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

[JBG]

Did you make that suggestion to Israel and Hamas too?

Israel and Hamas are hardly two anonymous screen names.

 

[ding]

Israel and Hamas are hardly two anonymous screen names.

What difference does that make?

 

[Crick]

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

View attachment 991019

Because it is not an atmospheric radiative forcing component. It's the same reason this chart doesn't include the tides, the astronomical date or the phase of the moon. I don't really know how to make that any simpler. But you don't need it any simpler, do you. You're perfectly aware that your idea doesn't work, that it doesn't fit the evidence, that NO scientist believes what you claim to believe. I really am convinced that you think your god wants you to stick with this story. Your religious devotion already demonstrates your irrationality. It is the most likely motivation behind your behavior in re this discussion.

 

[ding]

Because it is not an atmospheric radiative forcing component. It's the same reason this chart doesn't include the tides, the astronomical date or the phase of the moon. I don't really know how to make that any simpler. But you don't need it any simpler, do you. You're perfectly aware that your idea doesn't work, that it doesn't fit the evidence, that NO scientist believes what you claim to believe. I really am convinced that you think your god wants you to stick with this story. Your religious devotion already demonstrates your irrationality. It is the most likely motivation behind your behavior in re this discussion.

It's not listed here either.

 

[ding]

Orbital forcing can never cause abrupt climate changes. Not possible. No mechanism for it. There's nothing abrupt about orbital cycles. Orbital cycles are slow changes.

Not so for the ocean though.

 

[Crick]

Orbital forcing can never cause abrupt climate changes. Not possible. No mechanism for it. There's nothing abrupt about orbital cycles. Orbital cycles are slow changes.

Not so for the ocean though.

How could you possibly know since you refused to read any of the many links I provided that explain precisely how it works?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If the United States blocked out the sun that affects the entire planet every country has an interest in our catastrophe. Any nation has a right to deliver a first strike nuclear option to stop us.

 

[Crick]

If the United States blocked out the sun that affects the entire planet every country has an interest in our catastrophe. Any nation has a right to deliver a first strike nuclear option to stop us.

Do you actually think the US or any other nation would do that without consulting with everyone else?

 

[Crick]

The print edition headline of the New York Times apparently (from a Replica Edition which is part of my subscription) is "Scientist Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth" (link). The online edition's headline was apparently edited to say "Meet the Scientist Who Wants to Alter Earth’s Atmosphere." Both have a line underneath the banner saying "Critics say even researching the idea is dangerous." I wonder if the editing was to make the idea seem less maniacal. I wondered if there was a "Satire" section on which to post this as I have seen those on other boards. Excerpt below:

Apparently, people have become so wrapped up in the religion of climate change that they are willing to basically play with very dangerous forces. The article references his remembering the short term effect of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Did lead to a cooling in 1992. Apparently he wants to replicate this idea.

Even with the more mainstream efforts to deindustrialize people are playing with very dangerous forces. There seems to be little regard for the impact upon the average person while the Elites either want to make heroes of themselves or immiserate the middle class and the lower class. This would appear to almost be in the category of psychological derangement, but some very serious people are involved in this. People should really think about what they are potentially doing By upending a functioning industrial society. An Op Ed in the July 31, 2024 Wall Street Journal, Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions (link), written by Bjorn Lomborg lays out a view to which I adhere. Excerpt (article may be paywalled):

Recently I OP'd

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

, which referenced the "vanishing islands."

People need to think for themselves!

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

I wonder if this is how Dyson Spheres get started.

 

[Crick]

No. That's your job. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". My claim is supported by every source you can find.

 

[ding]

How could you possibly know since you refused to read any of the many links I provided that explain precisely how it works?

But I have read them. They don't explain how slow acting orbital changes can cause abrupt climate changes; glacial or deglacial.

Care to explain that?

 

[ding]

How could you possibly know since you refused to read any of the many links I provided that explain precisely how it works?

According to you orbital cycles should be causing the planet to cool, right?

Why does this show solar irradiance as warming instead of cooling?

 

[ding]

They are so fraudulent.

 

[Crick]

According to you orbital cycles should be causing the planet to cool, right?

Why does this show solar irradiance as warming instead of cooling?

View attachment 993949

Are you sure you want to use this graph as a reliable data source?

 

[ding]

Are you sure you want to use this graph as a reliable data source?

I'm using it to show how inconsistent you and they are. Can you not address the question I asked?

According to you orbital cycles should be causing the planet to cool, right?

Why does this graphic show solar irradiance as warming instead of cooling?

 

[Crick]

I'm using it to show how inconsistent you and they are. Can you not address the question I asked?

According to you orbital cycles should be causing the planet to cool, right?

Why does this graphic show solar irradiance as warming instead of cooling?

If you had ever read any of the many sources I gave you on Milankovitch orbital forcing, you would not be asking another stupid question. There are three orbital cycles: eccentricity, obliquity and precession, each with their own periods. Eccentricity is the only one that affects TSI. Obliquity and precession cause regional changes in insolation and thus drive the formation or melting of glaciers. Let's see if you can figure it out from there.

Now then, if you trust that graphic, as you seem to do, what do you have to say about the MUCH larger forcing factor it shows from CO2 and the greenhouse effect than from changes in TSI?

 

[ding]

If you had ever read any of the many sources I gave you on Milankovitch orbital forcing, you would not be asking another stupid question. There are three orbital cycles: eccentricity, obliquity and precession, each with their own periods. Eccentricity is the only one that affects TSI. Obliquity and precession cause regional changes in insolation and thus drive the formation or melting of glaciers. Let's see if you can figure it out from there.

Now then, if you trust that graphic, as you seem to do, what do you have to say about the MUCH larger forcing factor it shows from CO2 and the greenhouse effect than from changes in TSI?

The component in question is solar irradiance. Why is that positive instead of negative if solar forcing is such that the planet should be cooling?

 

[ding]

It seems the farce of solar forcing from orbital changes has been exposed for a lie.

Crick can't keep his lies straight. When it suits him he will say the sun should be causing the planet to be cooling. Then when it doesn't suit his argument he changes it. Sad.

 

[Crick]

It seems the farce of solar forcing from orbital changes has been exposed for a lie.

Crick can't keep his lies straight. When it suits him he will say the sun should be causing the planet to be cooling. Then when it doesn't suit his argument he changes it. Sad.

So, you couldn't figure it out from there. Not really surprising.

Obliquity and precession do not alter the Earth's TSI. None of the three functions are synchronized. It is entirely possible for orbital forcing to cause the planet to cool while TSI increases. I wish you had read some of the source material I provided you so we wouldn't have to waste time dealing with your ignorance.

 

[ding]

So, you couldn't figure it out from there. Not really surprising.

Obliquity and precession do not alter the Earth's TSI. None of the three functions are synchronized. It is entirely possible for orbital forcing to cause the planet to cool while TSI increases. I wish you had read some of the source material I provided you so we wouldn't have to waste time dealing with your ignorance.

Why is solar irradiance positive instead of negative if orbital forcing is such that the planet should be cooling?