Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
why are you feverishly distracting from my questions?

you really want to say something about the 'Holocene optimum'... why not just say it? Why are you such a tease? :lol: By the by, what was the cause(s) of warming during that period... and how does that apply in relation to today's relatively recent warming?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
no need for another of your go-fetch routines... simply answer the questions. You've repeatedly thrown down this "Holecene 4 degree warmer statement"... of course, you never elaborate on it, you just do a "ta da" drop of the statement. Now, when you're actually asked to answer a couple of questions relative to the Holecene Optimum warming cause(s) and how you presume to correlate that to today's relatively recent warming... why... you go all DrDistracto! Is there a problem... for you?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Go fetch or f-ck off and leave this to the educated.

you clearly are the GreatPoser! You drop a workshop report... hundreds of pages in length... with yet another grand "ta da" of yours! You don't say a single thing about the report... not one thing! You don't try to indicate what significance the report holds... particularl significance to "present" warming/climate... you just go "ta da" and insultingly say "go fetch"! :mrgreen: Of course you do.

rather than simply going "ta da; go fetch", is there a particular point you'd like to emphasize within that workshop report... one relative to "present" warming/climate?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Are you done reading the bullsh-t pet theory NASA is spewing? Need help?

oh wait... what's this... are you now claiming you weren't trumpeting that NASA workshop report as some type of vindication for your pet-theories? Are you now... NOW... distancing yourself from it? Make up your mind! Come on; come out of the vague shadows you clearly prefer! Poser!
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,614
11,532
113
Low Earth Orbit
Sorry for putting you against ropes son. Are you saying your lunacy is a result of CO2 induced hypoxia? Is that why you're brain dead and unable to understand science or are you simply a science denier? Is that what you're saying?


What are you smoking neighbourg? Drywaldo insists that is false and Total Solar Irradiance never varies nor does the magnetosphere fluctuate varying Cosmic Ray Precipation.

It's just a pet theory neighbourg.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Go read NASA's take on "my pet theory" in the other thread ya low life unemployed climate drywaller alarmist.

As NASA says about your pet theory:

"The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative."

realy no need to take it on. The reserachers themselves are aware of the speculative nature of their inquiries.

Although it's certainly true that the impact of sun on climate is a topic where there is much to be learned, even if it can be shown that the sun is predominately to blame for recent warming, you would still have to demonstrate why CO2 is not acting as predicted. If it turns out that CO2 is not warming the earth, that's throwing out a couple of hundred years of spectral physics.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,614
11,532
113
Low Earth Orbit
Still stuck on CO2? Are you a science denier too?

Do you believe life is going to die off if climate returns to the Holocene norm too?
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Still stuck on CO2? Are you a science denier too?

Do you believe life is going to die off if climate returns to the Holocene norm too?

I don't think I've ever made such a claim. I believe, as I've said in the past, that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is going to warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere in accordance with the generallly understood Greenhouse Effect. While I suspect that the senstivity rate is aorund 1 deg C for every doubling of CO2 (as opposed to the IPCC estimate averaging around 2 to 4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2). However, the models are highly uncertain, and preedictions as to severity of effect can't be given with great confidence.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,614
11,532
113
Low Earth Orbit
I don't think I've ever made such a claim. I believe, as I've said in the past, that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is going to warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere in accordance with the generallly understood Greenhouse Effect. While I suspect that the senstivity rate is aorund 1 deg C for every doubling of CO2 (as opposed to the IPCC estimate averaging around 2 to 4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2). However, the models are highly uncertain, and preedictions as to severity of effect can't be given with great confidence.

And the thermosphere?

No atmospheric gases excited in the thermosphere down or that is reserved for CO2 and IR going up?
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
And the thermosphere?

No atmospheric gases excited in the thermosphere down or that is reserved for CO2 and IR going up?

It's cooling, I believe. The physics is a little different due to the molecular collisions being rarer. I was rtaher amazed to discover that the temperature of the thermospehre at a solar minimum is about 400 deg C, and about 900 deg C at a solar maximum. You don't normally think of the edge of space being that hot. You wouldn't feel that as heat though, as the molecuels are so far apart.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,614
11,532
113
Low Earth Orbit
It's cooling, I believe. The physics is a little different due to the molecular collisions being rarer. I was rtaher amazed to discover that the temperature of the thermospehre at a solar minimum is about 400 deg C, and about 900 deg C at a solar maximum. You don't normally think of the edge of space being that hot. You wouldn't feel that as heat though, as the molecuels are so far apart.
Currently cooling and it can and has hit 1150C.

The IR is still the same from the top down and cosmic rays penetrate deeper exciting even more N and O2 and at a higher rate with a diminished magnetosphere.
 
Last edited:

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
waldo insists that is false and Total Solar Irradiance never varies

now you resort to fabrication? How desperate are you? The following post shows variance; unfortunately for you it also shows a reverse-correlation between temperature and solar irradiance. Please feel free to attempt to counter the data representation within that graphic...