Climate Change Denial

[Raffy.Roma]

I have studied the science. Physics are science. Gasses don't heat liquids well. Liquids heat gassed better. (Based on relative density). AGW theory was that the atmosphere captured more infrared light and warms up (especially up high and at the poles). If the Oceans are warming, especially more than the upper atmosphere or poles, it proves that the warming isn't coming from the atmosphere, but from either light absorption (more light), or geothermal -- which is the opposite of manmade CO2 theory. Please study the science.

P.S. The warmest year on record since the 1960s is irrelevant. We started warming 200 years ago at the end of the mini ice age. Of course it's getting warmer. In the geological record, we're near an all time low for the eatch. View attachment 1008531

Sorry but according to the Science of GHE only longwaves are allowed to leave the Earth while infrared shortwaves are trapped within the atmosphere. This causes an Energy Imbalance. 93% of the Energy Imbalance is absorbed by the Oceans. Sorry but you need to give a better look to the Science of GHE.

 

[fhteagle]

and someone thumbs down it, because the facts don't match the agenda/bias.

You got a thumbs down for saying, "science!" with zero citations or links to credible peer reviewed papers, journals, anything. For example, the chart at the end of your last post has no source / attribution. I'm happy to listen to contrarian opinions that have strong evidence presented with them. Anecdotes, poor rhetoric techniques, etc get ignored at best...

If you want to make an extraordinary claim such as increasing CO2 concentration does not result in increased retained energy on Earth, bring a case that's stronger than "that's how it is, really, really it is, really".

 

[DaveE]

Sorry but according to the Science of GHE only longwaves are allowed to leave the Earth while infrared shortwaves are trapped within the atmosphere. This causes an Energy Imbalance. 93% of the Energy Imbalance is absorbed by the Oceans. Sorry but you need to give a better look to the Science of GHE.

This is gobbledygook that doesn't change the point -- and it would help if you expained what you think you mean. How would GHE break the laws of physics?

(1) Yes, CO2 theory is that CO2 being loosely the same size as some infrared wavelengths, means that the more CO2, the more warming of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Long waves are mostly irrelevant to the point, but yes, tend to be absorbed less, and bounce off more).

(2) The oceans trapping heat has nothing to do with AGW / manmade CO2 theory. They can only trap heat by getting more light... but not because of the atmosphere or CO2. If you think otherwise, explain the mechanism.

(3) Thus, if the majority of the energy imbalance is coming from the Oceans -- it's not coming from manmade CO2 (Gas/Atmosphere) or AGW theory. Or if it is, you need to explain how. The "science" of GHE (Ground Heat Effect, or Ground Heat Exchange) says that the ground can heat the atmosphere, but the atmosphere does far far less to heat the ground.

(4) this isn't disputing that it's warming. It's just saying that if it is warming (especially at the ground), that means solar or geological, not atmospheric drivers -- because the atmosphere is incredibly inefficient at heating ground or liquid. However, the disparity between predicted and actual warming, and the fact that the warming is coming from the wrong place (down low instead of up high), is easily explained by Urban Heat Island effect (and errors in station placement), more solar output, or geothermal warming. When you hear hooves think horses not zebras. What's more plausible -- the oceans are out warming the upper-atmosphere because of some unexplained phenomenon of physics and it's CO2s fault with no known explanation of why... or they're warming because of variation in solar output, orbit / the Milankovitch cycles or something else?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

This is gobbledygook that doesn't change the point -- and it would help if you expained what you think you mean. How would GHE break the laws of physics?

(1) Yes, CO2 theory is that CO2 being loosely the same size as some infrared wavelengths, means that the more CO2, the more warming of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Long waves are mostly irrelevant to the point, but yes, tend to be absorbed less, and bounce off more).

(2) The oceans trapping heat has nothing to do with AGW / manmade CO2 theory. They can only trap heat by getting more light... but not because of the atmosphere or CO2. If you think otherwise, explain the mechanism.

(3) Thus, if the majority of the energy imbalance is coming from the Oceans -- it's not coming from manmade CO2 (Gas/Atmosphere) or AGW theory. Or if it is, you need to explain how. The "science" of GHE (Ground Heat Effect, or Ground Heat Exchange) says that the ground can heat the atmosphere, but the atmosphere does far far less to heat the ground.

(4) this isn't disputing that it's warming. It's just saying that if it is warming (especially at the ground), that means solar or geological, not atmospheric drivers -- because the atmosphere is incredibly inefficient at heating ground or liquid. However, the disparity between predicted and actual warming, and the fact that the warming is coming from the wrong place (down low instead of up high), is easily explained by Urban Heat Island effect (and errors in station placement), more solar output, or geothermal warming. When you hear hooves think horses not zebras. What's more plausible -- the oceans are out warming the upper-atmosphere because of some unexplained phenomenon of physics and it's CO2s fault with no known explanation of why... or they're warming because of variation in solar output, orbit / the Milankovitch cycles or something else?

Sorry but it looks crystal clear that you don't know that CO2, as other GHGs, resonates at infrared frequency and causes the GHE.

 

[DaveE]

You got a thumbs down for saying, "science!" with zero citations or links to credible peer reviewed papers, journals, anything. For example, the chart at the end of your last post has no source / attribution. I'm happy to listen to contrarian opinions that have strong evidence presented with them. Anecdotes, poor rhetoric techniques, etc get ignored at best...

If you want to make an extraordinary claim such as increasing CO2 concentration does not result in increased retained energy on Earth, bring a case that's stronger than "that's how it is, really, really it is, really".

This is dishonest.

(1) You didn't thumbs down the image posted -- you thumbs downed the science of physics of convection/conduction, the basic truths about what CO2 theory is (that it will absorb light/heat), the idea that we started warming 200 years ago and it's the rate of change since manmade CO2 that matters, or the science that we're a closed system and CO2 is a miniscule contributor to one of the smallest of the climate forcing factors. But I can't tell what science you disagree with, since you didn't clarify.

(2) Let's do this the other way... you get the 500M record on CO2 and Temp and you plot them, and show how mine was substantially wrong. (Yes, there are many sources, but they all show poor correlation between CO2 and temp in the geological record... and they all show that we're actually in a pretty cool period right now, which was the point I made. But I'll use your data if you have any.

(3) It's not extraordinary to claim that upper atmosphere heating is unlikely to cause the oceans to warm substantially. But none of the records quoted showed significant upper atmospheric heating. And ff the Oceans are warming, it's unlikely because of a little temperature imbalance way up above. The physics says warming is about relative density, if you warmed the upper atmosphere (low pressure/density) a lot, it's going to result in a very very minor increase in ocean temp over an extremely long amount of time. So your strawman is dishonest. I didn't say CO2 causes no warming ("retained energy") I said where it should be retaining it (which isn't in the oceans first, without significant differences noticed where the CO2 concentrations are). I didn't say there was no warming, just it's the wrong kind of warming to match AGW/CO2 theory. The fact that the wrong place is heating, doesn't mean we're not heating -- it means the claimed cause doesn't make sense.

 

[DaveE]

Sorry but it looks crystal clear that you don't know that CO2, as other GHGs, resonates at infrared frequency and causes the GHE.

Cite anything that supports that -- that a minor increase in CO2 will cause an outsized heating of a liquid or solid? How does that work?

The only theoretical mechanism for that, would be arguing that H2O (a far more prevalent and impactful greenhouse gas than CO2) is being warmed by the light, and as it rains down, it warms the ocean. But that ignores that water goes up from the ocean more than down. And that H2O is not the GHG (greenhouse gas) we are discussing.

Either way, we're still talking physics -- yes, if I heat air (CO2) it can heat a surface.... very minorly and very slowly. Which isn't what we're talking about. You said 93% of the heat is being captured by oceans... that's not how the physics works. You have to heat a gas a lot, to heat a liquid a little (and slowly). We're seeing a rapid increase in the liquid and solid, and a minor increase in the gas -- which says the gas is not the driver.

I seem to know the CO2 and concepts of basic physics better than you do - as you can't explain how you think this is happening.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Cite anything that supports that -- that a minor increase in CO2 will cause an outsized heating of a liquid or solid? How does that work?

The only theoretical mechanism for that, would be arguing that H2O (a far more prevalent and impactful greenhouse gas than CO2) is being warmed by the light, and as it rains down, it warms the ocean. But that ignores that water goes up from the ocean more than down. And that H2O is not the GHG (greenhouse gas) we are discussing.

Either way, we're still talking physics -- yes, if I heat air (CO2) it can heat a surface.... very minorly and very slowly. Which isn't what we're talking about. You said 93% of the heat is being captured by oceans... that's not how the physics works. You have to heat a gas a lot, to heat a liquid a little (and slowly). We're seeing a rapid increase in the liquid and solid, and a minor increase in the gas -- which says the gas is not the driver.

I seem to know the CO2 and concepts of basic physics better than you do - as you can't explain how you think this is happening.

Of course the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the higher the energy trapped within the atmosphere and the energy imbalance are.
If you disagree with this scientific fact I cannot continue this conversation and I can only confirm the disagreement with you.

 

[DaveE]

Of course the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the higher the energy trapped within the atmosphere and the energy imbalance are.
If you disagree with this scientific fact I cannot continue this conversation and I can only confirm the disagreement with you.

We were talking not about atmospheric energy imbalances but oceanic... you said 93% of the energy was getting trapped in the ocean (that's water, not the atmosphere). But the physics disagrees that's possible because of the relative density difference, and the CO2 theory that the atmosphere is heating.

You haven't explained a scientific fact to disagree with.

Explain how a slight increase in CO2 gas (mostly up high) warms up the ocean 10x faster than the air (you said 90%+ of the heat capture is in the ocean).

By nature of global temps going up a minor amount (starting 150 years before man put out any significant CO2), we know that more energy is either hitting the earth, getting trapped, or being released by geothermal events. The claim is that the more CO2 is causing it, and it's the 0.004% of Greenhouse gasses released by man, that's causing most of it. But explain how that works in a way that would explain how the oceans/land are warming more then the actual CO2 or air around it? For CO2 to radiate heat to the ground, it needs to radiate it to the air.... and thus the air would be outwarming the sea. If that's not happening, how do you explain it?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

We were talking not about atmospheric energy imbalances but oceanic... you said 93% of the energy was getting trapped in the ocean (that's water, not the atmosphere). But the physics disagrees that's possible because of the relative density difference, and the CO2 theory that the atmosphere is heating.

You haven't explained a scientific fact to disagree with.

Explain how a slight increase in CO2 gas (mostly up high) warms up the ocean 10x faster than the air (you said 90%+ of the heat capture is in the ocean).

By nature of global temps going up a minor amount (starting 150 years before man put out any significant CO2), we know that more energy is either hitting the earth, getting trapped, or being released by geothermal events. The claim is that the more CO2 is causing it, and it's the 0.004% of Greenhouse gasses released by man, that's causing most of it. But explain how that works in a way that would explain how the oceans/land are warming more then the actual CO2 or air around it? For CO2 to radiate heat to the ground, it needs to radiate it to the air.... and thus the air would be outwarming the sea. If that's not happening, how do you explain it?

So you think that there is an atmospheric energy imbalance and an oceanic energy imbalance?
THERE IS ONLY ONE ENERGY IMBALANCE!
PLEASE LET'S STOP THIS CONVERSATION!

 

[DaveE]

So you think that there is an atmospheric energy imbalance and an oceanic energy imbalance?
THERE IS ONLY ONE ENERGY IMBALANCE!
PLEASE LET'S STOP THIS CONVERSATION!

(1) Please take a physics 101 class and get a basic understanding of the topic.
(2) You can stop this at any time, just stop replying
(3) If there is an energy imbalance caused by AWG/CO2 theory, it says that CO2 in the atmosphere will capture more light/heat and warm the upper atmosphere. That's the cause of the imbalance. Which means we will see a lot of atmospheric warming.... and likely LESS warming on the land/ocean (initially, and for a long time, and relatively -- the air will always heat a lot to warm the land/sea a little).
(4) We aren't seeing that. We're seeing some ocean and surface temps more than the upper atmosphere. (You said 93% of the energy imbalance was being captured in the ocean).

So either explain how CO2 causes this, or admit you don't know -- thus you aren't up for the conversation about AGW. (If you don't know how this is happening, you're just repeating things that others told you). I can't explain how your theory works, because you seem to be implying by magic, since physics says that in order to warm a solid/liquid, it takes a lot more heating of the touching gas -- and that's not happening.

 

[eevee-fan]

Here's the basics:

(1) Gas doesn't heat liquids well, it's always the other way

(2) AGW (Man Made CO2) theory says that the atmosphere will warm because CO2 absorbs infrared light (reducing the amount that gets to the surface of land/ocean)

(3) If you show ocean (or land) surface temps going up, especially faster than the upper atmosphere, then that's DISPROVING AGW theory. It's showing that solar output is increasing and forcing more sunlight to warm Oceans and Surface -- not that CO2 is capturing more heat and driving up temps.

So if you see sea/land surface temps going up that's not manmade that's solar made and it's disproving AGW theory. Those citing those temps and not understanding what it means, are more cult members than people following the science.

(4) Yes, since the mini ice age, we've continued to warm. This warming started about 1800... 150 years BEFORE we put out a single gigaton of CO2. Technically, and geographically, we're near the coolest the planet has ever been. It's recovering and getting warmer. The questions are not: it's warming... we know that. The questions are:
(a) whether it's warming faster that it was (and no, it doens't appear to be)
(b) what's causing it -- and whether it is due to man's minuscule contributions to Carbon output. (Mankind contributes 14Gt of the 22,056,773+ Gt of all greenhouse gasses in our system (about .0004%)).
(c) what to do about it -- and whether coal fired electric plants are cleaner than Natural Gas powered cars, etc. Even if man was the largest contributor (unlikely), it seems highly unlikely that a Solar Plant backed by a Natural Gas power plant is greener than just the Natural Gas plant, or would make a difference in our lifetimes. Or that deals which allow China/India to pollute more but punish the EU and U.S. would improve it in any way.

(5) It helps to remember Humanity is NOT creating Carbon... all the carbon trapped in fossil fuels that we release through burning, was once in our atmosphere. We are a CLOSED system. Back when we had 5,000 PPM of CO2 (compared to today's ≈400's), we had ice ages, and so on. But we also had greening of the earth, which trapped the carbon and is what we're burning when we put it back. We didn't cross a tipping point at 10x the CO2 levels of today... the idea that a doubling (or less) would cause it now requires an abject ignorant to the geological record.

Sounds like the problem is that you do not understand the science. Science describes CO2 as acting like glass, reflecting heat back onto the earth/trapping heat, not like rock and concrete that absorbs heat. Solar energy enters earth as 'not heat' and has a hard time leaving earth as 'heat'. Example given is that of a car with windows up sitting in the sun.

What Faux News is telling you that science talks about CO2 absorb heat and that the surface temp can only be heated via conduction with the air?

 

[DaveE]

Sounds like the problem is that you do not understand the science. Science describes CO2 as acting like glass, reflecting heat back onto the earth/trapping heat, not like rock and concrete that absorbs heat.

please cite anything that says that.

If that was true (the albedo is high), it would be reflecting more light into space (preventing it from entering) than it would back at the earth. As there is more light/heat from the sun than the earth.

 

[eevee-fan]

please cite anything that says that.

If that was true (the albedo is high), it would be reflecting more light into space (preventing it from entering) than it would back at the earth. As there is more light/heat from the sun than the earth.

You are thinking in reverse. If the sun emit heat onto the earth and the earth convert heat into light, your explanation would make sense.

Seems like you need to 'watch' and learn instead of reading. Here's a lot of not Faux News videos if you are interested in learning.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=global+warming+co2

 

[Raffy.Roma]

You are thinking in reverse. If the sun emit heat onto the earth and the earth convert heat into light, your explanation would make sense.

Seems like you need to 'watch' and learn instead of reading. Here's a lot of not Faux News videos if you are interested in learning.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=global+warming+co2

You are right. It's exactly THE OTHER WAY ROUND. I had a hard time with Dave.

 

[eevee-fan]

MSN

Easy peasy...

Cheap Flights from Texas to Cancun from $71 - KAYAK

Find flights to Cancun from $71. Fly from Texas on Spirit Airlines, Frontier, American Airlines and more. Search for Cancun flights on KAYAK now to find the best deal.

www.kayak.com

 

[DaveE]

You are thinking in reverse. If the sun emit heat onto the earth and the earth convert heat into light, your explanation would make sense.

Seems like you need to 'watch' and learn instead of reading. Here's a lot of not Faux News videos if you are interested in learning.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=global+warming+co2

As I said -- CO2 absorbs energy because the molecule is the same size as the wavelength of IR light in certain frequencies. That captures some of the light as it goes by (in and out). That's how it heats up. It reflects that vibration to nearby molecules -- also air and up high, that can only heat up the air up high. Not the oceans down low.

Thus you dodged the point -- how does that make the ocean get warmer -- when there's almost no energy transfer between a gas and a solid. (The less dense, the less energy can be transferred). So you still haven't explained how CO2 can heat the land/water more than it heats the air. And since the water and lange is heating more than air -- it's showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. Something else is going on.

P.S. The comment about Faux News is dumb distraction and irrelevant. And the guy explaining this failed to mention all the other counter factors... like warming causes more clouds, clouds reflect light, and thus the albedo of clouds is highly under debate and could offset any warming effects. CO2 is plant food and came from the atmosphere originally... so as we raise its level, we get more flaura to absorb it -- that's how the system self corrected for 5 billion years despite not having 400 ppm of CO2, but 7000 ppm and yet we had ice ages and cooled down. And so on.

Here's a video that gives you an idea of some of the problems:

 

[eevee-fan]

As I said -- CO2 absorbs energy because the molecule is the same size as the wavelength of IR light in certain frequencies. That captures some of the light as it goes by (in and out). That's how it heats up. It reflects that vibration to nearby molecules -- also air and up high, that can only heat up the air up high. Not the oceans down low.

Thus you dodged the point -- how does that make the ocean get warmer -- when there's almost no energy transfer between a gas and a solid. (The less dense, the less energy can be transferred). So you still haven't explained how CO2 can heat the land/water more than it heats the air. And since the water and lange is heating more than air -- it's showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. Something else is going on.

P.S. The comment about Faux News is dumb distraction and irrelevant. And the guy explaining this failed to mention all the other counter factors... like warming causes more clouds, clouds reflect light, and thus the albedo of clouds is highly under debate and could offset any warming effects. CO2 is plant food and came from the atmosphere originally... so as we raise its level, we get more flaura to absorb it -- that's how the system self corrected for 5 billion years despite not having 400 ppm of CO2, but 7000 ppm and yet we had ice ages and cooled down. And so on.

Here's a video that gives you an idea of some of the problems:

I corrected your misunderstanding where you think the sun sends heat to earth and the earth surface converts heat into light. And I gave you the example of the car in the sun. Have you noticed that the car seats are cooler when you leave the windows down? LOL

BTW, you are in the wrong thread. If you want to spread FUD, it's this thread.

Climate Change Denial

It seems to be a recurring problem that people will post climate change denial items to various threads. This usually causes a long digression while the same tired old arguments (sometimes with a new twist) are rehashed. I am proposing to start a thread for these climate change denial...

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[DaveE]

I corrected your misunderstanding where you think the sun sends heat to earth and the earth surface converts heat into light. And I gave you the example of the car in the sun. Have you noticed that the car seats are cooler when you leave the windows down? LOL

BTW, you are in the wrong thread. If you want to spread FUD, it's this thread.

Climate Change Denial

It seems to be a recurring problem that people will post climate change denial items to various threads. This usually causes a long digression while the same tired old arguments (sometimes with a new twist) are rehashed. I am proposing to start a thread for these climate change denial...

teslamotorsclub.com

(1) I never said (a) the sun sends heat to the earth (b) the earth surface converts heat into light (c) you never gave an example of the car in the sun (d) if you did it's irrelevant to the point.

(2) It's not climate change denial to understand the science better than a 3rd grader who thinks the ocean warming more than the air, is because of the air.

So read slower, use crayons if needed. I said that CO2 is warmed up when light (aka photon) hits it... but the CO2 is in the atmosphere (mostly up high -- having to do with the volume of a sphere: 4/3πr^3). The air doesn't warm up the ocean, because it's not close to the ocean, and a gas doesn't heat solid or liquids as well as the other way around (having to do with relative density/mass).

If the ocean is heating more than the air, then that's not proof of global warming, it's proof of something else.

That's not hard to understand. So why can't you address that point, and try to change the topic?

How does CO2 cause the ocean or land to warm more than the CO2 or the air around it?

Now a person interested in the facts/science would look that up and figure out it can't. But an intellectual coward or polemic? They will try to change the subject, gish gallop, or throw on a video that explains the basics of CO2 warming in an unnecessarily complicated way, and yet fails to address the actual point made: that surface temperatures should lag air temps in AGW/CO2 theory. And they've been leading them.

 

[eevee-fan]

Will the Texas grid hold up in the freeze? Experts give their confidence scores

The CBS News Texas I-Team asked experts, on a scale 1-10, what their confidence level is in the Texas power grid holding up in the next severe winter storm.

www.cbsnews.com

Literally resistant to getting away from resistive heating.

 

[DaveE]

When you pick one outlier to fit your political agenda, and ignore all the other measurements that disagree, this is called the cherry picking fallacy, and is not science but politics.

Just like if you have 3 points that support you and one datapoint that disagrees? In politics that’s a win, in science, it’s a loss. In science one counterfactual trumps your theory until you can explain it.