Why does the greenhouse effect only work in one direction?

[Old Rocks]

i'm still waiting for a warmer to prove CO2 heats the earth. They can't say how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is. So does it heat, or do plants just eat it.

That was proven by John Tyndall in 1859. Sorry that you are such an ignorant SOB.

 

[Old Rocks]

And Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann.

Gotta love it when you dumbies with less than a grade school science education think that you know far more than most of the scientists in the world. LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gotta love it when you dumbies with less than a grade school science education think that you know far more than most of the scientists in the world. LOL

I'd never claim to know more than Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.

 

[jc456]

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, causing increasingly disruptive societal and ecological impacts. Such impacts are creating hardships and suffering now, and they will continue to do so into the future - in ways expected as well as potentially unforeseen. To limit these impacts, the world’s nations have agreed to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.

prove it. It must be simple to do, since you're so sure.

 

[jc456]

That was proven by John Tyndall in 1859. Sorry that you are such an ignorant SOB.

so he wrote down how hot CO2 gets? great, post it.

 

[ding]

That was proven by John Tyndall in 1859. Sorry that you are such an ignorant SOB.

He didn't prove that slowing the transfer of heat from the earth's surface to outer space warms the planet. The best you can say is that he proved that the atmosphere should be warmer because the atmosphere slows or delays the transfer of heat to outer space.

CO2 at best is a minor contributor to the GHG effect. It has never shown to drive climate changes on earth. That is the leap in logic that I dispute. That CO2 is driving climate change on earth.

 

[jc456]

He didn't prove that slowing the transfer of heat from the earth's surface to outer space warms the planet. The best you can say is that he proved that the atmosphere should be warmer because the atmosphere slows or delays the transfer of heat to outer space.

CO2 at best is a minor contributor to the GHG effect. It has never shown to drive climate changes on earth. That is the leap in logic that I dispute. That CO2 is driving climate change on earth.

they act like CO2 controls pressure systems. Just don't. One day it's ten degrees warmer or ten degrees cooler. Due to pressure systems. Cold fronts, shit, they can't answer one simple question, how hot is this supposed 120 PPM extra.

 

[ding]

they act like CO2 controls pressure systems. Just don't. One day it's ten degrees warmer or ten degrees cooler. Due to pressure systems. Cold fronts, shit, they can't answer one simple question, how hot is this supposed 120 PPM extra.

By my calculations... 1.43 deg C

Which we have not seen. Using the highest pre-industrial temperature as the benchmark, we have seen a 0.8 deg C increase over the last 1000 years. In other words, not much.

 

[Crick]

That's cherrypicking.

From NOAA:

• 2020 was the second-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data, and land areas were record warm.
• Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14˚F (1.19˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).
• Despite a late-year La Niña event that cooled a wide swath of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2020 came just 0.04˚ Fahrenheit (0.02˚Celsius) shy of tying 2016 for warmest year on record.
• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.
• The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.
• From 1900 to 1980 a new temperature record was set on average every 13.5 years; from 1981–2019, a new record was set every 3 years.

 

[ding]

That's cherrypicking.

From NOAA:

• 2020 was the second-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data, and land areas were record warm.
• Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14˚F (1.19˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).
• Despite a late-year La Niña event that cooled a wide swath of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2020 came just 0.04˚ Fahrenheit (0.02˚Celsius) shy of tying 2016 for warmest year on record.
• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.
• The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.
• From 1900 to 1980 a new temperature record was set on average every 13.5 years; from 1981–2019, a new record was set every 3 years.

What's cherry picking?

Why wouldn't you pick the highest possible pre-industrialization temperature as a benchmark?

Because to me picking the coldest possible pre-industrialization temperature is cherry picking if you are trying to prove man made climate change?

And why do you people keep ignoring urbanization and deforestation? Those are very real man made effects. Is it because there's no money to be made from halting urbanization and deforestation?

 

[cnm]

And why do you people keep ignoring urbanization and deforestation? Those are very real man made effects.

Entirely independent of CO2 of course.

 

[ding]

Entirely independent of CO2 of course.

Actually... yes. Different mechanism. Albedo.

 

[cnm]

Actually... yes. Different mechanism. Albedo.

Sure. Deforestation.

 

[ding]

Sure. Deforestation.

And urbanization.

 

[Crick]

What's cherry picking?

Why wouldn't you pick the highest possible pre-industrialization temperature as a benchmark?

Because to me picking the coldest possible pre-industrialization temperature is cherry picking if you are trying to prove man made climate change?

And why do you people keep ignoring urbanization and deforestation? Those are very real man made effects. Is it because there's no money to be made from halting urbanization and deforestation?

View attachment 534221

It is cherry picking to select a temperature based on its value rather than one based on time or some other independent parameter. The idea was to see how much human CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution had pushed up the Earth's average temperature. If you want to select a specific temperature from the past, you aren't 'discovering' what the increase was, you're specifying the answer in advance. We do not ignore deforestation and land use changes. Their impact has been thoroughly discussed in every single IPCC Assessment Report. I frequently add deforestation as one of the components of anthropogenic warming. And, as others here like to point out, our increasing emissions and our increasing deforestation are all a result of our increasing population. Perhaps that is what we ought to be talking about first. But, in any case, it is bad logic to argue that we have to address one and not the other. We can address all of them at the same time. We HAVE to address all of them at the same time. There's enough cleverness around to solve these issues. The trouble is that cleverness gets swamped down by the fear and ignorance of the folks that can't seem to address a problem any further off than next week and a mile down the road.

 

[ding]

It is cherry picking to select a temperature based on its value rather than one based on time or some other independent parameter. The idea was to see how much human CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution had pushed up the Earth's average temperature. If you want to select a specific temperature from the past, you aren't 'discovering' what the increase was, you're specifying the answer in advance. We do not ignore deforestation and land use changes. Their impact has been thoroughly discussed in every single IPCC Assessment Report. I frequently add deforestation as one of the components of anthropogenic warming. And, as others here like to point out, our increasing emissions and our increasing deforestation are all a result of our increasing population. Perhaps that is what we ought to be talking about first. But, in any case, it is bad logic to argue that we have to address one and not the other. We can address all of them at the same time. We HAVE to address all of them at the same time. There's enough cleverness around to solve these issues. The trouble is that cleverness gets swamped down by the fear and ignorance of the folks that can't seem to address a problem any further off than next week and a mile down the road.

No. It is cherry picking to pick a lower temperature during an interglacial cycle as the benchmark for a pre-industrialized reference point. You people keep ignoring natural variability of the earth's climate.

It's convenient to pick a lower temperature. The IPCC has a nasty habit of playing games with data.

 

[Crick]

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the logical error you're making, perhaps you ought to just drop out of this conversation. We're not picking a temperature, we're picking a fucking DATE.

 

[ding]

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the logical error you're making, perhaps you ought to just drop out of this conversation. We're not picking a temperature, we're picking a fucking DATE.

A date that is not representative of the maximum temperature of an interglacial cycle prior to effects of man.

It's a totally arbitrary date and does not properly represent the maximum temperature we would expect nature to produce during an interglacial period absent the influence of man.

 

[Crick]

Your primary interest seems to be in GLACIAL CYCLES. Free free, when talking about GLACIAL CYCLES, to pick whatever date or temperature get's your panties in a wad. But, if you ever want to talk about the anthropogenic global warming since the Industrial Revolution, you get to use the date of the Industrial Revolution and no others else I will call you out for the ignorant, cherry-picking fool you so VERY closely resemble.

 

[ding]

Your primary interest seems to be in GLACIAL CYCLES. Free free, when talking about GLACIAL CYCLES, to pick whatever date or temperature get's your panties in a wad. But, if you ever want to talk about the anthropogenic global warming since the Industrial Revolution, you get to use the date of the Industrial Revolution and no others else I will call you out for the ignorant, cherry-picking fool you so VERY closely resemble.

Not exactly. My interest is climate. And to understand where our climate is going, I must know where it has come from and what drove those changes.

Sorry but I disagree with your arbitrary date. There were no anthropogenic influences in the year 1000. And that is the warmest temperature that can be used as a benchmark for WARMING. Natural or otherwise.

Picking 1750 is convenient cherry picking. It's consistent with your fearmongering over weather events.

Now that you mention it... including temperature readings from urban areas skews the analysis of anthropogenic global warming such that you aren't getting a true reading on the effects of CO2 because you are including the effect of urbanization (the concrete jungle) and blaming CO2 for all of it.