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

[ding]

Note the highlighted phrase. By the way 100000 years ago CO2 levels where way lower than 600 ppm in fact they were around 200. Which is what I responded to; As I said, cheap debating tricks. Straw manning me because you have nothing substantive.

I wasn’t talking about 100,000 years ago when I said the planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm.

The key phrase was the planet cooled for millions of years. It’s almost as if you have no understanding of our planet’s climate record.

 

[forkup]

Gases doesn't trap anything a mistake you just made.

How come we had large temperature swings during this interglacial period with negligible CO2 change.

View attachment 1153039


LINK

The big swings you see in the temperature record (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Little Ice Age, etc.) are driven by orbital changes, ocean circulation shifts, solar and volcanic aerosol forcings, plus local feedbacks, not by massive injections of CO₂. Also note that the spike in CO2, and the spike in temperature at the end of the graph.

 

[BULLDOG]

20 years of studying paleoclimates.

Odd that you didn't start with that bit of information when I repeatedly ask why you might have any credibility. I guess you just recently remembered that. I haven't been fully forthcoming either. Until now, I never mentioned that I'M BATMAN.

 

[forkup]

I know this comment is directed towards something different ...

BUT ...

They start with a simple calculation of how much extra CO₂ warms the planet on its own, then check that against real‐world CO₂ and temperature records.

What is this "simple calculation" and what are the results? ... and have these results been testing under controlled laboratory conditions? ... specifically, what is the numerical relationship between CO2 concentration and irradiation ... from ppm to W/m^2 ... quite a few of us here have been looking for this information ... a link is fine ...

The IPCC has the scientific community running their computer simulations under four different scenarios, from "safely ignored" to "hellish inferno" ... and these simulations produce distribution curves, not discreet results ... however, these scenarios are based on irradiation (W/m^2), and we don't know how much CO2 is takes to change the irradiation ...

Except you said it was a "simple calculation" ... and without seeing these calculations ... or the results ... kinda makes me think your making a mistake here ... carbon dioxide doesn't have enough mass to change climate, and certainly not cause any catastrophes ... it's a "one molecule, one photon" kind of universe these days, that alone refutes CCC ...

What is the real radiative forcing value of CO2?

IPCC has used as radiative forcing value for carbon dioxide (CO2) the equation introduced by Myhre et al. in 1998 even in its latest report AR5. The formula of this equation is: (1) RF = 5.35*ln(C/280) Where RF is radiative forcing in W/m2, and C is the CO2 concentration in ppm. Myhre...

www.climatexam.com

And for the record, when I say it's a simple calculation I mean it's a simple calculation for a mathematician, not me.

 

[forkup]

... and winters weren't cold enough to cause snow ...

I think you're getting your information mixed up here ... or just plain don't understand ... orbital mechanics doesn't change average annual temperatures ... what we lose at one solstice we gain back at the other, and vice versa ...

Earth’s climate system is nonlinear, a seasonal “push” can cascade into a widely felt temperature shift, even if the annual mean solar input stays nearly constant.

 

[BULLDOG]

Did you read his post....? 20 years studying paleoclimate.

Who the f**k are you to assume people only get what they know from the internet. Are you telling me capable people who've worked with data their entire lives are not able to enter this conversation. People who know physics, chemistry, and engineering?

It's no wonder you don't trust anyone else. If your understanding of how the world works is that limited and ignorant, I'd be afraid to try and support my positions too.

Now, you'll begin your patented scorched earth retreat and eventually bow out of the thread.

Do us all a favor and just leave.

He gave no reason to believe he might be anything other than an Instant Internet Expert.

 

[ding]

Odd that you didn't start with that bit of information when I repeatedly ask why you might have any credibility. I guess you just recently remembered that. I haven't been fully forthcoming either. Until now, I never mentioned that I'M BATMAN.

I did.

 

[ReinyDays]

Earth’s climate system is nonlinear, a seasonal “push” can cascade into a widely felt temperature shift, even if the annual mean solar input stays nearly constant.

Start with these "simple calculations" I asked for in post # 569 ...

What do you mean by "nonlinear" ... the issue at hand is equilibrium, any temperature shift in summer will be offset in winter ... you need to explain this "cascading" effect in detail, because it sounds like you're violating the equilibrium laws ... what you've posted are just catchwords strung together like they mean something ...

But please start with the math part ... I'm very curious about "simple calculations" and the results they give ...

 

[forkup]

Start with these "simple calculations" I asked for in post # 569 ...

What do you mean by "nonlinear" ... the issue at hand is equilibrium, any temperature shift in summer will be offset in winter ... you need to explain this "cascading" effect in detail, because it sounds like you're violating the equilibrium laws ... what you've posted are just catchwords strung together like they mean something ...

But please start with the math part ... I'm very curious about "simple calculations" and the results they give ...

post 584

 

[ding]

He gave no reason to believe he might be anything other than an Instant Internet Expert.

You mean besides detailed explanations using empirical climate evidence from the geologic record?

You think everyone is as ignorant about this as you are but that just isn’t the case. It’s almost comical to have a conversation with someone who is proud of his ignorance.

 

[ReinyDays]

What is the real radiative forcing value of CO2?

IPCC has used as radiative forcing value for carbon dioxide (CO2) the equation introduced by Myhre et al. in 1998 even in its latest report AR5. The formula of this equation is: (1) RF = 5.35*ln(C/280) Where RF is radiative forcing in W/m2, and C is the CO2 concentration in ppm. Myhre...

www.climatexam.com

And for the record, when I say it's a simple calculation I mean it's a simple calculation for a mathematician, not me.

No damn mathematician would ever call that a "simple calculation" ... and the fact that these calculations appear to have never been published to the scientific literature tells me no one has done this "simple calculation" ...

That's important because that's the beginning of your premise ... now it's completely falsified and your entire logic has fallen apart ... you're welcome ...

Maybe you too rely to heavily on the scientific expertise of journalists ...

ETA: You're link misquotes the radiative formula ... should be

∆T = (5.35 W/m^2) k ln (COF/COI) [where ∆T=temperature change, k=sensitivity, COi=initial concentration, COf=final concentration]

It's the value of k that's in dispute ... is the climate "sensitive" to CO2, and thus a high value of k (in ºC per (W/m^2)), or is not "sensitive" and have low k? ... thus the four scenarios spread across the range of k values ... which one's the correct simulation depends on what the value of k is ...

ETA2: See that natural log in that equation? ... that alone refutes CCC ...

 

[ding]

The big swings you see in the temperature record (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Little Ice Age, etc.) are driven by orbital changes, ocean circulation shifts, solar and volcanic aerosol forcings, plus local feedbacks, not by massive injections of CO₂. Also note that the spike in CO2, and the spike in temperature at the end of the graph.

No to orbital forcing. Yes to ocean currents. You can ignore one off events. You can ignore gradual changes. Glaciation is an abrupt event.

 

[forkup]

you need to explain this "cascading" effect in detail, because it sounds like you're violating the equilibrium laws

I’m saying that just because two spots share the same average temperature doesn’t mean they’ll get the same snowfall. More snow boosts the ground’s reflectivity, cooling the surface and letting even more snow pile up. It’s a self-reinforcing feedback loop, so starting in equilibrium doesn’t guarantee you’ll stay there.

Does this make sense to you, if it doesn't, I'll try to rephrase

 

[forkup]

No damn mathematician would ever call that a "simple calculation" ... and the fact that these calculations appear to have never been published to the scientific literature tells me no one has done this "simple calculation" ...

That's important because that's the beginning of your premise ... now it's completely falsified and your entire logic has fallen apart ... you're welcome ...

Maybe you too rely to heavily on the scientific expertise of journalists ...

You’re right that radiative forcing isn’t “simple” if you’re deriving it from first‐principles line‐by‐line radiative transfer. But in climate science the term “simple calculation” usually refers to plugging CO₂ concentrations into an already‐published logarithmic fit—namely

RF = 5.35 · ln(C/280)

That coefficient 5.35 W/m² comes straight out of Myhre et al. (1998) and has since been carried through into IPCC reports (AR4, AR5, AR6) because it reproduces the full, complex radiative‐transfer result with remarkable fidelity. Once the fit is established, calculating RF for any given C is literally just taking a log and a multiplication—trivial on a pocket calculator, but underpinned by very sophisticated physics.

As for “never published,” that’s not the case. The original derivation was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Myhre et al. 1998) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL01908, Hansen et al. (1998) did an independent treatment https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.22.12753, and subsequent papers (e.g. Shi 1992, later updates) Past, present and future climatic forcing due to greenhouse gases - Advances in Atmospheric Sciences all made it into the peer‐reviewed literature. What Dr. Ollila has on Climatexam is a blog‐level re‐analysis using public spectral tools (SpectralCalc, MODTRAN), which he hasn’t taken through peer review—but the underlying equation and its validation have been rigorously published and re-validated by dozens of other studies.

In short, calling the RF fit a “simple calculation” is fair once the curve‐fit exists, and the claim that nobody’s ever done it in the scientific literature simply ignores the original Myhre et al. work and its IPCC legacy.

It doesn't seem like you falsified anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The big swings you see in the temperature record (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Little Ice Age, etc.) are driven by orbital changes, ocean circulation shifts, solar and volcanic aerosol forcings, plus local feedbacks, not by massive injections of CO₂. Also note that the spike in CO2, and the spike in temperature at the end of the graph.

The chart makes clear there is no relationship between CO2 changes and temperature changes thus your argument has been refuted.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

But arguments of empirical climate evidence of the geologic record and convective currents only allowing 44% of the entire atmosphere’s GHG effect to warm the surface of the planet do.

Climate Change in the Context of Paleoclimate

Studying the world before thermometers provides a better understanding of future climate concerns.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[ding]

Climate Change in the Context of Paleoclimate

Studying the world before thermometers provides a better understanding of future climate concerns.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Understanding the past is the key to understanding the future.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Climate Change in the Context of Paleoclimate

Studying the world before thermometers provides a better understanding of future climate concerns.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Understanding the past is the key to understanding the future.

 

[ding]

All driven by the northern hemisphere temperature which is driven by heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.