There has been no "global warming" for eight years

[CrusaderFrank]

Global economy shut down 2020 2021 and no decrease in CO2, therefore mans contribution to CO2 is a rounding error

 

[Crick]

The data is undeniable.

The Vikings lived on Greenland's southern tip until the 1400 when it froze to the point they could not self sustain and grow crops.
Pinecones etc. under Greenland's thickest ice carbon date 400-800k years ago.
Recently Greenland DNA dated 2 million years old revealed a very very green Greenland then

greenland green - Google Search

www.google.com

North American ice age had glacier ice down to Indiana one million years ago....

north american ice age - Google Search

www.google.com

Some undeniable data that actually means something:

Is a detailed absorption spectrum available for carbon dioxide from 300-1100nm?

I believe that carbon dioxide does not absorb light in the visible region, but is a spectrum available somewhere online that shows this as a fact? As in a straight horizontal line at 100% transmiss...

physics.stackexchange.com

 

[ReinyDays]

Some undeniable data that actually means something:

Is a detailed absorption spectrum available for carbon dioxide from 300-1100nm?

I believe that carbon dioxide does not absorb light in the visible region, but is a spectrum available somewhere online that shows this as a fact? As in a straight horizontal line at 100% transmiss...

physics.stackexchange.com

At 2.4 µm ... you show 100% absorption for both CO2 and H2O ... that's 200% in total ... care to explain? ...

 

[Crick]

At 2.4 µm ... you show 100% absorption for both CO2 and H2O ... that's 200% in total ... care to explain? ...

Think about it for a minute. I'm sure you'll work it out.

 

[ding]

Think about it for a minute. I'm sure you'll work it out.

I'm not sure you understand what that means. I do. It means at that frequency CO2 provides no radiative forcing at all.

 

[EMH]

Some undeniable data that actually means something:

Is a detailed absorption spectrum available for carbon dioxide from 300-1100nm?

I believe that carbon dioxide does not absorb light in the visible region, but is a spectrum available somewhere online that shows this as a fact? As in a straight horizontal line at 100% transmiss...

physics.stackexchange.com

That Co2 absorbs low frequency low energy IR explains why it isn't warming anything.

Meanwhile, you have yet to explain how Co2 thawed NA and froze Greenland at the same time...

 

[mamooth]

During the last ice age, the place where I live was under a mile thick glacier. What caused it to melt?

Orbital factors kicked off a slight warming.

That caused the oceans to release CO2, which caused more warming, and a positive feedback cycle.

Due to the logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing, the positive feedback cycle eventually ended.

 

[mamooth]

But you absolutely do dismiss natural climate variation

Nope.

as a cause when you argue that only CO2 can be responsible for the recent warming trend.

No, we point out that the observed evidence leads to that conclusion.

Unlike your side, we don't start with a predetermined conclusion and then work backwards to justify it. We follow the evidence wherever it leads. The evidence says your "natural variation" theory is wrong, so it's wrong, regardless of the intensity of your feelings.

And that is despite empirical climate data from the geologic record which proves there is no correlation for CO2 driving temperature.

That's crazy talk on your part.

 

[ding]

Nope.


No, we point out that the observed evidence leads to that conclusion.

Unlike your side, we don't start with a predetermined conclusion and then work backwards to justify it. We follow the evidence wherever it leads. The evidence says your "natural variation" theory is wrong, so it's wrong, regardless of the intensity of your feelings.


That's crazy talk on your part.

Nope. It's all contained in the geologic record.

 

[mamooth]

That Co2 absorbs low frequency low energy IR explains why it isn't warming anything.

In what way?

I ask because your conclusion seems unrelated to your premise.

Meanwhile, you have yet to explain how Co2 thawed NA and froze Greenland at the same time...

"You made that up" was a good explanation.

 

[EMH]

In what way?

I ask because your conclusion seems unrelated to your premise.

"You made that up" was a good explanation.

It is perfectly clear that Co2 is not the cause of Earth climate change, and the Greenland North America paradox proves it.

As for Co2 itself, it absorbs low energy IR EM. Ozone O3 absorbs high energy UV EM. Fortunately O3 is light and floats up to the top of the atmosphere...


All molecules absorb something from the EM spectrum. IR is low end, like your brain. That is why there is no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2, because Co2 does absolutely nothing.

 

[mamooth]

Nope. It's all contained in the geologic record.

What is?

You did show the strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Was that your intent?

I'm not sure why you think the same amount of CO2 should always give the exact same temperature. Nobody else here thinks that.

 

[mamooth]

It is perfectly clear that Co2 is not the cause of Earth climate change, and the Greenland North America paradox proves it.

What is it about "CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate" that completely confounds all the deniers here?

As for Co2 itself, it absorbs low energy IR EM.

Yes, and the earth radiates out low energy IR. Which the CO2 absorbs. And then re-radiates, so the next layer up absorbs it. And so on, until it finally gets to the top of the atmosphere. The blanket has gotten thicker, so it keeps earth warmer.

Ozone O3 absorbs high energy UV EM. Fortunately O3 is light and floats up to the top of the atmosphere...

Well, no. O3 is heavier. It's in the stratosphere because it's produced in the stratosphere.

All molecules absorb something from the EM spectrum. IR is low end, like your brain. That is why there is no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2, because Co2 does absolutely nothing.

You say CO2 absorbs IR, then you immediately spin around and say it does nothing. Can you make up your mind?

 

[ding]

What is?

The evidence that temperature is not a function of CO2. CO2 plays a small role in the planet's climate. It's never driven the planet;s climate. If it had the planet would have never cooled.

 

[ding]

You did show the strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Was that your intent?

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature. It was never the other way around.

 

[ding]

I'm not sure why you think the same amount of CO2 should always give the exact same temperature. Nobody else here thinks that.

I don't because I don't believe that CO2 drives the planet's climate like you do. But according to you, it should. Unless of course you believe that natural variations override the GHG effect of CO2 which then renders your entire argument for AGW null and void.

 

[mamooth]

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature. It was never the other way around.

Again, wow.

If CO2 is correlated to temperature, then temperature is correlated to CO2. That's how correlation works.

 

[ding]

Again, wow.

If CO2 is correlated to temperature, then temperature is correlated to CO2. That's how correlation works.

Are you even listening how stupid that sounded? It's like you are totally unaware of why CO2 was a function of temperature and not the other way around.

 

[ding]

Again, wow.

If CO2 is correlated to temperature, then temperature is correlated to CO2. That's how correlation works.

Seriously, if you don't understand why CO2 correlated to temperature prior to the industrial revolution you have absolutely no business discussing this because you are ignorant of the basics.

 

[mamooth]

I don't because I don't believe that CO2 drives the planet's climate like you do. But according to you, it should.

I have never said or implied that the same amount of CO2 should always result in the same temperature, and I have no idea why you would say such a crazy thing.

Unless of course you believe that natural variations override the GHG effect of CO2 which then renders your entire argument for AGW null and void.

Let me try to dumb it down for you.

Say I'm in a cabin. I start a fire of a given size. "Size of the fire" is analogous to "CO2 level" here.

According to your way of reasoning, the cabin should instantly assume a constant temperature, depending only on the size of the fire and nothing else.

Normal people, however, will point out that while the size of the fire is the most important thing that will determine temperature, you also have to take into account the outside temperature, how long that fire has been burning, and the thermal mass of the cabin and its furnishings.

Your really bad model doesn't take into account dynamic conditions, so it fails completely.