And on a much shorter timescale we have clouds. In many regions of the earth, as the diurnal temperature warms, water vapor (humidity) condenses and forms clouds in the afternoon which cool the earth by blocking sunlight. When rain falls, it cools even more. It's a common and widespread natural feedback mechanism that the global circulation (climate) models are unable to account for which is one of the reasons they are so inaccurate.


And in the absence of intelligence or facts, we have sackbag.

Sackbag is unable to differentiate between cause, effect, or the fact that most phenomena entrain several processes at once, utterly failing to differentiate between physical and magical.

Sackbag. What a MAROON.

Yes, as I just wrote in another comment on another climate article where you're posting your happy happy joy joy, the vast amounts of water we pump out of the Ogalalla Aquifer to irrigate our burning, thirsty crops does indeed evaporate, and is increasing humidity across the region, and this humidity does contribute to increasing cloud formation, and these clouds are forming into increasingly violent super cell thunder storms which increasingly produce damaging winds and heavy hail. And when all the water is gone from the Ogalalla Aquifer (about another 20 years, tops), the humidity will drop, the clouds will disappear, and the Great Plains will truly be the Great American Desert. I've been fighting this region for 60 years and the line of development is clear.

"Sea levels are falling: NASA data: Sea levels fell in 2016 from Jan 2016 to March 2017"

.........not only this, the data I've seen about Pacific islands that are experiencing land loss are islands which are actually sinking into the ocean. To top this off, other islands just a few hundred miles away are reporting rising land mass.

So, the conundrum for the AGWs, how does the math work for rising ocean levels versus rising land mass, or loss of land mass versus dropping ocean levels? The AGWs of course have never seen a Differential Equation they could solve, so they'll be along shortly & start the usual name calling rants.

Sackbag. What a MAROON.

So, are you saying clouds do not aid in cooling? Or do you just hate him because of his posts in general?


No, biscuit, I'm saying that clouds only provide local, reflective cooling. The heat of condensation --ever heard of that?-- is then partly re-emitted a la the greenhouse effect, just to make a couple of examples. Here you betray your equal lack of understanding with sackbag.

Or do you just hate him because of his posts in general?


No, biscuit.

Sackbag, again --like you-- isn't worthy of hate. But certainly worthy of the deepest contempt, for pretending knowledge that he, she, or it doesn't possess, and for making ANY CLAIMS AT ALL based upon that non-knowledge.

contd

contd

Just asking because the weathering of rocks is pretty effen hilarious


Hilarious, indeed, biscuit, considering the timescale involved, which you don't, since this is some of that non-knowledge you possess that renders your claims meaningless

considering how many active "natural thermostats" the earth has that act far quicker and on a much more pronounced scale than cooling by CO2 removal.


Considering, biscuit, that these Tstats you ballyhoo are all extremely short-term, and generally localized in effect, acting on timescales of days to a few hundreds of years. Erosion and deposition work over very, very long timescales. Got any idea how long it takes to form a meter of carbonate rock? Way more than a few days, smart guy.

contd

contd

Aerosols from volcano eruptions, Aerosols from wildfires, minor reductions in solar input, changes in ocean circulation, larger than normal fluctuation of the polar vortex....


All short term, geniusboy.

The exception being, of course, changes to ocean circulation due to PLATE TECTONICS, or massive lava flows, Siberian, Deccan Traps, e.g.

Even these are offset by the process of weathering and deposition, since it is an ongoing and never idle geologic process, occurring continually, regardless of the infrequent changes to ocean circulation and even less frequent occurrences of massive, sustained volcanism.

In fact, it is the single most important coutervailing effect to those other mechanisms, and the reason why the surface temperature tends to return to an equilibrium similar to the present, again and again.

So, biscuit, are you going to tell everyone here --once again-- just how much you don't know?

"Sea levels are falling: NASA data: Sea levels fell in 2016 from Jan 2016 to March 2017"

.........not only this, the data I've seen about Pacific islands that are experiencing land loss are islands which are actually sinking into the ocean. To top this off, other islands just a few hundred miles away are reporting rising land mass.

So, the conundrum for the AGWs, how does the math work for rising ocean levels versus rising land mass, [...] Differential Equation they could solve, so they'll be along shortly & start the usual name calling rants.


We note that you fail to post an actual link for that opening gambit, Bunny.

Therefore -as if there were any actual question of its legitimacy-- it and the rest of your comment is dismissed as hogwash.

Why don't you at least do us all the courtesy of finding some NEW HOGWASH with which to pollute this forum?

Intellectual Bankrurtcy is the handmaiden of Moral.

.........not only this,

Tell me about it. Here's another major "happening" that went for the large part unreported because of the agenda it exposes -

Often referred to as data smoothing by those who wish people would just swallow what they are fed without looking too much into it.


Often referred to as "mudslinging". If this Woman has done the work which proves her claim of "manipulation", then she therefore must needs produce it --does she not?

Otherwise, she's just waving around a "List", much like your old pal, Joe McCarthy.

Right, biscuit?

Just like I said to your trollbrother Bunny --Intellectual Bankruptcy is the handmaiden of Moral.

Gotta love a rant! Especially from a guy who calls me biscuit....and whose rant completely supported the point I stated in my first post....I love when you guys get so pissed you do that.
Demonstration: My assessment -

the weathering of rocks is pretty effen hilarious considering how many active "natural thermostats" the earth has that act far quicker and on a much more pronounced scale than cooling by CO2 removal.

My angry supporter -

Hilarious, indeed, biscuit, considering the timescale involved, which you don't

mentioned the timescale....gets told he didn't consider the timescale...(snicker)


Except(snicker) you didn't(snicker). You (snicker)(snicker)(snicker) only mentioned a scale OF EFFECT(snicker).

You can't even(snicker) keep your own lies sorted, you sniggering buffoon.


and generally localized in effect,

Volcanos, AMO/PDO, and solar input are localized effects are they...funnelcake?

As to the long range weathering...I never said anything about it or the science behind it, but glad you got some typing practice in, funnelcake.


Very poor job of jumbling things up in that tiny trollnode you think of as a "brain', biscuit.

A jumble of decontextetualized misrepresentations like that might fool the igtards at stormfront, but won't wash here, as your apparent inability to understand written english is nothing new or notable.

On the other hand, it is pretty amusing, biscuit, to watch your desperate attempts to escape the snares you set for yourself while you were weaving your ever-so-clever web of deceit, which you fancy(snicker) is far too complex and intellectually superior for anyone to be able to deconstruct. But alas- your funnelcake fantasy is only half-baked...

What a MAROON.

Sorry --maroon BISCUIT.

You can't even(snicker) keep your own lies sorted, you sniggering buffoon


Hey, Cally, can you solve a Differential Equation? ( that question should really get you revved up)

Predictable: article is published stating there is a homeostasis that opposes both climate warming and cooling, said homeostasis operating over periods of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

#climatedeniers caper and whine and lie claiming "See, we told you so, global warming isn't any big deal," completely ignoring the timescales involved.

Basically I don't think they know the difference between a hundred years, a thousand years, and a hundred thousand years. #climatedenierscantcount.

No, biscuit,

You can't wiggle out of this one.

You wanted to downplay the process that has the largest magnitude of effect over pretty much all time scales by describing it as "effen hilarious" when there were mutliple short-term processes that acted more quickly, one supposes that you meant that the former was therefore rendered meaningless.

If that is what you meant, then all your jibberjabber is wasted.

If this wasn't what you meant, then explain what you did mean, and we can dispense with all this circular argumentation.

You can't even(snicker) keep your own lies sorted, you sniggering buffoon


Hey, Cally, can you solve a Differential Equation? ( that question should really get you revved up)



Why do you ask, Bunny-- do you need me to help you with your homework?