This is a thread for collecting the oddball theories, tinfoil hat-level conspiracies and other climate-related nonsense in the comments that would otherwise derail substantive discussion. Keeping them all in one spot might be of interest to future researchers.
The skeptical sciences links do not prove anything: what is the proof of greenhouse theory according to them ?
The moon is colder at night than during the day and warmer than the earth during the day.
So they do not even notice that the atmosphere is actually cooling the Earth and not warming it, and making it warmer at night than the moon, not because of greenhouse gases, but because it has an atmosphere created by gravity, retaining the warmth at night by blocking conduction and advection into space, contrary to the moon which has no atmosphere and no or very little conduction taking place.
It is the same argument they have that the following one: “Without greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth would be -18°C and not 15°C”…
That is an experimental evidence…?
Ha ha ha… And how do they measure the temperature of the Earth in the first place ?
I’m telling you: this is not an experimental evidence, it is a theoretical non sense.
They indeed consider that the Earth has the same radiative absorption than a black hole and thus is a perfect black body… and so they apply the blackbody formulas to calculate the temperature of the Earth from the emissivity coming from the sun…
And they find -18°C… But it is physical non-sense. The Earth is not a black hole and blackbody formulas can not apply for its absorption and thus can not apply in order to find its temperature from the solar emissivity.
So the whole greenhouse theory is just physical non sense, a pure myth without any valid justification, even theoretically.
Isn’t it very ironic that the GIEC, Nobel Prize of Peace, does not see that it is war that caused the warming plateau in 1935-1945, with all the bombings and so forth…?
And the peak in 1945 is due to Hirochima and Nagasaki. Then, the cooling of -0,3°C comes just after the end of war when the heat caused by the bombings dissipated…
…before the “Great Warming” associated with the industrialiaztion of nuclear power plants, increased global deforesttation and the numerous atomic bombings trials all over the world.
For example, between 1960 -1996, 200 atomic bombings were made just by France. How many at word scale ?
The GIEC should have better deserved the Nobel Prize of Litterature for his fictional masterpiece of “radiative forcing”… !
Not only do climate scientists in a mission, those who are teleguided by an ideal and not by reason, build a radiative budget that has no theoretical foundation, based on a mixture of satellites data and models data, but they do not even see that the global mean temperature predicted by their radiative budget is totally crank !
If you look at it closely, and it is quite odd, the global mean temperature, according to their budget, would be near the ebullition point, somewhere like 90°C… and they do not even notice it, so blind that they are in their faith of 1) thermal transfer caused by trace gases (never been measured anywhere in the world in a lab), 2) their blackhole-like Earth absorptive equilibrium and 3) their ideal of science as a mission to save the planet from CO2.
No wonder that with a global mean temperature of 90°C+, some desoxygenation should take place at the surface of the ocean in their model. Ha Ha Ha.
They are litteraly cooking ocean fishes in the IPCC reports.
Here what happens when people confound radiation and heat, and build a (litterally) obscurantist view of light-matter interaction like Fourier did with his “obscure heat” theory at the origin of the radiative greenhouse theory.
Herschel has been clear enough nonetheless by pointing out the dangers of that confusion in several articles published in 1800.
The “magnifying glass effect” of a prism, like the one of solar boxes should not be confounded with a “radiant” or “obscure” heat. No such magnifying glass effect concentrating radiation on a point exist in the atmosphere, which is gently diffusing the light, thus the blue color of the sky.
Climate scientists did not learn physics in school.
Otherwise they would know that infrared energy obeys to the inverse square law.
In physics lessons, real scientists learn to trace on paper the linear relationship between an infrared source and a thermopile, which is proportional to the distance between them.
Just several centimeters are sufficient to show a significant decrease in thermal transfer between an infrared source and a thermopile.
Thus, it is real non sense to think that infrared radiation bouncing back from atmosphère to the ground is able to warm the surface.
Now, I’m goint to tell you what climate scientists really believe without even knowing it…
They believe that the troposphere has a convergent effect on the infrared radiation emitted by the ground, which, at the manner of a laser beam, selectively focus on some traces molecules, like CO2, warming the atmosphere as a consequence… Ha Ha Ha Ha
I call it the “climatic conscious laser beam” theory. Because infrared energy, moved by some intelligent intents, consciously and selectively concentrate on some traces molecules, therefore causing a heat transfer in the air, like mini nuke quakes.
Imagine the red laser beams from the TIE interceptors in Star Wars, but just sending their energy to trace molecules: Pew Pew Pew Pew….
Or imagine it like an army of millions of tiny convergent mirrors on the ground selectively converging many many infrared red beams like the Death Star, just to trace molecules, with the devil intent to warm the atmosphere: Tchiieeewwwwwwwww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inl8EzmAopE
This is what the GIEC believes, implicitely… right ? Otherwise I do not see how infrared energy could warm the atmosphere. Ha Ha Ha
It is not by chance that, historically, “cold war” is name cold.
People who did the war (and not the politicians who send people do the war) know that bombings are warming the climate.
But paradoxically, it is when the “cold war” began that the war on environment took the relay: deforestation, agrochimy and nuclear industry boomed and were even more efficient at warming the climate than the war between human beings.
But those are things that the believers in “obscure heat” do not seem to be able to understand.
This new post is the one in which the reader learns that conduction is the preferential way of dissipating its energy for matter.
And if there is no possibility of conduction, like in space for example, then matter dissipates its energy through radiation.
How is that ?
Well it is simple: heat transfer is the result of an electric process in matter (Peltier Effect). And in the empty space, there is no possibility of such transfer, thus the electric process “radiates” instead, in the form of electromagnetic energy.
So matter will first transmit its energy through conduction, or through convection and advection into gazes.
So it is the energetic pressure that conditions how much the matter will radiate. And if there is too much pressure, the matter may even explode !
But no worry, with infrared energy, no risk that the air explode, as it can not even produce normal convection or advection: it is not enough energetic to produce any heat transfer and it is instantly reemitted without causing any heat in the atmosphere: it is totally neutral.
What climate scientists don’t tell you, because they don’t know and only stay at the surface of their beliefs, at the very supercial level of real scientific investigation is that:
A “significant” heat transfer, which is associated with an electric process, can only occur when two molecules of gases collide… and it also depends on the difference of electric potential between the two molecules, thus of the electric field of those molecules.
It is the “deformation” of the electric fields of the molecules, forming a new electric field, when they collide, that produce an electric effect causing heat transfer.
Thus, two molecules of same charge colliding are just going to repel each other without any heat transfer.
When there is a difference in electric potential, the collision between the two molecules is equivalent to a conduction between the two molecules, and the heat transfer is proportional to the difference in their electric potential.
So we are here speaking of very insignificant heat transfers caused by so-called GHG, at the volume of the atmosphere. The first (and way beyond) ways of heat transfer in the atmosphere are convection and advection mechanisms which are derived from sol/air conduction and their variations, and other forms of heat like volcanos, atomic and conventional bombings, nuclear power plants, combustion engines and barbecues.
As the thermal equilibrium of such microscopic entities (the reorganization of the electric field of the molecules of gases), is instantaneous, they, as blackbodies, should reemit instantly without any heat transfer (no time for waiting the next collision with another molecule) the low energetic infrared energy they receive from their environment.
So there is no significant conduction, no significant heat transfer induced by infrared energy absorbed by so-called GHG in the atmosphere.
The “Bohr Hole” is a better name than the “ghost photon” theory… for the idea that photons pass through the molecules, when they do not have the exact same energy than the ones of the atomic orbitals…
Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hi Hi
In fact, according to the “Bohr Hole” theory, photons that are absorbed by molecules are reemitted, yes, but in another universe of the great multiverse, like for black holes, or even in another location in the same universe.
It is what explains the non locality of quantum mechanics.
When you heat sufficiently those molecules, it opens up one such tunnel, and they can emit at the same energy, but the energy that is emitted comes from another place in the universe or even from another universe.
Real physics from RW Wood as cited by Niels Bohr in 1913:
“Now in Wood’s experiments the pressure was not very low, and the states corresponding to high values for teta could therefore not appear ; yet in the absorption spectrum about 50 lines were detected. In the experiments in question we consequently observe an absorption of radiation which is not accompanied by a complete transition between two different stationary states. According to the present theory we must assume that this absorption is followed by an emission of energy during which the systems pass back to tile original stationary state. If there are no collisions between the different systems this energy will be emitted as a radiation of the same frequency as that absorbed, and there will be no true absorption but only a scattering of the original radiation ; a true absorption will not occur unless the energy in question is transformed by collisions into kinetic energy of free particles.”
Ho Ho Ho Ha Ha Ha Hi Hi
I repeat what Bohr said:
“a true absorption will not occur unless the energy in question is transformed by collisions into kinetic energy of free particles.”
“and there will be no true absorption but only a scattering of the original radiation”
Consequence: As the pressure in the atmosphere is very low, so there are very little collisions. Thus there is no significant transformation of radiative energy into kinetic energy or “true absorption” leading to thermal transfers.
Whatever is the path one takes to observe the phenomenas, kinetic, electric, quantic and so on, the GHG theory is wrong, inherently, irrevocably wrong.
I would call you to read my papers as they open new frontiers in both climate science and solar physics. Most people here wouldn’t like the idea that the sun is the only one responsible for climate variability but this is a proven fact. My papers are available at ResearchGate and have yet received very favorable comments by highly esteemed scientists from usa, russia, bulgaria etc
It appears that you may have bigger worries on the way. Confirmed! – Geomagnetic reversals can trigger glaciation https://www.iceagenow.info/confirmed-geomagnetic-reversals-can-trigger-glaciation/
A simple assessment that shows that CO2 has nothing to do with climate is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
As I have shown in my papers the solar irradiance AND solar wind determine the temperatures in earth. People usually forget to look at solar wind when they look at the sun. They only take into account the solar activity and solar irradiance. As I have shown the solar wind is decisive. It manipulates the geomagnetic field and cloud covering. Temperatures oscillate according to the sun. By adding the AMO index oscillation (that counts for internal system variability) to the two solar constituents, we get an extremely accurate temperature projection. GCMs can’t project any accurate temperature variation. As soon as AMO turns negative we shall experience a strong cooling.
Yes, please explain why my math gets the right answer:
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/01/17/precipitable-water-as-temperature-proxy/
And GISTEMP, NOAA NCEI, ERA5, JRA55, Berkeley Earth and Cowtan & Way, RSS TLT doesn’t.
Zoe Phin @30,
Up-thread @11, you assert that the global surface temperature records have all failed to take account of the distribution by latitude of the incomplete global coverage through early parts of their records, this assertion supported by an analysis of your own invention which you link to.
Having looked at your analysis I asked @22 “whether you would like your incredibly stupid mistake explained to you” and you reply “Yes, please explain why my math gets the right answer,” this bold statement encouraged by the Total Precipitable Water (TPW) reanalysis NCEP-NCAR (R1) which covers 1948-to-date and thus relies on early radiosonde data of doubtful accuracy. [NCEP-NCAR (R2) doesn’t attempt to cover years before 1979.]
To address this use of early humidity data as support for your error-filled analysis, do note the NCEP-NCAR data provides the humidity for different altitudes through the atmosphere. If, as you do, wish to use such data as a proxy for surface temperature, it would be another “incredibly stupid mistake” to latch onto TPW data when the reanalysis data shows the surface humidity record trends to be greatly different from the TPW trends you are relying on. (For instance, see here – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
Let me now address the nonsense within your analysis linked above. (I haven’t looked at your ‘elevation’ adjustments but these are trivial within the overall analysis.)
☻ You have been informed on your own comment thread that your entire analysis is crazy as you treat temperature anomolies as though they were absolute temperatures so any incomplete coverage cannot impact the global average as you suggest. (Your response was “Your comment makes no sense “) Yet the gross error extends well beyond such incompetence.
☻ From the distributiuon of incomplete coverage, you calculate the average latitude of coverage for the different years of the Berkeley Earth temperature data. So, for instance, in 1925 you calculate global coverage to be 95.0% and the average latitude of that coverage to be 3.764ºN. This itself constitutes a gross error. If there were 95% coverage and all of that missing data were down at the South Pole where its absence would shift the average latitude the most (and where almost all of it would be through this period), how can this shift the average latitude to 3.764ºN? Do the maths!!
☻ But the real howler is the method you use to correct a surface record of averaged absolute temperature (which, of course, BEST is not) for any incomplete coverage.
You reason that, as the average temperature at the two tropics is lower than the average temperature on the equator, this constitutes a temperatutre gradient towards the tropics of -0.133ºC per degree of latitude. (This is presumably from SST data as such a gradient becomes obviously nonsensical using Land & Ocean data.) So at 3.764ºN, that difference from the equator would be -0.500695ºC. This being the average latitude of the coveage, you decide to the BEST global average requires adjusting for such a bias, increasing the global averages throughth early 1900s. Thus, you find that back in the early 1900s the BEST record underestimates global temperatures. The early 1900s were thus warmer than BEST set out, warmer to the point that they rival today’s ‘scorchyissimo’ temperatures.
But your method here is monumentally stupid. Why would the average absolute temperature from incomplete coverage be ever adjusted by the temperature difference between the equator to its latitudinal average?
Imagine this ‘incomplete coverage’ were restricted to the Antarctic continent (not an unreasonable first approximation for the early 1900s), a continent with an average temperature of -35ºC, way below the global average of say +14ºC. As Antarctica is roughly 3% of the globe by area, ignoring Antarctica would result in a measure average absolute temperature of +14×0.97 – 35×0.03 = +12.5ºC. Such an adjusted value is thus reduced not increased. If BEST were an absolute temperature analysis, adjusting for incomplete coverage would add to the warming through the 1900s and certainly not reduce it, as your monumentallly crazy analysis suggests.
So well done you!! The level of error within your analysis is truly spectacular.
MA Rodger,
The precipitable water level is for the whole column of air. It’s not for some layers, like near the surface. The whole column.
It’s completely erroneous for you to look at a layer. The water vapor can freely move up and down.
The question is how much kinetic energy is needed to evaporate surface water to create the amount of water vapor we see in the WHOLE vertical column.
You don’t want to trust the early radiosonde data, but for temperature, you accept every reconstruction of thermometers that you like. What hypocrisy. I can’t stand people like you.
“If there were 95% coverage and all of that missing data were down at the South Pole where its absence would shift the average latitude the most (and where almost all of it would be through this period), how can this shift the average latitude to 3.764ºN? Do the maths!!”
No, silly, when you take an average you are essentially saying that the whole world acts like it does at 3.764N latitude.
If you included south pole data, the whole world average would act like equator latitude.
I don’t need to use south pole anomalies, only tropical ones. The weight of surface area of the rest of the world is already embedded, and I only need to adjust for the differential from the average latitude.
MA Rodger,
“, a continent with an average temperature of -35ºC, way below the global average of say +14ºC. As Antarctica is roughly 3% of the globe by area, ignoring Antarctica would result in a measure average absolute temperature of +14×0.97 – 35×0.03 = +12.5ºC. Such an adjusted value is thus reduced not increased. If BEST were an absolute temperature analysis, adjusting for incomplete coverage would add to the warming through the 1900s and certainly not reduce it, as your monumentallly crazy analysis suggests.”
Completely wrong. Scientists using a democratic area-weighted average of non-missing grid cells, are treating the missing data as if it was 0 kelvin. Using -35C boosts the average, it doesn’t reduce it, as you claim.
It boosts the average as if whole earth was at equator instead of 3.7N.
Why do you think I essentially got the same global temperature index when I democratically averaged only the 16635 persistent grids? (28%)
Look this isn’t rocket science.
Imagine that until yesterday we only had data for above 70 latitude, and today we finally have whole earth coverage.
The anomaly index would see a HUGE spike. Few scientists would take this democratic averaging seriously, but if it happens slowly over time …
MA Rodger,
The reason a latitude average can be 3.7N, is because there is more data available there, such as the COLD arctic.
If you already have a cold bias, why would you add the cold of the antarctic?
And you don’t even have that data to add.
The adjustment accounts for over-representation of the arctic.
Hence we need to warm the data.
Could it be earlier because Mother Nature is moving the Ice Shelf to the Arctic. The ice build up is getting higher each year as it is on the Ice shelf in the Antarctic. She is also starting to put it on the northern land parts of the Continents. Eventually it will be a mile high in upstate New York. That will be in about 40,000 years when the earth begins to radiate more heat to the Black Sky than it retains from the sun.The oceans will stay at the same height untill the ice is gone from the northern parts of the continents. At that time they will drop rapidly until the ocean is down about 400′ lower than present.
@93 Kevin McKinney
You’re being silly, Kevin. Sarcasm doesn’t become you. What’s your point about all the planets and their atmospheres? It’s all about that “runaway greenhouse effect” of the Venus ATMOSPHERE, isn’t it? Well, looking at Venus, it’s about 42 million kms closer to the Sun than the Moon…it presents a much larger surface area to the Sun and also revolves very slowly backwards, one Venus day about equal to one Earth year. They say that the atmosphere of Venus is a “sea” of supercritical CO2… this is understandable since carbon in the rock facing the Sun for about 6 months would be oxidised to become this “sea” of supercritical C02.
So where do we measure the surface temperature of Venus, Kevin.. is it above or below sea-level?
There would also be an extreme temperature dipole set up between side facing the Sun and the shade side of the planet thus explaining why the “sea” / atmosphere tears round and round the entire planet at a great rate of knots.
Actually a small similar effect is observed here on Earth with the outer freer molecules of our themosphere revolving around Earth quicker than the Earth turns.
Altitude Above Sea Level Temperature Barometer In. Hg. Abs. Atmospheric Pressure
500 feet 57⁰F 14⁰C 29.38 17.48 PSI
15,000 feet 6⁰F -14⁰C 16.89 8.29 PSI
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_75.htm
If MA Rodger does not believe that the atmosphere has a huge amount of weight at sea level, MA Rodger can tell me what caused this very well constructed rail tank car to implode.
Vacuum Implosion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6IckF1CM0
Greenhouse Effect is Invalidated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfuafZbpyII
Air temperature decreases as altitude increases. Air is a mixture of gases, and at higher altitudes, air pressure decreases, which cools any gas. Air pressure on Earth is estimated to be about 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level.
Air pressure drops to about 1.6 pounds per square inch at 50,000 feet above sea level. Air pressure is created when gravity acts on the many miles of air molecules comprising the atmosphere. Air pressure is not uniform worldwide; it can change over time. Desert regions typically have lower air pressure than other areas because the hot desert air is less dense than cool air.
https://www.reference.com/science/altitude-affect-temperature-6c82dc33893fed0e
There are many actual climate scientist that do not believe in the greenhouse effect.
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner Abstract The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Hr.Schmidt
I have commented on this before, and I see it in the light of Voltage and Current, which I recommend.
Voltage however high, read EV Electronvolt, has no relevant chemical or climatic effect if the current or mass material- action is too low.
You can groove the cat, lift your hand and touch a metallic connection to the community 5 KV cable out in the street 50 times per second, but do not expect that you can cash the energy bills in terms of NKR/KWh from the community that easily.
The Chosmic or “galactic” irradiation has got tremendous and even very solid world records of voltages.
I calculatet the Large Hadron Collider in Basel. By a spark- gap of 1 meter / megavolt, the CERN will manage a spark in normal air at sea- level from Svalbard to Bagdad, beat that. And it is world record of artificial voltages, 10 E 12 or 13 volts.
But CERN is still nowhere near to the world record of “galactic” or natural voltages 10 E 21 volt.
Those natural voltages from Gods mighty Angels in the galactic skies produce C14 and Be10 and much more here on earth, that has been verified, and of scientific interest.
But, what matters, I have told to you before, is rather x- ray and UV from the Sun at much higher current, but at much lower voltage.
I calculated 30 Kilovolt by E= h.ny through the elementary charge and the speed of light, from near UV, 400 nanometer.
That radiation is sharp sunlight and sunstitch, that scratches chemically. It is very high battery voltage at high enough current, and what produces ozone and photochemical smog.
So I believe in the sun and in the atmospheric environment here where we live, rather than in the far-fetched galaxies. And find this simply by Plancs and Ohms laws still believing in the Angels.
“explain away just about every climate trend under the sun”.
That’s an ironic choice of phraseology, given that our inconstant star, the Sun, governs Earth’s temperature (500 words, three-minute read; 1700 viewings in 48 hours) …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350726458_Global_warming_and_cooling_for_last_2000_years_mimic_Sun's_magnetic_activity_not_CO2_scientific_literature_synthesis
GLOBAL ICE MAKING AND GLOBAL ICE MELTING. Explanation.
Radiant heat is the only form of heat that travels thru a vacuum.
The average surface temperature of the sun is 9,940.73 degrees Fahrenheit.
Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.
The average surface temperature of the earth is 61 degrees Fahrenheit.
I believe the radiant heat striking the earth has been decreasing thru the Melanie. Either because the average surface temperature is cooling, the radius of the sun is decreasing or a combination of both. This is shown by the increase in the length of each successive ice age. The Vostok Ice Core Chart shows this.
The last Ice Age began about 142,000 years ago when the Ice Melting Stage ended and the Ice Making Stage began. At that time the oceans were at their lowest and the Ice Making Stage began. The Radiant heat reflected to the Black Sky was less than that retained by the Earth. Nature began making the Ice Shelf. This took about 10,000 years.
132,000 years ago, the Ice melting stage began. The oceans were at their highest and the radiant heat reflected to the black sky was at it’s highest. The ice covering upstate New York was over a mile thick.
The last Ice Age lasted about 120,000 years. This one should last about 130,000 to 140,000 years. About 12,000 years ago Nature began making the ice shelf. The oceans began to rise. As the oceans rose the 35-degree salt water began to melt the edges if the ice shelf. Understand the ice shelf is resting on land. About 6,000 years ago the breaking off of the Ice Shelf and melting heat equaled the radiant heat reflected to the black sky.
That is where we are now. This ice age should last about 130,000 years. MAN, CAN POLUTE AND KILL HIMSELF, HERSELF, OFF BUT WILL NEVER PRODUCE ENOUGH TO ALTER NATURE.
The CO2 produced will help the farmers feed the growth of humanity!!!
The Ice Age has three stages:
1. With the oceans at their lowest, the earth begins losing more radiant heat to the black sky than it retains from the sun. The ice in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is at its thickest. Nature begins to melt the Ice and deposit it on the frozen land areas at the poles. This is the beginning of the Ice Sheet. About 10,000 years later the edges begin breaking off due to the 35degree salt water melting the edges and bottom of the ice Shelf. This took about 2,000 years.
2. At this point the oceans are down a little from its highest. The oceans will stay at this level until the ice sheet is completely gone.
3. At this point Nature keeps removing heat from the oceans and they begin to drop to their lowest point again.
The CO2 graph on the Vostok ice core shows this for the previous Ice Ages. The more green foliage the lower the CO2 level.
The Ice Age has three stages:
1. With the oceans at their lowest, the earth begins losing more radiant heat to the black sky than it retains from the sun. The ice in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is at its thickest. Nature begins to melt the Ice and deposit it on the frozen land areas at the poles. This is the beginning of the Ice Sheet. About 10,000 years later the edges begin breaking off due to the 35degree salt water melting the edges and bottom of the ice Shelf. This took about 2,000 years.
2. At this point the oceans are down a little from its highest. The oceans will stay at this level until the ice sheet is completely gone.
3. At this point Nature keeps removing heat from the oceans and they begin to drop to their lowest point again.
The CO2 graph on the Vostok ice core shows this for the previous Ice Ages. The more green foliage the lower the CO2 level.
There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed due to the life giving rays of the sun. It remains warmed in the temperate zones and tropics due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere that is reflected in how much mercury that pressure will displace which amounts to the barometric pressure at various altitudes and that is directly reflected in the temperature range at that altitude. I know much about this relationship between altitude and temperature from having went over the 17,769 ft Tharong-La pass on the Annapurna circuit in Nepal and also on my hike to Everest Base camp in Nepal & also when on Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Then we have alarmist maintaining that; “This research has improved our understanding of how much the world will eventually warm if the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is maintained at double the level of pre-industrial times”. Plus this nonsense; “There is much greater certainty that, if left unchecked, global warming would be high enough to bring very severe impacts and risks worldwide”, when in fact there is no evidence that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate. I enjoy seeing what other fables that someone who is so illogical and gullible to believe that the trace gas, CO₂, that is only .03-.04% of the total atmosphere of the Earth has the unbelievable ability to now do to the planet since it became a tool of the unscrupulous people to use to try to control the citizens of the world. In today’s world, who controls the energy controls the world’s population.
Altitude Above Sea Level Temperature Barometer In. Hg. Abs. Atmospheric Pressure
500 feet 57⁰F 14⁰C 29.38 17.48 PSI
15,000 feet 6⁰F -14⁰C 16.89 8.29 PSI
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_75.htm
Vacuum Implosion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6IckF1CM0
Hr. Sheisnberger:
MAR: “Your proposed grand scheme seems to be assuming atmospheric water can increase by 0.001335M km^3 annualy, or a 10% annual increase.”
No – I never ever assumed, wrote or thought about that I plan or can increase atmospheric water by 1335km³ annualy.
You are making a very similar mistake as Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf from PIK in Potsdam in response to my comment in another climate forum.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/sea-level-in-the-ipcc-6th-assessment-report-ar6/#comment-794653
Your mistake is probably that you have not read my posts with due attention, even though they are kept very simple and straightforward.
An increase in atmospheric water by 10% / year would mean that, according to the CCF, earth temperatures rise by approx. 1.4 ° C per year. A state of the climate which means certain death for all life on earth.
So you also completely misunderstood me.
My climate protection strategy would like to take the volume of 3.7mm SLR(1335km³) from the global rivers discharge when their water levels are sufficient(&clean) or even specially in flood events after rain- !!! to store it in soil moisture and groundwater over the land mass.
In principle a simple, seasonal storage of retained river water also to adapt to droughts and floods.
In dry seasons, this water will be mainly evaporated from agriculture, but also the before mentioned “amunas” of the old inca culture and their water management are a perfect way to rewet forests & moors.
hidraulicainca.com/lima/sistema-hidraulico-amunas/
This in turn ensures an increasing relative (and specific) humidity and additional cloud formation over land in a regional drought season.
After an average of ~8.5 days in the atmosphere it will return – even with a relatively high probability – as precipitation over another land area. There will be a multiplier effect that increase together with soil moisture and evaporation rate (wet regions become wetter).
As a result, the water cycle over the land areas is intensified by ~ 1-1,5% and thus the increasing size of the annual mean cloud cover over land areas leads to a higher albedo & CRE, which I estimate to be at least a cooling RF of ~ -0.2W/m² / year.
A really cooling, additional radiative forcing, which, in my opinion, can more than compensate for the current annual radiative forcing caused by CO² .
A holistic, functioning climate protection strategy,(stopping SLR AND global temperature rise & adaptation to droughts and floods) which works alternatively and independently of the reduction in CO² emissions, which only promises to stop the temperatures rise perhaps after ~ 2070 (if we as humanity can reduce emissions immediately – which I personally do not believe)
In the latest IPCC report / WG1 Chapter 7.4.2.4.3, the positive feedback of the cloud cover on an atmosphere warmer by 1 ° C is given with +0.42W m-2 ° C-1.
We are slowly but steadily losing not only areas of ice and snow albedo, but also the clouds albedo due to decreasing global mean cloud cover and higher lapse rate.
The cooling CRE with ~-19W m-2 (chapter 7.2.1. in the same report) should decrease accordingly.
The slower warming of the oceans means that there has not been enough moisture evaporated into – and then held in – the air above the oceans to keep pace with the rising temperatures over land. This means that the air is not as saturated as it was and – as the chart below shows – relative humidity has decreased, desertification is spreading rapidly mainly caused by human activities.
Dryness is a temperature driver and cloud killer.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Global-time-series-of-annual-average-relative-humidity-for-the-land-ocean-and-global-average-relative-to-1981-2010.jpg
That is why I (as an artist – not a climate scientist) think it’s a good idea to create additional “artificial” clouds by additional artificial irrigation retained by river discharge from the superfluous water of the oceans.
—
MAR: but the reported 10% increase in evaporation rate 2003-19 over land equates to some 7,000km^3/y while the reported 3% increase in rainfall equates to 3,300km^3/y and the decrease in direct discharge from land to ocean a further 3,000km^3/y.
This suggests your grand scheme wouldn’t make a ha’p’orth of difference. Evaporation over land is shown to have increased five-time the amount you propose yet AGW and SLR continued apace.
coolmaster: ???
360.57M km² ocean area * 3.7mm SLR = 1334.1km³ water = 8.93mm above the land area.
149.43M km² land area * 2.3L / m² increasing evaporation per year = 343.689km³ water.
* 1L / m² increasing precipitation per year = 149.43km³
* -1.01L decreasing runoff through the rivers per year = -150.92km³
* -0.75L decreasing groundwater level per year = -112.07km³
Your calculator probably has a built-in joker.
And if you are holding a PhD, you should hand it over (to me ?) as soon as possible.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/satellite-data-reveals-impact-of-warming-on-global-water-cycle
image.png
Evaporation increasing by + 2.3mm / year, which is not completely compensated for by increased precipitation of + 1mm / year. Decreasing runoff through rivers of -1.01mm / year and falling groundwater level -0.75mm / year quantify the drainage of the continents.
The authors found a “statistically significant” increase in evapotranspiration of around 10% above the long-term average. During the same period, precipitation only increased by 3% and runoff decreased by 6%.
What is also noticeable here is a simultaneous decrease in relative humidity and cloud cover, which certainly correlates with a general increase in the number of hours of sunshine.
—
The boys with the big mouth must have played with their little balls when the small 1 x 1 was taught in elementary school.
— https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=94&&a=141#137713
MAR`s & Bob Loblow`s jet lag, also called jet lag disorder, is a temporary sleep problem that can affect anyone who quickly travels across multiple bore holes…………………i.e. America Australia America Australia……….. Jet lag occurs because your body’s clock-calculator is still synced to your original bore hole, instead of to the bore hole where you’ve traveled. — Let`s have a short look to your disorder.
MAR & BL in Australia: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=94&&a=141
they startet at 02:35 AM on 15 August, 2021 (comments 68—>
…but the reported 10% increase in evaporation rate 2003-19 over land equates to some 7,000km^3/y while the reported 3% increase in rainfall equates to 3,300km^3/y and the decrease in direct discharge from land to ocean a further 3,000km^3/y.
This suggests your grand scheme wouldn’t make a ha’p’orth of difference. Evaporation over land is shown to have increased five-time the amount you propose yet AGW and SLR continued apace.
macias shurly (alias coolmaster): ???
360.57M km² ocean area * 3.7mm SLR = 1334.1km³ = 8.93mm above the land area.
149.43M km² land area * 2.3L / m² increasing evaporation per year = 343.68km³ water.
* 1L /m² increasing precipitation per year = 149.43km³
* -1.01L/m² decreasing runoff through the rivers per year = -150.92km³
* -0.75L/m² decreasing groundwater level per year = -112.07km³
Your calculator probably has a built-in joker.
And if you are holding a PhD, you should hand it over (to me ?) as soon as possible.
Back in the states they noted an error factor of close to 20. That means 1 x 1 = 20
How is that possible ?
I instantly stopped drinking beer and smoking pot, when I noticed this strange result.
But then I remembered a post I had read there in Australia:
https://skepticalscience.com/the-person-who-lies-to-you-the-most-is-you.html
A section carried the Headline: The take-home message
We all like to see ourselves as intelligent and rational. We don’t like to think we can be fooled. Or wrong.
Our beliefs become part of our identity, and we share those beliefs with others in our social group. The more time or money or emotions we‘ve invested in our beliefs, the more motivated we are to protect them.
When we’re confronted with evidence that we’re wrong, our brains protect us by finding ways to justify the belief, our social standing, and the positive way we view ourselves.
So, we surround ourselves with others that agree with us, and actively seek out information that confirms our beliefs. And we don’t change our minds, because that would mean we were wrong.
In other words, we deceive ourselves because it feels good.
Mr. Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf had a few faint minutes of attention when he read my contribution and answered – that’s all.
How he comes to the conclusion that I plan to hang 1335km³ in the sky is a mystery to me. I was clearly talking about
“”” bringing falling groundwater levels and rising sea levels together and !!! to store it in soil moisture and groundwater over the land mass. In principle a simple, seasonal storage of retained river water to adapt to droughts and floods.””” (very hard to understand and extremly complicated)
But Newton also had to sit under the same apple tree for years, to find out that the apples always fall in the same direction.
You still don’t understand that to this day – with your permanent mental weakness. Perhaps climate science is also afraid that they will be unemployed and blamed, once I have happily resolved the climate crisis.
Some climate scientists will lose their jobs. You ass a Catholic chemist, you probably have a better hand – but still be careful with Alzheimer’s – and !! stay away from the little boys after Sunday mass – otherwise you`ll have to deal with me – Mr. Sheisnbörger
solar wind drives climate, not co2
https://solarclimate.tumblr.com/post/662931197224271872/solar-wind-drives-climate-not-co2
A query about a supposed claim about why lowering CO2 will not mitigate global warming. This appeared in the context of a discussion among energy investors. I’d appreciate comments from actual climate scientists. I’ll just post the claim below and TIA:
“> Climate change and global warming are facts
Yes, certainly, as has been the case for the past 15,000 years.
> lowering CO2 and CH4 emissions will mitigate the negative effects.
True for CH4, but physically untrue for CO2.
The CO2 in the air absorbs in certain wavelength bands. At the present CO2 concentration, and lower concentrations down to pre-industrial levels, all the available upwardly radiated energy in those bands is already absorbed. Increasing the concentration widens out the wings of these bands very slightly, but the additional effect is miniscule at not material.
All physicists and climate scientists agree on the above. It is not in contention.
What is questioned is whether it makes any difference or not at what height in the atmosphere you have to reach before all the energy in these bands is absorbed. This height is lowered with increasing concentration.
The initial global warming hysteria began when some climate scientists proposed a multiplier effect based on changes to cloud formation rates as a result of this lowered absorption height. They put it into their models to test the hypothesis. Those models predicted things that didn’t happen, and further research has invalidated those initial hypotheses.
There is no confirmed or validated physical mechanism for changing CO2 levels by factors of less than at least 3 to have any measurable effect on global temperatures. CO2 concentration responds to global temperature changes, but in concentrations within multiple factors of the present concentration, it doesn’t drive them.
The “multiplier effect” hypothesis has been discredited and if anything, a small inverse effect may be found.
The bottom line is that changing anthropogenic CO2 emissions will have no effect at all on global temperatures (and other climatic measures).
Changing anthropogenic CH4 emissions, though, yes indeed. This may be the causal factor in the correlation. However, CH4 in the atmosphere only persists for a relatively short time until it is disassociated by natural processes.”