Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Indeed. Here's an example of what I was actually referring to:Actually, pointing out there are MANY climate zones and the thermodynamic heat storage and TRANSFER across the globe is MORE complicated than a comparison to the Earth's similarity to a blackbody as a WHOLE is not spherical logic at all..
Circularly reasoned, utter nonsense. Whoa, wait, just hold on there now! Who's this "modelling the Earth's surface as an ideal blackbody radiator"? Then, later on,..We're modelling the Earth's surface as an ideal blackbody radiator ... and emperical data confirms this is nearly so ... the trick here is that the radiative properties of a blackbody is independent of the material ... the hydrogen on the Sun's surface behaves the same as the silicon dioxide on land masses and the water over the oceans ... for the same temperature, they all emit the same spectrum ... and this is very close to the calculated idealized blackbody ...
Things are thus because I say so which I did!I've never herd that argument given in any seriousness ... a blackbody surface is just that, a surface ...
I don't see a trace of chemistry in this pile of crap.Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming
Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.Article's from a couple of years ago. He makes a point I haven't ever seen discussed:
The atmosphere just can't hold enough heat to warm up the oceans.
Can anyone knowledgeable of thermodynamics point out any flaws in his reasoning?
No wonder since it's trash from a denier site. Just imagining the sun blasting circulating surface ocean waters and gradually transferring heat to that below seems to blow their minds. Which way does net heat always flow, hot to cold or cold to hot? Once that surface heat gets transferred what naturally results due to its now colder, increased density? OMG, could that cause a vertical circulation loop? Continually compressing gobs of dissolved CO2 from the atmosphere as the heat gets exchanged downward? Oh, please, please, say it ain't so!I don't see a trace of chemistry in this pile of crap.
I don't see a trace of chemistry in this pile of crap.
Cant see the forest from the trees? That's because the chemistry is what gives us the GW properties of any atmospheric GHouse gas..
Fun fact.. Do you know the simple chemical test to KNOW if a gas is a Global Warming GHouse gas??? Hint -- doesn't require a lab... LOL...
Look up the chemical structure in CRC's Handbook of Chemistry and Physics ... and from there determine if that structure is conducive to being a greenhouse gas? ... or are you still going on about Lil' Caesar's short-changing the pepperoni on that pizza last weekend? ...
You can do it by the inspecting the molecular name.
CHEMISTRY !!!! Also determines the "heat capacity" of a molecule...
PoO = Polonium Monoxide ...
Uranate = a Uranium Oxide anion ...
CHEMISTRY ... for physicists with dirty minds ...
www.acs.org
I hiked the Deam Wilderness, off trail, in the summer. Once. The chiggers. Oh my god, the chiggers. That's a lesson I'll never forget. Kind of goes for the whole Hoosier National Forest Area. In the summer, chiggers, mosquitoes and deerflies make it a place to avoid.I wonder if Charles Deam was connected to namesake of Deam Lake (even though half of the locals continue to refer to it as Deam’s Lake or Deams Lake lol) ?
Global Climate Change
ACS Position Statement
PDF Version
The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of a broad range of human activities. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, presents serious risk for civil society and business, and that human activity is the primary cause. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are increasing at a rate never observed before, primarily due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and wildfires, are increasing in frequency and intensity threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future.
Global Climate Change - American Chemical Society
American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.
Pretty unequivocal statement from the American Chemical Society.
In other words, another asshole with a 3rd grade science education claims to know more about chemistry than men and women with Phd's in that discipline, as well as decades spent in research. LOLA picture is worth a thousand words....
Global Climate Change
ACS Position Statement
PDF Version
The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of a broad range of human activities. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, presents serious risk for civil society and business, and that human activity is the primary cause. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are increasing at a rate never observed before, primarily due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and wildfires, are increasing in frequency and intensity threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future.
Global Climate Change - American Chemical Society
American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.
Pretty unequivocal statement from the American Chemical Society.
In other words, another asshole with a 3rd grade science education claims to know more about chemistry than men and women with Phd's in that discipline, as well as decades spent in research. LOL
I rather imagine Crick knows more about that than you do. Anyone that has taken the 200 series in chemistry knows the answer.Cant see the forest from the trees? That's because the chemistry is what gives us the GW properties of any atmospheric GHouse gas..
Fun fact.. Do you know the simple chemical test to KNOW if a gas is a Global Warming GHouse gas??? Hint -- doesn't require a lab... LOL...
Shit-O-Dear. You stupid ass. Those thousands of firefighters in Oregon and California were just standing there, letting the fires burn? No, they were protecting the infrastructure, because with the drought dried timber and high wind, they had no chance of saving the trees. People and property first.We're only saying we have better knowledge of chemistry than you do ... and that you're the asshole with a 3rd grade science education ...
Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and wildfires, are increasing in frequency and intensity ...
Horsefeathers ... the data is posted on-line, show us that floods, droughts, hurricanes and heatwaves are increasing ... you live in The West, you know perfectly well we're letting wildfires burn these days, fire is part of the environment and ecologically necessary for the health of the forest ... all uneducated constructions laborers know this, why don't you? ...
Hurricanes are the easiest ... obviously there's no discernable trend either way ... PhD's in chemistry are too stupid to know this? ... or are you too stupid? ... I'll go with the latter, the dude just had a master's degree in chemistry who done did teach me about standard deviation, obviously something way above your skill level ...
www.metoffice.gov.uk
No discernable change? Again, you apparently just post shit without the slightest research;We're only saying we have better knowledge of chemistry than you do ... and that you're the asshole with a 3rd grade science education ...
Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and wildfires, are increasing in frequency and intensity ...
Horsefeathers ... the data is posted on-line, show us that floods, droughts, hurricanes and heatwaves are increasing ... you live in The West, you know perfectly well we're letting wildfires burn these days, fire is part of the environment and ecologically necessary for the health of the forest ... all uneducated constructions laborers know this, why don't you? ...
Hurricanes are the easiest ... obviously there's no discernable trend either way ... PhD's in chemistry are too stupid to know this? ... or are you too stupid? ... I'll go with the latter, the dude just had a master's degree in chemistry who done did teach me about standard deviation, obviously something way above your skill level ...
environment.princeton.edu
Shit-O-Dear. You stupid ass. Those thousands of firefighters in Oregon and California were just standing there, letting the fires burn? No, they were protecting the infrastructure, because with the drought dried timber and high wind, they had no chance of saving the trees. People and property first.
