The Ocean Ate My Global Warming

[Crick]

It's quite obvious to everyone here that you can read the axes on the graph and you know what they indicate. So the interesting point becomes how you can blatantly avoid admitting it and still tell yourself you're being ethical; that you're being honest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does the chart I posted show, Frank?

Its like dealing with Bernie Madoff accountant.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's quite obvious to everyone here that you can read the axes on the graph and you know what they indicate. So the interesting point becomes how you can blatantly avoid admitting it and still tell yourself you're being ethical.

All we know for certain us that your charts show no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

And how do you know that Frank? What DOES it show that you believe does NOT correlate to temperature?

 

[Crick]

I might have said Frank had left the building but the forum software tells me he's still online. So, before he embarrasses himself any further, let's spell this out.

Here's the graphic. As anyone who's looked could tell you, there are hundreds of such graphs available.

The horizontal axis, the INDEPENDENT parameter, is a logarithmic scale of wavelength of light, going from 0.1 to 100 microns.

The vertical axis for carbon dioxide (and water vapor) is Absorption (%).

So the graph is showing us what percentage of incident light - by frequency - is absorbed by CO2. We see three tall spikes and a few smaller bumps. Those spikes look to be centered at about 2.8, 4.5 and 18 microns (remember the scale is logarithmic). So, in what bands of light energy do those wavelengths fall. The infrared band extends from 0.7 microns to 1,000 microns. So, all three of those spikes - the ones reaching 100% - fall within the infrared band. And as the second absorption curve shows, All or parts of two of those spikes fall into regions of the spectrum NOT absorbed by water vapor AND the longest wavelength and widest spike (the lowest frequency) well within the radiant spectrum of the sun-warmed Mother Earth.

So, let's give Frank a chance to get back in the game here.

Frank, what happens to matter that absorbs energy, say, in the form of incident radiation? What changes to its characteristics take place?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And how do you know that Frank? What DOES it show that you believe does NOT correlate to temperature?

Absorption properties of CO2 and H2O across varying wavelengths, and the more I look at it, the more I realize it still does not show any relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Show us the Axis you believe is "Temperature"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I might have said Frank had left the building but the forum software tells me he's still online. So, before he embarrasses himself any further, let's spell this out.

Here's the graphic. As anyone who's looked could tell you, there are hundreds of such graphs available.

The horizontal axis, the INDEPENDENT parameter, is a logarithmic scale of wavelength of light, going from 0.1 to 100 microns.

The vertical axis for carbon dioxide (and water vapor) is Absorption (%).

So the graph is showing us what percentage of incident light - by frequency - is absorbed by CO2. We see three tall spikes and a few smaller bumps. Those spikes look to be centered at about 2.8, 4.5 and 18 microns (remember the scale is logarithmic). So, in what bands of light energy do those wavelengths fall. The infrared band extends from 0.7 microns to 1,000 microns. So, all three of those spikes - the ones reaching 100% - fall within the infrared band. And as the second absorption curve shows, All or parts of two of those spikes fall into regions of the spectrum NOT absorbed by water vapor AND the longest wavelength and widest spike (the lowest frequency) well within the radiant spectrum of the sun-warmed Mother Earth.

So, let's give Frank a chance to get back in the game here.

Frank, what happens to matter that absorbs energy, say, in the form of incident radiation? What changes to its characteristics take place?

Wait a second, is this H2O from the Deep ocean and absorbing Global Warming?

You Sir are tricky.

You should have specified that the H2O is the special AGW Absorbing and never rereadiating type of H2O

Well played, Sir!

Well played

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick would have been a great accountant for Bernie Madoff

You want the numbers? How's 4, 7, 23, and 567? Well I gave you the numbers! What more do you want?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, what does this chart have to say about CO2 and temperature. Read it carefully before you respond

 

[Crick]

I might have said Frank had left the building but the forum software tells me he's still online. So, before he embarrasses himself any further, let's spell this out.

Here's the graphic. As anyone who's looked could tell you, there are hundreds of such graphs available.

The horizontal axis, the INDEPENDENT parameter, is a logarithmic scale of wavelength of light, going from 0.1 to 100 microns.

The vertical axis for carbon dioxide (and water vapor) is Absorption (%).

So the graph is showing us what percentage of incident light - by frequency - is absorbed by CO2. We see three tall spikes and a few smaller bumps. Those spikes look to be centered at about 2.8, 4.5 and 18 microns (remember the scale is logarithmic). So, in what bands of light energy do those wavelengths fall. The infrared band extends from 0.7 microns to 1,000 microns. So, all three of those spikes - the ones reaching 100% - fall within the infrared band. And as the second absorption curve shows, All or parts of two of those spikes fall into regions of the spectrum NOT absorbed by water vapor AND the longest wavelength and widest spike (the lowest frequency) well within the radiant spectrum of the sun-warmed Mother Earth.

So, let's give Frank a chance to get back in the game here.

Frank, what happens to matter that absorbs energy, say, in the form of incident radiation? What changes to its characteristics take place?

Wait a second, is this H2O from the Deep ocean and absorbing Global Warming?

You Sir are tricky.

You should have specified that the H2O is the special AGW Absorbing and never rereadiating type of H2O

Well played, Sir!

Well played

Frank, surely you must know you're not doing yourself any favors with this tack. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, it's temperature increases and by radiation and conduction, that energy is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere, to the oceans and to the continents. A portion of it radiates away to space, else the oceans would have boiled away and the continents would be bare rock dusted with ash.

The graph shows that CO2 absorbs infrared energy that is not absorbed by water vapor. Increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the Earth's equilibrium temperature. Period. There is no way around it Frank.

 

[MaryL]

Naw, global warming. It's real as your granny. Wild swings in weather, the overall warming and drier weather. Real. I have seen it in the last 50 years, don't give me the anecdotal evidence shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

At 71, I have banged around the mountains, Cascades, Rockies, Blues, Sierras, for over 50 years. And watched the glaciers retreat in all the ranges. Seen the snow come later and leave earlier. And watched a vast swath in our Southwest, and even the Northwest east of the Cascades get drier by the decade. Something is definately happening. That is evidence that anyone with eyes can see. It has zero to do with politics. No Democrats or Republicans up there melting the glaciers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I might have said Frank had left the building but the forum software tells me he's still online. So, before he embarrasses himself any further, let's spell this out.

Here's the graphic. As anyone who's looked could tell you, there are hundreds of such graphs available.

The horizontal axis, the INDEPENDENT parameter, is a logarithmic scale of wavelength of light, going from 0.1 to 100 microns.

The vertical axis for carbon dioxide (and water vapor) is Absorption (%).

So the graph is showing us what percentage of incident light - by frequency - is absorbed by CO2. We see three tall spikes and a few smaller bumps. Those spikes look to be centered at about 2.8, 4.5 and 18 microns (remember the scale is logarithmic). So, in what bands of light energy do those wavelengths fall. The infrared band extends from 0.7 microns to 1,000 microns. So, all three of those spikes - the ones reaching 100% - fall within the infrared band. And as the second absorption curve shows, All or parts of two of those spikes fall into regions of the spectrum NOT absorbed by water vapor AND the longest wavelength and widest spike (the lowest frequency) well within the radiant spectrum of the sun-warmed Mother Earth.

So, let's give Frank a chance to get back in the game here.

Frank, what happens to matter that absorbs energy, say, in the form of incident radiation? What changes to its characteristics take place?

Wait a second, is this H2O from the Deep ocean and absorbing Global Warming?

You Sir are tricky.

You should have specified that the H2O is the special AGW Absorbing and never rereadiating type of H2O

Well played, Sir!

Well played

Frank, surely you must know you're not doing yourself any favors with this tack. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, it's temperature increases and by radiation and conduction, that energy is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere, to the oceans and to the continents. A portion of it radiates away to space, else the oceans would have boiled away and the continents would be bare rock dusted with ash.

The graph shows that CO2 absorbs infrared energy that is not absorbed by water vapor. Increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the Earth's equilibrium temperature. Period. There is no way around it Frank.

Odd, I'm still not finding any "temperature" on your graph.

Did you mean to post some other graph?

Wait. Now the H2O isn't absorbing the Warming?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Naw, global warming. It's real as your granny. Wild swings in weather, the overall warming and drier weather. Real. I have seen it in the last 50 years, don't give me the anecdotal evidence shit.

^ that's not science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At 71, I have banged around the mountains, Cascades, Rockies, Blues, Sierras, for over 50 years. And watched the glaciers retreat in all the ranges. Seen the snow come later and leave earlier. And watched a vast swath in our Southwest, and even the Northwest east of the Cascades get drier by the decade. Something is definately happening. That is evidence that anyone with eyes can see. It has zero to do with politics. No Democrats or Republicans up there melting the glaciers.

^ Not science either

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I might have said Frank had left the building but the forum software tells me he's still online. So, before he embarrasses himself any further, let's spell this out.

Here's the graphic. As anyone who's looked could tell you, there are hundreds of such graphs available.

The horizontal axis, the INDEPENDENT parameter, is a logarithmic scale of wavelength of light, going from 0.1 to 100 microns.

The vertical axis for carbon dioxide (and water vapor) is Absorption (%).

So the graph is showing us what percentage of incident light - by frequency - is absorbed by CO2. We see three tall spikes and a few smaller bumps. Those spikes look to be centered at about 2.8, 4.5 and 18 microns (remember the scale is logarithmic). So, in what bands of light energy do those wavelengths fall. The infrared band extends from 0.7 microns to 1,000 microns. So, all three of those spikes - the ones reaching 100% - fall within the infrared band. And as the second absorption curve shows, All or parts of two of those spikes fall into regions of the spectrum NOT absorbed by water vapor AND the longest wavelength and widest spike (the lowest frequency) well within the radiant spectrum of the sun-warmed Mother Earth.

So, let's give Frank a chance to get back in the game here.

Frank, what happens to matter that absorbs energy, say, in the form of incident radiation? What changes to its characteristics take place?

Wait a second, is this H2O from the Deep ocean and absorbing Global Warming?

You Sir are tricky.

You should have specified that the H2O is the special AGW Absorbing and never rereadiating type of H2O

Well played, Sir!

Well played

Frank, surely you must know you're not doing yourself any favors with this tack. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, it's temperature increases and by radiation and conduction, that energy is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere, to the oceans and to the continents. A portion of it radiates away to space, else the oceans would have boiled away and the continents would be bare rock dusted with ash.

The graph shows that CO2 absorbs infrared energy that is not absorbed by water vapor. Increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the Earth's equilibrium temperature. Period. There is no way around it Frank.

How is the ocean absorbing the Warming????

 

[Billy_Bob]

Scientific method is about rigorously trying to disprove a theory. AGW has altered data fed through flawed models that are 100% accurate, but only retroactively. Oh, and they have"Consensus"

AGW is supported by mountains of empirical data.

The acceptance it receives from the vast majority of scientists is based on the success with which experiments have shown it to be the best explanation for the observations. No one has been able to falsify it and you have no alternative explanation for the observations.

Argument from authority is a valid argument if one's authorities are actually experts and if a consensus actually exists. The consensus for AGW among the world's climate scientists satisfy that precisely.

Mountains of MODEL OUTPUTS.... How many time must I remind you fools that model outputs ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING!

 

[Crick]

It wouldn't be that many more times if you only knew what the fuck you were talking about.

You've currently got over half a dozen pending lies waiting for some effort by you to pull your ass out of the fire and show us that you have some reason to say most of what you say beyond "I can make up anything I want".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't understand how H2O is picking up the warming from CO2???

Crick?

Can you walk us through the "Science"

Oh, and be a good lad and see if you find a chart that actually has "Temperature" on it

 

[Crick]

I've already walked you through the science. Everyone else here understood it from the get-go. If you haven't been able to follow it this far, there may be no hope for you.

And, given your blatant and puerile refusal to admit what is obvious to all, speaking to me in the manner you just chose to use does nothing but make you look more and more willfully ignorant. You really need to put a little more thought into how your responses actually look to folks. And if what you've been posting is the result of the application of the full range of your reasoning powers, perhaps you need to rethink the wisdom of further participation in this thread.