Changes in ocean 'conveyor belt' foretold abrupt climate changes by four centuries

Changes in ocean 'conveyor belt' foretold abrupt climate changes by four centuries
Simplified diagram of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. It carries warm water from the tropics (red arrows) into the North Atlantic, where the water cools and sinks before flowing back south (yellow arrows). This pattern plays an important role in regulating climate in the North Atlantic as well as the rest of the world. Credit: Muschitiello et al., Nature Communications, 2019

In the Atlantic Ocean, a giant 'conveyor belt' carries warm waters from the tropics into the North Atlantic, where they cool and sink and then return southwards in the deep ocean. This circulation pattern is an important player in the global climate, regulating weather patterns in the Arctic, Europe, and around the world. Evidence increasingly suggests that this system is slowing down, and some scientists fear it could have major effects, such as causing temperatures to dive in Europe and warming the waters off the East coast of the United States, potentially harming fisheries and exacerbating hurricanes. (For an over-exaggeration of the potential effects, see the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow.)

A new study published in Nature Communications provides insight into how quickly these changes could take effect if the system continues weakening. Led by scientists at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in collaboration with the Norwegian Research Centre, the study is the first to precisely determine the time lags between past changes to the ocean conveyor belt and major climate changes.

The team studied a key section of the ocean current pattern, known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). They zeroed in on a section where water sinks from the surface to the bottom of the North Atlantic. They confirmed that the AMOC started weakening about 400 years before a major cold snap 13,000 years ago, and began strengthening again about 400 years before an abrupt warming 11,000 years ago.

"Our reconstructions indicate that there are clear climate precursors provided by the ocean state—like warning signs, so to speak," says lead author Francesco Muschitiello, who completed the work as a postdoc at Lamont-Doherty and now works at the University of Cambridge.

Until now, it has been difficult to resolve whether past changes in the ocean conveyor belt occurred before or after the abrupt climate shifts that punctuated the last deglaciation in the Northern Hemisphere. To overcome the usual challenges, the team pieced together data from a sediment core drilled from the bottom of the Norwegian Sea, a lake sediment core from southern Scandinavia, and ice cores from Greenland.

Scientists typically rely on (carbon 14) dating to determine the ages of sediments; measuring how much carbon 14 remains in a fossil reveals how long ago the organism died, and thus how old the surrounding sediment is. This relationship is tricky in ocean sediments, though, because carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere, and it takes time for the carbon to make its way through the ocean. By the time it reaches the organisms at the bottom of the water column, the carbon 14 could already be hundreds or thousands of years old. So the team needed a different way to date the sediment layers in the marine core.

That's why they measured carbon 14 content in a nearby . The ancient layers of the lake contain decaying plants that pulled carbon 14 directly out of the atmosphere, so the scientists could find out the age of each lake sediment layer. Then they used a few techniques to match the lake layers to the marine core layers. Ash layers from two long-ago volcanic eruptions in Iceland helped to line things up. This process gave the team the precise age of each layer in the marine core.

Next, they compared the real age of the marine sediments to the age they were reading from the carbon 14 measurements; the differences between these two gave them an estimate of how long it took for the atmospheric carbon 14 to reach the seafloor. In other words, it revealed how quickly water was sinking in this area, in a process called deep water formation that's essential to keeping the AMOC circulating. Now they had a record of ocean circulation patterns in this region over time.

The final piece of the puzzle was to analyze ice cores from Greenland, to study changes in temperature and climate over the same time period. Measurements of beryllium-10 in the ice cores helped the authors precisely link the ice cores to the 14 records, putting both sets of data on the same timeline. Now they could finally compare the order of events between ocean circulation changes and climatic shifts.

Changes in ocean 'conveyor belt' foretold abrupt climate changes by four centuries
The study finds that changes in AMOC strength (blue line) began hundreds of years before the sharp and abrupt temperature changes over Greenland (red line) that mark the beginning and end of the hemispheric cold snap known as the Younger Dryas period (shown here as a gray column). Credit: Muschitiello et al.

Comparing the data from the three cores revealed that the AMOC weakened in the time leading up to the planet's last major cold snap, called the Younger Dryas, around 13,000 years ago. The ocean circulation began slowing down about 400 years before the cold snap, but once the climate started changing, temperatures over Greenland plunged quickly by about 6 degrees.

A similar pattern emerged near the end of that cold snap; the current started strengthening roughly 400 years before the atmosphere began to heat up dramatically, transitioning out of the ice age. Once the deglaciation started, Greenland warmed up rapidly—its average temperature climbed by about 8 degrees over just a few decades, causing glaciers to melt and sea ice to drop off considerably in the North Atlantic.

"Those [400-year] lags are probably on the long side of what many would have expected," says Anders Svensson, who studies the paleoclimate at the University of Copenhagen, and who was not involved with the current study. "Many previous studies have suggested time lags of various lengths, but few have had the necessary tools to determine the phasing with sufficient accuracy."

Co-author William D'Andrea, a paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty was surprised by what they found—he says the lag times are two or three times greater than he would have expected.

For now it's not fully clear why there was such a long delay between the AMOC changes and climatic changes over the North Atlantic.

It's also difficult to pinpoint what these patterns from the past could signify for Earth's future. Recent evidence suggests that the AMOC began weakening again 150 years ago. However, current conditions are quite different from the last time around, says Muschitiello; the global thermostat was much lower back then, winter sea ice stretched farther south than New York Harbor, and the ocean structure would have been much different. In addition, the past weakening of the AMOC was much more dramatic than today's trend so far.

Nevertheless, D'Andrea says that "if the AMOC were to weaken to the degree it did back then, it could take hundreds of years for major climate changes to actually manifest."

Muschitiello adds, "It is clear that there are some precursors in the ocean, so we should be watching the . The mere fact that AMOC has been slowing down, that should be a concern based on what we have found."

The study should also help to improve the physics behind climate models, which generally assume the climate responds abruptly at the same time as AMOC intensity changes. The model refinements, in turn, could make climate predictions more accurate. As Svensson puts it: "As long as we do not understand the climate of the past, it is very difficult to constrain the models needed to make realistic future scenarios."


Explore further

Ocean circulation in North Atlantic at its weakest

More information: Nature Communications (2019). www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09237-3
Journal information: Nature Communications

Citation: Changes in ocean 'conveyor belt' foretold abrupt climate changes by four centuries (2019, March 20) retrieved 26 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ocean-conveyor-belt-foretold-abrupt.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
3664 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 20, 2019
Nice work, but don't take yourself too seriously. This is way beyond the control of humans.

Mar 20, 2019
The global warmers will call articles like this PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

Mar 20, 2019
I thought that there was another article just recently saying that the Younger Dryas was caused by some global cataclysm, a meteorite or something like that.

Mar 20, 2019
Nice work, but don't take yourself too seriously. This is way beyond the control of humans.

Grandfart always digging deep into the emptyness of the space between his ears to come up with well empty words.
As for This report.
Very well Done, Human Induced Climate Change is Very REAL and Human Induced Climate change CAN be stopped BY humans. Old fart and his gooneys are just to shallow minded(mentally challenged) to understand science.

Mar 20, 2019
"Grandfart always digging deep into the emptyness of the space between his ears to come up with well empty words. "

The irony is excruciating....

As for This report.
Very well Done, Human Induced Climate Change is Very REAL and Human Induced Climate change CAN be stopped BY humans. Old fart and his gooneys are just to shallow minded(mentally challenged) to understand science."

It's hilarious reading propaganda with no physics to support it being regurgitated by people who don't understand why they have their opinion. ( again the irony of this guy using the terms shallow minded and mentally challenged....remarkably funny)

"I can just see you in Nazi Germany goose stepping beside me saying just go along Jerry, go along."

Mar 20, 2019
How disappointing it must have been, to realize the expected effects won't show up for multiple centuries. Take heart, the next ice age will come. It always has.

Mar 20, 2019
No worries people. AOC has a "green" plan to fix the AMOC.

Mar 20, 2019
"It's hilarious reading propaganda with no physics to support it being regurgitated by people who don't understand why they have their opinion."

Yes, there is a physical support:
"The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption."
https://www. americanscientist.org/article/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate

Mar 20, 2019
"Yes, there is a physical support:"

I have challenged many people to do what I am about to you and none have been able to thus far: CO2 absorbs/emits IR wavelengths that are transparent to the atmosphere....how can it heat the atmosphere under those physical circumstances?

If you are going to link a paper, quote the text that specifies the mechanism for getting the heat from CO2 into the atmosphere.

Mar 20, 2019
The AMOC water does not sink in the Norwegian sea (to the bottom). It goes all the way into the Arctic ocean basin before that process begins. The ocean water in the Norwegian sea is about 10C, it does NOT start sinking until it gets to -1.5C and when it gets an extra flush of salt. Where does that happen? Under the sea ice in the Arctic ocean.

If you do not understand how the AMOC actually works, how can you do a study about it.

Mar 20, 2019
@theredpill
and none have been able to thus far
blatantly false claim per the following link
http://www.auburn...ion.html

when presented with the evidence, literally a string of studies *and experiments* that went all the way back to 1896, experiments which directly proved you wrong, you completely ignored the evidence because, according to you, with regard to the science
I said you bought into the bullshit...
you seem to not understand what real evidence is and what you are told is evidence by the authority you appeal to
[2018-11-greenhouse-gas-atmosphere-high]

https://phys.org/...igh.html

https://phys.org/...ope.html

that makes you a liar as well as suffering from conspiracist ideation - proven with your own words

Mar 20, 2019
"theredpill( again the irony of this guy using the terms shallow minded and mentally challenged....remarkably funny)"
Indeed it's funny because it's exceptionally true lol, the deniers have no proof so they resort to pure opinion, and those opinions is hilarious as shown through decades of senseless postings on this site, your clan of puppets regularly comes up with that very propaganda your are talking about, hence you look like the idiotic fool you are when the lone neuron signals to fire your lone motor muscle triggering your dumb finger to press a button on the keyboard ;)

Mar 20, 2019
No worries people. AOC has a "green" plan to fix the AMOC.

When AntiScienceGorilla thinks green, he sees bananas, and immediately thinks of a plan to get some more (which always ends up being to post dumb comments and being rewarded with bananas) But then again, i don't think he formulates a plan, it just comes natural to him...lol

Mar 20, 2019
@theredpill
and none have been able to thus far
blatantly false claim per the following link
http://www.auburn...ion.html

that makes you a liar as well as suffering from conspiracist ideation - proven with your own words


DOH lol... once again the denier clan eagerly promoting their utter stupidity

As always, Well Said Captain !

Mar 20, 2019
Ahhh Captain Stumpy, he who doesn't understand his references well enough to fulfill the simple request of showing that he does, by citing the text in each of the myriad of links he provides.

So once again Captain ,instead of just pasting links to 30 pages of bullshit from your appeals to authority, pick one of your papers and link the portion pertaining to atmospheric temperature rise due to heat sequestered inside CO2 molecules with specific reference to how the heat makes it into the rest of the atmosphere. You have never done this, you never will.

C'mon, put your understanding on display here for the masses and quote some actual scientific text. I have provided a scientific starting point to proceed from....you wandered off in your fog...come back. Show how we get around transparency to IR wavelengths.

As to your personal attack....too many cups of coffee or just not getting anyone to play with the "stump"?

Mar 20, 2019
Holyhelomonelo sock puppet army....LMAO!!!!

Every time I have had to engage someone new here from the mainstream zombie apocalypse it has been hilarious. Thank you for continuing the tradition of demonstrating the pitiful nature of those educated by mainstream propaganda. "As always, well said Captain"...….sounds like we just found someone to sit on the "stump"....LMAO

Mar 20, 2019
@red liar
he who doesn't understand his references well enough
if I didn't understand them well, I would have linked wattsup instead of actual, repeatedly validated studies with experiments

the problem was that you didn't understand the references at all
to fulfill the simple request of showing
moving the goalposts again?

first desire was
present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
I did that (validated study, not "statistical gymnastics"), so you then move it to
in a closed system
but that was already done in the 1800's as well as *other references I provided*, which you ignored, so then it was that the science is
... an appeal to authority
except I was appealing to the evidence, repeatedly validated, so you then moved to
if it doesn't prove CO2 is a furnace
and etc... plenty more dodges and lies from you

It's all in the two above links

Mar 20, 2019
@red cont'd
As to your personal attack....too many cups of coffee or just not getting anyone to play with the "stump"?
there isn't anything I've stated about you that can't be proven or substantiated by links to conversations at this site alone

if you feel slighted, it's likely because of the factual nature of the label bothering you because you know it's true

you have options, so by all means, litigate
I have provided a scientific starting point to proceed from
no, you didn't

you provided your opinion about the science based upon your ignorance and refusal to accept proven validated facts

see first link in my initial post to you

.

my suggestion: instead of reading wattsup idiocy, stick to google scholar and read the references provided

enjoy

Mar 20, 2019
"Every time I have had to engage someone new here from the mainstream zombie apocalypse it has been hilarious"


Nope not at all, it seems science is making hilarious fun out of YOU LMAO, and this is Not the first time
We are Still awaiting your papers, c'mon now's the time to put them on the table, we are waiting ;)

"theredpill said:

.whereas I understand the science
Greenonions replied:
Awesome - could you link to the papers you have published? Also please link to published papers that demonstrate that C02 cannot warm the atmosphere. Here is information on a level I can understand - https://www.lives...rth.html

You see - saying "I understand the science - therefore all other scientists are wrong," - makes you pretty stupid. Saying "I have a lay man's understanding of the science - and therefore go the the doctor when I get sick." - makes me smarter than you.

Now - back to those papers you have had published.

Mar 20, 2019
This is simple stuff.

The Gulf Stream pushes warm water past the US East Coast.

What if it stops?

It gets colder on the US East Coast. And that's merely the beginning of the problems.

This is duhhh. It don't take a rocket scientist. If you let the fire go out it gets colder.

Mar 20, 2019
"present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
I did that (validated study, not "statistical gymnastics")

No..you didn't. You only quoted half of my request, you left off the portion where I asked for the specific text in the paper to demonstrate you understand the science. Because, as noted above, and noted with every time you don't do it...you cannot. You just keep flood posting previous conversations in which you also couldn't do it....which, as funny as it is...accomplishes nothing accept repeated demonstration of your ineptness regarding physics.

Is it your goal to demonstrate complete and utter ineptness? Like the master of 10 socks up there asking me to write scientific papers while he doesn't provide a shred of evidence that he would understand one.

So Captain, will it be a demonstration you do understand the physics or further examples of how much you do not?


Mar 20, 2019
It is a very simple line of logic to follow, The atmosphere cannot absorb heat in the same wavelengths as CO2, AGW claims are that atmospheric temperature will rise due to CO2, therefore a conversion mechanism is required to get the extra heat sequestered by CO2 into the atmosphere in order to make it warm as claimed.

Many papers have been written, peer reviewed and accepted all claiming this will happen, I have not read a single one that actually accomplished the transfer. I am now debating with people who believe this has been accomplished, yet not one can quote a portion of any paper where it is...but they want to keep debating so instead we get Barnum and Bailey still behaving as though there is a sucker born every minute....without realizing it is them. Guys, show you understand physics or keep showing that you don't...your posts are amusing and fun to respond to but true to character, contain nothing but appeals to authority and boneheaded remarks.

Mar 20, 2019
You don't have an ounce of opinion to demand papers when YOU yourself have still not yet provided YOURS, So C'mon we are Waiting. Remember Also to link to published papers that demonstrate that C02 cannot warm the atmosphere.

Mar 20, 2019
The atmosphere cannot absorb heat in the same wavelengths as CO2
WTF? Do you now claim CO2 is not part of the atmosphere?

These idiot deniers will claim anything, whether it makes sense or not.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Mar 20, 2019
You don't have an ounce of opinion to demand papers when YOU yourself have still not yet provided YOURS, So C'mon we are Waiting. Remember Also to link to published papers that demonstrate that C02 cannot warm the atmosphere.

+1 We're waiting...Tic toc Tic toc

Mar 20, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 20, 2019
@theredpill.
CO2 absorbs/emits IR wavelengths that are transparent to the atmosphere....how can it heat the atmosphere under those physical circumstances?
The upgoing infra-red energy absorbed by CO2 is redirected back to Earth's SURFACE (land/water) via RE-RADIATION downwards of said energy; AND ALSO into ATMOSPHERE via VIBRATIONAL energy (heating by contact) transferred directly to OTHER air molecules CO2 is mixing with all the time. :)

Anyhow, ocean conveyor systems re-distribute heat absorbed by the oceans to cooler waters (and to cooler land masses (via warming local/regional air masses by radiation/contact with same) is what prevents EXTREME HOT SPOTS that would (in the absence of such heat redistribution systems) be even more intolerable for human and many other life forms.

The DANGER during TRANSITION from previous TOLERABLE 'normal' to new INTOLERABLE 'normal' climate/heat dynamics: DESTABILISED systems CAUSING HAVOC right NOW.

It's all interconnected.

Mar 20, 2019
ps @theredpill.

In my above post:

- the bit "EXTREME HOT SPOTS" should have read "EXTREME HOT/COLD SPOTS".

- the bit "...redirected back to Earth's SURFACE (land/water)..." should have read "...redirected back to CLOUDS/WATER VAPOUR *and* Earth's SURFACE (land/water)...".

Thanks.


Mar 20, 2019
WTF? Do you now claim CO2 is not part of the atmosphere?


Well, water H2O is 90% of all the green house gases effects. And CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases, not vice versa.

Yes CO2 has an effect, but small relative to water.

Mar 20, 2019
So, the conclusion is that it takes about 400 years to see the large-scale impact caused by overturning circulation in the discussed region. But, there is impact. The paper provides a good evidence. We need to get alerted.

Mar 20, 2019
@Old_C_Code.
WTF? Do you now claim CO2 is not part of the atmosphere?


Well, water H2O is 90% of all the green house gases effects. And CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases, not vice versa.

Yes CO2 has an effect, but small relative to water.
Water vapour has already long been part of the system prior to increased CO2 situation. So this factor of water vapour effects has been taken into account as part of the pre-industrial revolution system. Human industry-caused increases in CO2 started to become a problem during/since industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels....and the Earth's energy balance has been changed since then; so the increased CO2 came FIRST, mate; then AGW became worse the more CO2 in atmosphere. This has been explained to you and other deniers in PO threads before. Did you miss them all? Anyhow, please stop mouthing GOP/Fossil/Russian troll-factory 'propaganda memes' which have long been discredited; as it's not a good look. :)

Mar 20, 2019
@red lying again
You only quoted half of my request, you left off the portion where I asked for the specific text in the paper to demonstrate you understand the science
this is why I left the links, BTW - to show people how you (and the denier movement) move goalposts, lie and then ignore the relevant data while changing the argument

your exact quote and request Nov 27, 2018
Well, if you can present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms at it's disposal to do this that would be definitive proof that it actually does. I have never seen any paper which does this
https://phys.org/...igh.html

it's not rocket surgery - you lied then and you're lying now

.

@OldC
Yes CO2 has an effect, but small relative to water
and, yet again, Lacis et al

Mar 21, 2019
Love it when the deniers gets exposed for who and what they are everytime, of the 2 decades that has gone by on the science forum, this never gets old

Mar 21, 2019
Nice work, but don't take yourself too seriously. This is way beyond the control of humans.


Nobody says it's the control of humans. It's the out-of-control of humans.

Mar 21, 2019
@all (Mainly captain, and RC as you are a little confused)) Physics 101: CO2 traps heat within its molecular boundary, when released the photon vector is random, not always back at the earth.The wavelength can only be re-absorbed by the earth...essentially the heat can bounce back and forth between CO2 and the earth, hence why I keep asking for a mechanism to alter this so that the rest of the atmosphere can share the trapped heat. RC, vibrations do not transmit heat, I would have thought this very simple fact was understood by anyone who claims to understand physics.
@Damsill - people do not get paid to write papers that go against the agenda. But as mentioned above, the CO2 physics is verified and easily findable...even for an idiot like you.

@Captain...24 hours later and still not one demonstration of understanding by linking any text that supports heat from CO2 transferring to the rest of the atmosphere...LMAO...as expected.

Mar 21, 2019
"WTF? Do you now claim CO2 is not part of the atmosphere?

These idiot deniers will claim anything, whether it makes sense or not. "

A thermometer measures overall atmospheric temperature, not 400PPM of it moron. The temperature measured by the thermometer doesn't rise when 1 of these PPM contacts the absorption mechanism. The heat sequestered by CO2 remains there until contact with another CO2 molecule and can only be absorbed by the ground once emitted...if that is the direction of emission.

@monelo and the sock army - Anyone who can read this thread can see that despite a bunch of posturing, not one single AGW huckster can actually demonstrate the heat transfer that must take place for CO2 to heat air...as is claimed. Lotsa chippy back and forths...but as to the science ( we know that part is so far above your head it's painful for you) well...you could repeat "Lacis et al" 30 times without quoting anything they say that supports you...it does get funnier each time.

Mar 21, 2019
@theredpill

Thank you, you seem to be very well versed in thermodynamics !

Mar 21, 2019
"@theredpill

Thank you, you seem to be very well versed in thermodynamics !"

Thank you Technocreed. All one really needs to understand is the issue of transparency vs. absorption. Almost every paper written relies on statistical hijinks where they say X% of the heat radiated away from the earth becomes trapped, therefore that translates into X degrees of additional heat in the earth system. Superficially this would make sense....if the bodies absorbing the heat could share it with the entire system. In this case, they cannot, hence the requests for anyone to quote the part of any paper where this is addressed. As you can see...it hasn't been. There are a lot of things that can absorb the heat in those wavelengths...anything with water or carbon as part of it's composition. Hence why plants love the stuff, it's a "three-for-one" by absorbing the oxygen you need for your processes, heat to help power said processes and carbon to add to your structure. It aint pollution.

Mar 21, 2019

@monelo and the sock army - Anyone who can read this thread can see that despite a bunch of posturing, not one single AGW huckster can actually demonstrate the heat transfer that must take place for CO2 to heat air...as is claimed. Lotsa chippy back and forths...but as to the science ( we know that part is so far above your head it's painful for you) well...you could repeat "Lacis et al" 30 times without quoting anything they say that supports you...it does get funnier each time.

Wrong again Doofus, Anyone that can read is still awaiting your papers, None of your Drivel comes even remotely close to disprove CO2 heating the air, NONE whatsoever, show us your proof, we are STILL waiting,

If you actually had the capability of understanding the mountain of evidence you would actually understand science, clearly a challenging concept for you.
And Yes Indeed it does get funnier each time you and your socks post, the more you type, the more we laugh... keep cracking at it LoL

Mar 21, 2019
@red LIAR
@Captain...24 hours later and still not one demonstration of understanding by linking any text that supports heat from CO2 transferring to the rest of the atmosphere
here is the thousand dollar question: why are you ignoring the studies and physics?

I sent you links and references that directly refute your argument but you then choose to move the goalpost, as noted
repeatedly - as expected

it does get funnier each time, but you can't see it

so here is what I propose: a wager to put your money where your considerable subterranean girth and mouth is

let's allow a party (Antialias_physorg) to hold a sizeable sum paid through paypal
then we reconsider your above statements and previous argument

I will point to specifics in multiple papers leading you down the road of education if you're willing to risk the money

$1,000.00 says I can explain and link plenty of substantiated supporting evidence (again)

Mar 21, 2019
@redpill

Crickets!

Mar 21, 2019
"$1,000.00 says I can explain …."

I provided my portion of the physics for free, you haven't explained jack shit... I would think showing me up by demonstrating you understand physics of heat transfer motivation enough, alas, still nothing.

"Wrong again Doofus, Anyone that can read is still awaiting your papers, None of your Drivel comes even remotely close to disprove CO2 heating the air, NONE whatsoever, show us your proof, we are STILL waiting, "

LMAO.....The air is transparent to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 dumbass. Every paper about CO2 absorption lines flat out states this.

"but you then choose to move the goalpost"

I have made the same request here more times than should be necessary. You keep going on and on and on stating that you trust your appeals to authority but cannot quote one single piece of text from any of them that demonstrates a physical mechanism for CO2 to share it's heat with the atmosphere. Back tomorrow to see the non-answers...

Mar 21, 2019
imagine that - @red Lying again
I provided my portion of the physics for free, you haven't explained jack shit
see: Mar 20, 2019
https://phys.org/...igh.html

https://phys.org/...ope.html

I have made the same request here more times than should be necessary
except that by reading the above Mar 20 post as well as the linked threads I proved you not only moved goalposts but that you ignored the answered question as well as the validated science

not opinion, mind - that can be validated by anyone reading the threads

.

so I guess I will check back later to see if you're willing to fork out cash to be proven wrong, or you'll simply reiterate your same demonstrably false argument of "not one demonstration of understanding"

it does get funnier each time

Mar 21, 2019
@theredpill.
CO2 traps heat within its molecular boundary, when released the photon vector is random, not always back at the earth.
If you've been reading the discussions re CO2 etc over years, you would have seen that this was already covered. The point is that IF the CO2 wasn't there, then all that heat NOW being absorbed by CO2 would have ESCAPED to space. That is the CO2-part of the heat-loss LAGGING effect. It was also long pointed out that solar IR coming down from above is ALSO randomly re-emitted (It's the BALANCE of this dynamics that is changed by CO2 factor).
essentially the heat can bounce back and forth between CO2 and the earth
No, mate. I explained that water vapour/clouds AND ground/water etc absorbs IR (they absorb AND emit IR all the time).
vibrations do not transmit heat,
Your hands on a hotplate feel CONDUCTED 'vibrational' energy, not just radiational.

I suggest you re-do your info; so as to dispel your misunderstandings re this, mate. :)

Mar 21, 2019
@ red , but the air does get warm , its just mass , ?

Mar 21, 2019
@TechnoCreed.
@theredpill

Thank you, you seem to be very well versed in thermodynamics !
Careful, mate; you should check all the relevant physics for yourself via many physics/chemistry educational sources not directly caught up in the politicised global warming debate per se. That is the only way to avoid falling for 'seemingly correct' assertions which actually are not correct in reality. Don't take anyone's words for anything; check and think things through for yourself at all times. Good luck. :)

Mar 21, 2019
"@theredpill

Thank you, you seem to be very well versed in thermodynamics !"

Thank you Technocreed. All one really needs to understand is the issue of transparency vs. absorption. Almost every paper written relies on statistical hijinks where they say X% of the heat radiated away from the earth becomes trapped, therefore that translates into X degrees of additional heat in the earth system. Superficially this would make sense....if the bodies absorbing the heat could share it with the entire system. In this case, they cannot, hence the requests for anyone to quote the part of any paper where this is addressed. As you can see...it hasn't been. There are a lot of things that can absorb the heat in those wavelengths...anything with water or carbon as part of it's composition.

Would you mind explaining to me how heat builds up in a real greenhouse ?

Mar 21, 2019
Dude. Don't be an idiot. Just look it up on Google.

Mar 21, 2019
Once you've Googled it and discover that your an idiot, you might just want to investigate how badly damaged the atmosphere is. It's bad. All of the computer models I'm reading are pointing to worst-case scenarios of greater than 4C by 2100! We are past the carbon no return with coal combustion being the major reason. It's bad. America needs an immediate change to rooftop solar, and electric cars, with a massive investment in renewables to offset the damage we've done to the atmosphere. We also need to lead, and that requires leadership that is not being provided with Trump and his F-troop goons.

Mar 22, 2019
imagine that - @red Lying again

I have made the same request here more times than should be necessary except that by reading the above Mar 20 post as well as the linked threads I proved you not only moved goalposts but that you ignored the answered question as well as the validated science

not opinion, mind - that can be validated by anyone reading the threads

.

so I guess I will check back later to see if you're willing to fork out cash to be proven wrong, or you'll simply reiterate your same demonstrably false argument of "not one demonstration of understanding"

it does get funnier each time

DOH....Captain got him... yet again.. LoL

Mar 22, 2019
@theredpill. CO2 traps heat within its molecular boundary, when released the photon vector is random, not always back at the earth. If you've been reading the discussions re CO2 etc over years, you would have seen that this was already covered. The point is that IF the CO2 wasn't there, then all that heat NOW being absorbed by CO2 would have ESCAPED to space. That is the CO2-part of the heat-loss LAGGING effect. It was also long pointed out that solar IR coming down from above is ALSO randomly re-emitted (It's the BALANCE of this dynamics that is changed by CO2 factor).essentially the heat can bounce back and forth between CO2 and the earth No, mate. I explained that water vapour/clouds AND ground/water etc absorbs IR (they absorb AND emit IR all the time). vibrations do not transmit heat, Your hands on a hotplate feel CONDUCTED 'vibrational' energy, not just radiational.


Probably too much for him to take in let alone stick

Mar 22, 2019
From the article;

"(For an over-exaggeration of the potential effects, see the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow.) "

I would say that is far more than just an "over-exaggeration" because what was shown in The Day After Tomorrow completely broke the known laws of physics which made it consist of a load of crap. The Day After Tomorrow was, just like so many of these so-called 'science' fiction films, a terrible obnoxious moronic third-rate film and not worthy of mention. Although science fiction is supposed to be 'fiction', that is still no excuse for a science fiction film to randomly without constraints break the known laws of physics left right and center.
A science fiction file should only break a known law of physics if when and where it helps with the plot and, if a science fiction film shows a known law of physics being broken, it should at least say so rather than just go as if i.e. pretending that no law has been broken.
Who agrees with me?


Mar 22, 2019
I should also say that The Day After Tomorrow file specifically showed the first law of thermodynamics being broken via the impossible magical sudden drops in temperature; where did all that heat energy suddenly magically vanish to?
And that's not even to mention the mega tsunamis impossibly and magically being somehow generated via global warming which, completely contradictorily, somehow ended up being global cooling! So global warming causes sudden global cooling? How does that physically supposed to work? It makes no sense.
This completely spoilt the film by making the plot of the film STUPID. Who agrees?

Mar 22, 2019
I was not in any way impressed. I thought it was a typical Dennis Quaid movie and was glad I didn't spend any money to watch it. Its biggest problem was the script, which sucked giant green donkey dicks.

Mar 22, 2019
imagine that - @red Lying again
I provided my portion of the physics for free, you haven't explained jack shit
see: Mar 20, 2019
https://phys.org/...igh.html
......HAWW...HEE...HAWW...
it does get funnier each time

Well, we don't call him Cap'n Stumpid, for nothing.
All those "studies" from the AGW Cult, yet Stumpid can't find a single one that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the fabricated doom and gloom, he brays about.

Yep, it does get funnier, each time.

Mar 22, 2019
"Would you mind explaining to me how heat builds up in a real greenhouse ?"
LMAO, they are called "walls" and a "ceiling".
"Dude. Don't be an idiot. Just look it up on Google."
If you have to google that, you shouldn't be here trying to discuss it...like Captain or sock boy...or apparently the ironic moniker of "reality check" who appears to believe you can bring water to a boil by shaking it.
"All those "studies" from the AGW Cult, yet Stumpid can't find a single one that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the fabricated doom and gloom, he brays about."
I know, if I didn't have this thread to log into and laugh my ass of at the complete lack of a tangible argument ( the goof just wants to keep deflecting away from the fact that he can't even quote text from papers he claims to have read and claims support his belief) I would have to get my giggles elsewhere. But hey, it gets funnier for all of us so lets keep it going!


Mar 22, 2019
"Your hands on a hotplate feel CONDUCTED 'vibrational' energy, not just radiational."
As with my challenge to the captain (that he can't deal with by meeting it), link the paper and quote the physics text from it demonstrating that vibrations transmit heat.
"No, mate. I explained that water vapour/clouds AND ground/water etc absorbs IR "
lol...yes, above I said "There are a lot of things that can absorb the heat in those wavelengths...anything with water or carbon as part of it's composition"
PS...if your contention is that CO2 can increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, I agree....your AGW pals don't...hence why we keep hearing that water vapour isn't the driver, CO2 is.

"@ red , but the air does get warm , its just mass , ?"

Contact with the surface and convection, this is heat in wavelengths the atmosphere can conduct.

"I suggest you re-do your info"

Right back at ya



Mar 22, 2019
"PS...if your contention is that CO2 can increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, I agree....your AGW pals don't...hence why we keep hearing that water vapour isn't the driver, CO2 is."

Your AGW pals don't agree that water vapour is more of a driver than CO2...just to clarify the above.

Also @ realitycheck, you appear to be confused regarding quantum vibrations vs. classical ones. In a medium such as the atmosphere, guess what makes it "vibrate" the most....sound. By your rationale the louder it is the warmer it is....do we observe this? No, so if sound waves don't heat the atmosphere....how do you think a vibrating molecular boundary due to anything else can? Sorry about the crack about the boiling water, but you are in danger of slipping into intellectual purgatory... you see the crowd that is already there and have been the butt end of their hostility a lot despite your requests for civility. They can't think...you have shown you can...

Mar 22, 2019
@red lying yet again
Your AGW pals don't agree that water vapour...
Lacis et al 2010
noted above already
try reading it

.

your above BS reminds me of the $30K GW challenge to you, watts, antigoricle the idiot illiterate and the rest of the denier camp
http://dialogueso...and.html

who won that challenge?
apparently, not you or anyone else...

5 years on and still an epic failure!
not one single anti-AGW huckster can actually find empirical evidence that the scientists are wrong

LOL

.

so I guess I will check back later to see if you're willing to fork out cash to be proven wrong

you'll simply reiterate your same demonstrably false argument of "not one demonstration of understanding"

...or will you completely ignore this and continue to post false claims?

it does get funnier each time

Mar 22, 2019
LMAO.....oh look, a suggested study with no reference text yet again....surprise surprise. Hey, if Lacis et al support your position and you can comprehend which part of what they are saying does, quote the text and reference the page of the study...or don't because you cannot. One might prove you correct....what you keep doing just looks like you are lazy and/or aren't sure if the paper does or doesn't state valid mechanisms for the conversion.

"and continue to post false claims?"

I have posted the same claim repeatedly, CO2 absorbs heat the rest of that atmosphere cannot but cannot share it directly....you my simple little man are the one who can't seem to deal with this from a physics standpoint....and now you are calling basic physics "lies"...but it is still getting funnier each time.

I fully expect to read everything but science in the next reply....just like all the rest...wait a second, are you just lonely?

Mar 22, 2019

your above BS reminds me of the $30K GW challenge to you, watts, antigoricle the idiot illiterate and the rest of the denier camp
http://dialogueso...and.html

who won that challenge?
apparently, not you or anyone else...

LMAO.
Cap'n Stumpid, confirming why he won the challenge for the stumpiddest on this forum.
Hey Stumpid, you keep claiming 97% of scientist and 1000s of studies prove man-made climate change. So, it should be quite easy for you to produce just ONE that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for that claim.
Or, you can just keep braying, jackass.

Mar 22, 2019
@lying red the illiterate
oh look, a suggested study with no reference text yet again
oh look! an illiterate that can't read that the abstract itself proves his quote is idiotic!

when I post a reference like that with a quote from you, it's related and it's been repeatedly explained to you, therefore I don't need to reiterate the science *or* that you've already ignored it... yet again
I have posted the same claim repeatedly
so, that's a "NO" then?

you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is?

is it because you already know that you'll lose?

Yup. I figured as much
LOL
and now you are calling basic physics "lies"
actually, you're the one calling physics a lie, especially considering this has been explained in the above-linked threads

.

I fully expect to read everything but acceptance of the wager in the next reply

it is still getting funnier each time
https://phys.org/...ies.html

Mar 22, 2019
LMAO.
So, the StumPiddest jackass on the forum, chose to bray, instead of producing a single study that show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom his cult preaches. Come on StumPid, you claim there are thousands, so find us just one.
Thanks.

Mar 22, 2019
antigoracle brays about lost love
LMAO.
So, the idiotic illiterate sheep-shagging incestuous jackass on the forum, chose to bray, instead of reading the multiple times I posted studies that show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the AGW scientists demonstrated exists and even anti-AGW cults admit to. Come on, idiotic illiterate sheep-shagging incestuous jackass, you claim there are no studies, so why are you ignoring the reams of links and references that I've historically posted? are ya scared?
Thanks.

Mar 22, 2019
Lacis et al 2010
noted above already
try reading it

LMAO.
Cap'n StumPid, keeps braying about Lacis, who makes the claim that it's CO2 and not water vapour.
Tell us StumPid, why deserts are the hottest places on the planet, but as soon as the sun sets, their temperature plummets towards freezing. Is it because CO2 avoids the deserts?

Mar 22, 2019
Global climate change isn't happening in 400 years. It's happening right now, in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. And it's early in the spring yet; lots more rain to come. From the "not with a bang but a whimper" department, the apocalypse is happening now, in the breadbasket of the US. Next up: internal climate refugees.

Buttbuttbutttheresnoglobalwarming.

Try yelling that as your house floats away. Maybe it will help.

Mar 22, 2019
"So, the StumPiddest jackass on the forum, chose to bray,"

Yup...ya see he's holding on to his trump card because sane people accept bets on forums with people who deliberately make themselves appear inept...which is the only explanation I can possibly fathom at this point for his lack of science in his posts...other than the fact the no paper actually does make the conversion...because it can't actually be done.

"when I post a reference like that"

It means you hope the person you shouldn't have involved yourself with will go away and stop showing the entire forum you don't know jack shit about physics. Pick the text from Lacis et al that supports heat from CO2 entering the atmosphere and the physical mechanism that allows it to happen.

LMAO.....I really am at the point where I just want to see how many times you will dodge this with your explanations of why you won't do it....oh man....this is too good.

Hey...any of captains peers wanna jump in and try to rescue him?

Mar 22, 2019
" And it's early in the spring yet; lots more rain to come."

To jump in and rescue someone you need to bring a life preserver...not a cinder block. Look who can't tell the difference between weather and climate....you do know spring is the rainy season in north America right? Moron boy jumps on the water vapour without considering how many reported droughts have also been labelled AGW in nature...so is it droughts or flooding? Or is it just weather that has been happening since before life occupied this planet....

Ya see the problem with education via propaganda....is that the propaganda changes to suit the circumstances....hence why you can read any article about anything climate related and CO2 is cited as the culprit....when they realized people were too stupid to actually test the physics they knew they had a winner for the next cash cow at the peoples expense...we actually hear ads calling it "pollution" now.... so sad.

Mar 22, 2019
Pick the text from Lacis et al that supports heat from CO2 entering the atmosphere and the physical mechanism that allows it to happen.


That is just pure ignorance of the science. As usual. The heat is from the big yellow thing. It is in many wavelengths, but a lot of it is in the visible. Which is why you can see the big yellow thing. When it encounters rock, for instance, it heats up said rock. Said rock then radiates away that heat in IR. CO2 traps IR. More CO2, more heat is trapped. Not exactly rocket science. Although to EU supporters I guess it is a bit tough.


Mar 22, 2019
Only Jones could post so few words containing so much ignorance.

"CO2 traps IR."
Indeed...but where does it contain it? When released where does it go? (this has all been covered above but god forbid you read before you type)
" More CO2, more heat is trapped"
Yup...in the same exact places....not one of them being an atmosphere comprised of a 99% oxygen/nitrogen mix that is transparent to the heat.
" Not exactly rocket science."
Lucky for you, if it was you wouldn't understand any of it.
" Although to EU supporters I guess it is a bit tough."
I wouldn't know, as an EU supporter can you enlighten me why it is tough for you?
It's hilarious how the same simple concept is so elusive to the AGW groupthink to absorb that all of you have to completely disregard the physics in order to maintain your belief...yet you think you support science.
One day, perhaps one of you will demonstrate physics instead of faith...although not likely with this crowd.

Mar 22, 2019
@theredepill.
who appears to believe you can bring water to a boil by shaking it.
Mate, leave off with the smart-aleck attitude and just go do your own research about the various methods for heating materials; eg: via vigorous shaking of a closed highly insulated container of gas or liquid; and via surface friction which can get the metals so hot that they have even used that method for certain specialised welding underwater!

There is much that you don't yet know, mate. Take a break and go look for more relevant knowledge; as it may help forestall the irksome attitude you are indulging in at present re the subject matter. Good luck and good reading/understanding, mate. :)

Mar 22, 2019
@theredepill.
who appears to believe you can bring water to a boil by shaking it.
Mate, leave off with the smart-aleck attitude and just go do your own research about the various methods for heating materials; eg: via vigorous shaking of a closed highly insulated container of gas or liquid; and via surface friction which can get the metals so hot that they have even used that method for certain specialised welding underwater!

There is much that you don't yet know, @theredpill. Take a break and go look for more relevant knowledge; as it may help forestall the irksome attitude you are indulging in at present re the subject matter. Good luck and good reading/understanding, mate. :)

Mar 22, 2019
"CO2 traps IR."
Indeed...but where does it contain it?


Only an idiot would ask such a question! Lol. It absorbs an IR photon. This causes the molecule to become excited into a higher vibrational state. The molecule then eventually de-excites with the emission of......................... work it out for yourself, you untutored fool. This is high school stuff.

I wouldn't know, as an EU supporter can you enlighten me why it is tough


Because I have yet to meet an EU loon that has even a vague knowledge of even basic science. Anyone that can convince themselves that Earth used to orbit Saturn deserves no consideration.

Mar 22, 2019
One day, perhaps one of you will demonstrate physics instead of faith...although not likely with this crowd.


You want to talk physics? Is this the same idiot who just asked; " Indeed...but where does it contain it?" Lol. Go ahead. I have yet to see you demonstrate any knowledge of the subject.


Mar 22, 2019
Pick the text from Lacis et al that supports heat from CO2 entering the atmosphere and the physical mechanism that allows it to happen
ROTFLMFAO

and there you have it, folks! proof positive that redpill is illiterate and intentionally trolling!

@red the lying coward (still)

not only did you not read your own quote that I copy/pasted from, but you didn't read the Lacis abstract to see how it related to your own quoted text!

of course, that's not surprising as you never have actually read a single study referenced to you - that is evident in the links I posted above

and then you still refuse to put your money where your mouth is!

I really am at the point where I just want to see how many times you will dodge this with your explanations of why you won't do it....oh man....this is too good


Mar 22, 2019
CO2 has three vibration modes:

In and out: the oxygen atoms move synchronously toward and away from the carbon atom.

Left and right: the oxygen atoms move alternately toward and away from the carbon atom.

Up and down: the carbon atom moves above and then below the line of the oxygen atoms.

These are also called, respectively, symmetric stretching, asymmetric stretching, and bending. Each has its own characteristic energy, and therefore absorbs and then emits photons of characteristic energy. In addition, any excited molecule can exchange momentum with other molecules in the atmosphere if it encounters them, turning the energy into kinetic energy of the molecules by momentum transfer.

All three of the energies are in the infrared, which is heat.

And that's where the heat gets redistributed both back to the ground and into the atmosphere.

Why do these people not learn some physics before they say more stupid shit?

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib,
Indeed. It is like discussing QM with chimps! Here is a nice animation of the ro-vibrational modes of H2O. They will be the same in CO2;

http://www1.lsbu....rum.html

Mouse over the image to see the modes in action. I used to link to this to try to explain to EU idiots how we knew that water was detected at comets, and that their Grand Poobah had been lying to them for years. Didn't have much effect - chimps and QM!


Mar 22, 2019
This isn't even QM. It's molar mechanics. Simple stuff.

Mar 22, 2019
For historical interest, here is the 1896 paper by Arrhenius, describing the GH effect;

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Arrhenius, S.
http://onlinechan...1896.pdf

Some interesting terminology back then! Carbonic acid is obviously CO2. He also refers to 'light rays' from the Sun, and 'dark rays' from the ground, which can be translated into modern terminology as visible and infrared respectively.

Mar 23, 2019
@Castro
For historical interest, here is the 1896 paper by Arrhenius, describing the GH effect
want to see a real treat?
check out this thread: https://phys.org/...igh.html

check out my Nov 28 references to the idiot redP when he made the challenge that he will not accept above!
no joke!
his words
let's see if the AGW clan ever pony up and put their money where there mouth is. Directly proving CO2's heat retention ability is the only way the science can truly be "settled"
[sic]

I wonder why he won't "pony up and put [his] money where [his] mouth is" when he was the one who issued the challenge?

probably because you and about a dozen others have proven him to be an idiot?
LMFAO

keep up the great work, guys!

Mar 23, 2019
"Carbonic Acid" definitely is CO2. Just for the record.

Mar 23, 2019
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

https://www.natur...2cdomB-w

Mar 23, 2019
"Tell us StumPid, why deserts are the hottest places on the planet, but as soon as the sun sets, their temperature plummets towards freezing. Is it because CO2 avoids the deserts?"

Scientists say on average dry places will get dryer and wet places wetter. So yes, there can be drought and floods both caused by AGW.

"Is it because CO2 avoids the deserts?"

"Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

http://science.sc...ntent/33


Mar 23, 2019
If all the non condensing greenhouse gases were magically removed from the atmosphere, the subsequent cooling would cause water vapor to condense out, resulting in a greenhouse effect collapse. Earth would cool by about 30C, a snowball in space.

Mar 23, 2019
@red lying yet again
Your AGW pals don't agree that water vapour...
Lacis et al 2010
noted above already
try reading it

.

your above BS reminds me of the $30K GW challenge to you, watts, antigoricle the idiot illiterate and the rest of the denier camp
http://dialogueso...and.html

who won that challenge?
apparently, not you or anyone else...

5 years on and still an epic failure!
not one single anti-AGW huckster can actually find empirical evidence that the scientists are wrong

LOL

Double LOL...!

Mar 23, 2019
antigoracle brays about lost love
LMAO.
So, the idiotic illiterate sheep-shagging incestuous jackass on the forum, chose to bray, instead of reading the multiple times I posted studies that show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the AGW scientists demonstrated exists and even anti-AGW cults admit to. Come on, idiotic illiterate sheep-shagging incestuous jackass, you claim there are no studies, so why are you ignoring the reams of links and references that I've historically posted? are ya scared?
Thanks.

antigoracle and his puppets are still swinging the trees, could we have expected any more ? LOL...

Mar 23, 2019

and there you have it, folks! proof positive that redpill is illiterate and intentionally trolling!
@red the lying coward (still)
not only did you not read your own quote that I copy/pasted from, but you didn't read the Lacis abstract to see how it related to your own quoted text!
of course, that's not surprising as you never have actually read a single study referenced to you - that is evident in the links I posted above
and then you still refuse to put your money where your mouth is!
I really am at the point where I just want to see how many times you will dodge this with your explanations of why you won't do it....oh man....this is too good

ROTFLMFAO, There you go, the baboons are out and jumping up and down for more bananas Again.. Antisceince gorilla, and his sockpuppet thereddpill (where's he's pills ? or does it not seem to help) LOL..
O man this the outcome of this thread was just as i expected, just did not think it could get any funnier LOL..!!

Mar 23, 2019
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

https://www.natur...2cdomB-w

Dumpuppet antigoracle sock, no shifting to his other sockpuppet just so he does not seem to be the only one singled out and ridiculed, bad news for him, reality is that he is singled out and this is only his sockpuppet being as dumb as ever. You could at least have used your Old nostalgic sock puppet waterptophet, that would've added a pleasant twist to your stupidity.

Mar 23, 2019
'In addition, any excited molecule can exchange momentum with other molecules in the atmosphere if it encounters them,''

lets try to visualize that @ 400ppm lol

Re ; so called 'backradiation' , its like thinking a traffic jam in another city is going to affect me , and at 400ppm thats a generous analogy


Mar 23, 2019
so why are you ignoring the reams of links and references that I've historically posted? are ya scared?
Thanks.

LMAO.
Cap'n StumPiddest, brays.
Reams eh, StumPid.
So, why can't you show us a single one?
Are ya scared?
Nope. You just like the sound of your braying.

Mar 23, 2019
''The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature
increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K. At
the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two
hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K. ''''''

https://lookaside...F73gA91I

Mar 23, 2019
'In addition, any excited molecule can exchange momentum with other molecules in the atmosphere if it encounters them,''

lets try to visualize that @ 400ppm lol

Re ; so called 'backradiation' , its like thinking a traffic jam in another city is going to affect me , and at 400ppm thats a generous analogy



Can you please point to the equations and reasoning you used for this in your published paper? I'd be very interested in tearing it to shreds. If it is just your untutored opinion, then it can be safely ignored. And will be.

Mar 23, 2019
''The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature
increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K. At
the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two
hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K. ''''''

https://lookaside...F73gA91I


A Facebook link, to which I am not signed up. And have no intention of signing up. Can you please link to the peer-reviewed paper from which these figures came? TYIA.

Mar 23, 2019
'In addition, any excited molecule can exchange momentum with other molecules in the atmosphere if it encounters them,''

lets try to visualize that @ 400ppm lol

Re ; so called 'backradiation' , its like thinking a traffic jam in another city is going to affect me , and at 400ppm thats a generous analogy


Monkey Snoose, Snoozed yet again and Lost... as always, puppet brain and his clan of socks, blowing air out their arses, the usuak chore, and once again nothing can be proven, it seems they would go to the ends of the world to prove their idiocy LoL


Mar 23, 2019
so why are you ignoring the reams of links and references that I've historically posted? are ya scared?
Thanks.

LMAO.
Cap'n StumPiddest, brays.
Reams eh, StumPid.
So, why can't you show us a single one?
Are ya scared?
Nope. You just like the sound of your braying.

Monkey Goracle swinging the trees hard after swallowing the blue pill instead of the red, friskly trying to prove himself to be king of the bananas once again

Mar 23, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 23, 2019
http://www.entrelemanetjura.ch/BLOG_WP_351/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017.01-20-FKR-sur-CO2.pdf


Complete, gibberish. Non-peer reviewed gibberish, at that. This isn't even his field. He was in optoelectronics!
See here;

https://andthenth...dioxide/

Easy to see how the scientifically illiterate would be fooled by such nonsense, I suppose, but at least do a bit of research before linking to such idiocy.

Mar 23, 2019
so here is the crux of the arguement

''if we then increase atmospheric CO2, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler and that, hence, emit less''

i say if its that high already , who cares ? , '' it emits less '' , no it emits more slowly [ maybe]

a traffic slow down at a remote location how does that effect me ?

also, do these models take stratospheric convection into account ? i doubt it

Mar 23, 2019
http://www.entrel...-CO2.pdf


Complete, gibberish. Non-peer reviewed gibberish, at that. This isn't even his field. He was in optoelectronics!
See here;

https://andthenth...dioxide/

Easy to see how the scientifically illiterate would be fooled by such nonsense, I suppose, but at least do a bit of research before linking to such idiocy.

LMAO.
Da Schitts, the "meat" loving, knob gobbler, spews more shite, using his sock puppet.
Yep, it's easy to see how the illiterate Da Schitts would be fooled. For his rebuttal, he linked to someone who works in astronomy. Hey Da Schitts, at least do a bit of research before linking to such idiocy.

Mar 23, 2019
MODTRAN , it goes on and on ,

https://wattsupwi...mystery/

from the comments , you can choose to believe whatever

''MODTRAN is very good at simulating the planet IR balance. This is because it was derived from the correct physics; 160 W/m^2 mean surface thermalisation. Because it's proprietary, it can't be 'altered'. The IPCC climate model heat transfer is a scam, based on assuming the surface IR is at the 396 W/m^2 black body level, plus the convection and evapo-transpiration.
They then put in fake cooling from the top by incorrectly claiming you can apply Kirchhoff's Law of Radiation to the semi-transparent atmosphere. When the 40% residual extra energy has produced imaginary extra water evaporation and 'positive feedback', they offset it in hind casting by exaggerated low level cloud albedo.

Mar 23, 2019
Da Schitts, the "meat" loving, knob gobbler, spews more shite, using his sock puppet.
Yep, it's easy to see how the illiterate Da Schitts would be fooled. For his rebuttal, he linked to someone who works in astronomy. Hey Da Schitts, at least do a bit of research before linking to such idiocy.


Hey, shitforbrains, got anything intelligent to say? Get back in your cave, you sister f****** redneck tosser.

Mar 24, 2019
Snoozelose antigoracle redpill sockpuppet are so far backed up in a cave he created a fake world inside his pea brain where he creates his own little reality, so far fetched from reality he just doesn't want to wake up, luckily there are real people in the world that can deal with real scientific matters and not scared to face life's challenges :)

So we keep rewarding him with bananas everytime he speaks his mind, or.... whatever is inside the pea of his skull. It's been a long time since i had this much fun on this site, so many new readers gets to see the hilarious posts and claims he makes, exposed everytime we have a discussion like this, looking forward to the next one :D

Mar 24, 2019
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

https://www.natur...2cdomB-w
frflyer

I am most impressed by your link! Thanks for that.
It concisely and fully explains the exact statistical methods they used along with the actual mathematical equations they used to reach their conclusions.
It is such that it is extremely difficult for any rational intelligent person to effectively criticize their conclusion that the data clearly indicates that there is significant man made global warming.
This is the way good science should be done.
Excellent work.

Mar 24, 2019
http://www.entrel...-CO2.pdf

"An idealized atmosphere, the CO2 content of which is the only infrared absorber,
surrounds the emitter."

"We also do not consider different greenhouse gases such as water vapor or possible
interactions with it."

No wonder he couldn't get it published!

Mar 24, 2019
@ humy ''It concisely and fully explains the exact statistical methods they used ''

from
https://www.natur...ep21691?

''fbclid=IwAR22W_ew3QeDhDT4D5fu7iTTFYJQwx09BJbBC7kwy96wGorxtoo2cdomB-w
It is difficult to achieve a similarly clear result when using Granger causality, as in this case the reverse causality between GMTA and CO2 forcing is also significant whereas with CCM only the direction from GMTA to CO2 is found to be significant (SI, Tables SI-1 and SI-2).

The atmospheric CO2 content serves only as proxy for its radiative forcing and therefore we now examine in more detail the causal relations between the major climate forcings and GMTA. The correlation and the IF between the major reconstructed radiative forcings37 (for the used identifiers in37 see SI, Table SI-3) and the GMTA time ''

care to translate that for me ?

Mar 24, 2019
correction, @ frflyer ,,

Mar 24, 2019
steves

@ http://www.entrel...-CO2.pdf

the authors make their intentions/purpose very clear , they don't use MODTRAN so they get rejected. Use IPCC methods u get IPCC results


Mar 24, 2019
steves

@ http://www.entrel...-CO2.pdf

the authors make their intentions/purpose very clear , they don't use MODTRAN so they get rejected. Use IPCC methods u get IPCC results



Nope. A non-specialist, in a non-peer reviewed paper, making a horrendous mess of things does not = rejection. It = ignored crap.

Mar 24, 2019
@ humy "
...

The atmospheric CO2 content serves only as proxy for its radiative forcing and therefore we now examine in more detail the causal relations between the major climate forcings and GMTA. The correlation and the IF between the major reconstructed radiative forcings37 (for the used identifiers in37 see SI, Table SI-3) and the GMTA time ''

care to translate that for me ?
snoosebaum

Exactly which part do you not understand so that you need me to tell you what it means? Can't you understand English? Do you deny the link's conclusion? Are you saying its conclusion is different from what it is? (which is that there is man made global warming).
And what, if anything, is the point you are making here? What do YOU claim the link says?

Mar 24, 2019
Monkey Snooselose antigoracle sockpuppet only believes what he feels is true, and right now he is feeling the cold breeze up in the tree, so in his mind everything must be cooling yes ? LoL !

Mar 24, 2019
h - so u can't translate that ? thats too bad cause there is more . ,

like this gem

''Analysis software was coded in R and MATLAB (for generating the maps). Using the respective implementations of Granger causality and CCM in the R software packages "MSBVAR", "lmtest" and "multispatialCCM" we could perform comparisons with

do they even know what they are doing ?


Mar 24, 2019
Monkey Snooselose thinks he knows what he is saying but does not understand it LoL !

Mar 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 24, 2019
It must be quite hard for someone still swinging the trees trying to understand those big words

Mar 24, 2019
Fiddling while Omaha drowns.

Mar 24, 2019
h - so u can't translate that ? thats too bad cause there is more . ,

like this gem

''Analysis software was coded in R and MATLAB (for generating the maps). Using the respective implementations of Granger causality and CCM in the R software packages "MSBVAR", "lmtest" and "multispatialCCM" we could perform comparisons with

do they even know what they are doing ?



Sounds like they do, and you don't. Hence your confusion. MATLAB is a data analysis software program. I have used it myself.

Mar 24, 2019
Fiddling while Omaha drowns.

Da Schitts, spewing shite while swallowing man "meat".

https://en.wikipe...1–2000

Mar 24, 2019

Sounds like they do, and you don't. Hence your confusion. MATLAB is a data analysis software program. I have used it myself.

Yep, Da Schitts, just like you use man "meat".
LMAO

Mar 24, 2019
Antigoracle puppet getting all frisky now when he swallowed the blue pill instead of the red, calm down, you can try again, so we can laugh again..... soon i promise... lol !

Mar 24, 2019
Well seeming he can't get to ever understand the science, all he has left is to let the inner Baboon out,(usually ends up this way) Comedy Gold.

Mar 24, 2019
h - so u can't translate that ? thats too bad cause there is more . ,

like this gem

''Analysis software was coded in R and MATLAB (for generating the maps). Using the respective implementations of Granger causality and CCM in the R software packages "MSBVAR", "lmtest" and "multispatialCCM" we could perform comparisons with

do they even know what they are doing ?



Sounds like they do, and you don't. Hence your confusion. MATLAB is a data analysis software program. I have used it myself.

LOL... Comedy Gold this is.. once again baboon puppet goracle breaths new comedy into this thread, and we didn't even have to wait for the next article yet ! ...let me go get my popcorn ready, i predict a night full of comedy with this clown.. lol

Mar 24, 2019
yes haw-haw , but no one can translate or explain the studies results in light of it .

meanwhile, the study contains a momment of honesty

'' Despite principal plausibility being achieved in this way there are still several open research questions, one being the "missing heat"10,11,19. Also, as the state-of-the-art climate models mostly overestimated the global warming during the last 20 years ''

haw haw , indeed , inspite of all those '' Granger causalities ''
.

Mar 24, 2019
steves

@ http://www.entrel...-CO2.pdf

the authors make their intentions/purpose very clear , they don't use MODTRAN so they get rejected. Use IPCC methods u get IPCC results


The author (singular) posits an unrealistic atmospheric model in which CO2 is the only infrared absorber ignoring other other greenhouse gases such as water vapor, and then tries to claim that this in some way is a realistic representation of the real world.

Bad science gets rejected, and this is bad science in spades.

Mar 24, 2019
yes haw-haw , but no one can translate or explain the studies results in light of it .

haw haw , indeed , inspite of all those '' Granger causalities ''
.


No one needs to it's YOU that is too utterly beyond dumb and stupid to understand what it means. The blue pill making you do those strange noises ?

Mar 24, 2019
Let's put this in perspective. I don't even care who the clown was since it's obvious they get to make unlimited sockpuppets. The claim was, CO2 cannot make a significant difference in the path of infrared from the Earth to the sky. This claim is belied by all the methods the CO2 can get rid of the infrared once it absorbs it. It can radiate it; and in this case, the direction is random meaning half that radiation goes back to the Earth. It can collide with other molecules and dissipate it; in that case, the heat goes into the atmosphere. So somewhat more than half this energy stays in the atmosphere, or is re-absorbed by the Earth.

And the more CO2 there is, the more this happens. Gas concentration isn't the point; it's spectral density, specifically near the Wien peak. And CO2 has that. That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's at the same distance from the Sun. What we're talking about is what happens when it's 33K warmer.

Mar 24, 2019
And see, the thing is, we can see what difference that 3K makes from paleontology. Not surprising; 3K difference in terms of how much heat is required to make it is many millions of nuclear weapons' worth of heat.

Of course deniers are innumerate and don't know what "millions" means.

Mar 24, 2019
That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's .......

LMAO.
Da Schitts, soiling the forum with the shite from between his ears, while swallowing warm man "meat".

Mar 24, 2019
@tehalgore capers again and thinks I'll ever read anything it posts.

*BZZZZT* wrong.

Mar 24, 2019
Let's put this in perspective...HAWW...HEE....The claim was, CO2 cannot make a significant difference in the path of infrared from the Earth to the sky. This claim is belied by all the methods the CO2 can get rid of the infrared once it absorbs it. ....HAWW...HEE... So somewhat more than half this energy stays in the atmosphere, or is re-absorbed by the Earth.

And the more CO2 there is, the more this happens. ...HAWW...HEEE...

Da Schitts, spewing more shite.
So, tell us Da Schitts, why is it in deserts, the hottest places on earth, the temperature plummets towards freezing during the night?

Mar 24, 2019
I don't really care what someone who can't count says.

Mar 24, 2019
''That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's at the same distance from the Sun. What we're talking about is what happens when it's 33K warmer.''

thats why , cept for the fact that the atmosphere has mass, gets compressed and its temperature can be calculated for planets independent of composition.


Mar 24, 2019
Dear jonesy
Da Schitts, the "meat" loving, knob gobbler, spews more shite, using his sock puppet.
Yep, it's easy to see how the illiterate Da Schitts would be fooled. For his rebuttal, he linked to someone who works in astronomy. Hey Da Schitts, at least do a bit of research before linking to such idiocy.


Castrogiovanni> Hey, shitforbrains, got anything intelligent to say? Get back in your cave, you sister f****** redneck tosser.

Dear old jonesy
it has been a very long time
since you emerged
yet again from the quantum fluctuations
so
long in fact
it is Castrogiovanni, since March 2, 2019
we
all know, old habits die hard
but
even as old stinky, antigoracle set you a good example
in how not to phrase your inky texting, jonesy
just
because old stinky appears immune from the realities of civilised society
unfortunately, jonesy
your acceptance
is
dependence
On your good behaviour

Mar 25, 2019
@ humy "
...

The atmospheric CO2 content serves only as proxy for its radiative forcing and therefore we now examine in more detail the causal relations between the major climate forcings and GMTA. The correlation and the IF between the major reconstructed radiative forcings37 (for the used identifiers in37 see SI, Table SI-3) and the GMTA time ''

care to translate that for me ?
snoosebaum

Exactly which part do you not understand so that you need me to tell you what it means? Do you deny the link's conclusion? Are you saying its conclusion is different from what it is? (which is that there is man made global warming).
And what, if anything, is the point you are making here? What do YOU claim the link says?

says humy

And what do YOU propose to do about it, humy? Is it your intention to just talk endlessly about it in this physorg website until you croak? Do give us an inkling into your future plans to solve the alleged problem

Mar 25, 2019
''That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's at the same distance from the Sun. What we're talking about is what happens when it's 33K warmer.''

thats why , cept for the fact that the atmosphere has mass, gets compressed and its temperature can be calculated for planets independent of composition.


How?

http://www.astron.../s3c.htm

Mar 25, 2019
That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's .......

LMAO.
Da Schitts, soiling the forum with the shite from between his ears, while swallowing warm man "meat".

Monkey goracle going into overload as he has exhausted every corner of that little pea brain trying to come up with something worth putting on the table, with nothing to resort to, he's turned bonkers, and his addiction for bananas grows with every post.

Mar 25, 2019
''That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's at the same distance from the Sun. What we're talking about is what happens when it's 33K warmer.''

thats why , cept for the fact that the atmosphere has mass, gets compressed and its temperature can be calculated for planets independent of composition.


antisciencegorilla sockpuppet snooselose, really expressing his utter incompetency understanding how the climate works, but then again, as long as his bananas can grow and the pea get's shaken inside his head, he gets that tingling feeling only he knows about ;)

Mar 25, 2019
''That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's at the same distance from the Sun. What we're talking about is what happens when it's 33K warmer.''

thats why , cept for the fact that the atmosphere has mass, gets compressed and its temperature can be calculated for planets independent of composition.


How?

http://www.astron.../s3c.htm

Snooselose got lost and baffled yet again formulating nonsensical conclusions now he thinks he has the answers, just to be proven stupid for the millionth time again lol.

Mar 25, 2019
This is a paper about ocean circulation, not green house warming in the atmosphere??? Why all this stuff about the atmosphere and CO2....really. Surely there are better forums?

There is 60 times the mass of CO2 dissolved in the ocean than is in the atmosphere. Cool ocean holds more CO2 than warm ocean. So here we have a paper saying it takes 400 years. As they say this is on the longer end of the spectrum from what was previously expected. So does this mean even if we switch the man made CO2 off it will take at least this time to be taken up by the oceans.

Yet they seem to be saying the ocean conveyor is shutting down slowing now? Does this mean a cold snap in 400 years time or are we well into that time period and its coming sooner?
Or can the conclusion be drawn that give such a long lag between ocean conveyor shut down and climate change that there is no direct correlation?

Mar 26, 2019
And what do YOU propose to do about it, humy?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

what to "do" about it? -Promote renewable energy.
Next extremely stupid question...

Mar 26, 2019
And what do YOU propose to do about it, humy?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

what to "do" about it? -Promote renewable energy.
Next extremely stupid question...
says humy

Why would you consider the question "extremely stupid" in your deeply-held ignorance, humy? When one is unsure as to what, or how, you are going to go about doing the thing that you purport to believe in - it is important to ASK the question, rather than project what the answer would be. Sort of getting the answer from the horse's mouth.
How would I know what it is that you plan to do, humy? For all I know, you are one of the homeless who are ferilising the sidewalks of Los Angeles with your own poop, humy.
This is the purpose of asking, rather than not asking and only ASSUMING what you intend to do, humy.

Mar 26, 2019
deeply-held ignorance, humy
Is not trolling, right?

Right?

You are a troll who does not actually follow what you claim to espouse.

You believe in this: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Vade retro satana.

Mar 26, 2019
h - so u can't translate that ? thats too bad cause there is more . ,

like this gem

''Analysis software was coded in R and MATLAB (for generating the maps). Using the respective implementations of Granger causality and CCM in the R software packages "MSBVAR", "lmtest" and "multispatialCCM" we could perform comparisons with

do they even know what they are doing ?



Sounds like they do, and you don't. Hence your confusion. MATLAB is a data analysis software program. I have used it myself.

LOL... Comedy Gold this is.. once again baboon puppet goracle breaths new comedy into this thread, and we didn't even have to wait for the next article yet ! ...let me go get my popcorn ready, i predict a night full of comedy with this clown.. lol
says gomamit

Ahaaa. So Da Schniebo has made yet ANOTHER sockpuppy to join all of his other sox, such as schorowincjy. Following in the footsteps of the pussytard SpookyOtto, aye?

Mar 26, 2019
''That's why the Earth's surface is 30K warmer than the Moon's at the same distance from the Sun. What we're talking about is what happens when it's 33K warmer.''

thats why , cept for the fact that the atmosphere has mass, gets compressed and its temperature can be calculated for planets independent of composition.


antisciencegorilla sockpuppet snooselose, really expressing his utter incompetency understanding how the climate works, but then again, as long as his bananas can grow and the pea get's shaken inside his head, he gets that tingling feeling only he knows about ;)

says HelloManuelo

Wowee, either you have dozens of "friends" here in physorg, or you have made a whole lot of sockpuppies to boost your ratings here. That's 14 - FIVE votes you've gotten for saying nothing. Good thing you're not a University professor (assuming), else your students would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
:x

Mar 28, 2019
Ahaaa. So Da Schniebo has made yet ANOTHER sockpuppy to join all of his other sox, such as schorowincjy. Following in the footsteps of the pussytard SpookyOtto, aye?


antisciencegoracle sockpuppet got nothing to put on the table now resorting to sockpuppet wars, we counted about 46 sockpuppets in the past 2 years this clown has been putting out, the good thing is he gets exposed everyday, no matter which sock he is using.Loving it ;)

Mar 28, 2019
Wowee, either you have dozens of "friends" here in physorg, or you have made a whole lot of sockpuppies to boost your ratings here. That's 14 - FIVE votes you've gotten for saying nothing. Good thing you're not a University professor (assuming), else your students would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
:x

i got plenty of friends here, but even without them your ratings almost always comes out at 1 out of 5...lol...And it's clearly known why ;)
Exposing comedy and hilarious statements and lies has been working out great for everyone here so far and will continue to do so for as long as this site exist... on the other hand it seems you've been rolling down the hill ever so further, with 1/5 ratings all over the show everyday, great for climate change, making the world see how utterly stupid you and your socks are.. ;).. Looking forward to the next article..

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more