[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

I don't understand why that's hard to believe.

Cognitive bias can be a bitch, even for things that were actually measured. People's bias will cause them to not believe it to be correct because it conflicts with what they think they know.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I don't understand why that's hard to believe. CO2 absorbs more of the reflected heat off the earth and warms the troposphere (closer to the ground). Since less heat is making it out of the troposphere, since it's being absorbed by CO2, the Strato and Mesosphere cool off.

ITT: Comedy covering ignorance of basic logic and science.

So then why argue with us when we taunt you folks with the argument you just reiterated that global cooling is caused by global warming and that it's cold outside only because it's so hot?

There is no global cooling. That's the part your cognitive bias made up.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I don't understand why that's hard to believe. CO2 absorbs more of the reflected heat off the earth and warms the troposphere (closer to the ground). Since less heat is making it out of the troposphere, since it's being absorbed by CO2, the Strato and Mesosphere cool off.

ITT: Comedy covering ignorance of basic logic and science.

So then why argue with us when we taunt you folks with the argument you just reiterated that global cooling is caused by global warming and that it's cold outside only because it's so hot?

Because that's simplistic and intentionally phrased to sound ridiculous? Also upper atmospheric cooling =/= global cooling. So it's also wrong?

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

Because that's simplistic and intentionally phrased to sound ridiculous?

Welcome to this thing we call 'The Internet' where both your ideas and mine are routinely subjected to ridicule and mockery.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Because that's simplistic and intentionally phrased to sound ridiculous?

Welcome to this thing we call 'The Internet' where both your ideas and mine are routinely subjected to ridicule and mockery.

Except mine are backed with facts and data. Yours are back by... well nothing.

[PluggyRug]

Tricks Tricks:

I don't understand why that's hard to believe. CO2 absorbs more of the reflected heat off the earth and warms the troposphere (closer to the ground). Since less heat is making it out of the troposphere, since it's being absorbed by CO2, the Strato and Mesosphere cool off.

ITT: Comedy covering ignorance of basic logic and science.

CO2 absorbs energy at the infra red frequency and then emits the absorbed energy in all directions. It does not retain the energy.

[llama66]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Because that's simplistic and intentionally phrased to sound ridiculous?

Welcome to this thing we call 'The Internet' where both your ideas and mine are routinely subjected to ridicule and mockery.

[Tricks]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Tricks Tricks:

I don't understand why that's hard to believe. CO2 absorbs more of the reflected heat off the earth and warms the troposphere (closer to the ground). Since less heat is making it out of the troposphere, since it's being absorbed by CO2, the Strato and Mesosphere cool off.

ITT: Comedy covering ignorance of basic logic and science.

CO2 absorbs energy at the infra red frequency and then emits the absorbed energy in all directions. It does not retain the energy.

I didn't say it did. If it goes in all directions, part of it shoots back at the earth. More CO2 = more absorption = more heat reflected back towards the planet instead of escaping.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

I didn't say it did. If it goes in all directions, part of it shoots back at the earth. More CO2 = more absorption = more heat reflected back towards the planet instead of escaping.

That's actually a very helpful thing if you want to prevent Canada from once again being covered in a beautiful, glistening, 3km thick layer of ice.

Maybe it'll suck for the Maldives, but it's going to be frigging wonderful for Edmonton.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I didn't say it did. If it goes in all directions, part of it shoots back at the earth. More CO2 = more absorption = more heat reflected back towards the planet instead of escaping.

That's actually a very helpful thing if you want to prevent Canada from once again being covered in a beautiful, glistening, 3km thick layer of ice.

Maybe it'll suck for the Maldives, but it's going to be frigging wonderful for Edmonton.

Yes it is. There is nothing inherently negative about CO2. But it is possible to have too much of a good thing. The same physics that keeps us from being a ball of ice in space has the capability of heating us up past the point where things are good for us here on our little mote of dust.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

True...I thought that CO2 was the mystikal magikal molekule that radiated heat all on its own.

As usual though, he's completely wrong.

$1:

Complex models of the atmosphere show that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, while warming the surface and troposphere, lead to lower temperatures in the stratosphere and mesosphere. This cooling, which is often referred to as “stratospheric cooling”, is evident also in observations and considered to be one of the fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming. Although the responsible mechanisms have been identified, they have mostly been discussed heuristically, incompletely, or in combination with other effects such as ozone depletion, leaving the subject prone to misconceptions.

https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/697/2016/

Every time you see the word "models" replace it with the term "BS" for a dose of reality.

The global warming "fingerprint" thing is something I've seen debated and in spite of what Doc will tell you comes down to opinion or what you choose to believe. I believe it's BS.

The last paragraph even tells you there's nothing approaching data driven support here. You would require religious levels of faith in Warmist ideology to believe what's proposed is science.

[N_Fiddledog]

Although to be fair I should make sure we're thinking about the same thing.

When the quote says this:

$1:

This cooling, which is often referred to as “stratospheric cooling”, is evident also in observations and considered to be one of the fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming.

are they talking about that business of how the fingerprint of global warming was supposed to show stratospheric cooling over the tropics? Something like that anyway.

As I recall that one; existing measurements contradicted it so they invented a new way to measure temperatures through wind or something. "Amazingly" (to them supposedly) that bit of desperation confirmed their hypothesis.

Although I believe I heard out of the corner of my ear that people were laughing too hard at that one so they moved the goal posts again somehow. I forget how.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Every time you see the word "models" replace it with the term "BS" for a dose of reality.

The global warming "fingerprint" thing is something I've seen debated and in spite of what Doc will tell you comes down to opinion or what you choose to believe. I believe it's BS.

The last paragraph even tells you there's nothing approaching data driven support here. You would require religious levels of faith in Warmist ideology to believe what's proposed is science.

The Hoover Institute has a good essay on this subject:

https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Hoover Institute has a good essay on this subject:

Remember we were talking on who funds things like 'cigarettes are good' and climate denial?

$1:

The other ExxonMobil denier grantees last year were the Center for American and International Law ($23,000), Federalist Society ($10,000), Hoover Institution ($15,000), Mountain States Legal Foundation ($5,000), National Black Chamber of Commerce ($30,000), National Taxpayers Union Foundation ($40,000), and Washington Legal Foundation ($40,000).

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxonmobil-sti ... 17476.html

[BartSimpson]

Yes, $15,000 means that Big Oil fucking OWNS the Hoover Institute!!!