The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[ding]

I could have, but the post was already running very long. Learn the value of brevity, son, as it's one key to good science communication. Keeping more heat in the ocean half the time still means more heat is kept in the ocean, so the point of the post is unaffected.

No. The curves show a skin exists at night and day. The skin is an artifact of evaporation. The curves show that solar radiation is heating the ocean and that IR is negligible.

 

[ding]

No, it's driven by IR, heat conduction, and evaporative cooling. You're just not very good at this.

It is affected by even more things than that but the dominant driver of the skin is evaporative cooling. IR is negligible. So much so that it can be ignored entirely.

 

[ding]

Let's try a simple exercise for you.

Say temp on the colder surface side is 20.0, and temp on the warmer deep side is 20.3. Delta-T is 0.3.

Now add IR to the colder surface side. 20.0 rises to 20.1. Delta-T is now 0.2.

Einstein, did delta-T just go up or down?

You keep saying it goes up. You apparently believe "0.2" is more than "0.3". Hence the reason circus-clown music plays when you show up

The skin does not drive evaporative cooling. The skin IS and artifact of evaporative cooling. The driver is the temperature below the skin. If it as you say that IR is heating up the ocean than evaporation can only increase as a result of it.

 

[ding]

I post good science,

I don't believe you do. I believe you confirm your bias.

I'm quite polite to those who are willing to learn. However, I have no patience with butthurt narcissists, and I don't apologize for that.

You flounced in here and started out in your first post with arrogance and insults, even though your science was crap propaganda. And when we gently pointed out your errors, did you do the classy thing and thank us for taking the time to educate you? No. You went into meltdown mode, and you haven't stopped crying since.

Grow the fuck up.

I hope you don't mind if I see it the other way around.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Earth has never been a greenhouse, and can never BE a greenhouse. .

please tell us why you think that

I don't "think" that. I KNOW that. A greenhouse works because it is a sealed system. The atmosphere inside is controlled. The heat inside is controlled. Nothing is allowed to mix with the outside. If the Earth were a greenhouse the only transmission would be one way. Mass could enter but nothing could leave. Thus the greenhouse theory would be in play.
It's all about energy. If energy can only go one way, eventually the temperature gets too high. We don't have a one way system. Tens of thousands of tons of mass get ejected to space every year. All of that mass takes heat with it, and it also shows that energy can freely leave.

Thus there is no greenhouse. And never will be.

seems absurdly illogical to me. All houses leak but with enough heat or improved sealing the temperature still goes up and up. Where are you getting lost exactly?

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mamooth is correct about the temperature profile of the skin layer. If you think he isn't, show us someone's work that says otherwise. I rather doubt any of us here have done that actual measurement, though I have dropped and processed several thousand BTs. T6 and T7 aren't of much use in the micron range.

That's funny that you ask for me to show someone's work to prove that the decrease in temperature from the subskin to the skin is due to evaporative cooling, but you don't ask Mamooth to provide someone's work to prove that the warming effect of IR causes a GHG effect on the ocean thereby slowing evaporative cooling and increasing temperature.

If IR is adding energy to the ocean, evaporation will increase, not decrease. Mamooth should have posted the nighttime curve with the daytime curve. The temperature profile of the skin layer is not driven by IR. It is driven by evaporative cooling. IR does not decrease the delta T. If anything it increases delta T.

Both of your condescending attitudes have led to these unpleasant type of discussions. What is it that you do again?

At one time I posted a graph of energy frequency and what it was able to penetrate to depth of different substances. I will have to try and find it again, though I don't think crick or mantooth could grasp why what they believe can not work.

Its like the old cell bricks of the 80's that operated at 160mhz which couldnt get good reception or work well in buildings vs today's 2-5Ghz phones that use little power and can penetrate just about anywhere. It is the size of the wave vs what it passes though but they can not grasp this simple energy/power/radiation concept.

Cell phones don't work well under water due to density and wave trapping, the same reason LWIR does not penetrate the first 10 microns of the surface tension.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

So, you're implying that IR from the sun isn't solar, then throwing insults about how someone else is stupid. Ah, the sweet irony.

Tell us, Einstein, if the IR doesn't come from the sun, where does it come from?

Downwelling radiation is way above the IR spectrum.. the sun may produce some but the majority is created by cooling black bodies..

 

[westwall]

The Earth has never been a greenhouse, and can never BE a greenhouse. .

please tell us why you think that

I don't "think" that. I KNOW that. A greenhouse works because it is a sealed system. The atmosphere inside is controlled. The heat inside is controlled. Nothing is allowed to mix with the outside. If the Earth were a greenhouse the only transmission would be one way. Mass could enter but nothing could leave. Thus the greenhouse theory would be in play.
It's all about energy. If energy can only go one way, eventually the temperature gets too high. We don't have a one way system. Tens of thousands of tons of mass get ejected to space every year. All of that mass takes heat with it, and it also shows that energy can freely leave.

Thus there is no greenhouse. And never will be.

seems absurdly illogical to me. All houses leak but with enough heat or improved sealing the temperature still goes up and up. Where are you getting lost exactly?

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

I suggest you talk to a gardener. They seem to know more about greenhouses than the scientists.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Earth has never been a greenhouse, and can never BE a greenhouse. .

please tell us why you think that

I don't "think" that. I KNOW that. A greenhouse works because it is a sealed system. The atmosphere inside is controlled. The heat inside is controlled. Nothing is allowed to mix with the outside. If the Earth were a greenhouse the only transmission would be one way. Mass could enter but nothing could leave. Thus the greenhouse theory would be in play.
It's all about energy. If energy can only go one way, eventually the temperature gets too high. We don't have a one way system. Tens of thousands of tons of mass get ejected to space every year. All of that mass takes heat with it, and it also shows that energy can freely leave.

Thus there is no greenhouse. And never will be.

seems absurdly illogical to me. All houses leak but with enough heat or improved sealing the temperature still goes up and up. Where are you getting lost exactly?

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

I suggest you talk to a gardener. They seem to know more about greenhouses than the scientists.

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

 

[westwall]

The Earth has never been a greenhouse, and can never BE a greenhouse. .

please tell us why you think that

I don't "think" that. I KNOW that. A greenhouse works because it is a sealed system. The atmosphere inside is controlled. The heat inside is controlled. Nothing is allowed to mix with the outside. If the Earth were a greenhouse the only transmission would be one way. Mass could enter but nothing could leave. Thus the greenhouse theory would be in play.
It's all about energy. If energy can only go one way, eventually the temperature gets too high. We don't have a one way system. Tens of thousands of tons of mass get ejected to space every year. All of that mass takes heat with it, and it also shows that energy can freely leave.

Thus there is no greenhouse. And never will be.

seems absurdly illogical to me. All houses leak but with enough heat or improved sealing the temperature still goes up and up. Where are you getting lost exactly?

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

I suggest you talk to a gardener. They seem to know more about greenhouses than the scientists.

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

Like I said. Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works. Scientists only tell you what they THINK. A gardener SHOWS you how it WORKS.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

please tell us why you think that

I don't "think" that. I KNOW that. A greenhouse works because it is a sealed system. The atmosphere inside is controlled. The heat inside is controlled. Nothing is allowed to mix with the outside. If the Earth were a greenhouse the only transmission would be one way. Mass could enter but nothing could leave. Thus the greenhouse theory would be in play.
It's all about energy. If energy can only go one way, eventually the temperature gets too high. We don't have a one way system. Tens of thousands of tons of mass get ejected to space every year. All of that mass takes heat with it, and it also shows that energy can freely leave.

Thus there is no greenhouse. And never will be.

seems absurdly illogical to me. All houses leak but with enough heat or improved sealing the temperature still goes up and up. Where are you getting lost exactly?

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

I suggest you talk to a gardener. They seem to know more about greenhouses than the scientists.

is there even one scientist who thinks that because the greenhouse leaks it has no effect???

Like I said. Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works. Scientists only tell you what they THINK. A gardener SHOWS you how it WORKS.

so there is not even one scientist who agrees???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works.

I did; he said it works best when completely sealed and partially when partially sealed. Sorry.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works.

I did; he said it works best when completely sealed and partially when partially sealed. Sorry.

The earth is an unsealed screen porch..

 

[westwall]

Talk to a gardener if you want to know how a greenhouse works.

I did; he said it works best when completely sealed and partially when partially sealed. Sorry.

Oh, I doubt that.


"Traditional greenhouses are normally heavily ventilated during the day to prevent overheating. A standard rule of thumb in the commercial greenhouse industry is to exchange the entire volume of air in the greenhouse every minute. That requires enormous fans to constantly flush air outside. In a cannabis greenhouse, this results in continually venting warm, CO2 rich, and odorous air outside. In turn, ventilation raises a number of issues. In many areas, regulations prohibit exhausting untreated, odorous air outside. Furthermore, excessive ventilation can brings pests and pathogens into the greenhouse."


3 Signs you Should Invest in a Sealed Cannabis Greenhouse | Ceres Greenhouse

 

[Crick]

YO! Time to wake up folks! The function of a gardener's greenhouse has no bearing on the function of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Mr. Westwall actually thinks that he is capable of teaching and post grad course in atmospheric physics. LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

YO! Time to wake up folks! The function of a gardener's greenhouse has no bearing on the function of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.

This is rich....

 

[Crick]

So do you believe that showing a greenhouse should be ventilated to keep the plants alive means that Earth's atmosphere is constantly coming and going? What do you mean by "This is rich"?

 

[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.

Mr. Westwall actually thinks that he is capable of teaching and post grad course in atmospheric physics. LOL

No problem at all. Physics was my minor.

 

[Crick]

I see geology and climatology as simply the studies of large bodies of matter, solid and gaseous. I see no grounds for calling one inexact and one exact.