Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Billy_Bob]

Proves no such thing. Increased GENERAL HEATING of the Mid/Lower troposphere WITHOUT a "hotspot" -- WILL affect the temp of precip.. Regardless of whether the clouds they fell from were at -19DegC or 20DegC...



But more importantly, GROUND heating of rivers/streams and run-off from asphalt/concrete flowing to the sea WILL be STORED in the oceans.

Ground heating is quite another thing. We can measure that very well. However, once again, as compared to what? We can only guess at the long-term changes. We can only guess Solar output shifts and what they do to the surface temperatures. How much is caused by land mass use change? Deforestation? Dams and power generation, etc. You say it WILL affect the oceans but by how much as compared to 150 years ago. How much is actually GHG driven and how much is from land use change. Again, another area that the Global warming folks can not quantify or determine what the source really is.

As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago? where is the energy stored? So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago. Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.

Do they make logical sense that they could happen? Yes, but then we have observed evidence that it is not occurring at any statically significant rates compared to 150 years ago.

My premise is simple, show me where the energy is that is capable to do what you say. Quantify it.

 

[flacaltenn]

As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago? where is the energy stored? So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago. Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.

Simple man. You're exhausting yourself over nothing. It's the MEASURED INCREASE in surface heating. PRIMARILY since we've had the tech MEANS to record/track it to the accuracy required to even FIND 0.014DegC per year increases.

We're not hunting BIG game here. We're working with tiny things. That increase in surface heating WILL FIND ITS WAY to the oceans. In any NUMBER of ways.

Dont really care about paleontology of fresh water temperature. Only making the point that there's more than ONE way to warm an ocean. And RAIN and rivers and run-off can and will contribute.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Simple man. You're exhausting yourself over nothing. It's the MEASURED INCREASE in surface heating. PRIMARILY since we've had the tech MEANS to record/track it to the accuracy required to even FIND 0.014DegC per year increases.

We're not hunting BIG game here. We're working with tiny things. That increase in surface heating WILL FIND ITS WAY to the oceans. In any NUMBER of ways.

Dont really care about paleontology of fresh water temperature. Only making the point that there's more than ONE way to warm an ocean. And RAIN and rivers and run-off can and will contribute.

You still have not identified the source of the energy, where it is stored, and that there is enough of it to cause the warming your claiming. Again, the atmosphere is not harboring a hot spot or reservoir of energy. Where is your energy coming from?

 

[flacaltenn]

You still have not identified the source of the energy, where it is stored, and that there is enough of it to cause the warming your claiming. Again, the atmosphere is not harboring a hot spot or reservoir of energy. Where is your energy coming from?

Man -- are you EVER in the right thread to slog thru this. NOTHING ABOUT the Greenhouse CONTRIBUTES energy. The sole function of the GreenHouse is to prevent LOSS OF ENERGY. MASSIVE losses to space -- every MICROSECOND of every day/night.

You follow so far? Can we go on? Maybe read what I already wrote and get a "fine tune" on how the heat happens that prevents you from being an instant popsicle or warms precipt/rivers/runoff? And ditch the fucking "hotspot" canard. That construct doesn't PRECLUDE uniform heating of the surface/lower atmos by back-radiation of greenhouse gases.

 

[Sunsettommy]

FlaCalTenn writes:

"We're not hunting BIG game here. We're working with tiny things. That increase in surface heating WILL FIND ITS WAY to the oceans. In any NUMBER of ways."

As you say it is tiny things so tiny that I don't see it being significant enough for the oceans to be warmed enough to measure.

The Sun provides 99.99% of the energy into the waters of the world even those that run off into the ocean too back radiation is so negligible at the ocean waters surface to be discounted.

Where I live in the Columbia and Snake rivers the two largest in the Northwest are bone chilling cold that is only bearable to swim in late July into early September, they reach about 60F in that time frame but be much colder otherwise even all clear day summer sun it stays cold the entire summer.

I have swum in some the warmest waters in the world right off the coast of the Philippines and even there it is around 85 F and only near the surface which shows that CO2 isn't warming the waters up to notice it.

FlaCalTenn Writes:

"Only making the point that there's more than ONE way to warm an ocean. And RAIN and rivers and run-off can and will contribute."

But is so insignificant warming since the sun is shining on those waters too thus how can you really know how much of it is the Sun and how little the back radiation warms it?

I say the Sun is the only significant source of warming of the waters of the world that matters because of multiple high energetic wavelengths easily penetrate to meters and deeper while back radiation gets stopped at the water's surface since the IR wavelength is too feeble to go deeper thus 99.99% of the ocean waters doesn't warm by CO2 back radiation at all.

The Ocean waters dozens of meters down is quickly colder and down to near freezing in the bottom 1/3 of the waters which makes back radiation a non-factor to total energy content since even Dr. Trenberth says it is the SUN/Ocean dynamo that is generating the pooling of warm surface pool and causing El-Nino's to exist periodically.

 

[flacaltenn]

But is so insignificant warming since the sun is shining on those waters too thus how can you really know how much of it is the Sun and how little the back radiation warms it?

That's been a big issue for the GW "ocean guys" like Trenberth. The guy famous for his radiative "Energy Map" that was REALLY a "Power Map" because he ignored the STORAGE of energy -- particularly in the oceans. Then about 10 years later, he suddenly discovers that the missing GW "ENERGY" (in Joules) is sitting as STORED ENERGY in Davy Jone's locker 100 meters under the sea.

IT GETS THERE and accumulates until some ocean cycle like El Nino blows it off.

Their ISSUE ALWAYS WAS -- How did it get there? Because the back radiation is in the INFRA-RED which can't penetrate beyond the skin of the water. And Trenberth STRUGGLED to argue about "mixing effects" at the edges of deep ocean currents and such. WHICH IS TRUE !! there's submarinal RIVERS of "hot water" flowing N/S to the POLES and RIVERS of cold water flowing the other way. THere's also coastal mixing which can bring DEEP COLD CO2 rich waters to the warmer surface.

So -- the LIKELY CONTRIBUTION to ocean heating is "storage" ON LAND for river temperatures and run-off AND that small incremental rise in the temperature of PRECIPITATION that surely is occuring.

Because it's NOT a forcing in the direct sense, but a reserve of heat FROM STORAGE (either in river/run-off pr atmospheric temp increases to precipt) -- the ocean heat capacity CHANGE is even smaller than the forcing from back radiation.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Ground heating is quite another thing. We can measure that very well. However, once again, as compared to what? We can only guess at the long-term changes. We can only guess Solar output shifts and what they do to the surface temperatures. How much is caused by land mass use change? Deforestation? Dams and power generation, etc. You say it WILL affect the oceans but by how much as compared to 150 years ago. How much is actually GHG driven and how much is from land use change. Again, another area that the Global warming folks can not quantify or determine what the source really is.

As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago? where is the energy stored? So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago. Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.

Do they make logical sense that they could happen? Yes, but then we have observed evidence that it is not occurring at any statically significant rates compared to 150 years ago.

My premise is simple, show me where the energy is that is capable to do what you say. Quantify it.

The energy is eight light minutes away as any self claim solar physicst would know. Funny argument against anthropogenic climate change by citing anthropogenic activities as a causes. Why bother being a supposed scientist (you're not) if you can never know anything? It's laughable how the goal posts constantly move on this. What was the data compared to 150 years ago? Oh, we have that, well, about about 300 years ago then, wait, 3,000, uh..

 

[ReinyDays]

The energy is eight light minutes away as any self claim solar physicst would know. Funny argument against anthropogenic climate change by citing anthropogenic activities as a causes. Why bother being a supposed scientist (you're not) if you can never know anything? It's laughable how the goal posts constantly move on this. What was the data compared to 150 years ago? Oh, we have that, well, about about 300 years ago then, wait, 3,000, uh..

You've satisfied the first half of the conservation law ... where the energy comes from ... but now we ask the other half ... where does the energy go? ...

Shouldn't the carbon dioxide released today effect temperatures today? ... or say within a year ... a fairly high percentage of catastrophic claims rely on this temperature rise being delayed decades to centuries ... but without any explanation of the physics that would cause this "thermal lag" ...

Where do you think the `goal posts` should be? ... how small of a time interval is too small to get good climatological data? ... whatever fundamental truth we ferret out of our 100-year averages should also be true for our 10,000 year-averages ...

 

[ding]

You've satisfied the first half of the conservation law ... where the energy comes from ... but now we ask the other half ... where does the energy go? ...

Shouldn't the carbon dioxide released today effect temperatures today? ... or say within a year ... a fairly high percentage of catastrophic claims rely on this temperature rise being delayed decades to centuries ... but without any explanation of the physics that would cause this "thermal lag" ...

Where do you think the `goal posts` should be? ... how small of a time interval is too small to get good climatological data? ... whatever fundamental truth we ferret out of our 100-year averages should also be true for our 10,000 year-averages ...

I don't see how it can be anything other than immediate.

"Climate sensitivity" is a farce.

 

[Crick]

Shouldn't the carbon dioxide released today effect temperatures today? ... or say within a year ... a fairly high percentage of catastrophic claims rely on this temperature rise being delayed decades to centuries ... but without any explanation of the physics that would cause this "thermal lag" ...

How about a few examples of these catastrophic claims that call for decades to centuries of delay in the effect of GHG emssions?

 

[ReinyDays]

How about a few examples of these catastrophic claims that call for decades to centuries of delay in the effect of GHG emssions?

Any .. you pick ... test it against the Law of Thermodynamics first ... and if the claim of catastrophe satisfies these laws ... then we can look at `how fast` and `how much` ...

 

[ding]

How about a few examples of these catastrophic claims that call for decades to centuries of delay in the effect of GHG emssions?

The GHG effect is immediate. Climate sensitivity is horseshit. In fact, the argument of amplification ought to be your first clue that they are manufacturing a crisis for pay.

 

[jc456]

The GHG effect is immediate. Climate sensitivity is horseshit. In fact, the argument of amplification ought to be your first clue that they are manufacturing a crisis for pay.

THANK YOU

 

[Crick]

Any .. you pick ... test it against the Law of Thermodynamics first ... and if the claim of catastrophe satisfies these laws ... then we can look at `how fast` and `how much` ...

Temperature increase leading to sea level rise. Disrupted migrations. Distorted predator/prey relationships. Droughts. Flooding. Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons. What delays are you talking about? The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?

 

[jc456]

Temperature increase leading to sea level rise. Disrupted migrations. Distorted predator/prey relationships. Droughts. Flooding. Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons. What delays are you talking about? The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?

Where? No sea levels rising anywhere

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Where? No sea levels rising anywhere

Really?

Sea Level Rise - Map Viewer

NOAA's Sea Level Rise map viewer gives users a way to visualize community-level impacts from coastal flooding or sea level rise (up to 10 feet above average high tides).

www.climate.gov

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

Sea Level Rise - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Sea level rise is expected to continue for centuries and may impact human and the natural environment.

www.whoi.edu

• • What is sea level rise?​

    Sea level rise is an increase in the ocean’s surface height relative to the land in a particular location.
    The expansion of warm ocean water and melting polar ice are the primary causes of today’s rising sea levels. Both factors are the result of increasing human greenhouse gas emissions driving Earth’s temperatures higher.
    If the planet surpasses 1.5–2°C of warming, irreversible impacts such as melting ice and sea level rise will significantly impact human and environmental sustainability.
    
    

    What causes sea levels to rise?​

    Earth has warmed 1°C (2°F) since 1880. The ocean’s surface temperature rose about 1.5°F in that time because it absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat greenhouse gases trap in the atmosphere. Warmer water takes up more space, and this increase in volume—the thermal expansion of water—was sea level rise’s main culprit over the last century.
    Meltwater from the world’s diminishing ice sheets and glaciers also drives sea levels up, and it is now the main contributor to global sea level rise. Hotter air temperatures melt the surface of the ice while warmer ocean water erodes ice shelves from the sides and below, allowing more ice and meltwater to flow into the sea.
    The Greenland ice sheet, the world’s largest, is melting four times faster than it did in 2003 and is responsible for 20 percent of current sea level rise. The IPCC projects that by 2100, Greenland could contribute 3.1 to 10.6 inches (8 to 27 cm) to global sea level, and the melting of Antarctic ice may add another 1.2 to 11 inches (3 to 28 cm).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Temperature increase leading to sea level rise. Disrupted migrations. Distorted predator/prey relationships. Droughts. Flooding. Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons. What delays are you talking about? The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?

Are you able to replicate this 4C temperature increase in a lab by controlling for CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one is questioning the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere. Just the effect of changing concentrations.

let’s see the direct measurement of associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2.

jc456 skookerasbil and I have been asking for that for decades now and instead of getting crickets in response, we're called "deniers"

We wear that title proudly

 

[jc456]

Really?

Sea Level Rise - Map Viewer

NOAA's Sea Level Rise map viewer gives users a way to visualize community-level impacts from coastal flooding or sea level rise (up to 10 feet above average high tides).

www.climate.gov

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

Sea Level Rise - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Sea level rise is expected to continue for centuries and may impact human and the natural environment.

www.whoi.edu

• • What is sea level rise?​

    Sea level rise is an increase in the ocean’s surface height relative to the land in a particular location.
    The expansion of warm ocean water and melting polar ice are the primary causes of today’s rising sea levels. Both factors are the result of increasing human greenhouse gas emissions driving Earth’s temperatures higher.
    If the planet surpasses 1.5–2°C of warming, irreversible impacts such as melting ice and sea level rise will significantly impact human and environmental sustainability.
    
    

    What causes sea levels to rise?​

    Earth has warmed 1°C (2°F) since 1880. The ocean’s surface temperature rose about 1.5°F in that time because it absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat greenhouse gases trap in the atmosphere. Warmer water takes up more space, and this increase in volume—the thermal expansion of water—was sea level rise’s main culprit over the last century.
    Meltwater from the world’s diminishing ice sheets and glaciers also drives sea levels up, and it is now the main contributor to global sea level rise. Hotter air temperatures melt the surface of the ice while warmer ocean water erodes ice shelves from the sides and below, allowing more ice and meltwater to flow into the sea.
    The Greenland ice sheet, the world’s largest, is melting four times faster than it did in 2003 and is responsible for 20 percent of current sea level rise. The IPCC projects that by 2100, Greenland could contribute 3.1 to 10.6 inches (8 to 27 cm) to global sea level, and the melting of Antarctic ice may add another 1.2 to 11 inches (3 to 28 cm).

Tides have always existed, so no, none of that is evidence of anything other than high tides still occur today. Project is not, has occurred. Come on man, scratch out some other no nothing information for us.

 

[jc456]

Temperature increase leading to sea level rise. Disrupted migrations. Distorted predator/prey relationships. Droughts. Flooding. Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons. What delays are you talking about? The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?

where's that experiment to correlate that comment? That sounds like your off the shelf bullshit as always.