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

[forkup]

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

I love how everybody seems to insist that they are capable of refuting something because they claim they did so on a message board. If you want to refute it, publish it in a scientific journal and have it peer reviewed, this by people who actually have expertise in the matter.

At best, what you've shown is that there are other factors affecting climate besides CO2, especially in the short term. Something by the way I don't and never will dispute. It's the same story over and over. "Oh, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", "Oh, it's not unprecedented", "Oh it's been hotter in the past." All so people can deny, minimize or otherwise ignore a very real issue that's already starting to do major economic damage. And why? Because people have become so tribal that once a position on an issue is taken, people will stick with it even if they're literally being burned or blown out of their houses by the thing they claim isn't happening.

The ironic thing is that the very chart you linked shows cataclysmic events that wiped out entire civilizations in an attempt to deny that there is an event with that potential in progress right now.

 

[ding]

RF = 5.35 · ln(C/280)

Which is 1C per doubling of CO2. Not 4.5C.

 

[ding]

I love how everybody seems to insist that they are capable of refuting something because they claim they did so on a message board. If you want to refute it, publish it in a scientific journal and have it peer reviewed, this by people who actually have expertise in the matter.

At best, what you've shown is that there are other factors affecting climate besides, especially in the short term. Something by the way I don't and never will dispute. It's the same story over and over. "Oh, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", "Oh, it's not unprecedented", "Oh it's been hotter in the past." All so people can deny, minimize or otherwise ignore a very real issue that's already starting to do major economic damage. And why? Because people have become so tribal that once a position on an issue is taken, people will stick with it even if they're literally being burned or blown out of their houses by the thing they claim isn't happening.

CO2 is a GHG. 1C per doubling of CO2. Not 4.5C.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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

That's because you wouldn't know a real expert if they jumped up and bit you in the ass.

You seem to think you look for credentials, but I don't see you touting the credentials of the experts. For all you know, they may be psych majors.

Someone demonstrates knowledge.....a lot of it and is able to show facts to back thier positions and they might as well be telling you the formula for LSD. You don't know the difference.

I get that you don't want to put all that time in. Most people don't.

In the meantime, why don't you just shut up about who knows what given that you know so little?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I love how everybody seems to insist that they are capable of refuting something because they claim they did so on a message board. If you want to refute it, publish it in a scientific journal and have it peer reviewed, this by people who actually have expertise in the matter.

At best, what you've shown is that there are other factors affecting climate besides, especially in the short term. Something by the way I don't and never will dispute. It's the same story over and over. "Oh, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", "Oh, it's not unprecedented", "Oh it's been hotter in the past." All so people can deny, minimize or otherwise ignore a very real issue that's already starting to do major economic damage. And why? Because people have become so tribal that once a position on an issue is taken, people will stick with it even if they're literally being burned or blown out of their houses by the thing they claim isn't happening.

The ironic thing is that the very chart you published shows cataclysmic events that wiped out entire civilizations in an attempt to deny that there is an event with that potential in progress right now.

I was responding to YOUR statement:

-Low Greenhouse-Gas Concentrations• CO₂ levels hovered around 260–280 ppm, compared to today’s ~420 ppm. Fewer greenhouse gases meant less heat was trapped, reinforcing the cold.

My chart shows ZERO relationship between CO2 changes and Temperature changes the entire 12,000 years a timespan long enough to bank on.

CO2 doesn't trap anything a fact you glossed over.

The IPCC concentrates most of their endgame on CO2 effect.

 

[ReinyDays]

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

Are you multiplying all this by the cosine of latitude ... I understand the principles you speak of but with the Sun so close to the horizon there's much less solar energy to reflect ... and six months later, equilibrium will return ... if we agree total solar energy is the same, then where's the energy for your feedback loop coming from? ... and we are guarantied equilibrium, unless there's a force acting ... what force is moving this energy into your feedback loop? ...

The angle of the Sun is most important, so we multiply by the cosine of latitude ... and so 0º will always be much more important than 75º ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's because you wouldn't know a real expert if they jumped up and bit you in the ass.

You seem to think you look for credentials, but I don't see you touting the credentials of the experts. For all you know, they may be psych majors.

Someone demonstrates knowledge.....a lot of it and is able to show facts to back thier positions and they might as well be telling you the formula for LSD. You don't know the difference.

I get that you don't want to put all that time in. Most people don't.

In the meantime, why don't you just shut up about who knows what given that you know so little?

The fool doesn't seem to realize that Dr. Hansen was a trained astronomer, who started the bogus CO2 rise is causing a big warming trend back in 1988 that can spiral out of control via the never found Positive Feedback Loop, that Al Gore never finished college certainly doesn't show any science acumen as he made numerous prediction failures and his dishonest CO2 rise presentations back two decades decade would cause catastrophic warming trend which hasn't begun to show up.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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.

Yep....this is what I was talking about....scorched earth looking for an exit. His general pattern.

ding has presented that information on about 100 threads in which I've participated. All the same players are there, even you. You just seem to have a selective memory. Most of us keep posters in context. For example:

I know that ding has gone round and round with the best of them and has generally come out on top. People like Old Rocks just fold up once they've been data'ed to pieces. ding's got a lot of knowledge around the past and has all kinds of charts and graphs to back it up.

I know that EMH is pretty hard-headed and collides with anyone who does not agree with him on everything. In spite of that, he's got a lot of knowledge of the earths workings, the past and weaves it together pretty well. He also is formidable arguer for no temperature rise. I have not had time to sort through all the arguments (and my questions generally get me called names.....so I quit), but he presents a lot of stuff.

EMH and ding don't agree on a great deal. But they both know a great deal.

schmidlap does not know crap about science. He simply parrots the bs of the alarmist crowd, touts the "experts" and can't tell you anything technical about climate change. In short, he's a sycophant that feels the need to belittle people who actually know something despite the fact that he knows nothing....and so far he only demonstrated he knows nothing. He can't talk about it. He simply blathers his little meme about "experts" and "Trump" and whatever bs crawled in his ear that day.

And you are like schmidcrap. Blah blah blah blah blah...experts.

 

[forkup]

I was responding to YOUR statement:



My chart shows ZERO relationship between CO2 changes and Temperature changes the entire 12,000 years a timespan long enough to bank on.

CO2 doesn't trap anything a fact you glossed over.

The IPCC concentrates most of their endgame on CO2 effect.

If you show a chart spanning twelve thousand years, taken from a single ice core. Both your sample size is to small and regional and time span are too short to reach a conclusion. For instance, the Minoan warming is literally attributed to a volcanic eruption.

As for your claim. I always bring up Venus. Venus without its atmosphere would be minus 44 degrees. It is however a balmy 464 degrees. Want to guess why?

 

[ReinyDays]

That coefficient 5.35 W/m² comes straight out of Myhre et al. (1998)

No it doesn't ... here's the link to the abstract: Myhre et al (1998) ...

Did you read this ... because it says your wrong ..."The model fully fits the empirical data and an analytical equation is given for the atmospheric behavior. Upper limits are found for the greenhouse effect ranging from zero to a couple of mK per ppm CO2. It is shown that it cannot explain the observed correlation of carbon dioxide and surface temperature." ...
[Emphasis mine]

1000 ppm per degree Celsius ... [shakes head] ...

 

[forkup]

Are you multiplying all this by the cosine of latitude ... I understand the principles you speak of but with the Sun so close to the horizon there's much less solar energy to reflect ... and six months later, equilibrium will return ... if we agree total solar energy is the same, then where's the energy for your feedback loop coming from? ... and we are guarantied equilibrium, unless there's a force acting ... what force is moving this energy into your feedback loop? ...

The angle of the Sun is most important, so we multiply by the cosine of latitude ... and so 0º will always be much more important than 75º ...

I see your point about fixed annual insolation via the cosine of latitude. But when snow cover increases, you raise the surface albedo, so more of that same sunlight gets reflected and less is absorbed. In energy-budget terms, Net Absorbed = I·cos φ·(1 − α). A small rise in α immediately reduces net absorption. Over consecutive seasons, that persistent reduction accumulates cooler ground temperatures, allowing even more snow to linger. The energy driving the feedback isn’t ‘new’, it’s the same solar input redistributed by a changing albedo

 

[HikerGuy83]

I love how everybody seems to insist that they are capable of refuting something because they claim they did so on a message board.

The are quite capable of presenting counter arguments and alternative arguments. If you feel capable of evaluating them, go ahead. I am still sorting it all out. It's not simple.

There is also the question of why? We are not stopping the use of fossil fuels and China/India are ramping up.

If you want to refute it, publish it in a scientific journal and have it peer reviewed, this by people who actually have expertise in the matter.

Why bother. When a key meteorologist from the weather channel (who really isn't that all that bright) calls for decertification of any weatherman who doesn't support global warming (caused by humans), you know the game is rigged. Most of the so-called scientists who publish and review shoddy work, are in the hunt for more U.S. dollars.

At best, what you've shown is that there are other factors affecting climate besides CO2, especially in the short term.

If you say so.

It's the same story over and over. "Oh, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", "Oh, it's not unprecedented", "Oh it's been hotter in the past."

All of which are true. Which part of that bothers you?

All so people can deny, minimize or otherwise ignore a very real issue that's already starting to do major economic damage.

You just started a sentence with "It's the same old story....." and guess what we got here.......

Because people have become so tribal that once a position on an issue is taken, people will stick with it even if they're literally being burned or blown out of their houses by the thing they claim isn't happening.

Well, it's one way to look at it. Some people simply don't like crappy science or "political science".

And that's what the alarmists have done to the whole argument. They started screaming and yelling 50 years ago and people have become so numb to them, that anything real is getting tossed out with the rest of the sillyness. It's sad because it could be a great conversation.

But here we are.

If we are burned to the ground......we are burned to the ground.

Not like other things have not been burned to the ground before that had nothing to do with global warming.

But....who cares anymore ? Right?

 

[EMH]

People like @ding and @EMH, while at odds...both have a very good grasp of the concepts they push

Wow, one of those is 100% right and everything he has posted here is 100% irrefutable, to the point where the other, a lying taxpayer funded Jew Supremacist Cocksucking "Faux Skeptic" CO2 FRAUD Mossad, cannot answer basic climate questions and pushes a theory that translates "water causes ice"..... while 3rd graders might notice water is too warm to do that...

 

[forkup]

No it doesn't ... here's the link to the abstract: Myhre et al (1998) ...

Did you read this ... because it says your wrong ..."The model fully fits the empirical data and an analytical equation is given for the atmospheric behavior. Upper limits are found for the greenhouse effect ranging from zero to a couple of mK per ppm CO2. It is shown that it cannot explain the observed correlation of carbon dioxide and surface temperature." ...
[Emphasis mine]

1000 ppm per degree Celsius ... [shakes head] ...

What you posted isn't from the actual abstract. But from another study that was never adopted by the IPCC.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have read about the misleading Venus claims which has been addressed many times here are a few published science papers showing it is the HIGH atmosphere mass and being much closer to the sun is the main culprit to it being that hot.

You write,

If you show a chart spanning twelve thousand years, taken from a single ice core. Both your sample size is to small and regional and time span are too short to reach a conclusion. For instance, the Minoan warming is literally attributed to a volcanic eruption.

As for your claim. I always bring up Venus. Venus without its atmosphere would be minus 44 degrees. It is however a balmy 464 degrees. Want to guess why?

If you show a chart spanning twelve thousand years, taken from a single ice core. Both your sample size is to small and regional and time span are too short to reach a conclusion. For instance, the Minoan warming is literally attributed to a volcanic eruption.

As for your claim. I always bring up Venus. Venus without its atmosphere would be minus 44 degrees. It is however a balmy 464 degrees. Want to guess why?

LOL, it is a HIGH RESOLUTION ice core dataset published by Dr. Alley that goes back many thousands of years, LINK

Meanwhile,

New Studies Claim The More CO2 In The Venus Atmosphere The Colder It Gets​

Early Venus is suggested to have been much colder – and thus habitable – due to higher concentrations of CO2…because CO2 drives cooling in most of the Venus atmosphere (stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere).​

LINK

===

The two predominant reasons why the Venus surface-troposphere is so much hotter than Earth’s surface-troposphere are (1) its closer proximity to the Sun and (2) its 92 times greater atmospheric mass. The higher atmospheric mass modulates the surface temperature as it “increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere” (Chemke and Kaspi, 2017).
===

Visible wavelengths, only 5% of the sunlight reaches the surface of Venus.

The troposphere of Venus does not receive sunlight at wavelengths below 400 nanometres, since the UV is absorbed by SO2 and the aerosols in the cloud layer.

 

[forkup]

All of which are true. Which part of that bothers you?

The part where these true statements are used as a justification for trying to avoid minimizing the damage that rapid climate change causes.

Well, it's one way to look at it. Some people simply don't like crappy science or "political science".

The only place it's "political" or "crappy" is in Republican circles. The rest of the world has long since accepted that the climate is changing, it's changing rapidly, and people should try to mitigate its consequences.

 

[EMH]

He also is formidable arguer for no temperature rise. I have not had time to sort through all the arguments (and my questions generally get me called names.....so I quit), but he presents a lot of stuff.

"a lot of stuff" = the ACTUAL data, not the fudge...

What did the actual satellite and balloon data show about atmospheric "warming" before being fudged in 2005?

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.



Surface Air Pressure is correlated with temperature. Mars and its highly elliptical orbit proves it...

Earth Surface Air Pressure for the past 70 years is, like the actual highly correlated satellite and balloon data, microscopically down... but not up, and if it is not up then

Earth not warming
Earth not experiencing and ongoing net ice melt


Water - they say oceans are warming.... but hurricanes are not breaking out... strongest decade for canes still the 1940s, second place the 1890s.... that ACTUAL DATA problem again, they can FUDGE ocean temp data, they cannot fudge this...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Can they show us a photo of "ocean rise?" NO

The ACTUAL OCEAN (aka DATA) is NOT RISING....


All CO2 FRAUD has ever had is Urban Heat Island Effect.... there is no other warming in any other organic unfudged data, NONE.

 

[Genevieve]

MSN

While there are varying meteorological forces behind this month’s extreme rainfall, what has connected them all is significant amounts of atmospheric moisture pulsing above the country.

It is flowing from abnormally warm oceans across the Northern Hemisphere that are likely to stretch elevated flood risks into August, data shows — perhaps into record territory. The conditions are allowing plumes of tropical moisture to stretch into middle latitudes and stagnate there, sending flood risks surging and exemplifying a critical consequence of rising global temperatures that researchers have been predicting and tracking for decades.

Scientist have been warning for decades about climate change. As oceans warm, the added moisture in the atmosphere will lead to more super storms. The repub party has called it lies and propped up their "experts" to refute the science. We can expect to see extreme weather episodes going forward and that will lead to more loss of life and property. Insurance rates are already skyrocketing in parts of the country where these weather extremes are prevalent. We may be too late to change course.

Climate Change is what happens on our planet.

It is what it is. Human beings have very little effect on the fluctuations of Earth's climate.

I do wish we would find some way to dispose of our plastic trash. As much as I love things made of plastic, I hate the idea of plastic trash islands out in the middle of our beautiful oceans.

 

[forkup]

HIGH atmosphere mass and being much closer to the sun is the main

Again, without it's atmosphere it would be minus 44 degrees. Earth would be minus 18 for comparison so the difference is 26 degrees. As for high atmosphere mass. By what means would it increase heat. Atmospheres are open systems.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The part where these true statements are used as a justification for trying to minimize the damage that rapid climate change causes.

The only place it's "political" or "crappy" is in Republican circles. The rest of the world has long since accepted that the climate is changing, it's changing rapidly, and people should try to mitigate its consequences.

What damage are you referring to since I have posted official data many times showing no major trend changes and there are only 5 official climates known and NONE of them are changing even my Eastern Washington region remain the same the entire interglacial period known as BSk

Köppen climate classification​

The Köppen climate classification divides Earth climates into five main climate groups, with each group being divided based on patterns of seasonal precipitation and temperature. The five main groups are A (tropical), B (arid), C (temperate), D (continental), and E (polar).

LINK

=======

You are being hyperbolic here and dishonest and false too.