Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

[Grumblenuts]

It's the ZONING stupid.. Not GWarming.

Or both or neither or somewhere in between.

 

[Old Rocks]

Got a considered solution for ya Rocks.. How about if people want to EXPAND their villages and homes into wilderness areas, that we BAN the use of electrical power lines and REQUIRE them to power "off the grid"? In Cali -- that would have prevented MOST of the burning in the past several years.

That's REAL conservation... Then those firefighters dont have much "infrastructure" to protect and they can focus on SCIENTIFIC FOREST MANAGEMENT plans..

It's the ZONING stupid.. Not GWarming.

You are just plain full of shit. Washington, Oregon, and California have all had significant increases in average temperature, which dries out the forests. Add in higher sustained winds, and zoning will not prevent the fires.

State Climate Summaries 2022

statesummaries.ncics.org

Average annual temperatures have increased approximately 2°F since the beginning of the 20th century. Winter warming has been characterized by rising nighttime ..

State Climate Summaries 2022

statesummaries.ncics.org

Mean annual temperature has increased approximately 1.5°F since the beginning of the 20th century. Winter warming has been characterized by a far below .

State Climate Summaries 2022

statesummaries.ncics.org

Average annual temperature has risen by approximately 2°F since the early 20th ... Over the past decade (2005–2014), California has experienced its highest

 

[LaDairis]

In other words, another asshole with a 3rd grade science education claims to know more about chemistry than men and women with Phd's in that discipline, as well as decades spent in research. LOL

LOL....


And the parrot answers BAWK, I'm parroting.....

 

[Crick]

Last time we went over this was a year ago, so let's go over it again.

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note that 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 ocean temperature gets higher 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. That lowers the temperature of the surface.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans (from both 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. With less of a gradient, less heat flows out.

Enter the additional longwave IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer. That means 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.

The abstract from the relevant paper:

Abstract​

Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

 

[ReinyDays]

The abstract from the relevant paper:

Abstract​

Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

The TSL absorbs visible light ... STOOPID ... what the fuck are you worried about IR ...

Clouds reflect far more energy back out into space than the terrestrial IR they absorb and re-emit ... they are a negative feedback to surface temperature ... only LIARS would say otherwise ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Got a considered solution for ya Rocks.. How about if people want to EXPAND their villages and homes into wilderness areas, that we BAN the use of electrical power lines and REQUIRE them to power "off the grid"? In Cali -- that would have prevented MOST of the burning in the past several years.

That's REAL conservation... Then those firefighters dont have much "infrastructure" to protect and they can focus on SCIENTIFIC FOREST MANAGEMENT plans..

It's the ZONING stupid.. Not GWarming.

Are you from Oregon? ... because that's exactly what we did in the 1970's ... forest lands were zoned "forestry" and folks can't build on these lands (F2) ... no homes, no electric cables through bone dry forests ... just moron campers playing with matches ...

The rule is to clear cut all the trees away from your home for a 100 foot radius ... and keep this area around your home mowed ... and follow evacuation orders ... even the largest forest fires will leave your home untouched and without firefighter intervention ...

Once burned, then you'll be in the clear for ten or twenty years ... then it will burn again ... and again ... why don't you people know that fire is normal in The West ... a few species of trees here require fire to burn their cones to release the seeds within ... so fire in part of evolution, your home isn't ...

These draconian zoning laws were instituted to control urban sprawl into agricultural lands ... like in California ... thus chronic housing shortages, chronic labor shortages, and 911 dispatch only handling fire and medical calls ... we need to call the police directly during normal business hours to report crime ... [shrugs shoulders] ... less police keeps the neighborhoods more peaceful ...

 

[Crick]

The TSL absorbs visible light ... STOOPID ... what the fuck are you worried about IR ...

Clouds reflect far more energy back out into space than the terrestrial IR they absorb and re-emit ... they are a negative feedback to surface temperature ... only LIARS would say otherwise ...

Visible light, even the longer wavelengths, travel several orders of magnitude deeper than the TSL before it is absorbed. Very little is absorbed in the TSL., STOOPID.
The reason we worry about the IR is because that is the spectrum of the CO2 backscatter, STOOPID.
IR from clouds was only used as a convenient source of IR to examine what happens in the TSL, STOOPID .

 

[Flash]

One of the reasons none of the dire predictions the stupid Environmental Wackos make ever come true is that their assumptions on CO2 being a greenhouse gas is based on flawed science. The chemistry of the CO2 balance in the atmosphere is far more complex than their simplistic shit in shit out computer models.

 

[task0778]

One of the reasons none of the dire predictions the stupid Environmental Wackos make ever come true is that their assumptions on CO2 being a greenhouse gas is based on flawed science

It's based on a lot of politics too, i.e. lies.

 

[Flash]

It's based on a lot of politics too, i.e. lies.

True and that very flawed unscientific correlation between the start of the industrial era and increased climate temperature.

(created with fraudulent and cherry picked data)

 

[Crick]

True and that very flawed unscientific correlation between the start of the industrial era and increased climate temperature.

(created with fraudulent and cherry picked data)

Bullshit. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution covered several decades. It was the conclusion that rising CO2 from fossil fuels was increasing the world's temperatures that then threw attention at the Industrial Revolution.

So, what fraudulent and cherry picked data do you believe responsible for the correlation between CO2 and global temperature?

 

[westwall]

The abstract from the relevant paper:

Abstract​

Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

Aaaaaaaand, cue the use of models to support their claim. But nothing observable.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution covered several decades. It was the conclusion that rising CO2 from fossil fuels was increasing the world's temperatures that then threw attention at the Industrial Revolution.

So, what fraudulent and cherry picked data do you believe responsible for the correlation between CO2 and global temperature?

Opinion. Not fact. That is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Crick]

One of the reasons none of the dire predictions the stupid Environmental Wackos make ever come true

What dire predictions haven't come true?

is that their assumptions on CO2 being a greenhouse gas is based on flawed science.

Assumption? It is not an assumption. It's classification as such is based on the repeated observations of it absorption spectrum. What science in that process do you believe to be flawed?

The chemistry of the CO2 balance in the atmosphere is far more complex than their simplistic shit in shit out computer models.

Do tell. Please explain that complex chemistry and, perhaps, you could tell us why you think GCM models are "simplistic shit in shit out"

 

[Crick]

Opinion. Not fact. That is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

Then refute me.

 

[westwall]

Then refute me.

History refutes you. The failed theory of AGW refutes you. You have no observable data to support, so that refutes you. You rely on studies, based on computer models, those are not factual, those are fiction.

That refutes you.

 

[Crick]

History refutes you. The failed theory of AGW refutes you. You have no observable data to support, so that refutes you. You rely on studies, based on computer models, those are not factual, those are fiction.

That refutes you.

That looks an awful lot like an unsubstantiated personal opinion. Show us where history refutes me. Show us where AGW theory failed. Show us the complete absence of observational data. Cause:
THIS is observational data:

Is a detailed absorption spectrum available for carbon dioxide from 300-1100nm?

I believe that carbon dioxide does not absorb light in the visible region, but is a spectrum available somewhere online that shows this as a fact? As in a straight horizontal line at 100% transmiss...

physics.stackexchange.com

As is THIS:

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[westwall]

That looks an awful lot like an unsubstantiated personal opinion. Show us where history refutes me. Show us where AGW theory failed. Show us the complete absence of observational data. Cause:
THIS is observational data:

Is a detailed absorption spectrum available for carbon dioxide from 300-1100nm?

I believe that carbon dioxide does not absorb light in the visible region, but is a spectrum available somewhere online that shows this as a fact? As in a straight horizontal line at 100% transmiss...

physics.stackexchange.com

As is THIS:

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fraudulent graphs don't help you.

 

[Flash]

Bullshit. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution covered several decades. It was the conclusion that rising CO2 from fossil fuels was increasing the world's temperatures that then threw attention at the Industrial Revolution.

So, what fraudulent and cherry picked data do you believe responsible for the correlation between CO2 and global temperature?

You gullible little Moon Bats don't know jackshit about the garbage you post.

 

[Crick]

You gullible little Moon Bats don't know jackshit about the garbage you post.

I say again, what fraudulent and cherry picked data do you believe responsible for the correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Or did you just pull that out of your ass?