 100 vs the temp for the Glacier is 31, you don't think that is relevant?

You have cause-and-effect backwards ... glaciers do not cause sub-freezing temperatures ... if fact, we find sub-freezing temperatures where there's never been glaciers ... like Cape Kennedy when the SS Challenger flew for the last time ... do you see any glaciers in Florida? ...

Again: Which of the meteorological parameters involves surface composition? ... or easier: which of the climatological parameters involves surface composition? ... does ice on the ground change pressure, humidity, wind velocity, precipitation ... or temperature? ...

Does ice on the ground cause freezing? ... because that's what you're saying ... it would be 100ºF, except there's ice so the temperature are forced down to 31ºF ... you know, instead of melting the ice ...

 

[ReinyDays]

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

1] Because you're posting in a thread dedicated to discussion of the denial of the greenhouse effect ...

2] You've jumped in defending someone who is denying the greenhouse effect ...

3] You didn't answer why glaciers effect atmospheric physics ... so you are promoting "alternative science" ... which includes GH denialism ... 6,000 year-old flat Earth ... what next, cyclones don't have net spin? ... or is this another "Intelligent design" thing? ...

A year's worth of formal education in these matters says you're wrong ... glaciers are not weather ...

 

[ReinyDays]

That's a lot of spluttering and gibbering in one breath.

Real science ...

 

[koshergrl]

Real science ...

The fact that you expect to be taken seriously with such abject jackassery. Please quote the science in that bit of idiocy.

 

[Crick]

The fact that you expect to be taken seriously with such abject jackassery. Please quote the science in that bit of idiocy.

What "jackassery" was that?

 

[koshergrl]

What "jackassery" was that?

You know I think that was a mistake. Which is too bad because it is quite mellifluous. What a waste.

 

[Crick]

You know I think that was a mistake. Which is too bad because it is quite mellifluous. What a waste.

What was a mistake? What was mellifluous? What was a waste?

 

[Robert W]

1] Because you're posting in a thread dedicated to discussion of the denial of the greenhouse effect ...

2] You've jumped in defending someone who is denying the greenhouse effect ...

3] You didn't answer why glaciers effect atmospheric physics ... so you are promoting "alternative science" ... which includes GH denialism ... 6,000 year-old flat Earth ... what next, cyclones don't have net spin? ... or is this another "Intelligent design" thing? ...

A year's worth of formal education in these matters says you're wrong ... glaciers are not weather ...

Here is what I did NOT say.
I did not say glaciers are weather. They are evidence of climate. They were not about the greenhouse effect. Most ignore that this planet has experienced ups and down in fairly close eras. Clearly when you see glaciers you know very well it is not heating up.
You made wrong conclusions in your 3. And you do not master me. I bring to the topic a lot of study.

 

[Robert W]

You have cause-and-effect backwards ... glaciers do not cause sub-freezing temperatures ... if fact, we find sub-freezing temperatures where there's never been glaciers ... like Cape Kennedy when the SS Challenger flew for the last time ... do you see any glaciers in Florida? ...

Again: Which of the meteorological parameters involves surface composition? ... or easier: which of the climatological parameters involves surface composition? ... does ice on the ground change pressure, humidity, wind velocity, precipitation ... or temperature? ...

Does ice on the ground cause freezing? ... because that's what you're saying ... it would be 100ºF, except there's ice so the temperature are forced down to 31ºF ... you know, instead of melting the ice ...

I put effect where it belongs. First you have a bare ice free surface and the climate changes and the result is severe cooling and this is what is needed to produce snow and ice.
Glaciers were not said by me as a producing effect. They are good evidence the days of hot summers is past.
Climate is not changed by a single factor. Climate is very complex. We have to note evidence of cooling to see how glaciers can form. For instance there was once a massive glacier where New York city stands today.

Once the glacier is there, it has lost enough heat that of course it will impact climate.

 

[jc456]

Earth

Temperature

Always nothing responses from you. You’re boring