Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

[80zephyr]

And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

A meaningless straw-man argument. No one is saying that the laws of physics aren't universal.

What we are saying is that you very obviously know very little about the laws of physics.

By your own admission, your "area of expertise is building design and construction".....NOT PHYSICS, in all its applications and complexities.

But you foolishly imagine that you know and understand the laws of physics better than virtually all of the world's actual working PhD physicists, who, almost unanimously, affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists regarding human caused, CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes (see post #81). That's where you obviously go off the rails on the crazy train with your fraudulent, fallacious OP.

What I am saying is that heat transference does not change. And because I am in building construction, my area of expertise is physics.

Mark

LOL OK, no reason to handle you with kid gloves, Mr Idiot. The temperature of the surface of the moon in sunlight reaches 253 F, and, during the Lunar night, goes down to -243 F.

For most areas on the Earth, the daytime temperature is only about 20 F to 40 F different from the nighttime temperatures. Contrast that to the nearly 500 F difference on the lunar surface. Both are the same distance from the sun, so the amount of energy they receive per square foot is the same.

What is the difference? The Earth has an atmosphere, the Moon has none. So much for your silly physics. You are an idiot.

Lol. You must understand that any heat transference takes into account any variables, right? When I do a heat loss calculation on a building, I take into consideration the interior and exterior air film surrounding the building.

Are you really stating that the laws of physics don't apply without an atmosphere, really?

Do the laws of physics work everywhere in the universe?

The aim of physics theoretical research is to formulate mathematically the "laws of physics" in such a form that the formulae will work anywhere in the observed/known universe.

Mark

 

[Crick]

Zephyr, you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of atmosphere makes no difference in heat transfer. Such an opinion indicates you know virtually nothing about heat transfer.

 

[SSDD]

And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

A meaningless straw-man argument. No one is saying that the laws of physics aren't universal.

What we are saying is that you very obviously know very little about the laws of physics.

By your own admission, your "area of expertise is building design and construction".....NOT PHYSICS, in all its applications and complexities.

But you foolishly imagine that you know and understand the laws of physics better than virtually all of the world's actual working PhD physicists, who, almost unanimously, affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists regarding human caused, CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes (see post #81). That's where you obviously go off the rails on the crazy train with your fraudulent, fallacious OP.

What I am saying is that heat transference does not change. And because I am in building construction, my area of expertise is physics.

Mark

LOL OK, no reason to handle you with kid gloves, Mr Idiot. The temperature of the surface of the moon in sunlight reaches 253 F, and, during the Lunar night, goes down to -243 F.

For most areas on the Earth, the daytime temperature is only about 20 F to 40 F different from the nighttime temperatures. Contrast that to the nearly 500 F difference on the lunar surface. Both are the same distance from the sun, so the amount of energy they receive per square foot is the same.

What is the difference? The Earth has an atmosphere, the Moon has none. So much for your silly physics. You are an idiot.

Very poor job of misrepresenting what he said...but then, the only thing you seem to be good at is chanting the glassy eyed cult chant..

 

[SSDD]

Yes, basic science.

Basic magic...as it bears no resemblance to science...in actual science when a hypothesis has a single predictive failure, it is tossed out and the search continues for a viable hypothesis...the radiative greenhouse effect, and its bastard child the AGW hypothesis both have predictive failure after predictive failure..with the centerpiece...the smoking gun...the human fingerprint prediction, the hot spot..being an abject failure...so in your world of magic, how many failures do hypotheses get before they get tossed out?...or do they ever get tossed out if they are politically valuable?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, basic science.

Basic magic...as it bears no resemblance to science...in actual science when a hypothesis has a single predictive failure, it is tossed out and the search continues for a viable hypothesis...the radiative greenhouse effect, and its bastard child the AGW hypothesis both have predictive failure after predictive failure..with the centerpiece...the smoking gun...the human fingerprint prediction, the hot spot..being an abject failure...so in your world of magic, how many failures do hypotheses get before they get tossed out?...or do they ever get tossed out if they are politically valuable?

The true agw hypothesis is that world governments can transfer wealth of the USA and control the US economy via fake science

 

[Wuwei]

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

I know this has already been said, but here it is again in a nutshell.

The energy that we humans create and use does not heat the ocean.
The sun heats the ocean.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

I know this has already been said, but here it is again in a nutshell.

The energy that we humans create and use does not heat the ocean.
The sun heats the ocean.

.

So you agree that AGW is nonsense.

Wonderful!

 

[Wuwei]

So you agree that AGW is nonsense.

Wonderful!

Not nonsense.
Green house gases keep the ocean from losing as much heat as it would if there were none. The ocean would be -18C if there were no GHG's.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you agree that AGW is nonsense.

Wonderful!

Not nonsense.
Green house gases keep the ocean from losing as much heat as it would if there were none. The ocean would be -18C if there were no GHG's.

GHG meaning mostly H2O, right?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

LOL! So in 10 days from now there's no more H2O in the atmosphere! Are you sure?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

LOL! So in 10 days from now there's no more H2O in the atmosphere! Are you sure?

LOL Dumb fuck Frankie boi, if you are so stupid as to interpret it that way, go right ahead. LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

LOL! So in 10 days from now there's no more H2O in the atmosphere! Are you sure?

LOL Dumb fuck Frankie boi, if you are so stupid as to interpret it that way, go right ahead. LOL

You're the moron who tells us that "the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days" as if it has any meaning at all! What "point" were you trying to make?

 

[80zephyr]

Zephyr, you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of atmosphere makes no difference in heat transfer. Such an opinion indicates you know virtually nothing about heat transfer.

Nope. Never said that. Every condition affects heat transfer. But in every case that we know of, heat is transferred thru conduction, convection, and radiation. Whether here or on the moon.

And, the calculations used to access that heat transfer don't change either, just the variables do.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

While your statement is factually correct, you also have to remember that while the residence time is 10 days, the H2O in the atmosphere is being perpetually replenished.

Mark

 

[Old Rocks]

Zephyr, you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of atmosphere makes no difference in heat transfer. Such an opinion indicates you know virtually nothing about heat transfer.

Nope. Never said that. Every condition affects heat transfer. But in every case that we know of, heat is transferred thru conduction, convection, and radiation. Whether here or on the moon.

And, the calculations used to access that heat transfer don't change either, just the variables do.

Mark

And just how does convection work in a vacuum on a planetary body with atmosphere or liquids on the surface?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

While your statement is factually correct, you also have to remember that while the residence time is 10 days, the H2O in the atmosphere is being perpetually replenished.

Mark

Of course it is. And the determining factor is the temperature of the atmosphere and water. And the GHGs determine the temperature of the atmosphere and water. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere we would have ice on the oceans clear down to the equator. That has actually happened in deep geological time.

"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator

 

[80zephyr]

Zephyr, you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of atmosphere makes no difference in heat transfer. Such an opinion indicates you know virtually nothing about heat transfer.

Nope. Never said that. Every condition affects heat transfer. But in every case that we know of, heat is transferred thru conduction, convection, and radiation. Whether here or on the moon.

And, the calculations used to access that heat transfer don't change either, just the variables do.

Mark

And just how does convection work in a vacuum on a planetary body with atmosphere or liquids on the surface?

Does it matter? The gist of what I am saying is that the physics of climate change is no different that the physics of any other situation.

Climate change is not special.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

While your statement is factually correct, you also have to remember that while the residence time is 10 days, the H2O in the atmosphere is being perpetually replenished.

Mark

Of course it is. And the determining factor is the temperature of the atmosphere and water. And the GHGs determine the temperature of the atmosphere and water. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere we would have ice on the oceans clear down to the equator. That has actually happened in deep geological time.

"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator

So why bring it up? If H2O is perpetually replenished, the residence time means nothing.

Mark

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

While your statement is factually correct, you also have to remember that while the residence time is 10 days, the H2O in the atmosphere is being perpetually replenished.

Mark

Of course it is. And the determining factor is the temperature of the atmosphere and water. And the GHGs determine the temperature of the atmosphere and water. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere we would have ice on the oceans clear down to the equator. That has actually happened in deep geological time.

"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator

So why bring it up? If H2O is perpetually replenished, the residence time means nothing.

Mark

Is it now? How then did the Snowball Earth situation come to be? If the atmosphere is very cold, it will not hold much water vapor. So, if there is a serious deficit of GHGs in the atmosphere, there will be little water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback effect of the GHGs in the atmosphere.