Can you really trust the science of global warming?

[mamooth]

Because rock is not water dude. Look up the difference between solids and liquids.

That explanation doesn't make a bit of sense. You claim light will warm a solid even if it only barely penetrates it, but it won't warm a liquid that it barely penetrates. But you don't say why. You just declare there's some magical difference between solids and liquids which makes it true, even though it makes no sense, and then you demand that everyone else BELIEVE in the magic too.

Normal people, OTOH, point out that light warms any object that it is absorbed by. Solid or liquid, deep or shallow, it doesn't matter. It's simple conservation of energy. The energy contained in the light has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is heating the object.

 

[westwall]

Because rock is not water dude. Look up the difference between solids and liquids.

That explanation doesn't make a bit of sense. You claim light will warm a solid even if it only barely penetrates it, but it won't warm a liquid that it barely penetrates. But you don't say why. You just declare there's some magical difference between solids and liquids which makes it true, even though it makes no sense, and then you demand that everyone else BELIEVE in the magic too.

Normal people, OTOH, point out that light warms any object that it is absorbed by. Solid or liquid, deep or shallow, it doesn't matter. It's simple conservation of energy. The energy contained in the light has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is heating the object.

Now look up CONDUCTION.

 

[mamooth]

Now look up CONDUCTION.

Why do you keep asking me to explain your crazy theory? I'm pointing out that it's inexplicable, being that it makes no sense. It's your theory, so you need to explain it.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

 

[westwall]

Now look up CONDUCTION.

Why do you keep asking me to explain your crazy theory? I'm pointing out that it's inexplicable, being that it makes no sense. It's your theory, so you need to explain it.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

I'm not positing a theory, silly girl. I am merely stating well known facts. The oceans are what warms this planet. That is known. That's why they are called the heat sinks of the world. We KNOW that UV light, from the Sun, penetrates to a depth of up to 500 meters and that has, over the billions of years of the oceans life, heated them up to the temperature they are now. These are facts. We also KNOW that long wave IR (the mechanism claimed by the AGW supporters to be the driver of global temperature) can't penetrate a single millimeter into water.

No theory, fact. So, the very mechanism that you claim is responsible for heating the globe. Can't.

 

[mamooth]

I'm not positing a theory, silly girl. I am merely stating well known facts. The oceans are what warms this planet. That is known. That's why they are called the heat sinks of the world. We KNOW that UV light, from the Sun, penetrates to a depth of up to 500 meters and that has, over the billions of years of the oceans life, heated them up to the temperature they are now. These are facts.

Your "facts" are Incomplete, and therefore wrong. Backradiation also strongly warms the oceans as well. Observed reality disagrees with your theory, therefore your theory is wrong.

We also KNOW that long wave IR (the mechanism claimed by the AGW supporters to be the driver of global temperature) can't penetrate a single millimeter into water.

No theory, fact. So, the very mechanism that you claim is responsible for heating the globe. Can't.

And, after working through your evasions, we're again back to your "My theory is right because I say so, even if it makes no sense!" physics.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

Where does the EM energy that penetrates the oceans go, if it doesn't go into the oceans?

 

[westwall]

I'm not positing a theory, silly girl. I am merely stating well known facts. The oceans are what warms this planet. That is known. That's why they are called the heat sinks of the world. We KNOW that UV light, from the Sun, penetrates to a depth of up to 500 meters and that has, over the billions of years of the oceans life, heated them up to the temperature they are now. These are facts.

Your "facts" are Incomplete, and therefore wrong. Backradiation also strongly warms the oceans as well. Observed reality disagrees with your theory, therefore your theory is wrong.

We also KNOW that long wave IR (the mechanism claimed by the AGW supporters to be the driver of global temperature) can't penetrate a single millimeter into water.

No theory, fact. So, the very mechanism that you claim is responsible for heating the globe. Can't.

And, after working through your evasions, we're again back to your "My theory is right because I say so, even if it makes no sense!" physics.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

Where does the EM energy that penetrates the oceans go, if it doesn't go into the oceans?

Please describe the mechanism of how back radiation warms the oceans. Show your work please.

 

[jasonnfree]

Complicated stuff, this global warming. I bought into it at first but, damn, so many scientists call it a fraud so... been reading up on it. Lots on u tube. I just watched a fairly long video on an interview with a scientist who says GW is mostly a fraud. It's 45 minutes but the time goes quickly. Anyone have any more links maybe post them. Link below:

 

[ding]

Now we get to the problem. Long wave IR doesn't heat water. Not even a tiny little bit because it is incapable of penetrating the skin of the water.

A staple part of Westwall pseudoscience is denying conservation of energy. In his strange world, energy strikes the oceans, and then simply vanishes into a magic snowflake dimension. According to the Westwall "energy can't warm something unless it penetrates deeply" theory, sunlight can't possibly heat a rock, because it only penetrates a few microns into the rock. Since sunlight clearly will heat a rock, the Westwall theory is clearly hilariously stupid.

So, how does Westwall explain why barely-penetrating EM energy can heat a rock but not the oceans? He doesn't. We're supposed to take it on faith. I've asked. He won't tell. He'll try to deflect by yelling something like "thermal ....", which also doesn't make any sense, then he'll snarl out some insults and run.

The point? All of his "science" is hilariously stupid. Most denier "science" is hilariously stupid. Unlike the real climate science, which can be disproved in many ways, denialism is impossible to disprove. I've asked deniers what evidence would disprove their beliefs, and none of them can give an answer. There's literally no data that could disprove their beliefs. That puts denialism in the realm of pseudoscience or religion.

So, that's why deniers can't be trusted. They don't do science. They just chant religious mantras.

Plus, look at this thread. All the deniers are wild-eyed fanatics, frothing out conspiracy theories about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. You can't trust conspiracy fanatics. You can trust people who calmly discuss science and calmly defend their views, like the rational people do.

Solar radiation heats the ocean. Back radiation does not.

 

[mamooth]

Please describe the mechanism of how back radiation warms the oceans.

Never a problem. Unlike you, who just ran 3 times from a request to explain his position, I can back up everything I say. That's kind of the point, that deniers can never back up their crazy claims, because their claims are fiction.

Show your work please.

First, the Law of Conservation of Energy says you're wrong. Energy can not simply vanish, as your bizarre theory requires. If energy is absorbed by the oceans, it must add heat to the oceans, period.

So, what's the mechanism?

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as you get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans, from combined conduction and evaporation, depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

 

[mamooth]

. I just watched a fairly long video on an interview with a scientist

Patrick Moore has no experience in climate science, only a fuzzy degree in "ecology". And he lies about being a founder of Greenpeace. And he's been on the payroll of various polluters for over 25 years. He gets paid well to run cover for the polluters.

Naturally, his claims are all crap. If you'd like to discuss any of them, I'd be happy to oblige.

 

[Wyatt earp]

. I just watched a fairly long video on an interview with a scientist

Patrick Moore has no experience in climate science, only a fuzzy degree in "ecology". And he lies about being a founder of Greenpeace. And he's been on the payroll of various polluters for over 25 years. He gets paid well to run cover for the polluters.

Naturally, his claims are all crap. If you'd like to discuss any of them, I'd be happy to oblige.

You dodged them all retard.



.

 

[westwall]

Please describe the mechanism of how back radiation warms the oceans.

Never a problem. Unlike you, who just ran 3 times from a request to explain his position, I can back up everything I say. That's kind of the point, that deniers can never back up their crazy claims, because their claims are fiction.

Show your work please.

First, the Law of Conservation of Energy says you're wrong. Energy can not simply vanish, as your bizarre theory requires. If energy is absorbed by the oceans, it must add heat to the oceans, period.

So, what's the mechanism?

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as you get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans, from combined conduction and evaporation, depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

Did you notice that that is daytime? See the SOLAR input? Now. Show us the same graphic for night time. Thanks!

 

[mamooth]

Did you notice that that is daytime?

I notice that evasion has nothing to do with the issue of you not backing your crazy claims in any way. I could expand on the real world more, and then you'd demand even more, and I'd provide it, and you'd demand even more, over and over, and I'll have explained the whole universe, and you'll demand more ... it's your way of refusing to explain the gaping holes in your own nonsense theory.

So, let's back to those issues that you're working so hard to run from.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

Where does the EM energy that penetrates the oceans go, if it doesn't go into the oceans?

 

[westwall]

Did you notice that that is daytime?

I notice that evasion has nothing to do with the issue of you not backing your crazy claims in any way. I could expand on the real world more more, and then you'd demand even more, and I'd provide it, and you'd demand even more, over and over, and I'll have explained the whole universe, and you'll demand more ... it's your way of refusing to explain the gaping holes in your own nonsense theory.

So, let's back to those issues that you're working so hard to run from.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

Where does the EM energy that penetrates the oceans go, if it doesn't go into the oceans?

No, silly girl. AGW theory posits that during the NIGHT TIME, the long wave IR comes back down WHEN THERE IS NO SUNLIGHT and that is what keeps warming the planet after dark. Duh. Talk about someone who can't seem to grasp the basics.

Now. Show us a cute picture of how that mechanism works AT NIGHT!

 

[mamooth]

No, silly girl.

Why do you think "girl" is an insult? Are you proud of being such an ugly misogynist?

AGW theory posits that during the NIGHT TIME, the long wave IR comes back down WHEN THERE IS NO SUNLIGHT

Of course it does. Why would you think it doesn't? The atmosphere doesn't plunge to a temperature of absolute zero at night, so it keeps emitting longwave IR.

and that is what keeps warming the planet after dark. Duh. Talk about someone who can't seem to grasp the basics.

Hilarious. You actually thought backradiation vanished at night. You're just totally clueless about the science.

 

[westwall]

No, silly girl.

Why do you think "girl" is an insult? Are you proud of being such an ugly misogynist?

AGW theory posits that during the NIGHT TIME, the long wave IR comes back down WHEN THERE IS NO SUNLIGHT

Of course it does. Why would you think it doesn't? The atmosphere doesn't plunge to a temperature of absolute zero at night, so it keeps emitting longwave IR.

and that is what keeps warming the planet after dark. Duh. Talk about someone who can't seem to grasp the basics.

Hilarious. You actually thought backradiation vanished at night. You're just totally clueless about the science.

Wrong again. Tell us how the water vapor retains the heat from the Earth during the night time.

 

[mamooth]

Wrong again. Tell us how the water vapor retains the heat from the Earth during the night time.

After a greenhouse gas molecule spits out an IR photon and cools off, it picks up heat again from the rest of the atmosphere. There's a buttload of thermal storage in the mass of the atmosphere.

There is a global network that constantly measures backradiation, the BSRN (baseline surface radiation network). 36 stations now. So few, because infrared spectrometers are very expensive.

Baseline Surface Radiation Network: Baseline Surface Radiation Network

Those stations are measuring the backradiation day and night. Here's an example plot. Backradiation usually only dips a little at night. Changes in humidity and cloud cover have more of an effect than the day/night cycle.

 

[westwall]

Wrong again. Tell us how the water vapor retains the heat from the Earth during the night time.

After a greenhouse gas molecule spits out an IR photon and cools off, it picks up heat again from the rest of the atmosphere. There's a buttload of thermal storage in the mass of the atmosphere.

There is a global network that constantly measures backradiation, the BSRN (baseline surface radiation network). 36 stations now. So few, because infrared spectrometers are very expensive.

Baseline Surface Radiation Network: Baseline Surface Radiation Network

Those stations are measuring the backradiation day and night. Here's an example plot. Backradiation usually only dips a little at night. Changes in humidity and cloud cover have more of an effect than the day/night cycle.

Yeah? So? That doesn't explain how long wave IR heats water, which we KNOW it can't, and which we KNOW is what keeps this planet warm at night. Try again.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah? So? That doesn't explain how long wave IR heats water,

I already debunked that in post #129. You refused to address it, and then deflected by making an insane claim that backradiation didn't exist at night.

So, I debunked that in post #137. You refused to address, and now you're deflecting by running back to your previously debunked claim.

While refusing to answer any of my questions, you keep demanding I answer your questions, and then when I do, you ignore the answers. Thanks for proving my point, that deniers can't be trusted because they tend to be intellectually dishonest.

Now, let's get back to those simple questions about your crazy physics that you've run away from 4 times now. You don't get to ask any more questions until you provide full and direct answers. I mean, sure, you can try to ask, but I'll laugh and ignore it.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

Where does the EM energy that penetrates the oceans go, if it doesn't go into the oceans?

 

[westwall]

Yeah? So? That doesn't explain how long wave IR heats water,

I already debunked that in post #129. You refused to address it, and then deflected by making an insane claim that backradiation didn't exist at night.

So, I debunked that in post #137. You refused to address, and now you're deflecting by running back to your previously debunked claim.

While refusing to answer any of my questions, you keep demanding I answer your questions, and then when I do, you ignore the answers. Thanks for proving my point, that deniers can't be trusted because they tend to be intellectually dishonest.

Now, let's get back to those simple questions about your crazy physics that you've run away from 4 times now. You don't get to ask any more questions until you provide full and direct answers. I mean, sure, you can try to ask, but I'll laugh and ignore it.

Why do you say EM energy can add heat to a solid that it doesn't penetrate deeply, but that EM energy can't add heat to a liquid that it doesn't penetrate deeply?

Where does the EM energy that penetrates the oceans go, if it doesn't go into the oceans?

You haven't debunked anything. All you have shown is you have no clue what you are talking about and you resort to deflection and idiocy to try and hide that fact.