The Ocean Ate My Global Warming

[IlarMeilyr]

Yet here we are, the biosphere is changing, 7 billion humans, record numbers of animal extinctions and the excretions of the record number of humans ISN'T and CAN'T be a factor...oh, NO, why the hell NOT? It's pretty obvious and has had effects any way you want to cut it. I have seen the changes, the extremes in weather, the warmer dryer effects and the dying pine forest in Colorado due to pine beetles loving the warmer climate. Don't dare to argue with me unless you are an idiot.

And WHO SAYS that the billions and billions of seaweeds and grass shoots and flies and crickets and birds can't be a factor!?

Yeah!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Day 1,574 of asking for the CO2 experiment and receiving no direct answer. We get "Go look at IPCC, DENIER!!!!" which still isn't an experiment.

We observe that asking the AGWCult for an experiment drives them insane

 

[jc456]

Jiminie, so you can't provide the text of that document to which you are arguing for? I see. You LoSiNg is so special daily for me. Y-e-s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are profoundly pathetic and everyone here knows it.

your point?

 

[jc456]

Day 1,574 of asking for the CO2 experiment and receiving no direct answer. We get "Go look at IPCC, DENIER!!!!" which still isn't an experiment.

We observe that asking the AGWCult for an experiment drives them insane

Frank, technically they finally did give the experiment. It was done in 1901 by Herr Koch. Guess what, it proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does nothing. real science has it. I had seen it before.

"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Day 1,574 of asking for the CO2 experiment and receiving no direct answer. We get "Go look at IPCC, DENIER!!!!" which still isn't an experiment.

We observe that asking the AGWCult for an experiment drives them insane

Frank, technically they finally did give the experiment. It was done in 1901 by Herr Koch. Guess what, it proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does nothing. real science has it. I had seen it before.

"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

That's why the AGWCult treats the laboratory like Dracula meeting the morning sun

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That's why the AGWCult treats the laboratory like Dracula meeting the morning sun

Perfect imagery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Day 1,574 of asking for the CO2 experiment and receiving no direct answer. We get "Go look at IPCC, DENIER!!!!" which still isn't an experiment.

We observe that asking the AGWCult for an experiment drives them insane

Frank, technically they finally did give the experiment. It was done in 1901 by Herr Koch. Guess what, it proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does nothing. real science has it. I had seen it before.

"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

Old Rocks no answer?

The Koch Brothers?

 

[mamooth]

Frank, Baby Jesus says lying is wrong.

If you believe in that kind of thing, you're definitely going to hell for it. Think about it. Is lying for your cult worth your soul?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, Baby Jesus says lying is wrong.

If you believe in that kind of thing, you're definitely going to hell for it. Think about it. Is lying for your cult worth your soul?

"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

 

[mamooth]

Frank, as has been painstakingly explained to you, that experiment does not reproduce the dynamics of the actual atmosphere.

Now, back to your afterlife. Perhaps you will call out "Father Abraham, have pity on me and send mamooth (who also died, but went to heaven) to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.". But I will not be able to help you, as there will be a great chasm between us.

And then you will cry to have me come back from the dead and warn other deniers, so they can avoid their toasty fate. Very nice of you. But God will say "No, if they did not listen to the scientists, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, as has been painstakingly explained to you, that experiment does not reproduce the dynamics of the actual atmosphere.

Now, back to your afterlife. Perhaps you will call out "Father Abraham, have pity on me and send mamooth (who also died, but went to heaven) to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.". But I will not be able to help you, as there will be a great chasm between us.

And then you will cry to have me come back from the dead and warn other deniers, so they can avoid their toasty fate. Very nice of you. But God will say "No, if they did not listen to the scientists, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead".

I thought you eliminated all variables except for an additional wisp of the atmospheric trace gas CO2?



Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[mamooth]

Frank, like jc and Kosh and skook, you're just a stupid person. You don't have enough brainpower to understand any of the science or logic here.

I know it's tough for you to hear that, but you need to hear it. You simply shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your idiot chatter and deranged conspiracy theories.

 

[SSDD]

Seems that the ocean didn't eat any warming because the ocean is a poor absorber of far LW....meaning the peak wavelengths radiated by CO2....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity if one can believe physical laws...

Let me guess, the warmers don't.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, just stop. You're humiliating yourself, and it's getting uncomfortable for everyone to watch.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, like jc and Kosh and skook, you're just a stupid person. You don't have enough brainpower to understand any of the science or logic here.

I know it's tough for you to hear that, but you need to hear it. You simply shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your idiot chatter and deranged conspiracy theories.

You keep getting spanked by the science, I think you might be a masochist and love how the Laboratory abuses your stupid "Theory"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, like jc and Kosh and skook, you're just a stupid person. You don't have enough brainpower to understand any of the science or logic here.

I know it's tough for you to hear that, but you need to hear it. You simply shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your idiot chatter and deranged conspiracy theories.

Hmmm, you didn't post an experiment

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Multiple Choice

Q. Why can't the AGWCult ever post a simple experiment that demonstrates conclusively how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature?

1. DENIER!! AGW AKBAR!! DEATH TO THE DENIERS!!!!
2. DENIER! It's not THAT simple you fool! You need a laboratory the size of the Universe to properly replicate AGW, DENERI!!!
3. DENIER!!! We've shown you the experiment, no exaggeration, 10 billion times already!
4. DENIER!!! Arrhenius worked it all out back when Phrenology was considered a real science and using the same equipment, the bumps on a persons head told all you needed to know about Global Warming

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, just stop. You're humiliating yourself, and it's getting uncomfortable for everyone to watch.

Uncomfortable for your hoax perhaps...or uncomfortable for you to deny yet another physical law.

 

[Crick]

SSDD, have you noticed how much difficulty you have finding any science reference that states anything similar to what you believe? You rattle off the name of some physical law and then try to give us YOUR interpretation of it. If you're right, why don't other, textbook explanations agree with yours? I've had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermodynamics) - all of which I aced - and in those classes I worked hundreds of radiant heat transfer problems. In every instance, the heat being radiated from every element of the system was calculated independently of the state of its surroundings and transfer was simply the algebraic sum of transfers at any point. At no time, in any of those classes, were we ever told that cold matter can not radiate towards hot matter. Never. And you have never presented a quotation from any source saying that it cannot. Obviously, the net transfer is from hot to cold, but the idea that some magic prevents photons from moving in the direction of a distant object is absolute nonsense.

There are thousands of articles on the physics of radiant energy transfer on the net. If you were right, you should be able to find dozens, if not hundreds, of statements that CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY support your contention. But you can find NONE. If you were correct, you would not have to provide such seriously strained interpretations of only the most unconstrained statements on the topic.

Your inability to recognize that you've made a serious error here tends to indicate you have problems either in understanding reality or admitting that you've made a mistake - or both. But the consistency with which you come up with these tortured interpretations of basic physics in a multitude of different topics makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that you know the truth and are doing this intentionally to inflame your "readership". That, of course, would make you a troll and trolls should be booted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD, have you noticed how much difficulty you have finding any science reference that states anything similar to what you believe? You rattle off the name of some physical law and then try to give us YOUR interpretation of it. If you're right, why don't other, textbook explanations agree with yours? I've had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermodynamics) - all of which I aced - and in those classes I worked hundreds of radiant heat transfer problems. In every instance, the heat being radiated from every element of the system was calculated independently of the state of its surroundings and transfer was simply the algebraic sum of transfers at any point. At no time, in any of those classes, were we ever told that cold matter can not radiate towards hot matter. Never. And you have never presented a quotation from any source saying that it cannot. Obviously, the net transfer is from hot to cold, but the idea that some magic prevents photons from moving in the direction of a distant object is absolute nonsense.

There are thousands of articles on the physics of radiant energy transfer on the net. If you were right, you should be able to find dozens, if not hundreds, of statements that CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY support your contention. But you can find NONE. If you were correct, you would not have to provide such seriously strained interpretations of only the most unconstrained statements on the topic.

Your inability to recognize that you've made a serious error here tends to indicate you have problems either in understanding reality or admitting that you've made a mistake - or both. But the consistency with which you come up with these tortured interpretations of basic physics in a multitude of different topics makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that you know the truth and are doing this intentionally to inflame your "readership". That, of course, would make you a troll and trolls should be booted.

Crick is going to end the debate once and for all by posting the experiment that conclusively demonstrated that a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature 2-7 degrees

Ain't that right, Crick?

Ready

Set

Go!