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

[SSDD]

Get back to us when you've had an education Frank. For now, though, do you accept or reject the report that the oceans have warmed - continuing to warm even during what you claim has been a hiatus in warming?

So you have no answer and no experiment to show us how it's possible that CO2 warming is only raising the atmosphere .4 degrees (I won't argue your 'adjusted data') yet is also warming a system that takes 700 times the energy to do so?

Amazing

CO2 is indeed a magical gas.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PS: Where did you get 0.4? The Earth's temperature has increased over 0.9C. That would be over 1.6F. And the factor of 700 is not a ratio of degrees. It is a ratio of the amount of heat (measured in calories or Joules) required to raise the temperature of a given mass of a given material a given amount. A Joule, for instance, will raise one gram of water one Kelvin (Centigrade) degree. It will not raise one gram of air one Kelvin degree due to the difference between the specific heat capacity of water and that of air's.

Terribly sorry the universe is not as simply as you'd like.

You realize that saying the temperature increase (based on adjusted data) is .9 degrees makes your total inability to produce any lab work that much worse.

If only 10% of the energy is going into the air, then the expected increase in an air only system from 120PPM of CO2 should be approximately 56 degrees

I realized I made a math error. Under Cricks model the temperature increase would be more like 630 degrees.

 

[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.

Fixation is a symptom of ignorance Frank. You don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about, you only know you're supposed to take the right wing line. Give it up Frank.

As far as I know, I'm the first person to posit the question.

How bad does it suck that you're reduced to insults, and in record time too

 

[jc456]

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.

hahahahahaahhahahahaha, you have never presented one piece of evidence to show what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate or temperature. You're a liar.

 

[westwall]

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.

It isn't? What's the difference? Why is it that CO2 seems to have no measurable impact on global temperatures throughout history until now? Could it be that the only difference is the money you hope to squeeze out of the poor and middle class? Don't you find it suspicious that there is no mandate to reduce pollution? Doesn't it concern you that the people are still allowed to pollute they just have to pay your masters for the privilege? Doesn't that mean that there will be even more pollution and more CO2?

How about using what little brain you have and answering those basic questions.

 

[mamooth]

Why is it that CO2 seems to have no measurable impact on global temperatures throughout history until now?

Deniers become Little Ice Age deniers the instant it's convenient for them. Or deniers of snowball earth and the recovery. That's jus two examples.

It's impossible to explain the paleoclimate record with taking the effects of CO2 into consideration. Anyone who says CO2 has no effect is completely ignorant of the topic.

Could it be that the only difference is the money you hope to squeeze out of the poor and middle class?

No. Because that's a deranged cult conspiracy theory, and normal people just laugh at it.

 

[mamooth]

I'm just making a thought experiment based upon what you suppose is happening in your system.

We suppose no such thing. You're just lying about what we supposedly suppose. We flat out tell you we don't suppose it, and you still deliberately lie about it.

Since you're plainly just a pathologically dishonest cultist, there's no reason for anyone to talk to you. After all, no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie proudly in response.

 

[westwall]

Why is it that CO2 seems to have no measurable impact on global temperatures throughout history until now?

Deniers become Little Ice Age deniers the instant it's convenient for them. Or deniers of snowball earth and the recovery. That's jus two examples.

It's impossible to explain the paleoclimate record with taking the effects of CO2 into consideration. Anyone who says CO2 has no effect is completely ignorant of the topic.

Could it be that the only difference is the money you hope to squeeze out of the poor and middle class?

No. Because that's a deranged cult conspiracy theory, and normal people just laugh at it.

What am I denying admiral? Lay it out for us.

 

[mamooth]

You're denying that declining CO2 levels, along with high volcanic activity, were the cause of the LIA. It certainly wasn't decreased solar activity, being the LIA started a century before the Maunder Minimum. The MM helped keep the ongoing LIA going, but it was not a cause.

And you're denying that the earth's recovery from the Snowball Earth phase was entirely due to the volcanic CO2 building up over the eons.

 

[SSDD]

You're denying that declining CO2 levels, along with high volcanic activity, were the cause of the LIA. It certainly wasn't decreased solar activity, being the LIA started a century before the Maunder Minimum. The MM helped keep the ongoing LIA going, but it was not a cause.

And you're denying that the earth's recovery from the Snowball Earth phase was entirely due to the volcanic CO2 building up over the eons.

Why is it that you think the conditions that created the Maunder minimum are the only solar conditions that can alter the climate of this planet?

 

[mamooth]

Why is that you have to invoke mysterious magic to explain away the failure of your bizarre theories?

"Have you proven it's not magic, huh? Then you must be wrong!" is not taken seriously by non-cultists.

 

[SSDD]

Why is that you have to invoke mysterious magic to explain away the failure of your bizarre theories?

"Have you proven it's not magic, huh? Then you must be wrong!" is not taken seriously by non-cultists.

Interesting how you guys think that energy obeying the laws of thermodynamics requires magic....I guess you think rocks that fall down are magic...and water that runs downhill is magic...and electricity that runs in one direction down a wire is magic...

Your whole argument is a logical fallacy.....either you can demonstrate that I am wrong...or you can't...hurling feces like a caged ape clearly does not demonstrate that I am wrong...it does, however demonstrate your inability to actually speak on the topic.

 

[mamooth]

Interesting how you and you alone think your ravings about magic are "the laws of thermodynamics".

 

[SSDD]

Interesting how you and you alone think your ravings about magic are "the laws of thermodynamics".

Really? Which part of the second law of thermodynamics says that either heat or energy can spontaneously move from cool to warm?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm just making a thought experiment based upon what you suppose is happening in your system.

We suppose no such thing. You're just lying about what we supposedly suppose. We flat out tell you we don't suppose it, and you still deliberately lie about it.

Since you're plainly just a pathologically dishonest cultist, there's no reason for anyone to talk to you. After all, no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie proudly in response.

You described a system where an extra 120PPM of CO2 generates enough heat to warm both the air and oceans by .9 degrees, correct?

 

[westwall]

You're denying that declining CO2 levels, along with high volcanic activity, were the cause of the LIA. It certainly wasn't decreased solar activity, being the LIA started a century before the Maunder Minimum. The MM helped keep the ongoing LIA going, but it was not a cause.

And you're denying that the earth's recovery from the Snowball Earth phase was entirely due to the volcanic CO2 building up over the eons.

Wow, you completely ignore the fact that CO2 lags temp. First, the temperature lowered and thus the atmospheric CO2 dropped as well. Then, when the recovery occurred the CO2 levels have increased. Exactly the same as has happened every time before. That is irrefutable evidence that CO2 has no bearing on the global temperature.

How about this new NASA study that says CO2 COOLS the atmosphere. What do you think of this?


“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”


Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth s Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

 

[mamooth]

Wow, you completely ignore the fact that CO2 lags temp.

Recent research casts serious doubt on that. No matter, we can go with the old theory anyways.

First, the temperature lowered and thus the atmospheric CO2 dropped as well.

So the 600 - 1000 year lag period apparently got way quicker in this case. Why? Who knows. Magic.

Then, when the recovery occurred the CO2 levels have increased. Exactly the same as has happened every time before. That is irrefutable evidence that CO2 has no bearing on the global temperature.

And you're ignoring the snowball earth case. If it wasn't CO2, explain for us what caused the warming that pulled the earth out of snowball mode. The sun didn't get hotter. "Orbital factors" certainly had no effect. When the whole world is frozen and north and south have the same white albedo, orbital changes will do nothing.

How about this new NASA study that says CO2 COOLS the atmosphere. What do you think of this?

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth s Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

I think, since the earth gets over 200 million gigawatts in solar energy, mere "gigawatts" is an insignificant amount of energy in relation to the global energy balance. Hence, that study has nothing to do with global warming.

 

[jc456]

Wow, you completely ignore the fact that CO2 lags temp.

Recent research casts serious doubt on that. No matter, we can go with the old theory anyways.

First, the temperature lowered and thus the atmospheric CO2 dropped as well.

So the 600 - 1000 year lag period apparently got way quicker in this case. Why? Who knows. Magic.

Then, when the recovery occurred the CO2 levels have increased. Exactly the same as has happened every time before. That is irrefutable evidence that CO2 has no bearing on the global temperature.

And you're ignoring the snowball earth case. If it wasn't CO2, explain for us what caused the warming that pulled the earth out of snowball mode. The sun didn't get hotter. "Orbital factors" certainly had no effect. When the whole world is frozen and north and south have the same white albedo, orbital changes will do nothing.

How about this new NASA study that says CO2 COOLS the atmosphere. What do you think of this?

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth s Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

I think, since the earth gets over 200 million gigawatts in solar energy, mere "gigawatts" is an insignificant amount of energy in relation to the global energy balance. Hence, that study has nothing to do with global warming.

wow, more flat earth fiction I see. I would have thought you were a more educated it, but I see the ice age passed you by.

 

[sakinago]

I still haven't heard if global warming is the single biggest threat to America and humanity then why has this administration shut down the hydrogen car? (Car run off of combustible hydrogen, almost just as efficient as gas, but way more cheap on the account of it's the most common element by far...and zero emissions).

Here's another question, if livestock is causative of more global warming then all of transportation. How much do humans cause by just existing? After all there's almost 8 billion of us?

 

[flacaltenn]

You're denying that declining CO2 levels, along with high volcanic activity, were the cause of the LIA. It certainly wasn't decreased solar activity, being the LIA started a century before the Maunder Minimum. The MM helped keep the ongoing LIA going, but it was not a cause.

And you're denying that the earth's recovery from the Snowball Earth phase was entirely due to the volcanic CO2 building up over the eons.

CO2 ALONE would not have the power to end "Snowball" anything.. At 1degC per doubling, you'd be nearing 20,000 ppm to eek out a 9degC forcing.. And the particulate effect from that much continuous volcanic activity would defeated a large fraction of that forcing..

In jest -- you could imagine that all that "crusty" reorganization was like a good wheel balancing. And the earth just needed to redistribute the weight in order to get a smoother ride thru the Solar System..