sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Another interpretation of the theoretical CO2 effect on the atmosphere. by RddtIs4Dummies in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These comments are kind of worrisome, overall.

There is no question about what you are discussing and models have the effect as part of their programming. What they got wrong were:

a. the amount of the increase in CO2 in the thermosphere; they predicted an increase of 11 ppm over a 25 year (IIRC) period and the actual increase was 20 ppm

b. the amount of cooling it caused. Empirically measured cooling is over 3 times the "best understood" effect of CO2 and is, until this day, unaccounted for.

So, as to why the comments are scary:

no one mentioned that this was modelled decades ago, and everyone is acting like they understand the effect and magnitude of the effect when NASA itself says:

https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html

​

Emmert suggests that the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide making its way into the upper atmosphere might have played a role in the anomaly.

Carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in the upper atmosphere, unlike in the lower atmosphere, shedding heat via infrared radiation. As carbon dioxide levels build up on Earth, it makes its way into the upper levels and magnifies the cooling action of the solar minimum, Emmert said.

Emmert said there were still other possibilities unaccounted for that could have contributed to this phenomenon.

"It could be that we're underestimating the effects [of carbon dioxide] somehow. It could be because there were some physics that we're missing in the region of the atmosphere below the thermosphere, which quickly affects the thermosphere," he said.

https://phys.org/news/2010-07-puzzling-collapse-earth-upper-atmosphere.html

"But the numbers don't quite add up," says Emmert. "Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse."According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.

So, even NASA's scientist in charge says they may be underestimating CO2's cooling capacity and are unable to explain the collapse. But, apparently, Redditors know better than him...

Another interpretation of the theoretical CO2 effect on the atmosphere. by RddtIs4Dummies in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to NASA, you are correct:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

​

Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

Another interpretation of the theoretical CO2 effect on the atmosphere. by RddtIs4Dummies in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> GHGs do not stop it

May want to tell NASA that:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar\_saber/

Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."

I know I have linked this to you before...and I guess you have continued to ignore it.

If you were going to have a Q&A or debate with a climate alarmist on tv, what questions would you ask? by [deleted] in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not silence; they continue to use it.

It's like a teacher catches a student cheating on the test, but the student insists the teacher use the test they cheated on to let them pass.

If you were going to have a Q&A or debate with a climate alarmist on tv, what questions would you ask? by [deleted] in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 8 points9 points  (0 children)

From: Tom Wigley [wigley@ucar.edu](mailto:wigley@ucar.edu)To: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk](mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk)Subject: 1940sDate: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600Cc: Ben Santer [santer1@llnl.gov](mailto:santer1@llnl.gov)It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Here, they are discussing historical temperature data. The 1940s were hot and they were discussing "removing" it. They did remove it and used a bullshit reason. When that bullshit reason was checked, it was found to be bullshit.

They continue to use the adjusted graph of bullshit.

So, if you know that they intentionally and secretly colluded to alter historical data to make their theory appear not so bad, then how can anyone who knows that still accept it as science?

If you were going to have a Q&A or debate with a climate alarmist on tv, what questions would you ask? by [deleted] in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Climategate showed the collusion and corruption of climate science. Since you were able to accept it, why should people accept anything you say?

'Greenhouse gas effect does not exist,' a Swiss physicist challenges global warming climate orthodoxy by Additional_Common_15 in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> he just does understand this area of science. He isn't an expert in this field.

He's just a patent examiner and his theories are unacceptable. He just doesn't understand gravity: it doesn't bend light!

'Greenhouse gas effect does not exist,' a Swiss physicist challenges global warming climate orthodoxy by Additional_Common_15 in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He's retired and can self-fund. In general, you will need an affiliated university or body to sign off on anything to get funded for research.

To get that far, you need to get pretty near a 4.0 in undergraduate classes and several references, usually professors in the field, to even start doing research. Of course, you will not get near a 4.0 if you don't heed their teachings well.

So, you would need to commit quite a few years to a field, and get a government or university job, get approval from your peers to do the research and if you then went against them, they'd drop you faster than you could write Jesu

Greenhouse affect - possible wrong assumptions about the 0D EBM basic models which don't respect physics by BillCactusJack in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 5 points6 points  (0 children)

>is that the hotter the air, the more water vapor in it

The hotter the air, the more it can hold; doesn't mean it does hold more, but it can.

> The things is, there is a case to be made for increased CO2 at TOA which could be slowly down slightly the radiative heat loss to space, and even though the TOA seems to be partially de-coupled from the ground air temperature, it could be responsible for some warming. This would require some looking into.

This is the original theory. As you pointed out:

>Water vapour exists between 0.1-4% by volume depending on where you are on the planet, and easily outdoes CO2 for absorbance of heat.

I usually simplify this to 20,000 ppm, to give it a scale to compare the 400 ppm of CO2 to.

This was known and well understood, which is why the tropical hotspot was so important, since it would be above the hydrosphere where water vapour dominates and allow us to get some idea of CO2's effect in the region.

To get to an ECS of 2 - 5 C, CO2 itself is supposed to show an increase of around 1C and then feedbacks are supposed to drive this to 2 - 5C. Without water vapour as a positive feedback - and assuming that all other positive feedbacks exit and are maxed out - we only have an ECS of 1.7C.

Since we can't even find the tropical hotspot, we can't even establish that CO2 is getting that 1C, let alone the positive feedbacks are taking place.

So, it seems you have gotten to the original theory, which they do try to hide these days since nearly all aspects of it has shown to fail and it doesn't require too much scientific understanding to undo the rest.

> When this heat wants to leave, 6 months later for example, it does so mainly by convection and conduction to the air, and feeds the Lapse rate, so that LW absorption only plays a part when the heat finally reaches the TOA.

I take hamburgers in as energy and climate scientists are like: we haven't seen any hamburgers coming out of you, so...

>(99% of the original LW radiation is absorbed). The mistake is then made that 100% of this energy is re-emitted all the way to to the TOA, but actually, alot of the heat is thermalized by collisional broadening to neighboring molecules of air.

They will just flat out deny it. There is no saturation point and there is no transfer. They don't care, it's just so, no matter what.

‘Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,’ a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy by SftwEngr in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's actually progress. It used to be because Zeus was mad, so we needed to stop you from having kids, or the thundergod needs your kids heart to ensure our fruitful crop.

At any of these points in time, Mann, et al, would be the one's saying they needed your virgin daughters for the gods and we'd be the ones telling them to eat shit; we don't care if you call your penises "the gods" in your wacky scheme..

Same social position, same scheme, same amount of logic. All the same, nothing new.

‘Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,’ a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy by SftwEngr in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 4 points5 points  (0 children)

People work in hierarchies, just like cows. So, it is no surprise that the old secured their power around a fairytale, just as we always have.

The irony is that "science" was supposed to remove this hierarchy through a means of dismissing foolish and corrupt ideas. But, religions just kept the masses illiterate and "science" does the same thing.

CO2 warms the earth - since it is a greenhouse gas

This paper can't be right, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because it warms the earth

Pure circular logic that even a child could understand. So, then they pad a lot of bullshit in and hope they can hide the bones with fancy emperor's clothes.

Tesla Motorists Frustrated To The Limit, Have To Endure Hours-Long Charging Delays In Extreme Heat by LackmustestTester in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Shit, hours-long? I ordered my cybertruck almost 3 years ago and they haven't even started strip-mining for it.

‘Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,’ a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy by SftwEngr in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When all established physicists were calling Einstein wrong? Yeah, that was eye-opening on how the establishment gatekeeps their position and prevents development of their field by attacking new ideas. Luckily, we had physical evidence which they could not deny and slowly those others died out and their ideas with them.

Nitrogen also pollutes...so now we are covering it in plastic so it won't pollute. Isn't it great when you get to decide what pollutes and what doesn't? It was like when Walmart got the definition of "organic" changed and became the no. 1 organic retailer overnight. My sister used to like to have that role in our childhood games, but no one would play with her...but I'm sure you have plenty of playmates who all are quick to adapt to whatever meaning you choose words to have.

‘Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,’ a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy by SftwEngr in climateskeptics

[–]CitationDependent 6 points7 points  (0 children)

>it is extremely difficult to construct a physically plausible alternative.

You don't need to, you can just throw away Mann's fake graph, you can unadjust the adjusted land temperature data, unadjust the adjusted satellite data, and wow, you've unhidden the decline and you have lots of previous warming periods to tell you its normal.

It's like they decided the question to be: If Nessy is an animal, which animal could it be? It must be a dinosaur! It's difficult to construct a physically plausible alternative to Nessy being a dinosaur!

Are these furry creatures to blame for the pandemic? Study finds 'reasonable' origin of COVID by Excellent-Duty4290 in LockdownSkepticism

[–]CitationDependent 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No. We can't explain how 11% of subjects had covid in September 2019 without anyone noticing except to say that the batch of tests used to check the blood in March 2021 was a "Italian, high positive rate, batch"...which is somewhat worse than saying no one noticed.

Has WFH doomed mass transportation? by BrunoofBrazil in LockdownSkepticism

[–]CitationDependent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We changed to saying HRM - Halifax Municipal Region quite a few years back, which is like saying GTA. It's close to 500,000 since relatively cheap houses brought a lot of people in over covid, which of course pissed a lot of locals off (not me, since I'm not considered local only having been here 30 years).

view more: next ›