[Truth To Power]

That correlation cuts both ways..

No it doesn't. That is the point.

You keep asserting it doesn't, but science says it does, shill.

No it doesn't. Only politics does:

"Carbon dioxide molecules provide the initial greenhouse heating needed to maintain water vapor concentrations.

See? That is hypothetical nonscience. There was never a time when CO2 initiated heating that was needed to melt water or maintain water vapor concentration.

When carbon dioxide concentrations drop, Earth cools,

Very slightly.

some water vapor falls out of the atmosphere, and the greenhouse warming caused by water vapor drops.

Microscopically.

Likewise, when carbon dioxide concentrations rise, air temperatures go up, and more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere—which then amplifies greenhouse heating.

Again, microscopically.

Rising carbon dioxide concentrations are already causing the planet to heat up."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

Microscopically.

So, NASA or kook?

<yawn>

[Truth To Power]

Incorrect.

No, I am of course objectively correct.

The ideal gas law can't be used to calculate surface temperatures

Surface temperatures are measured, not calculated; but the ideal gas law gives an estimate that can be used to help figure out what is going on and why surface temperature diverges from what the ideal gas law predicts.

because, unlike in a gas in a container situation, on a planet's surface, the variables in question, such as pressure, temperature, volume, and so forth are a function also of incoming radiation from the sun, the temperature of the planet's surface, gravity, and so on.

No. All of those except insolation are accounted for in the calculation, and insolation is accounted for in albedo and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The actual variables that the ideal gas law doesn't account for are factors like wind, terrain, latitude gradient, chemical interactions, phase changes, convection, etc.

If you ignore these things, as you do,

Wrong. They are accounted for in the ideal gas law calculation.

you get results that are wildly off the mark, as you did.

But I didn't. The only thing that is wildly off the mark is your assumption that Venus's high surface temperature must be caused by CO2 because CO2 controls planetary temperature. But it just doesn't.

[Truth To Power]

Since when has the world not been ruled by the apostles of absurd nonscience?

Usually it has just been ruled by the greedy and powerful.

The world has always been, is now, and likely always will be ruled by the apostles of absurd nonscience.

Nonscience pretends to be science. Most rulers have had no interest in science.

I think it was Samuel Johnson who once said, "There is much ruin in a nation."

Adam Smith: "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."

In my view, the same can be said of our entire planet. We've survived worse in the past.

Survival is not much of an ambition. I want more for my kids than bare survival, like liberty, justice and prosperity.

[B0ycey]

Do us all a favor and look up Eunice Foote on Google @Truth To Power. The idea the CO2 has no effect on atmosphere is objectively incorrect. Plus you should listen and understand Saeko. Frankly, you have embarrassed yourself as she was explained why you are 'objectively wrong' very well.

[late]

Do us all a favor and look up Eunice Foote on Google @Truth To Power. The idea the CO2 has no effect on atmosphere is objectively incorrect. Plus you should listen and understand Saeko. Frankly, you have embarrassed yourself as she was explained why you are 'objectively wrong' very well.

Endlessly repeating the Big Lie is what propagandists do.

[B0ycey]

Endlessly repeating the Big Lie is what propagandists do.

I don't think TtP is a shill nor a propagandist. He repeats the lie, because he selects the data that fits his narrative and ignores the data that disproves his narrative. And that is why climate scientists have to prove conclusively that Climate Change exists. CO2 heat retention has been known for over a century, but stupidity and ignorance is universal.

[Potemkin]

Usually it has just been ruled by the greedy and powerful.

Nonscience pretends to be science. Most rulers have had no interest in science.

Most rulers have an interest in legitimising their rule. In the past, religion was the legitimising ideology of choice. Nowadays, it is science. Different assholes, same shit.

Adam Smith: "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."

Thank you.

Survival is not much of an ambition. I want more for my kids than bare survival, like liberty, justice and prosperity.

....Have you been huffing glue again?

[Saeko]

Wrong. They are accounted for in the ideal gas law calculation.

Please explain how radiative forcing from the sun is accounted for in your ideal gas law calculation. Go ahead. I'm betting this is going to be hilarious.

EDIT for non-nerds:

The ideal gas law is Pressure*Volume = amount * R * Temperature.

I want to know where TtP sees the term for sunlight in this equation.

[late]

I don't think TtP is a shill nor a propagandist. He repeats the lie, because he selects the data that fits his narrative and ignores the data that disproves his narrative. And that is why climate scientists have to prove conclusively that Climate Change exists. CO2 heat retention has been known for over a century, but stupidity and ignorance is universal.

He's repeating the Big Oil propaganda that has been around (mostly) since the 90s. It is the best funded and most sophisticated propaganda campaign in history.

His motivations are open to debate, but the range of choice is binary, with the option of picking both...

[Truth To Power]

Please explain how radiative forcing from the sun is accounted for in your ideal gas law calculation.

Why are you pretending I did not say, "All of those except insolation are accounted for in the calculation" in the very post you are quoting?

Go ahead. I'm betting this is going to be hilarious.

I want to know where TtP sees the term for sunlight in this equation.

Why are you pretending I did not say, "All of those except insolation are accounted for in the calculation" in the very post you are quoting? Why are you asking for an explanation of the one factor I explicitly excluded, but not of any of the other factors you falsely claimed were not accounted for?

[Truth To Power]

He repeats the lie, because he selects the data that fits his narrative

Which is called, "providing evidence."

and ignores the data that disproves his narrative.

Because there are no such data.

And that is why climate scientists have to prove conclusively that Climate Change exists.

No, everyone already knows that climate changes and has always done so.

CO2 heat retention has been known for over a century,

What has been known for over a century is that increasing CO2 cannot contribute more than modestly to natural warming.

but stupidity and ignorance is universal.

So true...

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Actually, CO2 and other anthropogenic GHGs are so significant that they have not only reversed the current cooling, but also account for pretty much all the warming.

[Saeko]

Why are you pretending I did not say, "All of those except insolation are accounted for in the calculation" in the very post you are quoting?

Go ahead. I'm betting this is going to be hilarious.

Why are you pretending I did not say, "All of those except insolation are accounted for in the calculation" in the very post you are quoting? Why are you asking for an explanation of the one factor I explicitly excluded, but not of any of the other factors you falsely claimed were not accounted for?

Ok, so you admit that your calculation of the surface temperature of Venus entirely omits the fucking sun?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Actually, CO2 and other anthropogenic GHGs are so significant that they have not only reversed the current cooling,

What current cooling? The cooling in the last five years that has NOT been reversed?

but also account for pretty much all the warming.

Actually, that's completely false. The highest sustained solar activity in several thousand years has simply returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500y period in the last 10Ky. CO2 had almost nothing to do with it, and the correlation graphs I posted prove it.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

If climate was left to its natural cycles, the planet would now be cooling.

It is not.

So, human caused GHGs are not only responsible for all the warming but also the warming necessary to cancel out the cooling.

And solar activity does not account for it:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 161813.htm

Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.

The findings overturn a widely held scientific view that lengthy periods of warm and cold weather in the past might have been caused by periodic fluctuations in solar activity.

Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions. These tend to prevent sunlight reaching Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change.

The findings show that periods of low sun activity should not be expected to have a large impact on temperatures on Earth, and are expected to improve scientists' understanding and help climate forecasting.

[Truth To Power]

Ok, so you admit that your calculation of the surface temperature of Venus entirely omits the fucking sun?

Yes, because it is assumed to be a constant that, whatever its characteristics, resulted in the observed pressure-temperature profile. As it's not a variable, it has no role in the equation.

You are really demonstrating your complete innocence of atmospheric physics, here.

[Saeko]

Yes, because it is assumed to be a constant that, whatever its characteristics, resulted in the observed pressure-temperature profile. As it's not a variable, it has no role in the equation.

You are really demonstrating your complete innocence of atmospheric physics, here.

Except you've now contradicted yourself, since now you are claiming that the temperature and pressure are both driven by the sun whereas before you were so sure that the temperature is driven by pressure.

EDIT: Now who's using question-begging models?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

If climate was left to its natural cycles, the planet would now be cooling.

How do you know? What are all the natural cycles? You are simply assuming that you know everything relevant about climate.

It is not.

I just got through proving to you that it is.

So, human caused GHGs are not only responsible for all the warming but also the warming necessary to cancel out the cooling.

Absurd garbage refuted above.

And solar activity does not account for it:

Without reading further, I know you are about to pull a bait-and-switch:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm

[list]
Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.

See? Heat from the sun is not solar activity. You pulled a disingenuous bait-and-switch, just as I predicted.

The findings overturn a widely held scientific view that lengthy periods of warm and cold weather in the past might have been caused by periodic fluctuations in solar activity.

No they don't. The "findings" didn't even look at solar activity, only TSI.

Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions.

No it hasn't. That's just a bald lie from the liars you are quoting.

These tend to prevent sunlight reaching Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change.

If you make enough proved-false assumptions.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wh ... -to-humans

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans

…

How much warming is caused by humans?
In its 2013 fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated in its summary for policymakers that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans.

This somewhat convoluted statement has been often misinterpreted as implying that the human responsibility for modern warming lies somewhere between 50% and 100%. In fact, as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.

Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.

These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.

….

[Truth To Power]

Except you've now contradicted yourself,

No, of course I haven't. You are simply makin' $#!+ up and spewing absurd and disingenuous tripe because you have belatedly realized that you have demonstrated that you have no knowledge of atmospheric physics, and no relevant facts or logic to offer.

since now you are claiming that the temperature and pressure are both driven by the sun

Temperature is self-evidently driven by the sun: without it, Venus's atmosphere would condense out and freeze solid, and its surface would be near absolute zero. However, given that the sun provides enough heat to keep Venus's atmosphere gaseous, its temperature at any given altitude (below the level where direct solar heating warms it, of course) will vary with the pressure at that altitude, as both the ideal gas law and the observed temperature profile show:

Estimates of Venus surface temperature based on downward adiabatic extrapolation for an ideal gas, or even the quantity g/cp, do not lead to results seriously different from extrapolations based on the real adiabatic lapse rate.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... 0_co_2.xml

So it was known more than 50 years ago that Venus's surface temperature results from its atmospheric pressure, not any imagined greenhouse effect of CO2.

whereas before you were so sure that the temperature is driven by pressure.

You again prove that you have no knowledge of the relevant physics. Pressure and temperature vary together, so it makes no more sense to say that pressure drives temperature than vice versa.