U. of Chi. Professor and "Scientist" Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth

[ding]

Your grasp of reality is getting weaker and weaker and weaker. I really think you need to have a talk with your doctor about this.

If orbital forcing is so important in controlling earth's climate, why isn't it listed here?

 

[Crick]

If orbital forcing is so important in controlling earth's climate, why isn't it listed here?

View attachment 991019

Can you read? "Contribution to (a) effective radiative forcing (ERF) and (b) global surface temperature change from COMPONENT emissions for 1750 - 2019".

All the items in this graphic are components of the Earth's atmosphere.

Try, try again. Or be smart for once and give it the fuck up.

 

[ding]

Can you read? "Contribution to (a) effective radiative forcing (ERF) and (b) global surface temperature change from COMPONENT emissions for 1750 - 2019".

All the items in this graphic are components of the Earth's atmosphere.

Try, try again. Or be smart for once and give it the fuck up.

Thus proving my point. Orbital forcing is so unimportant in controlling earth's climate, it's not listed there.

#GAMEOVER

 

[Crick]

Thus proving my point. Orbital forcing is so unimportant in controlling earth's climate, it's not listed there.

#GAMEOVER

You think it's significant that orbital forcing on a complex period tens of thousands of years long isn't listed as a radiative atmospheric component since 1750? You're so stupid I don't know what to say. I don't need to say a damned thing. You make it perfectly clear, all by your little lonesome, post after post after post, that you haven't got the brains god give a rubber duck.

 

[Natural Citizen]

 

[ding]

You think it's significant that orbital forcing on a complex period tens of thousands of years long isn't listed as a radiative atmospheric component since 1750? You're so stupid I don't know what to say. I don't need to say a damned thing. You make it perfectly clear, all by your little lonesome, post after post after post, that you haven't got the brains god give a rubber duck.

It's odd that something that is supposed to cause abrupt climate changes isn't listed as a radiative forcing component at all.

 

[Crick]

It's odd that something that is supposed to cause abrupt climate changes isn't listed as a radiative forcing component at all.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[ding]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I love truth and hate lies.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's odd that something that is supposed to cause abrupt climate changes isn't listed as a radiative forcing component at all.

Why yes. Yes it is...

 

[Crick]

Why yes. Yes it is...

Someone else who doesn't have the faintest fuck of an idea what he's talking about.

 

[ding]

Someone else who doesn't have the faintest fuck of an idea what he's talking about.

50 million years of empirical climate evidence from the geologic record says you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. It's only a matter of time before colder temperatures upset your apple cart.

 

[Crick]

50 million years of empirical climate evidence from the geologic record says you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. It's only a matter of time before colder temperatures upset your apple cart.

The current point of debate is your claim that IPCC table TS.15: Radiative Forcing Components of the Earth's atmosphere would have had Milankovitch orbital forcing on it if it had any meaningful effect. Now you are simply ignoring the point that orbital forcing is not a component of the Earth's atmosphere. This is something you do a lot. When someone brings up irrefutable evidence that some claim of yours is just out and out batshit nonsense, you pretend they never said a thing. In fact, you will TELL US we never said it when its sitting on thos board two posts up. You've got some serious problems. That you're as stupid as a rock may be the least of your issues.

 

[ding]

The current point of debate is your claim that IPCC table TS.15: Radiative Forcing Components of the Earth's atmosphere would have had Milankovitch orbital forcing on it if it had any meaningful effect. Now you are simply ignoring the point that orbital forcing is not a component of the Earth's atmosphere. This is something you do a lot. When someone brings up irrefutable evidence that some claim of yours is just out and out batshit nonsense, you pretend they never said a thing. In fact, you will TELL US we never said it when its sitting on thos board two posts up. You've got some serious problems. That you're as stupid as a rock may be the least of your issues.

My point is that orbital cycles don't have a meaningful effect on the planet's climate. And that idiots like you use them to suit your purposes when you need to discredit the ocean as the real culprit behind abrupt climate changes and warming and cooling trends within abrupt climate changes.

Landmass distributions, ocean currents and glaciation thresholds of each pole can explain everything which has happened for the last 50 million years.

 

[Crick]

My point is that orbital cycles don't have a meaningful effect on the planet's climate. And that idiots like you use them to suit your purposes when you need to discredit the ocean as the real culprit behind abrupt climate changes and warming and cooling trends within abrupt climate changes.

Landmass distributions, ocean currents and glaciation thresholds of each pole can explain everything which has happened for the last 50 million years.

So you believe that authors of the articles on that search page are idiots. That would include Google AI, National Center for Environmental Information, NOAA, the American Geophysical Union, Utah Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, US Forest Service, Science Direct.com, Columbia University, Carbon Brief.com, Wikipedia, Georgia State University, Florida Atlantic University (my alma mater), American Museum of Natural History AND MORE. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM STATES THAT THE GLACIAL-INTERGLACIAL CYCLE IS DRIVEN BY MILANKOVITCH ORBITAL FORCING.

 

[ding]

So you believe that authors of the articles on that search page are idiots. That would include Google AI, National Center for Environmental Information, NOAA, the American Geophysical Union, Utah Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, US Forest Service, Science Direct.com, Columbia University, Carbon Brief.com, Wikipedia, Georgia State University, Florida Atlantic University (my alma mater), American Museum of Natural History AND MORE. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM STATES THAT THE GLACIAL-INTERGLACIAL CYCLE IS DRIVEN BY MILANKOVITCH ORBITAL FORCING.

If they use them to suit their purpose like you are doing to discredit the ocean's role in the planet's climate, yes. That would make them idiots.

 

[ding]

There is a zero chance probability that orbital cycles can be responsible for ABRUPT climate changes. None, zero, nada, zilch.

There is no mechanism for that whatsoever.

 

[Crick]

There is a zero chance probability that orbital cycles can be responsible for ABRUPT climate changes. None, zero, nada, zilch.

There is no mechanism for that whatsoever.

Neither I nor any of those experts ever said it was. That's YOU trying to throw up a straw man argument. I've never heard anyone characterize the glacial-interglacial cycle as "abrupt climate changes". So, do you think all those people are idiots? Do you think you know the topic better than they do? Do you think you're smarter than all those actively researching and publishing PhDs? Or are you willing to entertain the thought that you might be wrong?

 

[JBG]

Thus proving my point. Orbital forcing is so unimportant in controlling earth's climate, it's not listed there.

#GAMEOVER

Can you read? "Contribution to (a) effective radiative forcing (ERF) and (b) global surface temperature change from COMPONENT emissions for 1750 - 2019".

All the items in this graphic are components of the Earth's atmosphere.

Try, try again. Or be smart for once and give it the fuck up.

Why don't the two of you play rock paper scissors somewhere?

 

[ding]

Neither I nor any of those experts ever said it was. That's YOU trying to throw up a straw man argument. I've never heard anyone characterize the glacial-interglacial cycle as "abrupt climate changes". So, do you think all those people are idiots? Do you think you know the topic better than they do? Do you think you're smarter than all those actively researching and publishing PhDs? Or are you willing to entertain the thought that you might be wrong?

That's how little you know. You don't believe these were abrupt climate changes? How much more abrupt do they need to be for you to consider them to be abrupt climate changes.

Collapse and rapid resumption of Atlantic meridional circulation linked to deglacial climate changes​

"...The record indicates that rapid accelerations of the meridional overturning circulation were concurrent with the two strongest regional warming events during deglaciation. These results confirm the significance of variations in the rate of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation for abrupt climate changes..."

Collapse and rapid resumption of Atlantic meridional circulation linked to deglacial climate changes - Nature

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation is widely believed to affect climate. Changes in ocean circulation have been inferred from records of the deep water chemical composition derived from sedimentary nutrient proxies1, but their impact on climate is difficult to assess because such...

www.nature.com

 

[ding]

Why don't the two of you play rock paper scissors somewhere?

Did you make that suggestion to Israel and Hamas too?