-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
..... if clouds magically balanced climate then how would the Earth have glacial periods?
The orbital variation is the trigger but the change in solar insolation is a rounding error... orders of magnitude too small for a 10C swing. Think you can tell me which non-condensible GHG changes in concentration?
Because life flourished on earth with much higher CO2 concentration than now. If there was a runaway positive feedback event in the past like you are fearmongering about today, we would have already burnt to a crisp. Negative feedbacks prevent that from happening.
Climate Change Denial
I assume these are insults. Doesn’t work mate, I’m not from your parts and don’t start spluttering spittle on my keyboard at the mention of ‘liberals’ or ‘conservatives’. Sorry. I am simply pointing out that comparing the issue of cigarettes to fossil fuels makes no sense at all.
teslamotorsclub.com
To repeat....
Except you dont prefer engineers and scientists, since these are the very people saying global warming is real, and is caused by man-made emissions from fossil fuels. And you incessantly pepper your replies with pejorative assertions about others having a political agenda when they are simply making factual arguments. In fact, it is you who are ignoring the scientists, and you who are advancing a political agenda, which is the total opposite of your claim.
GHG have very little to no affect on the glacial or interglacial periods.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You're making assumptions in contradiction to all available evidence.
..... so what causes them? Not the trigger.... the driver. What changes to cause the atmosphere to retain so much more heat?
I answered your question. Why can't you answer mine? Think you can tell me which non-condensible GHG changes in concentration?
If you think all scientists and engineers are singing from the same human-caused global warming hymn, you are flat-out wrong!
Climate Change Denial
I assume these are insults. Doesn’t work mate, I’m not from your parts and don’t start spluttering spittle on my keyboard at the mention of ‘liberals’ or ‘conservatives’. Sorry. I am simply pointing out that comparing the issue of cigarettes to fossil fuels makes no sense at all.
To repeat....
Except you dont prefer engineers and scientists, since these are the very people saying global warming is real, and is caused by man-made emissions from fossil fuels. And you incessantly pepper your replies with pejorative assertions about others having a political agenda when they are simply making factual arguments. In fact, it is you who are ignoring the scientists, and you who are advancing a political agenda, which is the total opposite of your claim.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
~97% do. And the other ~3% have no alternative explanation for the ovservations. Like why is Venus hotter than Mercury, what drives glacial periods and why is the ocean accumulating ~2E22J/yr of additional heat.
I already told you that you are making a mountain out of the "non-condensable (condensible as you say) GHG" molehill. CO2 is a minor GHG.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
ok.... so answer the questions....
.... so what causes them? Not the trigger.... the driver. What changes to cause the atmosphere to retain so much more heat?
I answered your question. Why can't you answer mine? Think you can tell me which non-condensible GHG changes in concentration?
You bought that stupid-ass John Cook Skeptical Science Crap? Allow me to present to you where that 97% bullcrap study came from.
The Truth about Skeptical Science
Source: Skeptical Science Forums Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist , John Cook (who ...
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You bought that stupid-ass John Cook Skeptical Science Crap? Allow me to present to you where that 97% bullcrap study came from.
The Truth about Skeptical Science
Source: Skeptical Science Forums Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist , John Cook (who ...www.populartechnology.net
Or... 100% of professional organizations and accredited universities if you prefer a more symmetric number
What changes occur that drive inter-glacial periods?
Why are you dodging?
- What prevents heat from radiating directly from the surface into Space?
- Water Vapor? Ok.... water vapor is a feedback... not a forcing. What's the forcing agent keeping the atmosphere warm enough for water vapor?
- The radiative forcing of CO2 is minor? Ok... how minor? 1w/m^2? 1.2? 1.5? What's the measurement?
Last edited:
CO2 follows temperature, not lead it. Right now the Milankovitch Cycles is a strong theory why we have 100,000 year glacial periods.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Ovviously it does initially. It's not the trigger. What changes to drive a warmer climate after a glacial period? Milankovitch Cycles explain the trigger, not the driver. Those orbital cycles are ~100x too small to drive a 10C swing in temperature. What. Changes?
1. Nothing.Or... 100% of professional organizations and accredited universities if you prefer a more symmetric number
What changes occur that drive inter-glacial periods?
Why are you dodging?
Simple questions. Why do you keep dodging them?
- What prevents heat from radiating directly from the surface into Space?
- Water Vapor? Ok.... water vapor is a feedback... not a forcing. What's the forcing agent keeping the atmosphere warm enough for water vapor?
- The radiative forcing of CO2 is minor? Ok... how minor? 1w/m^2? 1.2? 1.5? What's the measurement?
2. The Goldilocks or Habitable Zone - the earth's optimal distance from the sun
3. Different scientists come up with different estimates of CO2 induced flux. Your numbers are in the ballpark. Spencer's is something like that.
Getting a little closer to the sun, something on the order of 94,000,000 miles to 92,000,000 miles.
The oceans were warming. They appear to be starting a cooling trend now.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No. The average distance doesn't change, the Eccentricity does. So the average amount of energy received by the sun annually remains the same. What changes?
Oh you mean like the Permian extinction event where 90+% of living things died because magmatism burned through the Siberian traps coal and sedimentary deposits releasing massive amount of greenhouse gases and raising sea surface temperatures by ~10C and acidifying the ocean?
Initial pulse of Siberian Traps sills as the trigger of the end-Permian mass extinction
At any rate what are these negative feedbacks that you are actually aware of?
Similar threads
- Article
