The Ocean Ate My Global Warming

[Crick]

Here Frank. Now explain how it doesn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here Frank. Now explain how it doesn't.

OK, 0 degrees increase from 120PPM of CO2. It has no effect on temperature

 

[Crick]

That's not an explanation, it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie Boy does not know the differance. It even excapes Walleyes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's not an explanation, it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

that's how I read your chart.

What did i miss, how many degrees does a 120PPM increase in CO2 raise temperature?

I think it's 0

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here Frank. Now explain how it doesn't.

Rechecking

Nope

No relationship at all between 120PPM of CO2 and temperature so we conclude that there is no increase from 120PPM of CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie Boy does not know the differance. It even excapes Walleyes.

So you agree the chart show no increase in temperature from a 120PPM increase in CO2

 

[Crick]

Here Frank. Now explain how it doesn't.

Rechecking

Nope

No relationship at all between 120PPM of CO2 and temperature so we conclude that there is no increase from 120PPM of CO2

What do you think you're rechecking? You made up your mind irrespective of any evidence. You never had the slightest intention of paying any attention to the mountains of evidence or to the opinion of the thousands of educated scientists, all of whom know and understand the physics of this process far, far better than you seem willing or capable of.

You still have nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion. I suspect you don't understand what that term means. The statement that all crime is committed by those of Uruguayan descent is an unsubstantiated assertion. The statement that all matter is composed of very small pieces of Muenster cheese is an unsubstantiated assertion. That statement that our sun is composed of charcoal briquettes is an unsubstantiated assertion. The statement that adding 120 ppm of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere will not move it's radiative thermal balance away from equilibrium and cause warming is an unsubstantiated assertion. You are entitled to believe any of these and any other nonsense your ignorance and bias can conceive for you. What you are NOT entitled to do is demand that anyone else should believe them unless and until you can make a reasonable argument based on observations, successful predictions and the known laws of physics.

That, I'm afraid, you and all your denier brethren, have failed to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here Frank. Now explain how it doesn't.

Rechecking

Nope

No relationship at all between 120PPM of CO2 and temperature so we conclude that there is no increase from 120PPM of CO2

What do you think you're rechecking? You made up your mind irrespective of any evidence. You never had the slightest intention of paying any attention to the mountains of evidence or to the opinion of the thousands of educated scientists, all of whom know and understand the physics of this process far, far better than you seem willing or capable of.

You still have nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion. I suspect you don't understand what that term means. The statement that all crime is committed by those of Uruguayan descent is an unsubstantiated assertion. The statement that all matter is composed of very small pieces of Muenster cheese is an unsubstantiated assertion. That statement that our sun is composed of charcoal briquettes is an unsubstantiated assertion. The statement that adding 120 ppm of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere will not move it's radiative thermal balance away from equilibrium and cause warming is an unsubstantiated assertion. You are entitled to believe any of these and any other nonsense your ignorance and bias can conceive for you. What you are NOT entitled to do is demand that anyone else should believe them unless and until you can make a reasonable argument based on observations, successful predictions and the known laws of physics.

That, I'm afraid, you and all your denier brethren, have failed to do.

You were asked to provide evidence that a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature. You provided a chart that shows no link between CO2 and temperature.

With no link between CO2 and temperature we conclude that a 120PPM increase in CO2 will have no effect on temperature.

Did you not look at the chart you posted?

Is this too hard for you?

Next time, read and understand the charts you post before commenting

 

[Crick]

What does the chart I posted show, Frank?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, have you noticed how much difficulty you have finding any science reference that states anything similar to what you believe? You rattle off the name of some physical law and then try to give us YOUR interpretation of it. If you're right, why don't other, textbook explanations agree with yours? I've had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermodynamics) - all of which I aced - and in those classes I worked hundreds of radiant heat transfer problems. In every instance, the heat being radiated from every element of the system was calculated independently of the state of its surroundings and transfer was simply the algebraic sum of transfers at any point. At no time, in any of those classes, were we ever told that cold matter can not radiate towards hot matter. Never. And you have never presented a quotation from any source saying that it cannot. Obviously, the net transfer is from hot to cold, but the idea that some magic prevents photons from moving in the direction of a distant object is absolute nonsense.

There are thousands of articles on the physics of radiant energy transfer on the net. If you were right, you should be able to find dozens, if not hundreds, of statements that CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY support your contention. But you can find NONE. If you were correct, you would not have to provide such seriously strained interpretations of only the most unconstrained statements on the topic.

Your inability to recognize that you've made a serious error here tends to indicate you have problems either in understanding reality or admitting that you've made a mistake - or both. But the consistency with which you come up with these tortured interpretations of basic physics in a multitude of different topics makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that you know the truth and are doing this intentionally to inflame your "readership". That, of course, would make you a troll and trolls should be booted.

Funny thing. All of the actual science supports my position...that's why I hold it.

 

[Crick]

Sad thing, it doesn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does the chart I posted show, Frank?

Shows several random properties, none of which demonstrate any link between a wisp of CO2 and temperature

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here Frank. Now explain how it doesn't.

Rechecking

Nope

No relationship at all between 120PPM of CO2 and temperature so we conclude that there is no increase from 120PPM of CO2

What do you think you're rechecking? You made up your mind irrespective of any evidence. You never had the slightest intention of paying any attention to the mountains of evidence or to the opinion of the thousands of educated scientists, all of whom know and understand the physics of this process far, far better than you seem willing or capable of.

You still have nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion. I suspect you don't understand what that term means. The statement that all crime is committed by those of Uruguayan descent is an unsubstantiated assertion. The statement that all matter is composed of very small pieces of Muenster cheese is an unsubstantiated assertion. That statement that our sun is composed of charcoal briquettes is an unsubstantiated assertion. The statement that adding 120 ppm of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere will not move it's radiative thermal balance away from equilibrium and cause warming is an unsubstantiated assertion. You are entitled to believe any of these and any other nonsense your ignorance and bias can conceive for you. What you are NOT entitled to do is demand that anyone else should believe them unless and until you can make a reasonable argument based on observations, successful predictions and the known laws of physics.

That, I'm afraid, you and all your denier brethren, have failed to do.

Calling AGWCulters "scientists" is insulting to real scientists. Do I need to repost the Wheel of Climate Change?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

Several properties? It only has one dependent axis Frank. It can only show one property of CO2. And what is that property Frank?

 

[Crick]

Calling AGWCulters "scientists" is insulting to real scientists.

Do I need to repost the Wheel of Climate Change?

Feel free, particularly if you think a photograph of people standing around that wheel constitutes scientific evidence that the world is not getting warmer and/or that human activities are not the primary cause.

Additionally, I would once again post the actual caption of that photo demonstrating that the information contained on the wheel supports AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Several properties? It only has one dependent axis Frank. It can only show one property of CO2. And what is that property Frank?

Why do you continue to avoid the obvious, that your chart fails to link CO2 to temperature. You could post a picture or the Rocky mountain or the latest chart for pork belly futures and have the exact same amount of evidence, zero, linking a wisp of CO2 to temperature

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

What property of CO2 is presented in that chart Frank? You can simply read it off the axes. It is

[the Vertical Axis] with respect to [the Horizontal Axis]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What property of CO2 is presented in that chart Frank? You can simply read it off the axes. It is

[the Vertical Axis] with respect to [the Horizontal Axis]

It's not temperature

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What property of CO2 is presented in that chart Frank? You can simply read it off the axes. It is

[the Vertical Axis] with respect to [the Horizontal Axis]

Double checked

Yup

Still no axis for temperature

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk