Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

[Lord of Planar]

You didn't bust me on anything. But if you want I can show you where you were wrong later today when I have more time to refute your BS.

I'm ready for your comedy of arrogance.

Why did you not respond? You were claiming CO2 warming of the ocean was rather large, and your cherry pick blog material shows it is insignificant.

0.002 degrees per 1 W/m^2...

Do you believe that is more than the ocean responds to normal solar changes?

 

[Buzz]

Why did you not respond? You were claiming CO2 warming of the ocean was rather large, and your cherry pick blog material shows it is insignificant.

Let's be real clear here. I never made any claim that CO2 warming of the ocean was rather large. Even Deuce never said this. And your ad hominem attack on RealClimate just because it is a blog is all you ever have against them. At least it is written by credible scientists who are actively working in the field of climatology. Now I realized the direct warming of the oceans is likely small but your explanation of these effects was so horribly explained as to be pretty much nonsensical as well as missing an important point. I was just providing you with another viewpoint to consider. I should have figured that you wouldn't want to learn anything new.

And I thought about responding to your knee-jerk reaction to my post but got side-tracked on another even more stupid post of yours. More on that later.

0.002 degrees per 1 W/m^2...

Excuse me if I am wrong but wouldn't that be 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1 = 0.002 degrees per 0.1W/m2? Yes... I know. Not a big difference. But the thing you missed is that the experiment they get the graph from wasn't directly about changes in CO2 and how much it was increasing warming of the oceans. It was using changes in cloud cover to show the relationship between changes in longwave radiation. You need to go back and read it more carefully instead of just scanning it quickly and assuming you knew what they were talking about.

Do you believe that is more than the ocean responds to normal solar changes?

I don't know which contributes more. Since the experiment on RealClimate didn't directly measure what we are talking about here and I haven't gone and researched if scientists know what those differences from solar changes have amounted to I am not going to just guess. Maybe you can provide us with something.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Let's be real clear here. I never made any claim that CO2 warming of the ocean was rather large. Even Deuce never said this. And your ad hominem attack on RealClimate just because it is a blog is all you ever have against them. At least it is written by credible scientists who are actively working in the field of climatology. Now I realized the direct warming of the oceans is likely small but your explanation of these effects was so horribly explained as to be pretty much nonsensical as well as missing an important point. I was just providing you with another viewpoint to consider. I should have figured that you wouldn't want to learn anything new.

And I thought about responding to your knee-jerk reaction to my post but got side-tracked on another even more stupid post of yours. More on that later.



Excuse me if I am wrong but wouldn't that be 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1 = 0.002 degrees per 0.1W/m2? Yes... I know. Not a big difference. But the thing you missed is that the experiment they get the graph from wasn't directly about changes in CO2 and how much it was increasing warming of the oceans. It was using changes in cloud cover to show the relationship between changes in longwave radiation. You need to go back and read it more carefully instead of just scanning it quickly and assuming you knew what they were talking about.



I don't know which contributes more. Since the experiment on RealClimate didn't directly measure what we are talking about here and I haven't gone and researched if scientists know what those differences from solar changes have amounted to I am not going to just guess. Maybe you can provide us with something.

Just proves you are not equipped to discus this topic without looking foolish.

I suggest you bone up on these sciences better.

 

[Buzz]

Just proves you are not equipped to discus this topic without looking foolish.

I suggest you bone up on these sciences better.

Typical denialist response... When you can't prove me wrong just say or insinuate I'm wrong without anything to back yourself up and then run away from the discussion.

I think your recent reply to another poster who was doing something similar is the perfect response to you now...

So prove me wrong then, else stop speaking from where the sun doesn't shine, please.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Typical denialist response... When you can't prove me wrong just say or insinuate I'm wrong without anything to back yourself up and then run away from the discussion.

I think your recent reply to another poster who was doing something similar is the perfect response to you now...

WTF...

I said:

My God man. Do you selectively ignore points I make?

I have acknowledged it warms the oceans. Just a minor amount.

Again, please stop with the stupidity.
​

Then, you linked that "why greenhouse gasses warm the ocean" link that proved my point.

You are so lost, you don't even understand your blunders.

 

[Buzz]

WTF...

I said:

My God man. Do you selectively ignore points I make?

I have acknowledged it warms the oceans. Just a minor amount.

Again, please stop with the stupidity.
​

Then, you linked that "why greenhouse gasses warm the ocean" link that proved my point.

You are so lost, you don't even understand your blunders.

WTF... is right!

All I did was link to another take on the discussion taking place. I didn't make any comments about you being wrong or anything. And in your knee-jerk response, you assumed my intentions, attacked my source by ad-hominem alone, misunderstood what the link was saying, and then suggested that I was ignorant and that my link was unimportant.

And then, despite the fact I didn't reply to your pathetic response, You bring up my name to further attack me in a discussion I'm not even participating in and incorrectly claim you "busted" me.

Then you proceeded to call me arrogant, lie about what was said, accuse me of cherry-picking, get the numbers wrong, And then ask me a question that can't be answered with the data that has been presented here.

Then, to top it all off, you again suggest I'm stupid and look foolish without a single point to back yourself up. Your the one who doesn't understand your own blunders.

 

[Lord of Planar]

WTF... is right!

All I did was link to another take on the discussion taking place. I didn't make any comments about you being wrong or anything. And in your knee-jerk response, you assumed my intentions, attacked my source by ad-hominem alone, misunderstood what the link was saying, and then suggested that I was ignorant and that my link was unimportant.

And then, despite the fact I didn't reply to your pathetic response, You bring up my name to further attack me in a discussion I'm not even participating in and incorrectly claim you "busted" me.

Then you proceeded to call me arrogant, lie about what was said, accuse me of cherry-picking, get the numbers wrong, And then ask me a question that can't be answered with the data that has been presented here.

Then, to top it all off, you again suggest I'm stupid and look foolish without a single point to back yourself up. Your the one who doesn't understand your own blunders.

LOL...

Prior, you were claiming ocean warming from CO2 as if it was highly significant.

Are you back-peddling?

 

[Desert Storm]

LOL...

Prior, you were claiming ocean warming from CO2 as if it was highly significant.

Are you back-peddling?

I'm pretty sure Buzz doesnt understand what the hell is going on at this point

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm pretty sure Buzz doesnt understand what the hell is going on at this point

Clearly!

 

[Desert Storm]

Clearly!

I find it interesting that a lot of you Americans are a lot more intelligent then I thought you were

 

[Buzz]

LOL...

Prior, you were claiming ocean warming from CO2 as if it was highly significant.

Are you back-peddling?

Nope.... because I never said any such thing. Think I did? Prove it.

I'm pretty sure Buzz doesnt understand what the hell is going on at this point

Says the guy who thinks excess CO2 can just push off the atmosphere.

:lamo

Lord must be proud to have someone like you backing him up.

:lamo

 

[Desert Storm]

Says the guy who thinks excess CO2 can just push off the atmosphere.

I never said all CO2 can be, but there is some escape:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

 

[jimbo]

Because forecasting climate is actually easier than forecasting weather. They're predicting general averages over the planet, as opposed to specific days and specific weather in specific locations.

I'd take issue with that statement. Forecasting climate is still forecasting weather, and all too often the forecasters get it wrong.

 

[ataraxia]

I'd take issue with that statement. Forecasting climate is still forecasting weather, and all too often the forecasters get it wrong.

So what are you saying? That everyone should ignore them now anytime they predict severe weather events?

 

[Buzz]

I never said all CO2 can be, but there is some escape:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

This is what you said:

I also believe in atmospheric escape, so if everyone stopped putting out CO2's tomorrow, the planet's atmosphere would recover fairly quickly by pushing the excess CO2 out to space.

Now I don't know if you bothered to actually read your Wikipedia link but if you did, and you understood it, you would have realized that excess CO2 can't escape the atmosphere without significant amounts of other gases doing the same. Like oxygen and nitrogen which are lighter than CO2. And when Deuce asked you about this, you claimed that the question was dumb and completely irrelevant. Well... it wasn't dumb and the question was completely relevant. The Wiki article shows that you are wrong.

Now I hate to be the one who breaks the news to you but when you say outright crazy things like excess CO2 can just push out of the atmosphere as well as other unscientific and outright wrong information you have pushed it shows that you don't really understand the science of climate change.

 

[Desert Storm]

This is what you said:



Now I don't know if you bothered to actually read your Wikipedia link but if you did, and you understood it, you would have realized that excess CO2 can't escape the atmosphere without significant amounts of other gases doing the same. Like oxygen and nitrogen which are lighter than CO2. And when Deuce asked you about this, you claimed that the question was dumb and completely irrelevant. Well... it wasn't dumb and the question was completely relevant. The Wiki article shows that you are wrong.

Now I hate to be the one who breaks the news to you but when you say outright crazy things like excess CO2 can just push out of the atmosphere as well as other unscientific and outright wrong information you have pushed it shows that you don't really understand the science of climate change

I remember reading an article that stated some CO2's escape the atmosphere. How much (and at what rate) I dont remember

 

[Buzz]

I remember reading an article that stated some CO2's escape the atmosphere. How much (and at what rate) I dont remember

So... your belief that CO2 can just push off the atmosphere was based on a vague memory of something you've read? Did you think to maybe research the subject before you decided to express your opinion on it? Or after you were challenged but instead decided to call that challenge dumb and irrelevant? Obviously not because your belief is literally so wrong as to be a complete joke. And it looks like many of your beliefs expressed here are equally as wrong.

 

[Desert Storm]

So... your belief that CO2 can just push off the atmosphere was based on a vague memory of something you've read? Did you think to maybe research the subject before you decided to express your opinion on it? Or after you were challenged but instead decided to call that challenge dumb and irrelevant? Obviously not because your belief is literally so wrong as to be a complete joke. And it looks like many of your beliefs expressed here are equally as wrong.

You sound a bit mad, Buzzie. Like your feelings were hurt or something.

Here's another thing you might find dumb but is actually true. CO2's also get absorbed into plant life and trees. In fact many trees and plants are growing much larger now because we're pumping so much CO2 into the air. This can actually be a good thing because we need plants and trees in this world for food consumption and oxygen.

Read and learn: https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees

Also I dont know if you ever heard of the treeline around Canada's arctic?? But it too is moving a few kms north every year, which again is a good thing because it will mean more vegetation

 

[longview]

You sound a bit mad, Buzzie. Like your feelings were hurt or something.

Here's another thing you might find dumb but is actually true. CO2's also get absorbed into plant life and trees. In fact many trees and plants are growing much larger now because we're pumping so much CO2 into the air. This can actually be a good thing because we need plants and trees in this world for food consumption and oxygen.

Read and learn: https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees

Also I dont know if you ever heard of the treeline around Canada's arctic?? But it too is moving a few kms north every year, which again is a good thing because it will mean more vegetation

Add to that, the math that makes burning fossil fuels produce so much CO2 (1kg of fuel produces 3 kg of CO2),
is reversible, Each kg of plant matter requires 3 kg of CO2.
A line around the arctic, Canada, Russia, Alaska, Scandinavia, all growing trees instead of Tundra, would consume
considerable CO2.

 

[Desert Storm]

Add to that, the math that makes burning fossil fuels produce so much CO2 (1kg of fuel produces 3 kg of CO2),
is reversible, Each kg of plant matter requires 3 kg of CO2.
A line around the arctic, Canada, Russia, Alaska, Scandinavia, all growing trees instead of Tundra, would consume
considerable CO2.

And the warmer northern Canada and Alaska get, the more farmland it will open up that was previously too cold to grow grain and vegetables, and the more people will migrate north. There's a lot of positive benefits if/when severe global warming turns out to be as dire as the "experts" predict it will

 

[longview]

And the warmer northern Canada and Alaska get, the more farmland it will open up that was previously too cold to grow grain and vegetables, and the more people will migrate north. There's a lot of positive benefits if/when severe global warming turns out to be as dire as the "experts" predict it will

Correct! The catastrophic predictions are based on several variables falling in line, and that does not appear to be happening.
The increase in the average temperature has mostly been in nighttime lows in the winter months not getting as low.
This does not affect the tropic and sub tropic regions much, but allows more days between frosts
for Northern areas.
There could be some changes in crop choices based on reduced chill hours,
but the Science of Horticulture seems to be advancing much faster than the temperature.

 

[Buzz]

You sound a bit mad, Buzzie. Like your feelings were hurt or something.

So... you're calling me "Buzzie" now? Does childish behavior like this make you feel better?

Looks to me like you're the one who is mad and had his feelings hurt.

Here's another thing....

Typical denialist tactic. When you are proven wrong then just change the subject.

:lamo

 

[Desert Storm]

Typical denialist tactic. When you are proven wrong then just change the subject.

:lamo

Wrong again Buzzie, you're the one who's wrong and didnt do his research before you called my post dumb. Now its your turn to feel dumb.

I cannot locate the exact peer reviewed study which showed CO2 atmospheric escape, but I did find this one which shows there's escape of O2 and N2 near the two poles. 90 tonnes per day to be exact. And while this article doesnt show CO2 escape, the other study I read did:

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

Now apologize for calling my previous post dumb

 

[Desert Storm]

^^^^^^^ whe're is Buzzie???

Did he give up?? Or did he just google enough stuff to come back at me later........LOL ???

 

[Buzz]

Wrong again Buzzie, you're the one who's wrong and didnt do his research before you called my post dumb. Now its your turn to feel dumb.

I cannot locate the exact peer reviewed study which showed CO2 atmospheric escape, but I did find this one which shows there's escape of O2 and N2 near the two poles. 90 tonnes per day to be exact. And while this article doesnt show CO2 escape, the other study I read did:

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

Now apologize for calling my previous post dumb

Wow... you really have no clue, do you? Your still wrong and for more than one reason.

But before I show your ignorance lets review exactly what you said:

I also believe in atmospheric escape, so if everyone stopped putting out CO2's tomorrow, the planet's atmosphere would recover fairly quickly by pushing the excess CO2 out to space.

First of all... your flawed memory doesn't prove anything.

Now you admit your article doesn't even mention CO2. But even if for the sake of this argument I admitted that 90 tonnes of CO2 escape the Earth every day that is only about 33,000 tonnes a year. Consider the fact that humans put about 30 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and the Earth absorbs about half of that. So that means that about 15 gigatonnes are added to the atmosphere every year. So the Earth's hypothetical leak would take about 450,000 years to add up to the amount that accumulates in just ONE year. If this was the only way the Earth could get rid of extra CO2 it would literally take millions of years to recover like you said. Luckily for the Earth, it would still absorb CO2 if we quit putting it into the atmosphere but it would only take hundreds to thousands of years to recover.

And you're also obviously wrong because it would be impossible for that much CO2 to blow off the atmosphere without the Earth losing a huge amount of oxygen and nitrogen. So much so that it would likely make the Earth uninhabitable.

Dude... you're in way over your head.