The Past Seven Years Have Been The Hottest In Recorded History, New Data Shows

[Cardinal Carminative]

You'd starve to death in a week if those working people stopped working, kid.

I don't eat out of the bathroom. If that's your thing then by all means. Feast away.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Dude, you claim to have a PhD in geology and you can't even identify the glaciation threshold for the poles from the oxygen isotope curve and you want to accuse others of living in a demented fantasy world?

I understand this single concept has enthralled you. Kudos.

I attempted to talk to you about MORE of the earth's history but you seem stuck only in the Cenozoic.

 

[ding]

I understand this single concept has enthralled you. Kudos.

I attempted to talk to you about MORE of the earth's history but you seem stuck only in the Cenozoic.

I'm stuck on the conditions which exist today that affect the earth's climate today which is why YOU should be discussing the Cenozoic and not snowball earth.

That you can't point to where the temperature threshold is for extensive continental glaciation at each pole is shocking for someone who is supposed to have a PhD in geology.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm stuck on the conditions which exist today that affect the earth's climate today which is why YOU should be discussing the Cenozoic and not snowball earth.

OK, I'm really intrigued now (you post unsourced graphs, but don't worry I can find what you are talking about)

Tell me clearly in your own words: what does the 18O isotope curve say to YOU about the state of our current climate?

You seem really amped up about 18O. Is it the role as a sea ice proxy or a temperature proxy that is most interesting to you? And what do you think it says about the warming we see today?

What mechanism is revealed in the 18O data from the past 65MA that helps you make sense of the warming we've seen in the last 60-150 years?

And why do you not wish to talk about the REST of the earth's history (which is much, much, much deeper than just the Cenozoic)

 

[ReinyDays]

I've actually explained it a couple times. You just don't like what science says.

What violates the laws of thermo?

What makes you the final arbiter of what science says? ... what you explained can't do what you claim it will do ... and that's why you refuse to show your math ... because the math is wrong, so your physics is wrong ... the natural forces here are accounted for ... leaving you only supernatural forces, which violate the Laws of Thermodynamics ...

1 centimeter per second ... laughably slow ... the current itself doesn't transport heat, it transports salt ... colder water sinks in cold water ... duh ... hot water stays on top and is pushed to the poles as surface currents ... adding to the overall atmosphere convective circulation system ... did you read that article? ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What makes you the final arbiter of what science says?

I'm not! I just asked what makes any of this a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

... what you explained can't do what you claim it will do ... and that's why you refuse to show your math

Wait...you've showed some math here?

... because the math is wrong, so your physics is wrong ... the natural forces here are accounted for ... leaving you only supernatural forces, which violate the Laws of Thermodynamics ...

Don't make me laugh. Like you know anything about the laws of thermo. Give it a rest.

1 centimeter per second ... laughably slow ... the current itself doesn't transport heat, it transports salt

Ummm, I guess you have never heard of the phrase THERMOHALINE CIRCULATION? Yeah, it kind of says salt and heat in the same word.

Wow, the amount you DON'T know is stunning.

... colder water sinks in cold water ... duh ... hot water stays on top and is pushed to the poles as surface currents

Your lack of detailed understanding of ocean currents is noted.

... adding to the overall atmosphere convective circulation system ... did you read that article? ...

Unlike you, I've actually worked in oceanography. So, I guess I'll go with my experience hanging with actual oceanographers on the ocean measuring water temperature and currents in the actual ocean.

 

[ReinyDays]

Hot off the presses ...

"Anchovies Stirring up the Sea may be Influencing Ocean Mixing" -- New Scientist -- April 7th, 2022

Sorry, behind a pay wall ... I picked this up on NPR's famous news program "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" and our favorite pseudo-climoatologist Peter Sagal ...

Does this hysteria have no limits? ...

 

[daveman]

I don't eat out of the bathroom. If that's your thing then by all means. Feast away.

Ahh, I see the problem. You're functionally illiterate.

They'll give a PhD to just any old idiot off the street, won't they?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Ahh, I see the problem. You're functionally illiterate.

If that is what you want to think.

They'll give a PhD to just any old idiot off the street, won't they?

It's not like YOU would know.

 

[daveman]

If that is what you want to think.

You're the one who invented in your own head eating out of the bathroom, dumbass.

It's not like YOU would know.

Sure I do. You're a perfect example.

 

[ding]

OK, I'm really intrigued now (you post unsourced graphs, but don't worry I can find what you are talking about)

Tell me clearly in your own words: what does the 18O isotope curve say to YOU about the state of our current climate?

You seem really amped up about 18O. Is it the role as a sea ice proxy or a temperature proxy that is most interesting to you? And what do you think it says about the warming we see today?

What mechanism is revealed in the 18O data from the past 65MA that helps you make sense of the warming we've seen in the last 60-150 years?

And why do you not wish to talk about the REST of the earth's history (which is much, much, much deeper than just the Cenozoic)

You don't know it's a proxy for temperature? Seriously?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You don't know it's a proxy for temperature? Seriously?

Ummm, numbnuts...I explicitly stated that in the post you are responding to.

But it's good that YOU don't understand the graph you keep flogging.

 

[ding]

Ummm, numbnuts...I explicitly stated that in the post you are responding to.

But it's good that YOU don't understand the graph you keep flogging.

I understand it enough to be able to identify the temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation. A subject you seem woefully ignorant about.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm not! I just asked what makes any of this a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.



Wait...you've showed some math here?




Don't make me laugh. Like you know anything about the laws of thermo. Give it a rest.



Ummm, I guess you have never heard of the phrase THERMOHALINE CIRCULATION? Yeah, it kind of says salt and heat in the same word.

Wow, the amount you DON'T know is stunning.




Your lack of detailed understanding of ocean currents is noted.



Unlike you, I've actually worked in oceanography. So, I guess I'll go with my experience hanging with actual oceanographers on the ocean measuring water temperature and currents in the actual ocean.

I see you're getting upset and irrational now ... you can blame the ellipses if you want, many do ... I guess you were sea-sick the day they discussed blackbody radiation ... because the Earth is as close to an ideal blackbody radiator as to make no difference ...

All the short wave radiation from the sun is absorbed at the surface, and after a short delay, all this energy is re-radiated back out into space as long wave radiation ... the energy must exist during this short delay, and it does so as kinetic energy in the molecules, and this is our definition of temperature ...

GHG gases effect this outbound long wave, re-directing part of it back to the Earth, where it is re-absorbed, and after a short delay re-re-radiated back out towards space ... this delay is only seconds at most ... not the years it would take to delay the temperature effects of these additional GHGs the amount of time you seem to be advocating ... we're also neglecting convection here, a good share of this extra energy will be evaporating water ...

Mathing you want ... 1 gram of water moving at 0.01 meters/second is developing 0.04 watts of power per degree Celsius, as in the Thermohaline Circulation ... 1 gram of water moving at 2 meters/second is developing 8 watts of power per degree Celsius, as in the Gulf Stream ... therefore the Gulf Stream is 200 times more powerful on a gram-for-gram basis ... I already explained this math ... is it still over your head? ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I see you're getting upset and irrational now

And I can see you are still simpleton.

... you can blame the ellipses if you want, many do

Well, you do look like a moron.

... I guess you were sea-sick the day they discussed blackbody radiation ... because the Earth is as close to an ideal blackbody radiator as to make no difference ...

No it's not. The earth's surface should have a blackbody radiation temperature of about 5deg C but instead our surface temperature is about 15degC. That disparity is the natural greenhouse effect provided by gases like H2O and CO2.

 

[ding]

And I can see you are still simpleton.



Well, you do look like a moron.



No it's not. The earth's surface should have a blackbody radiation temperature of about 5deg C but instead our surface temperature is about 15degC. That disparity is the natural greenhouse effect provided by gases like H2O and CO2.

I see you just skipped over most of Reiny's post....

All the short wave radiation from the sun is absorbed at the surface, and after a short delay, all this energy is re-radiated back out into space as long wave radiation ... the energy must exist during this short delay, and it does so as kinetic energy in the molecules, and this is our definition of temperature ...

GHG gases effect this outbound long wave, re-directing part of it back to the Earth, where it is re-absorbed, and after a short delay re-re-radiated back out towards space ... this delay is only seconds at most ... not the years it would take to delay the temperature effects of these additional GHGs the amount of time you seem to be advocating ... we're also neglecting convection here, a good share of this extra energy will be evaporating water ...

Mathing you want ... 1 gram of water moving at 0.01 meters/second is developing 0.04 watts of power per degree Celsius, as in the Thermohaline Circulation ... 1 gram of water moving at 2 meters/second is developing 8 watts of power per degree Celsius, as in the Gulf Stream ... therefore the Gulf Stream is 200 times more powerful on a gram-for-gram basis ... I already explained this math ... is it still over your head? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

And I can see you are still simpleton.

Well, you do look like a moron.

Thank you for these ad hominem arguments ... you admit I'm right and have only my person to attack ... a ditch-digger's dream come true humiliating a Pee-ach-Dee ...

No it's not. The earth's surface should have a blackbody radiation temperature of about 5deg C but instead our surface temperature is about 15degC. That disparity is the natural greenhouse effect provided by gases like H2O and CO2.

I didn't think you understood Stefen-Boltzmann as well as you said ...

T^4 = (S(1-a))/4eo [where T=temperature, S=solar constant, a=albedo, e=emissivity, o=SB constant]

We add an emissivity factor and create the Stefan-Boltzmann greybody equation ... I use e for this here but the literature generally uses lower case epsilon ... this factor is a dimensionless ratio representing ... well ... to be honest, this is the mathematical value for the greenhouse effect ... where 1 is transparent, all relevant EV passes through, and 0 is opaque, no relevant EV passes through ... and obviously if e=1 we default back to the blackbody form of SB ...

AGW Theory states that adding CO2 to that atmosphere decreases this emissivity factor, which in turn raises temperature ... best to think of this as the energy is slowed down in it's transit through the atmosphere, and thus existing in the atmosphere as kinetic energy for longer periods of time ... emissivity is the measure of this effect ...

Just curious ... how did you think the greenhouse effect was represented in mathematics? ...

The earth's surface should have a blackbody radiation temperature of about 5deg C

Maybe I shouldn't ask about the math ... I come up with -18ºC ... and the literature agrees with me ... the State of California expects teenage children to be able to perform this arithmetic ... why can't you? ... I'm insulting your statement, you don't need my help insulting yourself ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I think it would be vanishing small. Water vapor is the controlling GHG on Earth. CO2 is a bit player.

Solar/Ocean dynamo is what dominates the planets weather.

 

[abu afak]

Thank you for these ad hominem arguments ... you admit I'm right and have only my person to attack ... a ditch-digger's dream come true humiliating a Pee-ach-Dee ...



I didn't think you understood Stefen-Boltzmann as well as you said ...

T^4 = (S(1-a))/4eo [where T=temperature, S=solar constant, a=albedo, e=emissivity, o=SB constant]

We add an emissivity factor and create the Stefan-Boltzmann greybody equation ... I use e for this here but the literature generally uses lower case epsilon ... this factor is a dimensionless ratio representing ... well ... to be honest, this is the mathematical value for the greenhouse effect ... where 1 is transparent, all relevant EV passes through, and 0 is opaque, no relevant EV passes through ... and obviously if e=1 we default back to the blackbody form of SB ...

AGW Theory states that adding CO2 to that atmosphere decreases this emissivity factor, which in turn raises temperature ... best to think of this as the energy is slowed down in it's transit through the atmosphere, and thus existing in the atmosphere as kinetic energy for longer periods of time ... emissivity is the measure of this effect ...

Just curious ... how did you think the greenhouse effect was represented in mathematics? ...

The earth's surface should have a blackbody radiation temperature of about 5deg C

Maybe I shouldn't ask about the math ... I come up with -18ºC ... and the literature agrees with me ... the State of California expects teenage children to be able to perform this arithmetic ... why can't you? ... I'm insulting your statement, you don't need my help insulting yourself ...

So aside from your usual Irrelevant 'Physics dropping' (You CLOWN), you said NOTHING. (except maybe unwittingly self-impeach)
Should the temperature be higher be lower with more CO2 and other GHGs? (that WE are increasing in the Atmo)

These Name/Term dropping posts are amusing. (Maybe you can shoehorn Heisenberg into a post!!)
But you can never really coherently work them in as for or against the debate at hand.

`

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Thank you for these ad hominem arguments ... you admit I'm right and have only my person to attack ... a ditch-digger's dream come true humiliating a Pee-ach-Dee ...

I honestly wish you "academic wannabes" would learn the difference between an "insult" and an "argumentum ad hominem". But apparently that can't ever happen.

The earth's surface should have a blackbody radiation temperature of about 5deg C

Maybe I shouldn't ask about the math ... I come up with -18ºC

My apologies. I later looked at my own calculations from years ago and yes, I misspoke. It is -18degC.

And my point still stands. The REASON the current surface temperature is NOT that low is due primarily to the presence of greenhouse gases like H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.

O2 and N2 do not have the ability to absorb significant amounts of IR.