Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Dutch Uncle]

I know chemistry.

You also claim to not have any socks.

Mantra 41 Idiocracy

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[ZenMode]

He wasn't spot on. His conclusions were all wrong. All of his work has been discarded from the body of science. This is why none of it is ever taught anywhere.

You failed to perform your due diligence.

No, actually they weren't. He wasn't concerned, as scientists are now, about rising temperatures, but he understood the warming effects of CO2 and water vapor and not Nitrogen. I believe he was correct that CO2 was largely absorbed by the oceans and less in the atmosphere. His estimates for mean temperature increase/decrease at different levels of CO2 were surprisingly accurate.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

No, actually they weren't. He wasn't concerned, as scientists are now, about rising temperatures, but he understood the warming effects of CO2 and water vapor and not Nitrogen. I believe he was correct that CO2 was largely absorbed by the oceans and less in the atmosphere. His estimates for mean temperature increase/decrease at different levels of CO2 were surprisingly accurate.

Even if one ignores Arrhenius there's still the work of Suess and Revelle in the 50's and 60's. Revelle actually raised the issue to the US Government at the time as a potential concern. This topic has been in the minds of scientists for over 100 years now.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The releasing of the CO2 into the atmosphere lowers the ocean's pH.

Explain how that works. Seriously. I want to see if you can find the error in your sentence there. Go ahead and write out the reactions for me. I'll wait (because you won't do it...because you don't know chemistry....the very fact you typed THAT is all I need to know about what you know about pH and acid-base chemistry)

 

[ZenMode]

Even if one ignores Arrhenius there's still the work of Suess and Revelle in the 50's and 60's. Revelle actually raised the issue to the US Government at the time as a potential concern. This topic has been in the minds of scientists for over 100 years now.

Yep. An understanding/concern about increasing CO2 levels has around long before a significant portion of the country dediced that science just wasn't their "thing".

 

[Into the Night]

Unlike you I can actually speak to the science. See below:

And now for some religious chanting:

1. You claim that the earth increases in average temperature, independently of its proximity to the sun, because of a substance and not because of additional energy. Explain that.

If you ever actually bother to read the IPCC you'll note that extensive studies are done on earth-sun dynamics. The sun does have phases it goes through and those are modeled and understood. Right now we can't correlate the solar cycles and the warming we've seen over the last 50 years sufficient to utilize that as a primary explanatory variable. It will definitely have some impact.

CO2 is not a solar cycle. Try again. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

2. You claim the earth's overall atmospheric CO2 level is increasing. Explain why any rational adult should believe this.

It's actively measured and has been for over 60 years now.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. The primary 'measuring station' is located on an active volcano, which spew CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. You claim that the ocean's overall level is rising. Explain why any rational adult should believe that.

When land ice melts (ie the Greenland ice sheet) the water that runs off the surface of the land raises the water level.

In addition warming oceans = higher volume of water (water expands when heated). This also raises sea level.

Greenland's ice sheet isn't melting. ALL the ice in Greenland CAME FROM THE OCEAN. Liquid water actually contracts when heated.
Now examine:
* Pacific atoll islands that are just big enough for an airstrip built during WW2 and no higher than a few feet from sea level are still there.
* Florida is still there.
* Ports all around the world are still there.

4. You claim that the ocean is acidifying. Explain that.

CO2 is absorbed by water where it undergoes a series of reactions:

H2O + CO2-->HCO3- H+

This creates ACID (H+ ions) which cause the pH to decrease (ie acidify).

Wups, your chemistry is wrong.
H20 + CO2 <--> H2CO3 (carbonic acid, a very weak acid)

You cannot acidify an alkaline.
Obviously, you have no concept of buffering either.

You just demonstrated you know nothing about acid-base chemistry.

 

[Into the Night]

Just an amazing coincidence that he was basically spot-on with his understanding and accuracy regarding CO2 and how it impacts climate, right?

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 or the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. Climate has no temperature.
Arrhenius was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

YOU CANNOT DO IT no matter what Arrhenius says!

 

[Into the Night]

Look, I know you don't know chemistry very well, but if the ocean goes from a pH of 8.2 to pH 8.1 THAT IS A DECREASE IN pH WHICH IS "ACIDIFICATION", meaning it is going toward more acidic.

It is happening because the ocean absorbs more CO2 which creates carbonic acid which lowers the pH.

The ocean is not acidic.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.

Again, you show complete illiteracy of acid-base chemistry and buffering.

 

[Into the Night]

You also claim to not have any socks.

Mantra 41 Idiocracy

He doesn't. But YOU do!

 

[Into the Night]

No, actually they weren't.

Yes they were. Arrhenius was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics, which you are STILL discarding. The laws of thermodynamics are theories of science. Arrhenius is not. Neither is his theory of global warming.

He wasn't concerned, as scientists are now, about rising temperatures, but he understood the warming effects of CO2 and water vapor and not Nitrogen.

What rising temperatures?? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

I believe he was correct that CO2 was largely absorbed by the oceans and less in the atmosphere.

Nope. CO2 concentration in ocean water is the same as the CO concentration in the air above it. That's why if you leave a soda out, it goes flat.

His estimates for mean temperature increase/decrease at different levels of CO2 were surprisingly accurate.

CO2 is not a form of energy. Science is not 'estimates' or gambling. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Do you know what dry ice is?

 

[ZenMode]

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 or the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. Climate has no temperature.
Arrhenius was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

YOU CANNOT DO IT no matter what Arrhenius says!

You can't trap heat? Tell that to my insulated house, my car when it's parked in the sun with the windows close, tell that to every insulated cup I own, my sleeping bag, jackets and every blanket on my bed.

 

[Into the Night]

Even if one ignores Arrhenius there's still the work of Suess and Revelle in the 50's and 60's. Revelle actually raised the issue to the US Government at the time as a potential concern. This topic has been in the minds of scientists for over 100 years now.

They can't create energy out of nothing either. No gas or vapor has the magick ability to create energy out of nothing, or to heat a warmer substance from a colder one.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Science does not use consensus. It has no politics. It has no religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Explain how that works. Seriously. I want to see if you can find the error in your sentence there. Go ahead and write out the reactions for me. I'll wait (because you won't do it...because you don't know chemistry....the very fact you typed THAT is all I need to know about what you know about pH and acid-base chemistry)

You are describing yourself. It is YOU that does not understand anything about acid-base chemistry or the concept of buffering. You don't even understand pH.

It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep. An understanding/concern about increasing CO2 levels has around long before a significant portion of the country dediced that science just wasn't their "thing".

It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2. Obviously, science is not your thing. You have so far:

* denied the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over time). CO2 is not a force. It's a compound.
* denied the 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or available energy that can do work), and 't' is time. CO2 has no ability to heat anything warmer than itself, such as the surface of Earth.
* denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law: E = C*e*t^4 where 'E' is radiated energy (light), 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant denoting the ability of a surface to absorb or radiate light, and 't' is temperature in deg C. CO2 has no ability to inhibit conversion thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (light).

 

[Into the Night]

You can't trap heat? Tell that to my insulated house, my car when it's parked in the sun with the windows close, tell that to every insulated cup I own, my sleeping bag, jackets and every blanket on my bed.

Insulation does not trap heat. It reduces heat. Obviously, you don't even know what heat is. Heat has no temperature.

CO2 has a better thermal conductivity than air.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Turn off the furnace, and your house gets cold. Your car returns to normal nighttime temperatures each night. Your hot coffee in your insulated cup gets cold. Your sleeping bag does not make you warmer. Neither does your jacket. Neither does any blanket.

You're warm blooded. Your body temperature is regulated.

 

[ZenMode]

Insulation does not trap heat. It reduces heat. Obviously, you don't even know what heat is. Heat has no temperature.

CO2 has a better thermal conductivity than air.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Turn off the furnace, and your house gets cold. Your car returns to normal nighttime temperatures each night. Your hot coffee in your insulated cup gets cold. Your sleeping bag does not make you warmer. Neither does your jacket. Neither does any blanket.

You're warm blooded. Your body temperature is regulated.

The earth is heated by energy from the sun. When that heat tries to leave the earth, it causes CO2, and I believe H2O, molecules to "vibrate". Other atmospheric elements don't do that. That vibration cause less heat to escape. More trapped heat generates more water vapor, which adds more H2O molecules that vibrate as heat leaves and trap more heat.

Air pollution particles actually keep heat OUT, which keeps the earth cooler. The problem is, unlike CO2, air pollution doesn't remain in the atmosphere nearly as long.

Climate Science 101.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Wups, your chemistry is wrong.
H20 + CO2 <--> H2CO3 (carbonic acid, a very weak acid)

That's what I wrote. I just dissociated the first proton. H+ + HCO3-. That's why it is an acid.

You cannot acidify an alkaline.

What the literal fuck are you talking about?

You just demonstrated you know nothing about acid-base chemistry.

LOL. Only you would think that. If you knew chemistry you'd see I was correct.

 

[Into the Night]

The earth is heated by energy from the sun.

So?

When that heat tries to leave the earth,

Heat has no location.

it causes CO2, and I believe H2O, molecules to "vibrate". Other atmospheric elements don't do that.

ALL substances have thermal energy. They ALL 'vibrate'.

That vibration cause less heat to escape.

Thermal energy is not an insulator. Heat has no location.

More trapped heat generates more water vapor,

Heat is not water or water vapor.

which adds more H2O molecules that vibrate as heat leaves and trap more heat.

Heat is not mass. Heat has no location. You cannot trap heat.

Air pollution particles

No such thing.

actually keep heat OUT,

Heat has no location.

which keeps the earth cooler.

Heat has no temperature.

The problem is, unlike CO2, air pollution doesn't remain in the atmosphere nearly as long.

Define this 'pollution'. It doesn't matter how long CO2 molecules exist. Plants consume CO2 producing carbohydrates and oxygen.

Climate Science 101.

There is no branch of science called 'climate'.

 

[Into the Night]

That's what I wrote.

Liar. It is NOT what you wrote.

I just dissociated the first proton. H+ + HCO3-. That's why it is an acid.

Nope. Your formula is utterly wrong.

What the literal fuck are you talking about?

Simple. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Ocean water is alkaline.

LOL. Only you would think that. If you knew chemistry you'd see I was correct.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[ZenMode]

So?

Heat has no location.

Tell that the the person flying a hot air balloon.

ALL substances have thermal energy. They ALL 'vibrate'.

They may all technically vibrate, but CO2 and H2O vibrate significantly more when heated, which causes them to trap more heat.

Thermal energy is not an insulator. Heat has no location.

Heat does have a location. Put your hand over a camp fire and then don't put it over a camp fire and you'll see that heat does have a location. I honestly don't know how you can say these things with a straight face.

Heat is not water or water vapor.

Correct, but water evaporates faster when it's heated.

Heat is not mass. Heat has no location. You cannot trap heat.

You may not be able to purely trap heat or trap cold, but why does coffee stay warmed longer in an insulated cup than it would in a plastic cup if you can't "trap" heat?

Heat has no location.

turn your oven on and crawl inside.

Heat has no temperature.

Word games. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

Define this 'pollution'. It doesn't matter how long CO2 molecules exist. Plants consume CO2 producing carbohydrates and oxygen.

You have no interest in science. You have interest in rhetoric and game playing.

There is no branch of science called 'climate'.

For the purposes of a discussion of the impact of CO2 on the earth, Climate Science is the standard term. More word games.