SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
You are conflating the direction of radiation with the escape of radiation. They are not the same thing.
Of course they are the same thing...since energy always moves from warm to cool.
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.
You are conflating the direction of radiation with the escape of radiation. They are not the same thing.
OK I get what you guys are saying now. LIA little ice age. I think AGW is still winning, but like I said don't mind me.
Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!
If not I have decided.
Henry's law.So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?
I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.
Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.
Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.
Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.
Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.
Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!
If not I have decided.
Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!
If not I have decided.
Hahahaha. You're a math major, you are expecting either a right or wrong answer.
In climate science all you can expect is a less incorrect answer. Or perhaps a less incomplete answer.
Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.
Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.
On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.
Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.
Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.
At a stable concentration of Atmospheric CO2, the amount that dissolves into the ocean is controlled by temperature and how fast other reactions remove it by turning it into inert substances. A naturally caused 1C temperature increase would expel some CO2 and that extra CO2 would cause a triffling amount of extra warming.
Burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 by an unnatural mechanism, and that has caused a small amount of warming. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.
In the first case, natural stasis. In the second case, a change of conditions ends up with an opposite result. More CO2 going into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb.
We cannot compare our unnaturally caused CO2 level with similar historical levels because they were caused by natural factors.
The causation/correlation relationship does not work if you unnaturally change one side of the equation.
. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.
Reality: the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are outgassing.
Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!
If not I have decided.
Hahahaha. You're a math major, you are expecting either a right or wrong answer.
In climate science all you can expect is a less incorrect answer. Or perhaps a less incomplete answer.
Why not simply say that you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability? Does it sting that badly to simply admit the truth?..if so, ask yourself why it should.
.
I said. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature. {/quote]
And you think a couple of parts per million is increasing the concentration enough to make that happen? Really?
The temperature of the oceans is far more important in whether CO2 is being outgassed than absorbed in that equation...now if you want to give CO2 responsibility for decreasing ocean temperatures, then maybe we have something to talk about...the climate sensitivity to CO2 being zero "OR LESS"..
I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.
And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.
I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.
It is no factor...except for maybe some slight cooling...certainly not warming.
And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.
And there isn't the first bit of actual observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...we have already been through this and all you showed was how easily you were fooled by instrumentation....claiming that instruments were measuring back radiation when in fact, they were measuring nothing more than temperature changes within their own internal thermopiles...
.
I said. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.
And you think a couple of parts per million is increasing the concentration enough to make that happen? Really?
The temperature of the oceans is far more important in whether CO2 is being outgassed than absorbed in that equation...now if you want to give CO2 responsibility for decreasing ocean temperatures, then maybe we have something to talk about...the climate sensitivity to CO2 being zero "OR LESS"..
On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.
No ian...the umbrella blocks conduction on to the cooler regions of the atmosphere, which increases the air temperature...and according to the SB law, if you increase the temperature of a radiator's surroundings, the amount of energy it radiates decreases...the umbrella is not back radiating the energy your body lost to you..you believe in fairy dust and unicorn perspiration...and who knows what other magic...