The Environment Forum now decidedly one sided!!

[westwall]

Wrong.
Atmosphere is so thin is never can hold much heat, and there is no satellite means by which to track atmospheric heat.
You always check temperature on the ground, not in the air.
And all temperature recording station since 1880 when they were started, show AGW.

We nearly doubled the atmospheric CO2, so then how could there not be more heat retention and global warming?

No, they don't. Not one measurement that has been taken can be attributed to AGW.

Not one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[EMH]

there is no satellite means by which to track atmospheric heat

So NBC just made this up, the 2005 FUDGE JOB of the atmospheric temp readings from SATELLITES AND BALLOONS...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling




LOL!!!

 

[EMH]

We nearly doubled the atmospheric CO2, so then how could there not be more heat retention and global warming?

Because CO2 absorbs IR which is WEAK EM.

O3 absorbs powerful UV.

We could increase atmospheric CO2 10 fold and IT WOULD STILL DO NOTHING

 

[ding]

We nearly doubled the atmospheric CO2, so then how could there not be more heat retention and global warming?

Actually atmospheric CO2 won't have doubled until about the year 2100. The theoretical incremental surface temperature due to a doubling of CO2 is 1C.

 

[EMH]

The theoretical incremental surface temperature due to a doubling of CO2 is 1C.

No, it is ZERO because so far it is still ZERO and there is no evidence that increasing CO2 more will ever do anything but ZERO.

 

[ding]

No, it is ZERO because so far it is still ZERO and there is no evidence that increasing CO2 more will ever do anything but ZERO.

That would be impossible. The GHG effect is real. Even if they are overstating it.

 

[EMH]

That would be impossible. The GHG effect is real. Even if they are overstating it.

The DATA, the ACTUAL DATA, documents just that...


We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and both showed NO WARMING during rising CO2 in highly correlated fashion before being FUDGED in 2005.

There is NO ACTUAL DATA showing increased CO2 causes atmospheric warming, ONLY FUDGE.

 

[ding]

The DATA, the ACTUAL DATA, documents just that...


We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and both showed NO WARMING during rising CO2 in highly correlated fashion before being FUDGED in 2005.

There is NO ACTUAL DATA showing increased CO2 causes atmospheric warming, ONLY FUDGE.

The actual data shows the planet is warming naturally with only a slight contribution from an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

 

[EMH]

The actual data shows the planet is warming naturally with only a slight contribution from an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

What you call "actual data" is 100% FUDGED FRAUD and Urban Heat Island Effect.

 

[jc456]

Wrong.
Atmosphere is so thin is never can hold much heat, and there is no satellite means by which to track atmospheric heat.
You always check temperature on the ground, not in the air.
And all temperature recording station since 1880 when they were started, show AGW.

We nearly doubled the atmospheric CO2, so then how could there not be more heat retention and global warming?

what were the readings before 1880 that allow you to make such a claim?

 

[jc456]

That would be impossible. The GHG effect is real. Even if they are overstating it.

what does the GHG effect do that's been captured?

 

[ding]

What you call "actual data" is 100% FUDGED FRAUD and Urban Heat Island Effect.

The UHI effect plays a part in it too. But the planet is naturally warming due to heat being circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic which is what is driving the deglaciation of the northern hemisphere which in turn warms the planet, oceans and atmosphere. Happens every interglacial period. That is until the thermohaline circulation shuts down and the planet is plunged into the next glacial period.

 

[ding]

what does the GHG effect do that's been captured?

It's a dynamic process, right? Molecules vibrate and produce heat and would eventually stop vibrating and stop producing heat if it weren't for the the ebb and flow of outgoing longwave infrared radiation. So I don't see how there can be a buildup of heat beyond the instantaneous GHG effect as heat is continually being radiated into space which is also a dynamic process with ebbs and flows. At least that how I see it.

 

[jc456]

It's a dynamic process, right? Molecules vibrate and produce heat and would eventually stop vibrating and stop producing heat if it weren't for the the ebb and flow of outgoing longwave infrared radiation. So I don't see how there can be a buildup of heat beyond the instantaneous GHG effect as heat is continually being radiated into space which is also a dynamic process with ebbs and flows. At least that how I see it.

Well, your post implied there's data collected to say GHG is captured and increasing.

 

[ding]

Well, your post implied there's data collected to say GHG is captured and increasing.

Don't know how you arrived at that conclusion but the GHG effect is an instantaneous effect in the presence of longwave IR at a specific wavelength that isn't captured by some other GHG gas such as water vapor which pretty much covers the entire wavelength spectrum except for a few gaps.

 

[EMH]

The UHI effect plays a part in it too. But the planet is naturally warming due to heat being circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic which is what is driving the deglaciation of the northern hemisphere which in turn warms the planet, oceans and atmosphere. Happens every interglacial period. That is until the thermohaline circulation shuts down and the planet is plunged into the next glacial period.

WATER actually does not cause ice. Really... IQ over 5 needed to notice IT IS TOO WARM.... duh....

The OCEANS are NOT WARMING. Which way the current goes is the same as which way the wind blows, it doesn't alter total Earth heat content and hence is not part of Earth climate change...

Everyone pushing that is taxpayer funded CO2 FRAUD bullshit and hopefully will get the "attention" of Patel and Bondi.

 

[ding]

WATER actually does not cause ice. Really... IQ over 5 needed to notice IT IS TOO WARM.... duh....

The OCEANS are NOT WARMING. Which way the current goes is the same as which way the wind blows, it doesn't alter total Earth heat content and hence is not part of Earth climate change...

Everyone pushing that is taxpayer funded CO2 FRAUD bullshit and hopefully will get the "attention" of Patel and Bondi.

Maybe research what thermohaline means?

 

[EMH]

Thermohaline Circulation - Currents: NOAA's National Ocean Service Education

National Ocean Service's Education Online tutorial on Corals?

oceanservice.noaa.gov

Winds drive ocean currents in the upper 100 meters of the ocean’s surface. However, ocean currents also flow thousands of meters below the surface. These deep-ocean currents are driven by differences in the water’s density, which is controlled by temperature (thermo) and salinity (haline). This process is known as thermohaline circulation




WATER

WATER

WATER does not cause ICE


IQ over 5 required to notice...

 

[jc456]

Don't know how you arrived at that conclusion but the GHG effect is an instantaneous effect in the presence of longwave IR at a specific wavelength that isn't captured by some other GHG gas such as water vapor which pretty much covers the entire wavelength spectrum except for a few gaps.

you claimed there was more of it causing at least a 1 degree warming. How do you know that if you don't have data? That's how I arrived there.