Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

But the warming effect of a plant greenhouse depends on blocking convection, while the warming effects of "greenhouse" gases do not.

Yes, the ground, water vapor, and CO2 all absorb IR in both cases -- but in the plant greenhouse, the heating effect almost all comes from blocking convection, not absorbing and re-emitting IR radiation.

Irrelevant.

It's flat wrong to claim that a greenhouse works primarily by absorbing and re-emitting IR, as "greenhouse" gases do.

But the term "greenhouse effect" is misleading. So-called "greenhouse" gases work more like a blanket. In particular, adding more blankets will make you warmer but with less and less effect, like the logarithmic decline in the heating effect of greenhouse gases, while adding more glass won't make a greenhouse measurably warmer once convection is effectively blocked.

Right. But wrong explanations of wrong explanations are not as helpful as correct explanations.

 

Agreed.

 

Right. It's absurd because the increase in water vapor with 1 or 2 C of heating is so small, and the effect is logarithmic.

Right: CO2 has much more effect at high latitude and high altitude where there is little water vapor. Not at the surface over 90% of the earth's area where water vapor is plentiful most of the year.

Right: counting water vapor as an IR absorber but not clouds as visible light reflectors is ridiculously bad science.

But it's always at a low angle and likely to be reflected by snow and ice except for a few months in summer, so its greenhouse effect is modest.

Mainly because of the albedo effect and the difference in thermal inertia between land and ocean: there is so much more land in the arctic that darkens in the summer when the snow melts. In the Antarctic, the sea stays similarly dark and the land similarly white all year. Plus, of course, the southern hemisphere being almost all ocean between 30 and 60 degrees latitude gives it enormous thermal inertia and makes it very insensitive to the greenhouse warming seen outside the tropics in the northern hemisphere.

That's not the only missing element, though it is an important one.

 

The other part of global warming in Antarctica is that the models predict warming but there has been no warming in the past two centuries. Which of course indicates that models based on the assumption that enhanced CO2 effect is correct fail in Antarctica even though atmospheric CO2 has increased from ~ 280 ppm to ~ 420 ppm in the last two centuries.

 

Well, if you want correct explanations we have to start with materials science. The transparent plastic you are referring to is polycarbonate. Trade name plexiglass etc. And it certainly absorbs infrared radiation very similar to CO2.

http://www.plasticgenius.com/2011/05/infrared-and-ultraviolet-transmission.html?m=1#:~:text=Note that polycarbonate goes opaque,and has good IR transmission.

Polycarbonate used for greenhouses is 4-25 mm. So it’s all more than 0.118 inch thick, thus absorbs infrared in the range of 2800-25000 nm.

Carbon dioxide absorbs at 2690 nm, 2760 nm, 4250 nm, 14,000 nm, and 15,000 nm.

So plexiglass/polycarbonate won’t absorb as much energy as CO2 in the infrared spectrum, but it certainly does absorb a lot.

So the premise “plastic” greenhouses don’t use absorption of electromagnetic radiation isn’t valid.

I’m going to have to go with current research on this one. I know in 1909 an experiment that can’t be replicated showed absorption isn’t a primary factor in heating greenhouses.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._by_Radiation_Trapping_or_Convection_Blocking

Oh, and yes, more polycarbonate does make/keep a greenhouse warmer.

https://www.stabilitamerica.com/blog/how-thick-should-polycarbonate-be-for-a-greenhouse/

Also, as shown above, thinner than 0.118 inch polycarbonate doesn’t absorb as much infrared energy as thicker, so that will influence temperature as well.

Glass thickness does influence insulation effects but not as much as polycarbonate.

 

Actually, geologically we have yet to reach the full interglacial.

Now I know that "climatology" is a new science and they are constantly changing and making up the terms they use all the time. But geologically speaking, an "interglacial" does not actually start until after at least one of the poles is at least seasonally ice free. In other words, no more permanent ice cap. And as should be obvious, I am going by geological terminology. And as such, we are still in an "ice age".

Of course, I know that a lot of climatologists get mighty pissed off at geologists, because that is the largest segment of scientists that know that the fearmongers are full of hot air.

And come on now, -12kya? You know that is the Younger Dryas, right? And the modern warm period started 200 ya? You know that is right smack in the Little Ice Age, right?

Come on now, you are going to try and make claims like that, they have to be at least somewhat plausible and close to reality. Most of your post is like one boner after another I am sorry to say.

 

No, the movement of continents completely cut off the ocean circulation pattern when North and South America met.

Back when there was a global equatorial circulation, the global temperatures were around 20 degrees hotter than they are today. Oh, and that is a global average in celsius. today, that is 15c, so that means the global average prior to N and S America meeting was 35c. Or to Americans, the global average was 95f.

But in this area, albedo and Milankovitch cycles are meaningless. Tell me, how many ice ages were there during the entire history of Pangea, including post-breakup until less than 3 mya?

I can answer that for you quite simply, none. The planet was too warm to allow anything even close to that to happen. And what, do you think Milankovitch cycles were not happening then?



Here, this is a real basic but accurate documentary of what climate was like during Pangea and until the equatorial current was cut off.

 

Oh, there is some significant warming in the Antarctic. I have no idea where you get that idea from. South Pole Station has been in the same location since 1956, and they have damned good records of this.

The average winter temperature is a frigid -76f. And in the summer it warms to -18f. I would call a seasonal difference of 58 degrees F not only measured, but significant. Of course, it is also deep inside the continent, and at an elevation of 9,300 feet. Elevation wise, it is a hell of a lot higher than Denver (5,500 feet), and would be the 15th highest elevation city in the US if it was in the US. Right behind Taos Ski Valley, New Mexico and right ahead of Silverton, Colorado. And while it does have an almost constant wind, it is largely shielded from strong winds by the coastal ranges that almost completely encircle the continent along the coastlines.

The Arctic gets much more differentiation for multiple reasons, not the least of which because the elevation is a hell of a lot lower. And it is a floating ice cap and not resting on a continent.

 

Source? Heard of temperature averaging?

 

I see NO reason for it to matter whether we are in a "full interglacial".

We can measure temperature changes over major time periods

We can study why warming is so significant over the last 100 years or whatever. If it has to do with ocean currents, great. I think it is more likely to be a combination of factors.

If you want to name that something, fine. But, the issue is the climate change, not the name.

 

No it isn't, it's polyethylene film.

Wrong. The absorption is just mainly by the soil and water vapor, not by the film.

What do you mean, "can't be replicated"? Anyone can prove that IR absorption is less important to plant greenhouse warmth than blocking convection by opening a skylight in a greenhouse and noting that the temperature plummets.

That's about the insulating properties of multiwalled glazing, not a thicker layer of polycarbonate.

Not as much as multiwalled glazing, you mean.

 

Then cite them.

 

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Please provide evidence that interglacials are defined by an ice-free pole, and that all of the dozen or so previous Pleistocene interglacials had at least one ice-free pole.

Yes. The Younger Dryas marked the last period of glacial cold before the Holocene, though many climatologists include it in the Holocene because the big continental glaciers had mostly melted by then.

No it isn't. It is the end of the LIA. The last London Frost Fair was in 1814, and the depth of the LIA was more than 100 years earlier, during the Maunder Minimum.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

No, it just changed where the currents flow. There is still an oceanic transport of heat to higher latitudes, especially the Gulf Stream and the North Pacific and South Pacific currents.

Evidence for these claims?

No, such claims are absurd. Albedo, specifically, is a major determinant of global surface temperature, along with atmospheric density and distance from the sun.

Huh? When do you think Pangea broke up? It's been hundreds of millions of years, not less than 3M, and the continents have moved a long way since then.

The earth's orbit has changed over the eons as have the positions of the continents. The day is even longer than it was millions of years ago, which also has an effect. I already explained the multiple geological and orbital factors that have had to be in place to enable the Milankovic cycles to cause the Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles.

 

Hmmm. Go goalposts go.

This polyethylene film? Why on earth would such a product exist? LOL.

If you read the linked research it explains the lack of ability to replicate the 1909 finding. Or not. You are welcome to your opinions.

 

Irrelevant. Most absorption outside a greenhouse is by matter on the surface of the earth, not in the atmosphere.

So a cold front replacing warm air with cold air “proves” CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t have significant warming effects on the planet?

In the context of natural science, nothing can be proven, just an interesting thing most aren’t aware of….

 

The Medieval Warm Period continues to refute the alarmists but warm the hearts of skeptics.
Three More New Temperature Reconstructions Document A Warmer Medieval Period
By Kenneth Richard on 11. April 2024

The North Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest (USA), and northern Finland were all warmer than today between 1000 and 2000 years ago.
Today’s (2000 CE) July air temperatures in the Azores – archipelago islands in the middle North Atlantic, ~1400 km west of Portugal – are visually shown to average about 10 to 11°C in a newly published reconstruction (Raposeiro et al., 2024).

This average air temperature is about 1 to 2°C warmer than this location’s Little Ice Age climate, or the coldest period (~9.1°C from 1750-1800) of the last 2000 years. However, the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) had temperatures reaching into the 13-15°C range, which is 3-4°C warmer than modern.



Image Source: Raposeiro et al., 2024
A temperature reconstruction from a lake in the USA’s Pacific Northwest (Baig, 2024) indicates glacial temperatures were only 1.0 to 1.6°C colder than the modern temperature, 12.2°C. Temperatures reached 13.7°C, or 1.5°C warmer than today, ~2500 years ago, and then fluctuated between 12.6 and 12.2°C from 1900 years ago until today, a period encompassing both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.



Image Source: Baig, 2024
Another lake sediment temperature reconstruction using branched glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers (brGDGTs) from northern Finland (Otiniano et al., 2024) suggests the modern temperature (represented as the blue diamond) is among the coldest of the last ~8000 years. Temperatures were much warmer than modern about 1200 to 1500 years ago, and throughout the period from 7000 to 3000 years ago.

Image Source: Otiniano et al., 2024

 

The relevant absorption is of IR radiation emitted from the surface matter, and occurs in the atmosphere.

No, it shows that a greenhouse for growing plants is warmed by a completely different mechanism from the so-called "greenhouse" effect in the atmosphere.

 

Garbage. I'm not responsible for your assumptions about what I said.

No. Regular polyethylene film from Home Depot. YOUR OWN SOURCE describes it as effectively transparent to IR radiation.

Because regular polyethylene film is destroyed by solar UV in a few years.

Definitely not. It would be difficult to overstate the silliness and irrelevance of the reported "experiment." Wood's experiment showed that greenhouses are heated by blocking convection rather than IR absorption, a mechanism that is completely different from the heating of the atmosphere, where convection is free. The described experimental setup included a 4cm gap to ensure free convection. It therefore bore no resemblance to either Wood's experiment or the process by which greenhouses are heated.

 

Yet another dodgy piece of rubbish from a well known conspiracy site.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/

 

Yet another attack the source instead of coherently arguing the science. Tiresome.

 

https://annielab.org/2022/01/05/inv...y-fuels-global-climate-change-misinformation/

 

Sorry but if the source is a misleading blog with a history of publishing pseudoscience then it is not an attack but a comment. As for arguing the so called “science” nope! Not from that pile of dung. I do not bow to Brandolinis law

 

https://adventuresmithexplorations....re of the,6.5 inches of average precipitation.

 

https://adventuresmithexplorations....re of the,6.5 inches of average precipitation.