The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[Billy_Bob]

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.

That's especially hilarious because Westwall couldn't pass a middle school science class these days.

A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes.

Well, duh. It's amusing that Westwall here thinks that means something. The normal people note that nobody can teach out of their specialty at a graduate level. Geologists would be utterly helpless if they tried to teach advanced climate physics.

A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist.

Westwall, through his own total ineptness at all science, proves that to be false.

Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Geology is an exact science.

The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition. The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first. Our results are OBJECTIVE. Climatology is SUBJECTIVE. Learn the difference then get back to us.

Meanwhile, outside of Westwall's delusional world, the climatologists are all graduates of the hard sciences that Westwall says are so perfect. Thus, by his own definition Westwall says the climatologists are all brilliant.

Westwall is so clueless, he actually thinks climatologists come from undergraduate programs of "climatology" similar to rocks-for-jocks type undergraduate geology programs. Out in the real world, there are no such programs. Climate scientists come from hard science backgrounds. Given Westwall says hard scientists are brilliant, he's just defined climate scientists as brilliant

Most climate scientists come from physics background, and have doctorates and postdoc training. Those guys make everyone look like simpletons, not just the geologists.

Its amazing how many of you are totally clueless.. And you are a simpleton fool.. no question about that..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

and agree. and????????

If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?

why do you say there is no greenhouse?

A true green house requires an impermeable barrier, ie; glass windows which do not allow free travel of heat and air mass. The earth is an open system where air and heat are allowed to travel without restriction.

Earth is not a greenhouse and it is a poor description of the energy slowing process in our atmosphere.

Really? Air can leave the planet and arrives from space? Does heat conduct to the vacuum?

The greenhouse effect does not require an impermeable barrier. It requires that greenhouse gases slow the transmission of IR to space. Slow, not stop.

Tell me moron, does air travel to reaches of our atmosphere and release heat or not? Does the earth loose atmosphere?

 

[westwall]

The greenhouse effect does not require an impermeable barrier. It requires that greenhouse gases slow the transmission of IR to space. Slow. Not stop.

correct I'm afraid!!

If it were correct the ice ages would have never occurred.

 

[ding]

Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water. Thus it is not capable of warming the water. Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

According to Westwall's hilariously stupid physics there, sunlight is incapable of warming a rock, since it can't penetrate into the rock more than a few microns.

Yep, that's the caliber of "science" from the denier side, stuff that fails so badly, even a first-grader would laugh at how dumb it is.

I believe he is saying that IR will warm the ocean surface waters but it’s effects are overwhelmed by solar radiation. Your rock analogy is stupid to say the least. So is your belief that CO2 drives climate change.

 

[westwall]

Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water. Thus it is not capable of warming the water. Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

According to Westwall's hilariously stupid physics there, sunlight is incapable of warming a rock, since it can't penetrate into the rock more than a few microns.

Yep, that's the caliber of "science" from the denier side, stuff that fails so badly, even a first-grader would laugh at how dumb it is.

Wrong again as usual. Are you intentionally playing stupid and misrepresenting what I said or are you truly this ignorant and stupid? I stated very clearly that IR WILL warm rocks and dirt. They don't warm the planet though, if they did the desert would be hot, hot, hot, morning, noon, and night. But the reality is it's not. The desert at night cools off very, very fast. Rocks and dirt don't retain warmth. That is what massive amounts of water does. And that is what we are talking about. Aren't we....

 

[westwall]

Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water. Thus it is not capable of warming the water. Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

According to Westwall's hilariously stupid physics there, sunlight is incapable of warming a rock, since it can't penetrate into the rock more than a few microns.

Yep, that's the caliber of "science" from the denier side, stuff that fails so badly, even a first-grader would laugh at how dumb it is.

I believe he is saying that IR will warm the ocean surface waters but it’s effects are overwhelmed by solar radiation. Your rock analogy is stupid to say the least. So is your belief that CO2 drives climate change.

No. IR can only warm rocks and dirt. Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.

 

[westwall]

Sun yes. Greenhouse no. The Earth is not a closed system which is a requirement for a greenhouse to work.

Another hilarious blunder.

"Greenhouse" is sort of a scientific metaphor, and is not meant to mean that earth is a closed system like a sealed greenhouse.

Therefore, declaring victory because you've shown earth isn't like a glass greenhouse is pretty damn stupid, and demonstrates the speaker is utterly clueless about the science involved.

If it were a metaphor it would actually be working as advertised. It isn't. The pause is very real and no matter how many temp records you clowns falsify the regular people know it to be true.

 

[westwall]

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.

That's especially hilarious because Westwall couldn't pass a middle school science class these days.

A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes.

Well, duh. It's amusing that Westwall here thinks that means something. The normal people note that nobody can teach out of their specialty at a graduate level. Geologists would be utterly helpless if they tried to teach advanced climate physics.

A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist.

Westwall, through his own total ineptness at all science, proves that to be false.

Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Geology is an exact science.

The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition. The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first. Our results are OBJECTIVE. Climatology is SUBJECTIVE. Learn the difference then get back to us.

Meanwhile, outside of Westwall's delusional world, the climatologists are all graduates of the hard sciences that Westwall says are so perfect. Thus, by his own definition Westwall says the climatologists are all brilliant.

Westwall is so clueless, he actually thinks climatologists come from undergraduate programs of "climatology" similar to rocks-for-jocks type undergraduate geology programs. Out in the real world, there are no such programs. Climate scientists come from hard science backgrounds. Given Westwall says hard scientists are brilliant, he's just defined climate scientists as brilliant

Most climate scientists come from a physics background, and have doctorates and postdoc training. Those guys make everyone look like simpletons, not just the geologists.

It means loads moron. You claim that nobody but climatologists can understand what they do. If that were true they would be smart enough, and educated enough, to teach a graduate level geology class. They can't. That means their science is EASY. Mine is hard. So hard that they have no clue how to do it. So, to the learning impaired, it is MY science that is beyond them. Theirs isn't beyond me.

 

[mamooth]

No. IR can only warm rocks and dirt. Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.

And so Westwall is now denying the law of conservation of energy outright. According to him, IR strikes the ocean, and then ... vanishes into a mystery dimension.

Denying the law of conservation of energy literally puts someone in the same camp as flat earthers and creationists.

For amusement, let's get Westwall to expand on his theory. Westwall, what magical properties does water have that allows it to negate the law of conservation of energy? Please go into details about the physics involved.

 

[westwall]

No. IR can only warm rocks and dirt. Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.

And so Westwall is now denying the law of conservation of energy outright. According to him, IR strikes the ocean, and then ... vanishes into a mystery dimension.

Denying the law of conservation of energy literally puts someone in the same camp as flat earthers and creationists.

For amusement, let's get Westwall to expand on his theory. Westwall, what magical properties does water have that allows it to negate the law of conservation of energy? Please go into details about the physics involved.

Wrong again bozo. It gets reflected away, just like most light energy that hits water. Let's play a game. Is there ANYTHING scientific that you actually know?

 

[mamooth]

It means loads moron. You claim that nobody but climatologists can understand what they do.

We say no such thing. We say smart people can understand it too. That's why the smart people here on this board understand it.

If that were true they would be smart enough, and educated enough, to teach a graduate level geology class. They can't.

Being your premise is false, your conclusion is thus incorrect.

That means their science is EASY. Mine is hard. So hard that they have no clue how to do it. So, to the learning impaired, it is MY science that is beyond them. Theirs isn't beyond me.

Our mere earth-logic can't parse that train of thought. As Neitzsche sort of said "When you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you." It's dangerous to the mind of a healthy person to try to understand denier thought processes.

 

[mamooth]

Wrong again bozo. It gets reflected away, just like most light energy that hits water.

Wait. You told us before it penetrated the water. So you're saying it penetrates the water, and then gets spit back out later?

Interesting. Optics theory says reflection only occurs at a boundary of differing indexes of refraction. Can you tell us more about the physics of your new groundbreaking theory? Does the planet know you've rewritten the rules of optics that have been known since Newton's time?

Let's play a game. Is there ANYTHING scientific that you actually know?

I know that the reflection coefficient of seawater in the IR range is well studied, and that only a few percent is reflected in the longwave range. Hence, your theory, in addition to being completely bonkers, is directly contradicted by observed data.

 

[mamooth]

If it were a metaphor it would actually be working as advertised. It isn't. The pause is very real and no matter how many temp records you clowns falsify the regular people know it to be true.

That's one way to change the subject from your failure to under the greenhouse effect.

However, every cultist uses "It's all a plot against us!" to explain why reality contradicts their cult dogma. That's kind of boring. I could go talk to a Scientologist if I wanted to hear stuff like that.

 

[ding]

NOT DING'S QUOTE "No. IR can only warm rocks and dirt. Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world. NOT DING'S QUOTE

And so Westwall is now denying the law of conservation of energy outright. According to him, IR strikes the ocean, and then ... vanishes into a mystery dimension.

Denying the law of conservation of energy literally puts someone in the same camp as flat earthers and creationists.

For amusement, let's get Westwall to expand on his theory. Westwall, what magical properties does water have that allows it to negate the law of conservation of energy? Please go into details about the physics involved.

That wasn't my quote. My quote was, "I believe he is saying that IR will warm the ocean surface waters but it’s effects are overwhelmed by solar radiation. Your rock analogy is stupid to say the least. So is your belief that CO2 drives climate change."

 

[ding]

No. IR can only warm rocks and dirt. Not the water that actually is the heat sink of the world.

And so Westwall is now denying the law of conservation of energy outright. According to him, IR strikes the ocean, and then ... vanishes into a mystery dimension.

Denying the law of conservation of energy literally puts someone in the same camp as flat earthers and creationists.

For amusement, let's get Westwall to expand on his theory. Westwall, what magical properties does water have that allows it to negate the law of conservation of energy? Please go into details about the physics involved.

You are an idiot. A posser. An imposter. A wannabe. IR warming of a water body is more likely to be lost through evaporation, since its warming only occurs at the surface, and that energy is more likely to be lost through evaporation than absorbed solar radiation would be which penetrates more deeply.

 

[mamooth]

That wasn't my quote. My quote was, "I believe he is saying that IR will warm the ocean surface waters but it’s effects are overwhelmed by solar radiation. Your rock analogy is stupid to say the least. So is your belief that CO2 drives climate change."

I'm apologize for getting the attributions screwed up there. Board software sometimes runs stuff together when you've responding to posts on multiple browser pages, which is what I was doing, and I made an editing mistake. I'd fix it, but that would look like hiding it now, so I'll just apologize for it again.

 

[mamooth]

You are an idiot. A posser. An imposter. A wannabe.

I'm the only one in this conversation not sucking hard at basic science.

IR warming of a water body is more likely to be lost through evaporation, since its warming only occurs at the surface, and that energy is more likely to be lost through evaporation than absorbed solar radiation would be which penetrates more deeply.

So it's your contention that the ocean skin is constantly boiling away? If so, where's the steam when it's cold?

Nice try, but no, that's not happening. Believe it or not, experiments have been done that can measure skin temperature of the oceans. The skin layer is colder than the ocean below it.

Now, I could show you exactly how the heat flow works. Heck, I'll be nice, and educate you for free.

The short but not-really-correct version: "IR is absorbed by the skin and conducts into the rest of the ocean." Nope, the real world is more complicated than that.

The longer correct version:

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as depth gets shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

 

[ding]

You are an idiot. A posser. An imposter. A wannabe.

I'm the only one in this conversation not sucking hard at basic science.

IR warming of a water body is more likely to be lost through evaporation, since its warming only occurs at the surface, and that energy is more likely to be lost through evaporation than absorbed solar radiation would be which penetrates more deeply.

So it's your contention that the ocean skin is constantly boiling away? If so, where's the steam when it's cold?

Nice try, but no, that's not happening. Believe it or not, experiments have been done that can measure skin temperature of the oceans. The skin layer is colder than the ocean below it.

Now, I could show you exactly how the heat flow works. Heck, I'll be nice, and educate you for free.

The short but not-really-correct version: "IR is absorbed by the skin and conducts into the rest of the ocean." Nope, the real world is more complicated than that.

The longer correct version:

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as depth gets shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

No. The skin is cooler because of evaporation, not because the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean. Furthermore, the wave action and resultant angle created from the waves also affect the penetration depth. What you have really proven is that solar radiation warms the ocean. Big surprise.

 

[ding]

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer

This is an incredibly stupid statement. My goodness, solar dominates at every depth. What exactly do you do for a living?

 

[Crick]

"What exactly do you do for a living"? I guess that'll solve the problem.