This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[BULLDOG]

Maybe since you are such a science genius you can answer basic climate questions for us...

Thread 'Any honest media person with the courage to actually ask climate questions?'

Feb 12, 2024

Apparently not.

Not on Faux

Not on RAV or OANN


What questions will the media never ask?


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?



The Co2 Fraud is bilking America out of $200 billion per...

• EMH
• Replies: 92
• Forum: Media

• 
• 
• 

You should reread my post. I am not a scientist, so I must rely on the judgement of those who are better informed than myself. I choose to believe the best credentialed leaders in the field. Of course, some might "do their own research" by searching web sites, and learn some of the basic concepts and terms. I call those Instant Internet Experts. They very easily might know more than me, but still lack the depth of knowledge and experience to credibly disprove statements made by actual credentialed experts in the field. To put it in more familiar terms, if I need my car fixed, I prefer a certified mechanic over some guy who happens to own a Chilton's Manual.

 

[ding]

I know we have discussed this before. I don't think a google genius ( faithfully following Glenn Beck or other right wing nut job, and visiting a few political web sites ) gives anybody the same credibility that a credentialed expert in the field has. Certainly not to the point of claiming superior knowledge. Beyond that, your beliefs on the subject perfectly align with a long list of political nut bags. I know their beliefs are based purely on politics. You have given me no reason to believe your adamant claims are driven more by your perception of data or loyalty to the maga cult.

You don’t believe it is ridiculous that the feedback is 3.5 times more than the GHG effect itself?

 

[ding]

Yet it perfectly aligns with Dr. Beck's findings. Coincidence? Through in depth study, did you and Beck each independently reach the exact same conclusions?

I think it’s funny you watch Glenn Beck. What I am asking you though is don’t you think it’s weird that the feedback from 1C of radiative warming from CO2 can produce a feedback that is 3.5 times the GHG effect itself?

 

[BULLDOG]

You don’t believe it is ridiculous that the feedback is 3.5 times more than the GHG effect itself?

I might if I knew what those terms mean.

 

[ding]

I might if I knew what those terms mean.

So it’s beyond your ability to understand?

 

[BULLDOG]

I think it’s funny you watch Glenn Beck. What I am asking you though is don’t you think it’s weird that the feedback from 1C of radiative warming from CO2 can produce a feedback that is 3.5 times the GHG effect itself?

Yes, I recognize your questi8n from when you asked it a few minutes ago. Perhaps you could go back to see how I answered it before. My answer hasn't changed.

 

[ding]

Yes, I recognize your questi8n from when you asked it a few minutes ago. Perhaps you could go back to see how I answered it before. My answer hasn't changed.

Is it because you are too dumb to understand the most basic principle of radiative forcing? Or is it because you are too lazy to make any effort to understand it?

 

[BULLDOG]

So it’s beyond your ability to understand?

It's beyond my investment in time to start a course in climate science at this age. I'm retired. I'm not interested in working for another degree.

 

[ding]

It's beyond my investment in time to start a course in climate science at this age. I'm retired. I'm not interested in working for another degree.

You don’t need to take a course. Are you seriously telling me that you have zero understanding of the physical process of how GHG slow the transfer of heat to outer space? Not even the slightest clue of how it works?

 

[BULLDOG]

Is it because you are too dumb to understand the most basic principle of radiative forcing? Or is it because you are too lazy to make any effort to understand it?

You got me. I'm too lazy. I'm retired. I don't do anything I don't want to do, and I usually don't start that till noon.

 

[ding]

You got me. I'm too lazy. I'm retired. I don't do anything I don't want to do, and I usually don't start that till noon.

Given that it’s really easy to find these answers I think it’s more likely that it’s beyond your ability to understand.

 

[ding]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses the term
"instantaneous radiative forcing" (IRF) to refer to the immediate change in the Earth's energy balance at the top of the atmosphere due to an external driver like a change in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration, before any adjustments in the climate system occur.

 

[BULLDOG]

Is it because you are too dumb to understand the most basic principle of radiative forcing? Or is it because you are too lazy to make any effort to understand it?

Even if I did invest a day or so to join the illustrious ranks of Instant Internet Experts such as yourself, I still wouldn't be stupid enough to think I could disprove the work of real scientists

 

[BULLDOG]

You don’t need to take a course. Are you seriously telling me that you have zero understanding of the physical process of how GHG slow the transfer of heat to outer space? Not even the slightest clue of how it works?

I'm seriously telling you I don't care. You don't get that?

 

[BULLDOG]

Given that it’s really easy to find these answers I think it’s more likely that it’s beyond your ability to understand.

I guess we'll never know.

 

[ding]

Even if I did invest a day or so to join the illustrious ranks of Instant Internet Experts such as yourself, I still wouldn't be stupid enough to think I could disprove the work of real scientists

So then you think it makes sense that the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm?

 

[ding]

I'm seriously telling you I don't care. You don't get that?

But you care enough to be an ignorant political cheerleader?

 

[ding]

I guess we'll never know.

Unless I spoon feed you.

• Direct Radiative Forcing: A doubling of atmospheric CO2 (from pre-industrial levels) causes a direct radiative forcing of approximately 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2). In the absence of climate feedbacks, this would directly lead to about 1°C (1.8°F) of global warming. This figure is derived from fundamental physics and is widely accepted.

 

[ding]

I guess we'll never know.

So if the direct radiative forcing from fundamental physics calculations which are widely accepted calculates a 1C temperature increase from a doubling of CO2, how do believe they calculate the feedback from that? Where are they getting that from?

 

[BULLDOG]

So then you think it makes sense that the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm?

You're as thick as pig shit, aren't you? See all my previous posts for a more complete answer, but the short answer is I don't know..