Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists

[mamooth]

No, it would contradict the laws of thermodynamics if the atmosphere warmed more. The oceans and atmosphere are in a long-term thermal equilibrium. If one warms, the other has to warm by about the same amount. If they don't warm by about the same amount, heat flows change until temp changes are more or less equalized.

Your science is just really bad. The world doesn't ignore you because of a socialist conspiracy. The world ignores you because you babble nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it would contradict the laws of thermodynamics if the atmosphere warmed more. The oceans and atmosphere are in a long-term thermal equilibrium. If one warms, the other has to warm by about the same amount. If they don't warm by about the same amount, heat flows change until temp changes are more or less equalized.

Your science is just really bad. The world doesn't ignore you because of a socialist conspiracy. The world ignores you because you babble nonsense.

Is the atmosphere really needy, that it would "want more"?

You described a system where a 120PPM increase in CO2 caused a .9 degree temperature increase with 90% of the heat being absorbed be water which takes 4, or 700 (according to Crick) or 3,000 (according to your earlier posts) more energy to heat. So in an air only system you'd expect to see either a 4, (or 630 or 2,700 degree increase in temperature)

It's a thought experiment, one that would help your theory if it worked in a lab.

Why is the lab so cruel to your theory?

 

[mamooth]

Is the atmosphere really needy, that it would "want more"?

You tell us, since you're the only one here saying the atmosphere would "want more". I certainly said nothing remotely like that. What exactly is it that you think the needy atmosphere wants? And when did the atmosphere become a conscious entity?

You described a system where a 120PPM increase in CO2 caused a .9 degree temperature increase with 90% of the heat being absorbed be water which takes 4, or 700 (according to Crick) or 3,000 (according to your earlier posts) more energy to heat.

Not too far off, so we'll roll with this so far.

So in an air only system you'd expect to see either a 4, (or 630 or 2,700 degree increase in temperature)

Wow, that's stupid. It would require that some unknown magical power forces the same amount of heat to flow into each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, which would cause the atmosphere to heat up much more. Because it's so stupid, no rational person thinks such a thing would happen. Every rational person knows it would grossly violate the laws of thermodynamics.

However, being you are who you are, you'll still keep declaring we do believe that. You're not capable of being honest or admitting an error, so doubling down on your dishonest strawman is going to be the only option open to you.

It's a thought experiment, one that would help your theory if it worked in a lab.

Summary: You made up a kook strawman theory that nobody on the planet believes, lied big and declared we believe it, shot down your own kook strawman, and then declared victory. That typical display of dishonest behavior on your part is why none of the grownups want to talk to you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No experiment has been done proving your claim.None Nada, the fact you can not cite one proves the point.

 

[Muhammed]

If as you claim it takes 700 times the heat to warm the water then the air, please explain to us why we have not seen 700 times the heat in the air if your claims of water heating is correct?

The stupid, it burns us.

Most deniers are just dumb. As Dunning-Kruger poster children, they're not smart enough to understand they're not smart, so we get this constant belligerent ignorance from most of them.

On the bright side for them, they can't really be held responsible for their bad behavior. We can't really blame a mentally challenged person for shitting in public, so we can't really blame a denier for shitting on a discussion. They simply don't know how not to be morons.

Actually, you are a denier. You deny your ignorance of science and deny that you have been fooled via repeated false messages.

Wake up!

 

[Crick]

I can and have cited them on multiple occasions. The problem is that neither jc456, Crusader Frank or, apparently, you, are able to recognize the results when you see them. There is also the problem that none of you can actually specify what you want to see and how you want to see it done. So any attempt to figure out what you might actually like to learn is greeted with derision. The absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 has been so well established - by experimentation - that precision instruments use its absorption characteristics to MEASURE how much CO2 is present in an unknown gas sample. You all reject or ignore the fact that is it simply impossible to set up an experiment that will exactly duplicate all the conditions present on the planet Earth and you are all unwilling to accept any lab experiment that has been done, so pardon me if I choose to waste no more of my time listening to the baying of the hounds.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Global Warming is a settled fact. The vast majority of scientists around the world settled this discussion 15 years ago and all agree Global Warming is real and accelerating.

There is no debate, Global Warming is real. The science is settled.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No experiment has been done proving your claim.None Nada, the fact you can not cite one proves the point.

So lets throw away at least 2 major physics equations and the theory of the greenhouse effect. The experiment is reality and it can be copied with predictions of temperature on other planets.

 

[westwall]

Global Warming is a settled fact. The vast majority of scientists around the world settled this discussion 15 years ago and all agree Global Warming is real and accelerating.

There is no debate, Global Warming is real. The science is settled.

Ummm, no it's not. "Consensus" is a political OPINION, not a fact... Learn the difference.

 

[sakinago]

If as you claim it takes 700 times the heat to warm the water then the air, please explain to us why we have not seen 700 times the heat in the air if your claims of water heating is correct?

The stupid, it burns us.

Most deniers are just dumb. As Dunning-Kruger poster children, they're not smart enough to understand they're not smart, so we get this constant belligerent ignorance from most of them.

On the bright side for them, they can't really be held responsible for their bad behavior. We can't really blame a mentally challenged person for shitting in public, so we can't really blame a denier for shitting on a discussion. They simply don't know how not to be morons.

700 times the energy, which is why the ocean feels nice when you go in it in the hot summer sun...otherwise it would just feel wet. And still haven't heard an answer to how much cooling per 10 ppm reduction in CO2.

 

[mamooth]

Oh, now you want to play some kind of dishonest game? Screw that. If you have a point to make, have the guts to state it directly. Answer you own question, and tell us why it matters. If you're too cowardly to state your point directly, you're not worth talking to.

So why is it that so many deniers are just too chicken to ever state a point directly?

 

[Crick]

How about this. Reduce atmospheric CO2 to 280 ppm then wait 200 years. Temperatures should be approximately where they were in 1750.

Alternatively, do nothing. CO2 will continue to rise hitting 800 ppm or more by 2100 and still be heading upward. By 2150, temperatures will have risen enough that - on top of the WAIS now floating in the Southern Ocean, Greenland is virtually dry land and the world's oceans have risen 20-30 feet. Billions of people have had to relocate. Thousands of coastal communities, towns, settlements and major cities: New York, Miami, Hong Kong, London, Singapore, Nairobi, Cairo, Amsterdam - hell, all the Netherlands, and many, many, many more have been abandoned to flooding. The world's water supply is a disaster. Food production has fallen through the floor. Hundreds of millions of people have starved or died of thirst. The world of nations is just one hot fucking mess. But we might actually still have some oil we could burn.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about this. Reduce atmospheric CO2 to 280 ppm then wait 200 years. Temperatures should be approximately where they were in 1750.

Alternatively, do nothing. CO2 will continue to rise hitting 800 ppm or more by 2100 and still be heading upward. By 2150, temperatures will have risen enough that - on top of the WAIS now floating in the Southern Ocean, Greenland is virtually dry land and the world's oceans have risen 20-30 feet. Billions of people have had to relocate. Thousands of coastal communities, towns, settlements and major cities: New York, Miami, Hong Kong, London, Singapore, Nairobi, Cairo, Amsterdam - hell, all the Netherlands, and many, many, many more have been abandoned to flooding. The world's water supply is a disaster. Food production has fallen through the floor. Hundreds of millions of people have starved or died of thirst. The world of nations is just one hot fucking mess. But we might actually still have some oil we could burn.

Wait? You can not duplicate the earth to run any experiments BUT you can make predictions on the lack of documentation and experimentation that you said can not be done? Perhaps that is why every prediction made so far has been wrong? Because you and your scientists that you support are just making it up as they go along.

 

[Crick]

Those are my predictions. The first is what I'd dearly like to see happen as I have children about whom I care a great deal. The second is what I expect to happen as the lot of you have shown me how remarkably stupid the human race can be.

 

[westwall]

How about this. Reduce atmospheric CO2 to 280 ppm then wait 200 years. Temperatures should be approximately where they were in 1750.

Alternatively, do nothing. CO2 will continue to rise hitting 800 ppm or more by 2100 and still be heading upward. By 2150, temperatures will have risen enough that - on top of the WAIS now floating in the Southern Ocean, Greenland is virtually dry land and the world's oceans have risen 20-30 feet. Billions of people have had to relocate. Thousands of coastal communities, towns, settlements and major cities: New York, Miami, Hong Kong, London, Singapore, Nairobi, Cairo, Amsterdam - hell, all the Netherlands, and many, many, many more have been abandoned to flooding. The world's water supply is a disaster. Food production has fallen through the floor. Hundreds of millions of people have starved or died of thirst. The world of nations is just one hot fucking mess. But we might actually still have some oil we could burn.

What about all those times when the CO2 levels have been low and the temp was high? Or how about those times when the CO2 levels were high...but the temp was low?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is the atmosphere really needy, that it would "want more"?

You tell us, since you're the only one here saying the atmosphere would "want more". I certainly said nothing remotely like that. What exactly is it that you think the needy atmosphere wants? And when did the atmosphere become a conscious entity?

You described a system where a 120PPM increase in CO2 caused a .9 degree temperature increase with 90% of the heat being absorbed be water which takes 4, or 700 (according to Crick) or 3,000 (according to your earlier posts) more energy to heat.

Not too far off, so we'll roll with this so far.

So in an air only system you'd expect to see either a 4, (or 630 or 2,700 degree increase in temperature)

Wow, that's stupid. It would require that some unknown magical power forces the same amount of heat to flow into each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, which would cause the atmosphere to heat up much more. Because it's so stupid, no rational person thinks such a thing would happen. Every rational person knows it would grossly violate the laws of thermodynamics.

However, being you are who you are, you'll still keep declaring we do believe that. You're not capable of being honest or admitting an error, so doubling down on your dishonest strawman is going to be the only option open to you.

It's a thought experiment, one that would help your theory if it worked in a lab.

Summary: You made up a kook strawman theory that nobody on the planet believes, lied big and declared we believe it, shot down your own kook strawman, and then declared victory. That typical display of dishonest behavior on your part is why none of the grownups want to talk to you.

Just a second. It's YOUR contention that a 120ppm increase in CO2 is generating the heat that is driving the entire system up by .9 degrees. I'm just making a thought experiment based upon what you suppose is happening in your system. If what you suppose is true, then the heat in air only system should be far greater than the .9 degrees we're observing in the Earth system.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can and have cited them on multiple occasions. The problem is that neither jc456, Crusader Frank or, apparently, you, are able to recognize the results when you see them. There is also the problem that none of you can actually specify what you want to see and how you want to see it done. So any attempt to figure out what you might actually like to learn is greeted with derision. The absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 has been so well established - by experimentation - that precision instruments use its absorption characteristics to MEASURE how much CO2 is present in an unknown gas sample. You all reject or ignore the fact that is it simply impossible to set up an experiment that will exactly duplicate all the conditions present on the planet Earth and you are all unwilling to accept any lab experiment that has been done, so pardon me if I choose to waste no more of my time listening to the baying of the hounds.

See, I question your motivation and sanity. We ask for an experiment relating CO2 to temperature and you keep posting charts with no temperature axis. It's textbook insanity

 

[Muhammed]

Global Warming is a settled fact. The vast majority of scientists around the world settled this discussion 15 years ago and all agree Global Warming is real and accelerating.

There is no debate, Global Warming is real. The science is settled.

That's a lie being perpetuated by idiots and fraudsters.

 

[Crick]

What about all those times when the CO2 levels have been low and the temp was high? Or how about those times when the CO2 levels were high...but the temp was low?

This isn't one of those times, is it.

 

[SSDD]

Ask Crick a real science question, one with what should be a numerical answer, get an insult in return

Just did on another thread....but I am sure he won't answer. He, and others don't seem to grasp the mathematical difference between gross and net...

He and others are under the impression that the mathematical statement P=A-B is a statement representing a net change in P rather than a gross change in p... I argue that if one wanted to write a statement of net change in P the statement would look more like P(+-)P1=A-B.....which would represent some change to P by an incoming or outgoing apart from the simple A-B. One shows a gross change...the other shows a net change.

And I predict that in answer to my question, I will get an insult.