Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Global Earth Denial - Discuss

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Screen Shot 2019-06-27 at 6.39.21 PM.png
 
So by that graph the sea ice extent is the same as it was on this date in 2012? Kudos to you sir :rolleyes:

So arctic sea ice extent is unchanged over the past 7 years, even while CO2 has gone up from 400 to 415? Oh wait.............o_O:confused::p

Which fact do you think is not true?

1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C.

The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

If there's no warming then why are the oceans expanding?

Screen Shot 2019-07-02 at 2.10.05 PM.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: traxila
Which fact do you think is not true?

1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C.

The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

If there's no warming then why are the oceans expanding?

View attachment 425671
Ok point by point.

1, True
2. Probably true I don't doubt you. Where did the rest go (oh, I know, the oceans ;) )
3. Completely do not agree with this. This implies a MUCH higher ECS than has been observed so far, as well as some improbable scenarios regarding population growth and renewables growth. It is "modeled" BS. Actual, observed ECS is <1.5 C

I'll tell you how: CO2 ALWAYS increases AFTER warming. This has been shown in the paleoclimatic record. This is because the oceans (and water in general) hold much less CO2 when warm then when cold. This is the same reason why your cold beer stays fizzy, but goes flat when warmed.

There is warming, no doubt. You just give attribution to humans. And I give it (mostly) to natural cycles. I agree that sea levels have been rising.................for the past several THOUSAND years. If only fossil fuel CO2 emissions are driving that rise, how do YOU explain the past several thousand years of sea level rise, accompanied by stable CO2 levels?
 
Ok point by point.

1, True
2. Probably true I don't doubt you. Where did the rest go (oh, I know, the oceans ;) )
3. Completely do not agree with this. This implies a MUCH higher ECS than has been observed so far, as well as some improbable scenarios regarding population growth and renewables growth. It is "modeled" BS. Actual, observed ECS is <1.5 C

I'll tell you how: CO2 ALWAYS increases AFTER warming. This has been shown in the paleoclimatic record. This is because the oceans (and water in general) how much less CO2 when warm then when cold. This is the same reason why your cold beer stays fizzy, but goes flat when warmed.

There is warming, no doubt. You just give attribution to humans. And I give it (mostly) to natural cycles. I agree that sea levels have been rising.................for the past several THOUSAND years. If only fossil fuel CO2 emissions are driving that rise, how do YOU explain the past several thousand years of sea level rise, accompanied by stable CO2 levels?

2. Yes... that's why the pH is falling. CO2 + H2O = Carbonic Acid

3. There are literally mountains of data showing this. It's simple energy balance. Physics. This is as certain as 2+2=4. It's a shielding equation. H2O greatly amplifies the effect. H2O alone cannot cause warming because... rain. But you add a forcing with a long atmospheric half-life such as CO2 and more H2O can be in the atmosphere because warmer air can hold more water vapor without it condensing. Not to mention you can directly observe how CO2 blocks IR. Plus..... if CO2 does not cause significant warming... what explains the dramatic climate variation between glacial and inter-glacial. The only plausible forcing is CO2. Hey... if you can explain these cycles without the effect of CO2 you think does not exist... there's probably a noble prize in it.... good luck.

Atmospheric_Transmission.png


Previous sea level rise was likely due to natural variation from the tail end of the last glaciation but the rate of sea level rise has accelerated significantly.... why?

Screen Shot 2019-07-02 at 3.01.15 PM.png
 
2. Yes... that's why the pH is falling. CO2 + H2O = Carbonic Acid

3. There are literally mountains of data showing this. It's simple energy balance. Physics. This is as certain as 2+2=4. It's a shielding equation. H2O greatly amplifies the effect. H2O alone cannot cause warming because... rain. But you add a forcing with a long atmospheric half-life such as CO2 and more H2O can be in the atmosphere because warmer air can hold more water vapor without it condensing. Not to mention you can directly observe how CO2 blocks IR. Plus..... if CO2 does not cause significant warming... what explains the dramatic climate variation between glacial and inter-glacial. The only plausible forcing is CO2. Hey... if you can explain these cycles without the effect of CO2 you think does not exist... there's probably a noble prize in it.... good luck.

Atmospheric_Transmission.png


Previous sea level rise was likely due to natural variation from the tail end of the last glaciation but the rate of sea level rise has accelerated significantly.... why?

View attachment 425690

I understand the physics of radiative forcing from CO2 just fine. You may not however, as CO2 does not block IR. It absorbs it, and then re-emits it in all directions, including back down to earth. The forcing is logarithmic:
upload_2019-7-2_17-23-24.png
But that does not take into account any climate feedbacks that occur as a result of increased CO2 forcing.
And you don't understand those, yet you posit something other than the Null hypothesis to explain it. It's a nice theory though, and easy for people to buy into.

"what explains the dramatic climate variation between glacial and inter-glacial. " How about Milankovitch cycles to start. Then AMO and PDO cycles. Then other things we DO NOT understand. If someone tell you they understand all causes of natural climate variability, they are either a liar, or suffer from a Fatal Conceit.


As for Sea Level rise acceleration, I'll take her thoughts over yours any day: https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/
 
I understand the physics of radiative forcing from CO2 just fine. You may not however, as CO2 does not block IR. It absorbs it, and then re-emits it in all directions, including back down to earth. The forcing is logarithmic: View attachment 425699 But that does not take into account any climate feedbacks that occur as a result of increased CO2 forcing.
And you don't understand those, yet you posit something other than the Null hypothesis to explain it. It's a nice theory though, and easy for people to buy into.

"what explains the dramatic climate variation between glacial and inter-glacial. " How about Milankovitch cycles to start. Then AMO and PDO cycles. Then other things we DO NOT understand. If someone tell you they understand all causes of natural climate variability, they are either a liar, or suffer from a Fatal Conceit.


As for Sea Level rise acceleration, I'll take her thoughts over yours any day: https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/

No. The Milankovitch cycles are the trigger not the driver. Those small orbital shifts are far too small to cause the large changes we observe. What's the driver? If there's a limit to the warming effect of CO2 what explains Venus?

We've been over this 'CO2 effect is saturated' BS before; You know better stop trolling.

'This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxideand water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.

So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

The Greenhouse Effect isn't even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!' - Dana Nuccitelli (Yale Climate)
 
Last edited:
No. The Milankovitch cycles are the trigger not the driver. Those small orbital shifts are far too small to cause the large changes we observe. What's the driver? If there's a limit to the warming effect of CO2 what explains Venus?
SImple, Venus has a very dense atmosphere. If it was CO2 as the driver, then YOU explain Mars please. Hint: Mars has a very thin atmosphere.
 
No. The Milankovitch cycles are the trigger not the driver. Those small orbital shifts are far too small to cause the large changes we observe. What's the driver? If there's a limit to the warming effect of CO2 what explains Venus?

We've been over this 'CO2 effect is saturated' BS before; You know better stop trolling.

'This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxideand water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.

So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

The Greenhouse Effect isn't even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!' - Dana Nuccitelli (Yale Climate)
Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
 
If density was the only criteria then why isn't the bottom of the ocean scalding hot? It's radiative balance. There is no upper limit to the warming effect of CO2.
OK let's play on that. Is the earth always in radiative balance? Or are there times when it naturally (without human influence) absorbs more heat from the sun that is radiated back ?
 

HAHA you don't read real well, do you? That article supports my assertions and refutes yours. From the summary:

In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity
over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon
dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

:Do_O
 
HAHA you don't read real well, do you? That article supports my assertions and refutes yours. From the summary:

In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity
over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon
dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

:Do_O

Fair enough; I failed to check my source thoroughly. It appears this paper is also disputing Milankovitch Cycles which is not the consensus either. Do you really think 'cosmic ray intensity' is causing this?

Screen Shot 2019-07-02 at 3.53.20 PM.png



The paper DOES agree that the orbital shifts CANNOT explain the change in temperature. Unless I missed something else. That paper is an example of starting with a conclusion and working backward. It can't be CO2... lets find something that's less inconvenient. Cosmic Rays!

So... which do you suppose is more probable? Cosmic Rays that somehow sync up with the Earths orbit every time... OR physics works; a slight warming causes CO2 to off-gas from the oceans since warmer water cannot hold as much gas in solution and CO2 then becomes a feedback. Warmer water => More CO2 => Warmer water => more CO2 => warmer water => more CO2.
 
Last edited: