Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark
A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Well, I do know that heat transference follows the same laws of physics.

You very obviously know nothing whatsoever about atmospheric physics, you poor moron.

An atmosphere is nothing more than a ceiling.

And that right there is how we all know that you are an ignorant, clueless, Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted idiot who knows nothing about climate science, but manages to somehow imagine that you know more than all of the world's actual climate scientists. MORON!

The laws of physics do not change. Whether in the atmosphere or on the moon.

Too bad you are too stupid to have any real understanding of the laws of physics, little troll.

Too bad you are so delusional that you imagine you understand the laws of physics better than all of the world's PhD physicists.

AIP Endorsement of American Geophysical Union Climate Change Statement
Publication date:
6 April 2004
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. AGU is one of ten Member Societies of the American Institute of Physics. The statement follows:

"Human Impacts on Climate"

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the ' . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.' AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."
 
No facts or science...

That sums up all of your moronic posts perfectly, boober
Way to go moron..

"Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface"

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

Even those of us who teach physics of the atmosphere know that CO2 Raleigh-scattering is in capable of heating the oceans..
 
My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark
A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Well, I do know that heat transference follows the same laws of physics.

You very obviously know nothing whatsoever about atmospheric physics, you poor moron.



An atmosphere is nothing more than a ceiling.

And that right there is how we all know that you are an ignorant, clueless, Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted idiot who knows nothing about climate science, but manages to somehow imagine that you know more than all of the world's actual climate scientists. MORON!

The laws of physics do not change. Whether in the atmosphere or on the moon.

Mark
LOL Since the moon has no effective atmosphere, there exists no atmospheric physics on the moon.
 
No facts or science...

That sums up all of your moronic posts perfectly, boober
Way to go moron..

"Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface"

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

Even those of us who teach physics of the atmosphere know that CO2 Raleigh-scattering is in capable of heating the oceans..
And in which loony bin do you teach. LOL

Sea-Air Heat Exchange (Fig. 3)
Solar Radiation: Much of the direct and diffuse solar short wave (less than 2 micros, mostly in the visible range) electromagnetic radiation that reaches the sea surface penetrates the ocean (the ocean has a low albedo, except when the sun is close to the horizon), heating the sea water down to about 100 to 200 meters, depending on the water clarity. It is within this thin sunlit surface layer of the ocean that the process of photosynthesis can occur. Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.

Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling
 
Net Back Radiation: [...] Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.​

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

I think you should be more helpful to those who might miss the pesky detail not given in the summary. The above says, unambiguously, the warmer the oceans, the harder it becomes to shed its heat, which may be a recipe for a nice feedback cycle, if not for run-away heating.
 
Net Back Radiation: [...] Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.​

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

I think you should be more helpful to those who might miss the pesky detail not given in the summary. The above says, unambiguously, the warmer the oceans, the harder it becomes to shed its heat, which may be a recipe for a nice feedback cycle, if not for run-away heating.
Your having reading comprehension issues again.. It does not say anything of that sort. You and Crick must attend the same left wing fake science classes.
 
My area of expertise is building design and construction. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep heat or cool in buildings. No matter how much I insulate, I cannot stop the heat transference. It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

Just my .02

Mark
A pretty worthless two cents too!!!

Based entirely on the fact that, while you may be a wiz at engineering buildings, you seem to know nothing at all about atmospheric physics or the nature of greenhouse gases. Also you seem too stupid to understand that your expertise in one area, engineering, does not mean that you know jack-shit about science, physics or climatology. This failure to recognize your own limitations and to then stupidly pontificate about things you can't understand are also symptoms of a low intelligence mind sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Well, I do know that heat transference follows the same laws of physics.

You very obviously know nothing whatsoever about atmospheric physics, you poor moron.



An atmosphere is nothing more than a ceiling.

And that right there is how we all know that you are an ignorant, clueless, Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted idiot who knows nothing about climate science, but manages to somehow imagine that you know more than all of the world's actual climate scientists. MORON!

The laws of physics do not change. Whether in the atmosphere or on the moon.

Mark
LOL Since the moon has no effective atmosphere, there exists no atmospheric physics on the moon.

And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

Mark
 
And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

A meaningless straw-man argument. No one is saying that the laws of physics aren't universal.

What we are saying is that you very obviously know very little about the laws of physics.

By your own admission, your "area of expertise is building design and construction".....NOT PHYSICS, in all its applications and complexities.

But you foolishly imagine that you know and understand the laws of physics better than virtually all of the world's actual working PhD physicists, who, almost unanimously, affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists regarding human caused, CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes (see post #81). That's where you obviously go off the rails on the crazy train with your fraudulent, fallacious OP.
 
Last edited:
And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

A meaningless straw-man argument. No one is saying that the laws of physics aren't universal.

What we are saying is that you very obviously know very little about the laws of physics.

By your own admission, your "area of expertise is building design and construction".....NOT PHYSICS, in all its applications and complexities.

But you foolishly imagine that you know and understand the laws of physics better than virtually all of the world's actual working PhD physicists, who, almost unanimously, affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists regarding human caused, CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes (see post #81). That's where you obviously go off the rails on the crazy train with your fraudulent, fallacious OP.

Once again you scream "I got experts" and appeal to your UN paid for shills who have little, if anything, to do with science. Then you refuse to address how your magical CO2 radiating at -80 Deg C can warm objects in our atmosphere which are radiating at temps above 0.0 deg C.
 
No facts or science...

That sums up all of your moronic posts perfectly, boober
Way to go moron..

"Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface"

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

Even those of us who teach physics of the atmosphere know that CO2 Raleigh-scattering is in capable of heating the oceans..
And in which loony bin do you teach. LOL

Sea-Air Heat Exchange (Fig. 3)
Solar Radiation: Much of the direct and diffuse solar short wave (less than 2 micros, mostly in the visible range) electromagnetic radiation that reaches the sea surface penetrates the ocean (the ocean has a low albedo, except when the sun is close to the horizon), heating the sea water down to about 100 to 200 meters, depending on the water clarity. It is within this thin sunlit surface layer of the ocean that the process of photosynthesis can occur. Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.

Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling
SOLAR heating... Not blackbody LWIR heating...Because it can not. Then you, and others. go on to try and make it magic..

"Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."

Why do you always miss the last line showing that LWIR is doing nothing to warm the oceans.?
 
Last edited:
And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

A meaningless straw-man argument. No one is saying that the laws of physics aren't universal.

What we are saying is that you very obviously know very little about the laws of physics.

By your own admission, your "area of expertise is building design and construction".....NOT PHYSICS, in all its applications and complexities.

But you foolishly imagine that you know and understand the laws of physics better than virtually all of the world's actual working PhD physicists, who, almost unanimously, affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists regarding human caused, CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes (see post #81). That's where you obviously go off the rails on the crazy train with your fraudulent, fallacious OP.

What I am saying is that heat transference does not change. And because I am in building construction, my area of expertise is physics.

Mark
 
And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

A meaningless straw-man argument. No one is saying that the laws of physics aren't universal.

What we are saying is that you very obviously know very little about the laws of physics.

By your own admission, your "area of expertise is building design and construction".....NOT PHYSICS, in all its applications and complexities.

But you foolishly imagine that you know and understand the laws of physics better than virtually all of the world's actual working PhD physicists, who, almost unanimously, affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists regarding human caused, CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes (see post #81). That's where you obviously go off the rails on the crazy train with your fraudulent, fallacious OP.

What I am saying is that heat transference does not change. And because I am in building construction, my area of expertise is physics.

Mark

But there is where you are wrong...If you want to understand climate "science" you don't need an expertise in physics, you need deep knowledge in alchemy, CO2, you see, is magic...it doesn't have to obey the laws of physics because it is magic...it is, according to the glassy eyed cult, the one substance in the universe that increases the emissivity of a system AND causes warming at the same time...
 
It can't have been that long since someone mentioned Kirchoff's Law to you.

Short term memory loss? Too much weed?
 
It can't have been that long since someone mentioned Kirchoff's Law to you.

Short term memory loss? Too much weed?

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...you know, that is how history is going to remember you guys don't you?....the name is priceless...because it's true and it is going to stick and stay stuck forever...
 
And? When there is an atmosphere, do the laws of physics change? All physics, even atmospheric physics, still follow all the laws of physics, do they not?

The laws of physics are universal, no matter the discipline they are applied to. For example, since this thread is about heat, we know that by the laws of physics, that heat is transferred by convention, conduction, or radiation. And thats is.

It matters not if its on the moon or on earth.

A meaningless straw-man argument. No one is saying that the laws of physics aren't universal.

What we are saying is that you very obviously know very little about the laws of physics.

By your own admission, your "area of expertise is building design and construction".....NOT PHYSICS, in all its applications and complexities.

But you foolishly imagine that you know and understand the laws of physics better than virtually all of the world's actual working PhD physicists, who, almost unanimously, affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists regarding human caused, CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes (see post #81). That's where you obviously go off the rails on the crazy train with your fraudulent, fallacious OP.

What I am saying is that heat transference does not change. And because I am in building construction, my area of expertise is physics.

Mark
LOL OK, no reason to handle you with kid gloves, Mr Idiot. The temperature of the surface of the moon in sunlight reaches 253 F, and, during the Lunar night, goes down to -243 F.

For most areas on the Earth, the daytime temperature is only about 20 F to 40 F different from the nighttime temperatures. Contrast that to the nearly 500 F difference on the lunar surface. Both are the same distance from the sun, so the amount of energy they receive per square foot is the same.

What is the difference? The Earth has an atmosphere, the Moon has none. So much for your silly physics. You are an idiot.
 
Really? And tens of thousands of people with REAL science degrees, doing research, publishing papers, they missed that "Basic Physics show it is impossible". But you... you got it?

You are so far out in left field you're not even playing ball anymore.

Climatology isn't "real science" is less reliable than astrology but somewhat more accurate than phrenology

I think it a real science. But I also believe it's a science in its infancy. The understanding of climate is so rudimentary as to make any prediction worthless.

Mark

Based on the work they publish, it's insulting to real scienctists to group them with the insane climate posse.

Climatologists greets the lab like Dracula greeting sunrise
 
And on what do you base that Frank? Certainly not your understanding of the science and certainly not on the opinions of other scientists. So, why do you believe what you believe?
You keep confusing your manmade global warming wealth transfer with science and the two have nothing in common. Science is great skepticism and rigorous testing, agw is paid cheerleaders worshipping altered data fed into flawed models and shrieking "consensus" as if that has anything to do with science
ask bill nye the science guy. oh they did last night and he folded like a tent.
 
It is implausible that 200 or so parts per MILLION could cause any change in temperature.

A flat earther's failure to understand basic science doesn't make the world flat.

It's the same with you. Your failure to understand the basics changes nothing.
basic science? yep just post that graph from experiments that shows, 200 PPM of CO2 and temperature and 400 PPM of CO2 and temperature. oh wait, you can't. oh where, oh where did the science man go, oh where, oh where did they go?
 

Forum List

Back
Top