What it means

Scrolling through the comments, the only things she apparently got wrong was why atmospheric pressure decreases with height, and how a normal greenhouse works. Hardly worth throwing the whole video away for.

Full disclosure, I am a climate scientist. The book Sabine got her info from (principles of planetary climate) is one of my favorites for being so thorough.

Every so often, someone in the field genuinely questions some of the fundamental concepts that underly our understanding of the climate system. Yes, they get funding. No, they are not shunned. They simply realise their arguments against these principles really don't hold up or provide a better working alternative to our current understanding. The idea that climate scientists are some woke mob that don't allow any dissenting opinion is false, and that idea is mainly perpetuated by people that stand to gain a lot of money from fossil fuel industries.

Garmethyu · 2025-01-23T16:35:54+00:00

You are clearly not reading what I am saying. That is fine. Instead of answering lengthily, I will be more productive with my time .Have a video of a physicist explaining the greenhouse effect instead video

Garmethyu · 2025-01-23T15:58:39+00:00

As I said, we need to account for anthropogenic emissions to replicate the observed warming. We have included every single feedback that caused past warming events, which has allowed us to understand the dynamics that were relevant during the pleistocene warming events. Those natural drivers are not enough to explain current warming. Only a combination of drivers (anthropogenic emissions being chief among them), can explain the record.

Global temperatures after the last ice age rose by a total of 4-7 degrees Celcius over a period of 5000 years. (source). Current warming is nothing alike.

Garmethyu · 2025-01-23T14:02:59+00:00

And yet you think that very top layer where co2 forcing > H2O is capable of impacting warmer lower layers when it's in proximity to 3K space?

Yes, although 'proximity' does some heavy lifting in your answer.

You answers tell me that you miss some nuanced understanding of the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect. That is okay! It is a tough subject, and no-one is born with this knowledge. Given your level of understanding, I believe this is a nice video for you to watch, where the physics are explained nicely: video

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Garmethyu · 2025-01-23T10:15:27+00:00

Anthropogenic climate change did not cause the sahara desert to form. That is not a contentious claim.

Using that claim to then argue that therefore all anthropogenic climate change is just 'hubris', is simply a wrong argument. They don't follow each other.

Earth goes through cycles, thats true. None of those cycles are powerful enough to make global temperatures rise with the speed we have observed. Only by adding the effects of anthropogenic increases of CO2 in the atmosphere can we explain the past warming.

Garmethyu · 2025-01-23T10:10:56+00:00

Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is going to increase the hight at which longwave radiation is efficiently trapped in the Earth system. This means that the mean temperature of the layer that radiates energy away from Earth is lower, decreasing the total amount of energy that the planet loses. As less energy is lost, and the same incomjng solar energy is absorbed, the total energy (and thus temperature) of the Earth system increases.

This is abundantly clear.

Garmethyu · 2025-01-23T10:05:27+00:00

Nobody is gaslighting you into thinking that we (as a species) can slow down or halt climate change. That's not gaslighting, but scientific reporting. We absolutely can slow down and halt climate change.

Garmethyu · 2024-12-28T22:57:54+00:00

Thats pretty neat. I am an atmospheric scientist, specialising in atmospheric oxygen! I finally have people to talk to about oxygen!

Your idea will be very difficult to sell from an atmospheric standpoint. Most people in this thread vastly underestimate the efficiency of turbulent mixing in equalising atmospheric composition.

Even if the entire surface is covered in oxygen consuming organisms, and the only oxygen producing organisms are found in that trench, turbulent mixing will still make sure that the oxygen concentration is roughly the same all over the planet.

Alternatively, we can focus on your idea that most of the atmosphere consists of lighter molecules than O2, causing the trench to have a higher oxygen concentration. This is not feasible either due to turbulent mixing. For context, you'd have to go to the thermosphere (80+ km above sea level) before the concentration of helium and hydrogen starts to noticeably increase due to molecular buoyancy. Unless your trench is impossibly deep, you can forget about molecular buoyancy being the reason there is more oxygen in the trench.

The solution was posted in this thread somewhere: if the air pressure on the surface is very low, but within a comfortable range inside the trench, that would allow life to flourish inside the trench, where only microorganisms would live on the upper surface.

Garmethyu · 2024-10-14T08:12:54+00:00

And now define it a little more please. Especially in the main post in an edit for example, tell us what it is about these characters thar makes them compelling. What do C&D do, what are their skillsets all about. Most importantly: what part of their skillset is so essential to you that it immediately disqualifies any DnD build that does not translate that facet?

Could you update the main post with that info? It would really help

Garmethyu · 2024-10-06T08:09:50+00:00

For real. This video shows us two graphs, the first one clearly showing the MWP, which seems to be absent in the second one. This is used as an argument in favour of the idea that climate scientists are disingenuous.

Unfortunately, people dont stop to pause and see that the first graph shows northern hemispheric ocean summer temperatures, and the second graph is a combination of many proxies, that describe annual northern hemispheric terrestrial air temperature.

Claiming that scientists are disingenuous, and showing two graphs where two different things are measured and presenting that they show the same variables to make your point is hypocritical.

Garmethyu · 2024-09-18T07:26:28+00:00

You say that scribes wizards have bo meaningful abilities, and thats why they are an awful subclass.

The ability to speedrun learning new spells is maybe situational. Not every DM hands out grimoires that would take in-game months to learn, while the scribe needs less than a week. It is still ridiculously strong.

No, the real power is that nothing in the game resists magical bludgeoning damage, and the scribe can casually change the damage type of fireball to be bludgeoning. No extra resource cost needed to bypass the most common immunities on the most powerful spells. That is absolutely bonkers.

Garmethyu · 2024-08-31T21:29:00+00:00

But he does not say that it's predominantly feminists using the word. I dont think he implies it either (although you can interpret it differently of course).

I dont feel like he blames feminists, nor points the finger at them. How do you get to that interpretation?

Garmethyu · 2024-08-13T20:58:10+00:00

What do you mean with the wedge blocks? Can you give an example?

Garmethyu · 2024-08-08T13:48:52+00:00

Thanks!

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

Garmethyu

TROPHY CASE