How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

Does it take less or more energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air with both at sea level?
We are not your assistants. Make your false point.

Does it take less or more energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air with both at sea level?
We are not your assistants. Make your false point.

Unless you thrive on embarrassing yourself and exposing your ignorance, stay out of this thread
 
Somehow, atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans.
That's right dummy! Did you know the oceans actually touch the atmosphere? I mean, small children know this, but apparently you needed a remedial refresher.

Are you seriously claiming that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere now generates heat sufficient to warm the deep ocean?
Hot water sinks into cold water. You didn't hear? CO2 from American coal and SUVs is so powerful, it forces hot water deep into the ocean.
 
There is no proper temperature but if man had never burned any fossil fuels, it would be about 12C. The CO2 level before the Industrial Revolution was 280 ppm. Paying to stop global warming will cost a great deal less than paying for the consequences. And stopping it two decades ago when we were first warned about this problem would have cost orders of magnitude less.
 
There is no proper temperature but if man had never burned any fossil fuels, it would be about 12C. The CO2 level before the Industrial Revolution was 280 ppm. Paying to stop global warming will cost a great deal less than paying for the consequences. And stopping it two decades ago when we were first warned about this problem would have cost orders of magnitude less.

The Chinese have twice our CO2 output so you should direct 100% of your efforts to get the CCP to curb their emissions
 
Does it take less or more energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air with both at sea level?
We are not your assistants. Make your false point.
He did ... but it's not false ... off the top of my head (and without morning coffee yet):

Specific heat capacities:

Carbon dioxide - 0.75 J/g/K
Air - 1 J/g/K
Water - 4 J/g/K

We have to add 1 joule of energy to a gram of air to raise the temperature 1ºC (= 1 K) ... whereas we need 4 joules of energy to do the same with water ... Chemistry 101 ...

Additionally (for water):

Latent heat of fusion - 500 J/g
Latent heat of evaporation - 2,100 J/g

Yes, it takes more energy to melt a gram of water than it takes to bring this meltwater up to 100ºC ... and it take more energy to boil off than all the energy in the first step ...

Yet Alarmist ignore this ...

ETA: Got my coffee, then corrected a slight mathing mistake ... my bad ..
 
Last edited:
Does it take less or more energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air with both at sea level?
We are not your assistants. Make your false point.
He did ... but it's not false ... off the top of my head (and without morning coffee yet):

Specific heat capacities:

Carbon dioxide - 0.75 J/g/K
Air - 1 J/g/K
Water - 4 J/g/K

We have to add 1 joule of energy to a gram of air to raise the temperature 4ºC (= 4 K) ... whereas we need 4 joules of energy to do the same with water ... Chemistry 101 ...

Additionally (for water):

Latent heat of fusion - 500 J/g
Latent heat of evaporation - 2,100 J/g

Yes, it takes more energy to melt a gram of water than it takes to bring this meltwater up to 100ºC ... and it take more energy to boil off than all the energy in the first step ...

Yet Alarmist ignore this ...
How are we ignoring that?
 
Does it take less or more energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air with both at sea level?
We are not your assistants. Make your false point.
He did ... but it's not false ... off the top of my head (and without morning coffee yet):

Specific heat capacities:

Carbon dioxide - 0.75 J/g/K
Air - 1 J/g/K
Water - 4 J/g/K

We have to add 1 joule of energy to a gram of air to raise the temperature 4ºC (= 4 K) ... whereas we need 4 joules of energy to do the same with water ... Chemistry 101 ...

Additionally (for water):

Latent heat of fusion - 500 J/g
Latent heat of evaporation - 2,100 J/g

Yes, it takes more energy to melt a gram of water than it takes to bring this meltwater up to 100ºC ... and it take more energy to boil off than all the energy in the first step ...

Yet Alarmist ignore this ...
How are we ignoring that?

How are we ignoring that?

By focusing strictly on the radiative transfer of energy ... from the above we know you're blissfully unaware energy can be transported by convection ... you have to ignore this, or it makes all your predictions of doom and gloom meaningless ...
 
So, you believe the world's climate scientists have all been ignoring conductive heat transfer? You believe you know how to refute the greenhouse effect? Let's see it.

And one more question before you get started: what is the conductive heat transfer rate from the atmosphere to space?
 
So, you believe the world's climate scientists have all been ignoring conductive heat transfer?

No, just the ones you listen to ignore convection ... as do climate models, their unit volume include the full height of the atmosphere ... you should knowthis, or do you just blindly repeats whatever you read in the National Enquirer? ...

Let's take our air parcel at 25ºC, 80% RH, two meters above the ocean surface ... now uplift this air parcel to a temperature of -40ºC at roughly 25,000 feet elevation ... what happens to RH? ... don't be shy, be very specific ...
 
So, you're claiming that CMIP5 models ignore convection?
 
From https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf "Evaluation of Climate Models"

Atmospheric models must parameterize a wide range of processes, including those associated with atmospheric convection and clouds, cloud-microphysical and aerosol processes and their interaction, boundary layer processes, as well as radiation and the treatment of unresolved gravity waves. Advances made in the representation of cloud processes, including aerosol–cloud and cloud–radiation interactions, and atmospheric convection are described in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.4.

Several global models have successfully adopted new approaches to the parameterization of shallow cumulus convection and moist boundary layer turbulence that acknowledge their close mutual coupling.

Regional-scale precipitation simulation has strong parameter dependence (Rougier et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010; Neelin et al., 2010), and in some models substantial improvements have been shown through increases in resolution (Delworth et al., 2012) and improved representations of sub-gridscale processes, particularly convection (Neale et al., 2008).

And 33 more occurrences of the term.
 
From https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf "Evaluation of Climate Models"

Atmospheric models must parameterize a wide range of processes, including those associated with atmospheric convection and clouds, cloud-microphysical and aerosol processes and their interaction, boundary layer processes, as well as radiation and the treatment of unresolved gravity waves. Advances made in the representation of cloud processes, including aerosol–cloud and cloud–radiation interactions, and atmospheric convection are described in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.4.

Several global models have successfully adopted new approaches to the parameterization of shallow cumulus convection and moist boundary layer turbulence that acknowledge their close mutual coupling.

Regional-scale precipitation simulation has strong parameter dependence (Rougier et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010; Neelin et al., 2010), and in some models substantial improvements have been shown through increases in resolution (Delworth et al., 2012) and improved representations of sub-gridscale processes, particularly convection (Neale et al., 2008).

And 33 more occurrences of the term.

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... then you'll see why the IPCC only predicts a small 2ºC increase over the next 100 years ...

My information appears to be dated ... so I do thank you for this correction ... computers used to run these climate models will have twice as many transitors per square inch in just 18 months ... Moore's Law ... I'll look over those references you posted later today and see if that answers my question ...

ETA: It's a few minytes later in the day now:

"Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain." -- IPCC AR5 1WG § 7.2.3

My claim was based on hyperbole ... current unit volumes are smaller these days ... to wit:

"Most CMIP5 climate model simulations use horizontal resolutions of 100 to 200 km in the atmosphere, with vertical layers varying between 100 m near the surface to more than 1000 m aloft." -- ibid.

Still, 20,000 km^2 resolution is pretty bad ... and this blurriness in magnified over each iteration ... AND it doesn't say average cloudiness will be less with warmer temperatures ... this citation doesn't validate either of our claims ... but my claim is based on firm scientific theories, where each logic step can be easily demonstrated if not on our kitchen counter, then in any basic lab set-up at your local community college ...

What theory do you base your claim on? ... because the IPCC does NOT present any claim on in this matter, as I've quoted above ...

Let's take our air parcel at 25ºC, 80% RH, two meters above the ocean surface ... now uplift this air parcel to a temperature of -40ºC at roughly 25,000 feet elevation ... what happens to RH? ... don't be shy, be very specific ...
 
Last edited:
There is no proper temperature but if man had never burned any fossil fuels, it would be about 12C. The CO2 level before the Industrial Revolution was 280 ppm. Paying to stop global warming will cost a great deal less than paying for the consequences. And stopping it two decades ago when we were first warned about this problem would have cost orders of magnitude less.

280 ppm bad.

580 ppm good.
 
From https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf "Evaluation of Climate Models"

Atmospheric models must parameterize a wide range of processes, including those associated with atmospheric convection and clouds, cloud-microphysical and aerosol processes and their interaction, boundary layer processes, as well as radiation and the treatment of unresolved gravity waves. Advances made in the representation of cloud processes, including aerosol–cloud and cloud–radiation interactions, and atmospheric convection are described in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.4.

Several global models have successfully adopted new approaches to the parameterization of shallow cumulus convection and moist boundary layer turbulence that acknowledge their close mutual coupling.

Regional-scale precipitation simulation has strong parameter dependence (Rougier et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010; Neelin et al., 2010), and in some models substantial improvements have been shown through increases in resolution (Delworth et al., 2012) and improved representations of sub-gridscale processes, particularly convection (Neale et al., 2008).

And 33 more occurrences of the term.

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... then you'll see why the IPCC only predicts a small 2ºC increase over the next 100 years ...

My information appears to be dated ... so I do thank you for this correction ... computers used to run these climate models will have twice as many transitors per square inch in just 18 months ... Moore's Law ... I'll look over those references you posted later today and see if that answers my question ...

ETA: It's a few minytes later in the day now:

"Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain." -- IPCC AR5 1WG § 7.2.3

My claim was based on hyperbole ... current unit volumes are smaller these days ... to wit:

"Most CMIP5 climate model simulations use horizontal resolutions of 100 to 200 km in the atmosphere, with vertical layers varying between 100 m near the surface to more than 1000 m aloft." -- ibid.

Still, 20,000 km^2 resolution is pretty bad ... and this blurriness in magnified over each iteration ... AND it doesn't say average cloudiness will be less with warmer temperatures ... this citation doesn't validate either of our claims ... but my claim is based on firm scientific theories, where each logic step can be easily demonstrated if not on our kitchen counter, then in any basic lab set-up at your local community college ...

What theory do you base your claim on? ... because the IPCC does NOT present any claim on in this matter, as I've quoted above ...

Let's take our air parcel at 25ºC, 80% RH, two meters above the ocean surface ... now uplift this air parcel to a temperature of -40ºC at roughly 25,000 feet elevation ... what happens to RH? ... don't be shy, be very specific ...
Feel free to tell us what happens and how that will refute the Greenhouse Effect or the conclusions of the IPCC. I'm not your calculator.
 
ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

aha.gif
 
I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!
ME!
 

Forum List

Back
Top