New Orelans under a Winter Storm Warning

[Buzz]

The aerosol warming and ocean currents are the only ones that we know as fact. CO2 must be pretty insignificant not to warm the south much at all.

Really??



So... you think that the fact that the amount of ocean Vs land between the two hemispheres has nothing to do with it?



I guess that this proves you don't know as much about AGW as you think you do.

 

[VanceMack]

"Mississippi, the neighboring state to Louisiana, has a few snow play areas that are within driving distance of New Orleans. These areas are specifically designed for winter fun and offer snow tubing, sledding, and snowmen-building activities.
Bogue Chitto Water Park in Franklinton, Mississippi, and Flint Creek Water Park in Wiggins, Mississippi, are popular destinations for snow enthusiasts.

• Mississippi Gulf Coast

If you are looking for a snow getaway combined with coastal charm, head to the Mississippi Gulf Coast. During rare snowfall events, areas like Biloxi, Gulfport, and Bay St. Louis may see some snowflakes.
While the snow may not accumulate significantly, the coastal scenery combined with a touch of snow can create a picturesque experience.

• Northern Louisiana

As you venture further north within Louisiana, the chances of encountering snow increase. Cities and towns in northern Louisiana occasionally experience snowfall during winter. While snow accumulation may vary, these areas provide a better chance of seeing snow compared to New Orleans."

So yeah...New Orleans only gets significant snow accumulations about every 15 years.

Thats abnormal...not extreme...and its only about 35 miles south of places that actually DO get regular snowfall annually.

 

[Lord of Planar]

All I ever do is rightly call you a denier.

Liar.

You do not rightly do so, and it is slander.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Really??



So... you think that the fact that the amount of ocean Vs land between the two hemispheres has nothing to do with it?



I guess that this proves you don't know as much about AGW as you think you do.

We see no CO2 footprint in that image. We only see what is most likely an aerosol footprint.

If we assume the forcing down from CO2 has increased by 2 W/m^2, with a total absolute downward forcing around 500 W/m^2, do you really think that 0.4% makes any significant difference?

 

[Buzz]

Liar.

You do not rightly do so, and it is slander.

Now, I could say a whole lot about what is and isn't allowed here at DP but I don't think the mods would like it. So... I'm just going to say that I think you should think about what you are saying here.

We see no CO2 footprint in that image.

As if CO2 is the only factor.



That is just dumb.

We only see what is most likely an aerosol footprint.

Also a stupid comment

If we assume the forcing down from CO2 has increased by 2 W/m^2, with a total absolute downward forcing around 500 W/m^2, do you really think that 0.4% makes any significant difference?

WTF?!? There is no downward forcing of 500 W/m^2. Do you even know the difference between a forcing and a flux? It doesn't look like it. And there are a lot more factors that are warming the planet. From other GHGs to feedbacks that also increase warming. And when you consider that all these factors have been increasing for several decades, it is no wonder the planet is warming. Come on, Lord... I thought you knew all this.

You keep telling me how much more you know about the science of climate change than me yet you keep making constant mistakes and showing gaps in your understanding. One would think you would know when to quit making a fool of yourself but I guess not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now, I could say a whole lot about what is and isn't allowed here at DP but I don't think the mods would like it. So... I'm just going to say that I think you should think about what you are saying here.

You should think about what a denier really is and maybe you would be smart enough to understand that you are slandering people when you call them a denier.

Until then, you are nothing but an ignorant bully to me, that don't even understand what he debates.

As if CO2 is the only factor.



That is just dumb.Yes, you are being dumb for
Also a stupid comment

Why? We started this string of the thread specifically with CO2. Now you want to move away from CO2.

Why?

WTF?!? There is no downward forcing of 500 W/m^2.

I specified "TOTAL ABSOLUTE" downward forcing.

1​

a(1)​

: strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power​

Definition of FORCING

strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power; —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale; moral or mental strength… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Please notice that the solar and the longwave produce 502 W/m^2 IAW the IPCC as shown in the AR6. Remove the 25 reflected is you must, but it is still extensive making CO2 forcing changes insignificant.

Do you even know the difference between a forcing and a flux? It doesn't look like it.

You only know what the cult leaders tell you. I gave the definition and specified "absolute." Yes, I know how the IPCC uses them. That does not make it the only way to use the terms. If you are going to tell someone they are wrong, wouldn't it be wise to verify you are correct first?

These papers are written to push an agenda. You should know by now that I show the reality of the inconvenient facts that they do not tell you. You have been brainwashed.

And there are a lot more factors that are warming the planet. From other GHGs to feedbacks that also increase warming.

Why are you limited to greenhouse gasses and their imaginary feedbacks that are only hypothesized, with no real values assigned?

And when you consider that all these factors have been increasing for several decades, it is no wonder the planet is warming. Come on, Lord... I thought you knew all this.

You are ignoring other factors. You have been well brainwashed to only focus on greenhouse gasses.

You keep telling me how much more you know about the science of climate change than me yet you keep making constant mistakes and showing gaps in your understanding. One would think you would know when to quit making a fool of yourself but I guess not.

LOL...

Careful.

LOL...

The D-K Effect is showing in your words. And it was you who kept saying you know more.

LOL...

Show me anything in this post I said that is incorrect. The force of the energy striking the earth is 502 W/m^2 IAW the graph I presented. The IPCC rarely uses the term "forcing" in absolute terms. It is always relative to a particular baseline.

 

[PoS]

View attachment 67552614 View attachment 67552616 View attachment 67552618

 

[ataraxia]

View attachment 67552767

Yes. Anything scientist tell us may require government intervention must be by definition wrong and a scam.

There’s a reason why Trump voting areas in the country die more. It’s because they’re such “sophisticated skeptics”. If they get any smarter they’ll wipe themselves and all the rest of us out with them.

"We discuss several mechanisms explaining why, to some extent universally, conservatives (the right-wing oriented public) were less likely to follow public health recommendations, were more COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant, and had increased infection rates, poorer health outcomes, and increased mortality compared to left-wing oriented public. The mechanisms explaining the links include the media, trust, cognitions, and values. We conclude the chapter with lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and future research directions on the pandemics' politicization."

The Politicization of the COVID-19 Pandemic - PubMed

Political actors and institutions are largely responsible for effectively implementing the latest scientific and medical information in the form of public health measures. However, when politicians' judgments and decision-making are not founded on scientific facts or when scientific findings are...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ataraxia]

You should think about what a denier really is and maybe you would be smart enough to understand that you are slandering people when you call them a denier.

Until then, you are nothing but an ignorant bully to me, that don't even understand what he debates.

Why? We started this string of the thread specifically with CO2. Now you want to move away from CO2.

Why?

I specified "TOTAL ABSOLUTE" downward forcing.

1​

a(1)​

: strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power​

Definition of FORCING

strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power; —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale; moral or mental strength… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

View attachment 67552759

Please notice that the solar and the longwave produce 502 W/m^2 IAW the IPCC as shown in the AR6. Remove the 25 reflected is you must, but it is still extensive making CO2 forcing changes insignificant.

You only know what the cult leaders tell you. I gave the definition and specified "absolute." Yes, I know how the IPCC uses them. That does not make it the only way to use the terms. If you are going to tell someone they are wrong, wouldn't it be wise to verify you are correct first?

These papers are written to push an agenda. You should know by now that I show the reality of the inconvenient facts that they do not tell you. You have been brainwashed.

Why are you limited to greenhouse gasses and their imaginary feedbacks that are only hypothesized, with no real values assigned?

You are ignoring other factors. You have been well brainwashed to only focus on greenhouse gasses.

LOL...

Careful.

LOL...

The D-K Effect is showing in your words. And it was you who kept saying you know more.

LOL...

Show me anything in this post I said that is incorrect. The force of the energy striking the earth is 502 W/m^2 IAW the graph I presented. The IPCC rarely uses the term "forcing" in absolute terms. It is always relative to a particular baseline.

You have been shown using peer reviewed papers why this is wrong. They’re not smarter than the entire scientific community.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have been shown using peer reviewed papers why this is wrong.

That is a lie.

 

[Buzz]

You should think about what a denier really is and maybe you would be smart enough to understand that you are slandering people when you call them a denier.

Until then, you are nothing but an ignorant bully to me, that don't even understand what he debates.

You call me a denier all the time! And then you say something far worse by calling me an ignorant bully??

WOW!!

And then you edit your quote of what I said to falsely add that I called you dumb when all I did was say something you said was dumb.

GOD DAMN LORD!! That is just F*&^%ING PATHETIC!!

Why? We started this string of the thread specifically with CO2. Now you want to move away from CO2.

Why?

Because you posted a graphic of global warming and asked why it was top-heavy when all the reasons it is top-heavy are because of things other than CO2. DUH!!

I specified "TOTAL ABSOLUTE" downward forcing.

1​

a(1)​

: strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power​

Definition of FORCING

strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power; —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale; moral or mental strength… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

View attachment 67552759

Please notice that the solar and the longwave produce 502 W/m^2 IAW the IPCC as shown in the AR6. Remove the 25 reflected is you must, but it is still extensive making CO2 forcing changes insignificant.

You only know what the cult leaders tell you. I gave the definition and specified "absolute." Yes, I know how the IPCC uses them. That does not make it the only way to use the terms. If you are going to tell someone they are wrong, wouldn't it be wise to verify you are correct first?

These papers are written to push an agenda. You should know by now that I show the reality of the inconvenient facts that they do not tell you. You have been brainwashed.

Why are you limited to greenhouse gasses and their imaginary feedbacks that are only hypothesized, with no real values assigned?

You are ignoring other factors. You have been well brainwashed to only focus on greenhouse gasses.

LOL...

Careful.

LOL...

The D-K Effect is showing in your words. And it was you who kept saying you know more.

LOL...

Show me anything in this post I said that is incorrect. The force of the energy striking the earth is 502 W/m^2 IAW the graph I presented. The IPCC rarely uses the term "forcing" in absolute terms. It is always relative to a particular baseline.

So... you have obviously forgotten about the time I had to school you on the difference between radiative energy and radiative forcing.

...Radiative energy is any energy going into, stored in, or escaping the Earth. Whether it is the shortwave energy coming from the sun, the longwave energy bouncing back and forth between the land, oceans, and atmosphere, to the LW escaping out into space. And all three are almost always measured in watts per square meter.

Now when everything is in balance the amount of incoming radiative energy is equal to outgoing radiative energy. This is called equilibrium.

---

Radiative forcing is any change in either the amount of incoming/outgoing radiation or a physical change in the planet that causes a CHANGE in that equilibrium. Like if the Sun's output were to increase. That would cause a warm forcing. Or a change in the amount of GHGs there was in the atmosphere. That would cause a decline in the amount of longwave energy able to escape out into space and also causing warming.

So when you claim that the Earth receives 500 W/m2 of radiative forcing you are just showing everyone that you don't know what you're talking about.

And you wonder why I am convinced I know more about this than you do.

And before you go and lie about this, here is what you replied:

LOL...

Terminology correction. Thanks for finally explaining my oversight.


Thanks for finally explaining in your words.

Have you ever thought that if you tell me how I am wrong, I might agree? But no. You just claim I am wrong without explaining.

Hope many times have I asked you to explaining how I am wrong, and you never have? Now you finally have...

And now here you are insulting me, saying I'm brainwashed, and suffering from D-K effect when it is YOU who has gotten his terminology all wrong. And you are just outright lying about what the IPCC says.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You call me a denier all the time! And then you say something far worse by calling me an ignorant bully??

I call you a denier of science frequently. You are. A denier, meaning of climate change is someone who does not believe any of our activities affect anything.

I accept that we change our environment. A denier does not.

Saying you are a science denier is spot on. You believe what ever other people claim that you consider an authority, rather than the science when shown to you.

Your logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" is rather strong. We, what ever happened to question authority?

WOW!!

And then you edit your quote of what I said to falsely add that I called you dumb when all I did was say something you said was dumb.

What? You didn't edit that out after I started responding?

Because you posted a graphic of global warming and asked why it was top-heavy when all the reasons it is top-heavy are because of things other than CO2. DUH!!

I believe I got that from the linked study, but I'm not taking the time to verify.

So... you have obviously forgotten about the time I had to school you on the difference between radiative energy and radiative forcing.

You have that wrong. The IPCC uses forcing as a change. I specified "absolute." I am not wrong. You just are too hard headed to admit I am correct.

And before you go and lie about this, here is what you replied:

And now here you are insulting me, saying I'm brainwashed, and suffering from D-K effect when it is YOU who has gotten his terminology all wrong. And you are just outright lying about what the IPCC says.

That's right. Pile on to your ineptness.

 

[PoS]

Yes. Anything scientist tell us may require government intervention must be by definition wrong and a scam.

There’s a reason why Trump voting areas in the country die more. It’s because they’re such “sophisticated skeptics”. If they get any smarter they’ll wipe themselves and all the rest of us out with them.

"We discuss several mechanisms explaining why, to some extent universally, conservatives (the right-wing oriented public) were less likely to follow public health recommendations, were more COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant, and had increased infection rates, poorer health outcomes, and increased mortality compared to left-wing oriented public. The mechanisms explaining the links include the media, trust, cognitions, and values. We conclude the chapter with lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and future research directions on the pandemics' politicization."

The Politicization of the COVID-19 Pandemic - PubMed

Political actors and institutions are largely responsible for effectively implementing the latest scientific and medical information in the form of public health measures. However, when politicians' judgments and decision-making are not founded on scientific facts or when scientific findings are...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov