Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

[william the wie]

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

Actually the oceans are getting cooler based on the monsoons and the Amazon rainy season but that doesn't mean much. Sunspots and seismic activity including Volcanoes and tsunamis are the big factors in climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

See that big shiny thing in the sky? Almost all that radiation from it is absorbed by the water in the ocean.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Actually the oceans are getting cooler based on the monsoons and the Amazon rainy season but that doesn't mean much. Sunspots and seismic activity including Volcanoes and tsunamis are the big factors in climate change.

Bullshit!

Ocean warming doubles in recent decades

Editor's note: The following web story was provided by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The original story can be found by clicking here on the Lawrence Livermore website.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.

“In recent decades the ocean has continued to warm substantially, and with time the warming signal is reaching deeper into the ocean,” said LLNL scientist Peter Gleckler, lead author of a paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change.



Probing deep ocean heat

This conductivity, temperature and depth profiler bearing a suite of sampling bottles can dive to depths of 6,000 meters to measure changes in ocean temperature and salinity. (Andrew Meijers/BAS)
Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the Earth’s excess heat increase that is associated with global warming. The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. Quantifying how much heat is accumulating in the Earth system is critical to improving the understanding of climate change already under way and to better assess how much more to expect in decades and centuries to come. It is vital to improving projections of how much and how fast the Earth will warm and seas rise in the future.


Increases in upper ocean temperatures since the 1970s are well documented and associated with greenhouse gas emissions. By including measurements from a 19th century oceanographic expedition and recent changes in the deeper ocean, the study indicates that half of the accumulated heat during the industrial era has occurred in recent decades, with about a third residing in the deeper oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

That increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere would result in a significant heating of the surface of the earth was predicted in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. And Dr. James Hansen predicted in 1981 that the Northwest Passage would open in this century. He just didn't think it would be open first in 2007. He was called an 'alarmist' for predicting that would happen toward the end of the 21st Century.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Based on the work they publish, it's insulting to real scienctists to group them with the insane climate posse.

Climatologists greets the lab like Dracula greeting sunrise

 

[Crick]

And on what do you base that Frank? Certainly not your understanding of the science and certainly not on the opinions of other scientists. So, why do you believe what you believe?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And on what do you base that Frank? Certainly not your understanding of the science and certainly not on the opinions of other scientists. So, why do you believe what you believe?

Explain what AR5's newly invented concept of "excess heat" has to do with science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And on what do you base that Frank? Certainly not your understanding of the science and certainly not on the opinions of other scientists. So, why do you believe what you believe?

You keep confusing your manmade global warming wealth transfer with science and the two have nothing in common. Science is great skepticism and rigorous testing, agw is paid cheerleaders worshipping altered data fed into flawed models and shrieking "consensus" as if that has anything to do with science

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, Frank, we mean you are a liar.

Still trying to pass a band-pass graph off as proof of AGW.. You still don't have a clue what it is your posting..

I know exactly what I'm posting and, apparently, you do not.

It is a spectral emissions chart.. nothing more... Moron

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

That increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere would result in a significant heating of the surface of the earth was predicted in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. And Dr. James Hansen predicted in 1981 that the Northwest Passage would open in this century. He just didn't think it would be open first in 2007. He was called an 'alarmist' for predicting that would happen toward the end of the 21st Century.

LOL

These are the same idiots that think a gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm an object at values above -4.0 deg C.. Hansen is a fool....

CO2 is not an excitable gas. Therefore it can not, by itself, warm anything above about 300ppm in our atmosphere. Only down-welling radiation from the sun can create temperature rise as a dry atmosphere with CO2 alone would radiate away the heat at almost the same rate as having no atmosphere.

 

[80zephyr]

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

 

[mamooth]

It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

A flat earther's failure to understand basic science doesn't make the world flat.

It's the same with you. Your failure to understand the basics changes nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

Perhaps you need to do some real research. Here is a good place to start. A site from the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society in the world;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[SSDD]

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

Perhaps you need to do some real research. Here is a good place to start. A site from the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society in the world;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You think the people who wrote that have any acquaintance with the real world...there is a reason that very few engineers, people who actually live with the laws of physics, and don't get paid if it don't work are onboard the AGW crazy train with you...they know how stupid the claims, and the hypothesis are...

 

[RollingThunder]

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[william the wie]

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Trash-talking as a scientific argument is an almost invariant indicator of incompetence, the exceptions are when errors cancel out.

 

[RollingThunder]

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Trash-talking as a scientific argument is an almost invariant indicator of incompetence, the exceptions are when errors cancel out.

Actually, pointing out someone's ignorance and incompetence in regard the topic under discussion is a normal part of a scientific argument with clueless idiots like yourself.

 

[william the wie]

Thank you for pointing out your ignorance, incompetence and idiocy for all to see as if your ratings, TYs and TPs were not more than sufficient.

 

[RollingThunder]

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark

A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Trash-talking as a scientific argument is an almost invariant indicator of incompetence, the exceptions are when errors cancel out.

Actually, pointing out someone's ignorance and incompetence in regard the topic under discussion is a normal part of a scientific argument with clueless idiots like yourself.

Thank you for pointing out your ignorance, incompetence and idiocy for all to see as if your ratings, TYs and TPs were not more than sufficient.

A real shame that you too retarded to comprehend that I was pointing to your own stupidity and incompetence, willie wonky, and to your obvious inability to even understand what the argument is about.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

A flat earther's failure to understand basic science doesn't make the world flat.

It's the same with you. Your failure to understand the basics changes nothing.

Please post the scientific research demonstrating correlation between temperature and 200ppm of CO2