Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

No, Frank, we mean you are a liar.

595px-atmospheric_transmission.png

That's not a lab experiment, no matter how many times you post it and try to pass it off as such

Metal Hydrogen, from a lab experiment

MetallicHydrogen_web_1024.jpg


Can you show us lab work controlling for varying amounts of CO2? Of course you can't
 
A pair of dumb fucks.

2-1-4-surface.png


Warmer Oceans | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

warming-fig1.png

Ocean Warming

Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report). The remainder of this energy goes into melting sea ice, ice caps, and glaciers, and warming the continents's land mass. Only the smallest fraction of this thermal energy goes into warming the atmosphere. Humans thus, living at the interface of the land, ocean and atmosphere, only feel a sliver of the true warming cost of fossil fuel emissions.

This 90% of extra heat taken up by the ocean is mostly in the upper 700 meters (m) layer (about 60% of total excess heat), while 30% is stored in layers deeper than 700 m (IPCC 5th Assessment Report). The ocean absorbs most of this "anthropogenic heat" because:

  1. Water has a high heat capacity: It takes much more heat to warm 1 liter of water than it does to warm the same volume of air (or most other substances).
  2. The ocean is deep: The world's oceans cover 71% of the earth surface and are about 4 km deep on average. This represents a tremendous reservoir of heat.
  3. The ocean is dynamic: Heat, carbon, oxygen and various other quantities exchanged with the atmosphere are mixed throughout the ocean through currents, internal waves, eddies, and various other circulation mechanisms.
The largest changes in ocean temperatures were observed in the upper 75 m, due to closer proximity to the atmosphere and the large mixing within this layer (IPCC 5th Assessment Report). As we trap more energy in the earth climate system, heat penetrates further into the ocean. Two important geographic areas where the atmosphere "communicates" with deeper layers of the ocean are the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. Because of their distinct atmospheric conditions and geographic settings, surface waters near the poles can be buried into deeper layers, bringing along their heat signatures, thus warming the interior of the ocean.
AR5 IS BULLSHIT!

Stokes and the “somehow” theory of ocean heat


The thermal mixing that AR5 claims has been shown to be totally BS by real science.

So, the thousands of published papers on ocean thermal dynamics is overturned by a single blog article. Sounds like the work of Billy Bob.
 
No, Frank, we mean you are a liar.

595px-atmospheric_transmission.png

That's not a lab experiment, no matter how many times you post it and try to pass it off as such

That is most assuredly the results of a laboratory experiment. Where do YOU think it came from?

Can you show us lab work controlling for varying amounts of CO2? Of course you can't

Controlling WHAT, Frank?

And what does an image of metallic hydrogen prove to you Frank? What does it have to do with the ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC OP for this thread (CO2 can't be doing anything because the ocean is big).?
 
Last edited:
BTW, "cuck" is sooo last April.

The overbearing, cat piss swilling, assclown can't even have up to date insults. :laugh2:
Now look, silly little fascist cocksuck, are you going to also claim a Phd in physics, as Silly Billy repeatedly has? You fellows are so good at insults and silliness, but unable to provide peer reviewed articles to support your political point of view. The physics of GHGs have been known since 1859. That you are so damned stupid that you do not know this, is a good indictation why no one should listen to you. Another willfully ignorant 'Conservative', working hard to maintain his massive ignorance.
 
Metal Hydrogen, from a lab experiment

No, that's a fuzzy picture of something unknown, and two scientists declared it had to be metallic hydrogen. Most other scientists disagree.

Physicists doubt bold report of metallic hydrogen

One should not jump the gun in matters such as this. Results should be replicated before any announcements are made, all alternate explanations should be ruled out, and something needs to be done to verify the shiny substance is indeed hydrogen. "It's shiny, so it has to be metallic hydrogen!" isn't good enough.
 
Metal Hydrogen, from a lab experiment

No, that's a fuzzy picture of something unknown, and two scientists declared it had to be metallic hydrogen. Most other scientists disagree.

Physicists doubt bold report of metallic hydrogen

One should not jump the gun in matters such as this. Results should be replicated before any announcements are made, all alternate explanations should be ruled out, and something needs to be done to verify the shiny substance is indeed hydrogen. "It's shiny, so it has to be metallic hydrogen!" isn't good enough.

LOL!!!

Can you so us the lab work demonstrating how incremental additions of CO2 up to 400PPM cause a "rise in temperature" according to your "theory"?
 
No, Frank, we mean you are a liar.

595px-atmospheric_transmission.png

That's not a lab experiment, no matter how many times you post it and try to pass it off as such

That is most assuredly the results of a laboratory experiment. Where do YOU think it came from?

Can you show us lab work controlling for varying amounts of CO2? Of course you can't

Controlling WHAT, Frank?

And what does an image of metallic hydrogen prove to you Frank? What does it have to do with the ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC OP for this thread (CO2 can't be doing anything because the ocean is big).?


Can your "Lab work" show us the change in temperature as CO2 rises from 0 to 400PPM?

(LOL. We both know it can't)
 
A pair of dumb fucks.

2-1-4-surface.png


Warmer Oceans | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

warming-fig1.png

Ocean Warming

Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report). The remainder of this energy goes into melting sea ice, ice caps, and glaciers, and warming the continents's land mass. Only the smallest fraction of this thermal energy goes into warming the atmosphere. Humans thus, living at the interface of the land, ocean and atmosphere, only feel a sliver of the true warming cost of fossil fuel emissions.

This 90% of extra heat taken up by the ocean is mostly in the upper 700 meters (m) layer (about 60% of total excess heat), while 30% is stored in layers deeper than 700 m (IPCC 5th Assessment Report). The ocean absorbs most of this "anthropogenic heat" because:

  1. Water has a high heat capacity: It takes much more heat to warm 1 liter of water than it does to warm the same volume of air (or most other substances).
  2. The ocean is deep: The world's oceans cover 71% of the earth surface and are about 4 km deep on average. This represents a tremendous reservoir of heat.
  3. The ocean is dynamic: Heat, carbon, oxygen and various other quantities exchanged with the atmosphere are mixed throughout the ocean through currents, internal waves, eddies, and various other circulation mechanisms.
The largest changes in ocean temperatures were observed in the upper 75 m, due to closer proximity to the atmosphere and the large mixing within this layer (IPCC 5th Assessment Report). As we trap more energy in the earth climate system, heat penetrates further into the ocean. Two important geographic areas where the atmosphere "communicates" with deeper layers of the ocean are the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. Because of their distinct atmospheric conditions and geographic settings, surface waters near the poles can be buried into deeper layers, bringing along their heat signatures, thus warming the interior of the ocean.
AR5 IS BULLSHIT!

Stokes and the “somehow” theory of ocean heat


The thermal mixing that AR5 claims has been shown to be totally BS by real science.

So, the thousands of published papers on ocean thermal dynamics is overturned by a single blog article. Sounds like the work of Billy Bob.
Basic Physics shows it is impossible..... I see you don't even have a basic grasp of anything..
 
Really? And tens of thousands of people with REAL science degrees, doing research, publishing papers, they missed that "Basic Physics show it is impossible". But you... you got it?

You are so far out in left field you're not even playing ball anymore.
 
Really? And tens of thousands of people with REAL science degrees, doing research, publishing papers, they missed that "Basic Physics show it is impossible". But you... you got it?

You are so far out in left field you're not even playing ball anymore.

Climatology isn't "real science" is less reliable than astrology but somewhat more accurate than phrenology
 
Last edited:
Really? And tens of thousands of people with REAL science degrees, doing research, publishing papers, they missed that "Basic Physics show it is impossible". But you... you got it?

You are so far out in left field you're not even playing ball anymore.

What does your "science" tell us about the "relationship" between CO2 and temperature in Earth atmosphere? How much does the temperature increase from 0 to 200ppm? Whats the increase from 200 to 400?
 
Really? And tens of thousands of people with REAL science degrees, doing research, publishing papers, they missed that "Basic Physics show it is impossible". But you... you got it?

You are so far out in left field you're not even playing ball anymore.
I love your over exaggerations crick. seems so useless.
 
Do you actually think tens of thousands of people with PhDs in science doing active research would make such a mistake and not a SINGLE ONE of them catch it? That it would take SSDD, a man already known for several insane ideas regarding basic science, to do so? Surely even you have to realize the odds are about a billion-to-one that it is SSDD that is wrong here?
 
Do you actually think tens of thousands of people with PhDs in science doing active research would make such a mistake and not a SINGLE ONE of them catch it? That it would take SSDD, a man already known for several insane ideas regarding basic science, to do so? Surely even you have to realize the odds are about a billion-to-one that it is SSDD that is wrong here?
396 IPCC scientists and some 77 you like to point to as "authorities" while you dismiss 16,944 others who disagreed with your assessment... Try using some real facts for a change..
 
I'm not talking about the IPCC. I'm talking about all the scientists on the planet for the last few hundred years every one of which would tell you and SSDD and jc that you're full of shit.

Just out of curiosity, however, where do you get 396, 77 and 16,944?
 
Game over, warmer moonbats.


It assumed that oceans warm due to air heating the oceans, when no, that's not the case. It works the other way around. The oceans heat the atmosphere.

If the oceans heat the atmosphere, it would either mean that the ocean would have to absorb heat from the air to begin with, or that the oceans would be getting cooler.

Unless you have another explanation?

Mark
 
Really? And tens of thousands of people with REAL science degrees, doing research, publishing papers, they missed that "Basic Physics show it is impossible". But you... you got it?

You are so far out in left field you're not even playing ball anymore.

Climatology isn't "real science" is less reliable than astrology but somewhat more accurate than phrenology

I think it a real science. But I also believe it's a science in its infancy. The understanding of climate is so rudimentary as to make any prediction worthless.

Mark
 
Really? And tens of thousands of people with REAL science degrees, doing research, publishing papers, they missed that "Basic Physics show it is impossible". But you... you got it?

You are so far out in left field you're not even playing ball anymore.

Climatology isn't "real science" is less reliable than astrology but somewhat more accurate than phrenology

I think it a real science. But I also believe it's a science in its infancy. The understanding of climate is so rudimentary as to make any prediction worthless.

Mark

The topic isn't predictions at the moment. It is whether or not it is possible for CO2 to warm the Earth including the oceans. The current argument on the denier side consists of reciting large numbers associated with the mass and properties of the world ocean and then insisting, with no further work, that CO2 couldn't possibly have warmed it. Does that sound like "real science" to you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top