Remember me
▼ Content

Why would CO2 cause sea level to rise and ocean to acidify?



Page 1 of 212>
Why would CO2 cause sea level to rise and ocean to acidify?04-01-2016 04:33
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't higher temperature cause more evaporation and the air to hold more water and reduce sea level and cause the ocean to out gas CO2 and reduce the H2CO3 concentration?

New York was under a mile of ice during the last ice age and now New York is above sea level, so it does not seem the sea level rose when the last ice age ended and glaciers melted.
Edited on 04-01-2016 05:32
04-01-2016 19:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.
04-01-2016 19:22
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.

Hi Surface.
That was my first thought too. It's like a parody. I even thought it could be trafn trying to make this place look like even more of a farce than it had already become.

Since IBdaMann trolled this forum to death, it's been pretty quiet until this joker showed up and started plastering the place with over-the-top nonsense threads.



Edited on 04-01-2016 19:27
04-01-2016 20:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.

Seriously? Is that your best response? ..i.e. you can't specify anything wrong with his post and you can't specify anything with which you disagree...but you simply must disagree nonetheless?

Wow!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-01-2016 20:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote: That was my first thought too.

You? Having a thought? Not likely.

Ceist wrote: It's like a parody. I even thought it could be trafn trying to make this place look like even more of a farce than it had already become.

In your mind, a farce is the allowing of differing viewpoints. You need a "safe" posting environment where opposing viewpoints are not tolerated.

You hold the consummate religious position. In fact you consider opposing viewpoints that threaten your religious insecurities as "trolling."

You really should get off the internet and into somewhere that is truly safe for your faith, like a library.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-01-2016 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: That was my first thought too.

You? Having a thought? Not likely.

Ceist wrote: It's like a parody. I even thought it could be trafn trying to make this place look like even more of a farce than it had already become.

In your mind, a farce is the allowing of differing viewpoints. You need a "safe" posting environment where opposing viewpoints are not tolerated.

You hold the consummate religious position. In fact you consider opposing viewpoints that threaten your religious insecurities as "trolling."

You really should get off the internet and into somewhere that is truly safe for your faith, like a library.


.


A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?


The Parrot Killer
04-01-2016 21:45
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.

Hi Surface.
That was my first thought too. It's like a parody. I even thought it could be trafn trying to make this place look like even more of a farce than it had already become.

Since IBdaMann trolled this forum to death, it's been pretty quiet until this joker showed up and started plastering the place with over-the-top nonsense threads.


The sea level bit is nonsense but could you look at the solubility of CO2 in water for a second. Many scientists claim that our oceans are becoming more acidic / less alcaline; due to the increase in dissolved CO2! But if the temperature is rising then solubility coefficient for CO2 in water should drop, (more CO2 dissolves in cold water than in warm) so shouldn't the oceans be getting more alcaline if anything?
04-01-2016 22:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
MK001 wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.

Hi Surface.
That was my first thought too. It's like a parody. I even thought it could be trafn trying to make this place look like even more of a farce than it had already become.

Since IBdaMann trolled this forum to death, it's been pretty quiet until this joker showed up and started plastering the place with over-the-top nonsense threads.


The sea level bit is nonsense but could you look at the solubility of CO2 in water for a second. Many scientists claim that our oceans are becoming more acidic / less alcaline; due to the increase in dissolved CO2! But if the temperature is rising then solubility coefficient for CO2 in water should drop, (more CO2 dissolves in cold water than in warm) so shouldn't the oceans be getting more alcaline if anything?

Assuming for a moment that the temperature were to remain constant while the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere increases, the concentration of CO2 in seawater would increase by the same proportion, as per Henry's Law. The fact that the temperature of the water is rising, and its CO2 solubility is thus falling, just reduces the corresponding increase in seawater CO2 concentration. That is, the warming means that a doubling of CO2 in the air gives somewhat less than a doubling of CO2 in the sea.

At the moment, the oceans are able to absorb (edit: correction - about a quarter) of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (hence their acidification), but this proportion is indeed likely to fall (though still remaining positive) as the oceans warm.
Edited on 04-01-2016 22:31
04-01-2016 22:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.

Seriously? Is that your best response? ..i.e. you can't specify anything wrong with his post and you can't specify anything with which you disagree...but you simply must disagree nonetheless?

Wow!


.

Seriously? Is it not completely obvious to even the most scientifically unaware that melting land ice will lead to rising sea levels? This is kindergarten stuff.
04-01-2016 22:26
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.

Hi Surface.
That was my first thought too. It's like a parody. I even thought it could be trafn trying to make this place look like even more of a farce than it had already become.

Since IBdaMann trolled this forum to death, it's been pretty quiet until this joker showed up and started plastering the place with over-the-top nonsense threads.


The sea level bit is nonsense but could you look at the solubility of CO2 in water for a second. Many scientists claim that our oceans are becoming more acidic / less alcaline; due to the increase in dissolved CO2! But if the temperature is rising then solubility coefficient for CO2 in water should drop, (more CO2 dissolves in cold water than in warm) so shouldn't the oceans be getting more alcaline if anything?

Assuming for a moment that the temperature were to remain constant while the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere increases, the concentration of CO2 in seawater would increase by the same proportion, as per Henry's Law. The fact that the temperature of the water is rising, and its CO2 solubility is thus falling, just reduces the corresponding increase in seawater CO2 concentration. That is, the warming means that a doubling of CO2 in the air gives somewhat less than a doubling of CO2 in the sea.

At the moment, the oceans are able to absorb about half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (hence their acidification), but this proportion is indeed likely to fall (though still remaining positive) as the oceans warm.


The solubility of CO2 due to temperature is a curve and I think it is a larger factor than the increeasing concentration of the atmospheric CO2 but I will have to checck on that..

Thanks
04-01-2016 23:02
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
MK001 wrote:
The sea level bit is nonsense but could you look at the solubility of CO2 in water for a second. Many scientists claim that our oceans are becoming more acidic / less alcaline; due to the increase in dissolved CO2! But if the temperature is rising then solubility coefficient for CO2 in water should drop, (more CO2 dissolves in cold water than in warm) so shouldn't the oceans be getting more alcaline if anything?


Only a change in ocean temperature can cause the ocean to take in more or less CO2. If CO2 in the air increases but ocean temperature does not change, then the ocean concentration of H2CO3 will not change.
Edited on 04-01-2016 23:06
04-01-2016 23:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
The sea level bit is nonsense but could you look at the solubility of CO2 in water for a second. Many scientists claim that our oceans are becoming more acidic / less alcaline; due to the increase in dissolved CO2! But if the temperature is rising then solubility coefficient for CO2 in water should drop, (more CO2 dissolves in cold water than in warm) so shouldn't the oceans be getting more alcaline if anything?


Only a change in ocean temperature can cause the ocean to take in more or less CO2. If CO2 in the air increases but ocean temperature does not change, then the ocean concentration of H2CO3 will not change.

Nope. See Henry's Law.
05-01-2016 00:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be an exceptionally daft denier? If so, you're in danger of overdoing it and blowing your cover.

Seriously? Is that your best response? ..i.e. you can't specify anything wrong with his post and you can't specify anything with which you disagree...but you simply must disagree nonetheless?

Wow!


.

Seriously? Is it not completely obvious to even the most scientifically unaware that melting land ice will lead to rising sea levels? This is kindergarten stuff.


Really? They certainly didn't teach this kind of stuff in any kindergarten I know.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2016 00:54
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?

How about you and IBdaMann wander over to the Science section, find any textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, and read it?

There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.


05-01-2016 04:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?

How about you and IBdaMann wander over to the Science section, find any textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, and read it?

There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.


We already have them. Tu quoque.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2016 06:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?

How about you and IBdaMann wander over to the Science section, find any textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, and read it?

There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.


We already have them. Tu quoque.


And you still won't give the title of any textbook that you supposedly 'already have'. Why so shy?


05-01-2016 13:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?

How about you and IBdaMann wander over to the Science section, find any textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, and read it?

There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.


We already have them. Tu quoque.


And you still won't give the title of any textbook that you supposedly 'already have'. Why so shy?


I don't need to. I am not here to answer your demands. Go to your local bookstore or Amazon. Perhaps your library will have one of them if you're too cheap. You do your own footwork.

Remember that a book is an opinion also. Some textbooks support your model, others don't. There is nothing magick about a book. No book is a final authority.

Physics textbooks don't discuss the atmosphere in particular, but they do discuss thermodynamics. History texts do not discuss the atmosphere either, but they do discuss how the laws of thermodynamics and other laws of science were discovered. Some atmospheric textbooks don't even mention carbon dioxide at all (since it's unimportant), others do.

You need to read across disciplines and not just a couple of atmospheric textbooks that support your belief, preconcluded by you before you even start.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2016 13:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:
There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.

There's a reason you can't specify any particular assertions of mine which you claim I cannot support. That reason would be that you don't even understand the subject matter.

There's a reason you can't articulate an opposing claim that you can support. That reason would also be that you don't understand the subject matter.

There's a reason you have never been able to successfully contribute anything of value to this forum. Again, the reason has to do with your complete ignorance of the subject matter.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 05-01-2016 13:51
05-01-2016 14:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?

How about you and IBdaMann wander over to the Science section, find any textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, and read it?

There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.


We already have them. Tu quoque.


And you still won't give the title of any textbook that you supposedly 'already have'. Why so shy?


I don't need to. I am not here to answer your demands. Go to your local bookstore or Amazon. Perhaps your library will have one of them if you're too cheap. You do your own footwork.

Remember that a book is an opinion also. Some textbooks support your model, others don't. There is nothing magick about a book. No book is a final authority.

Physics textbooks don't discuss the atmosphere in particular, but they do discuss thermodynamics. History texts do not discuss the atmosphere either, but they do discuss how the laws of thermodynamics and other laws of science were discovered. Some atmospheric textbooks don't even mention carbon dioxide at all (since it's unimportant), others do.

You need to read across disciplines and not just a couple of atmospheric textbooks that support your belief, preconcluded by you before you even start.

There is NO textbook which supports your ridiculous claims that there is no greenhouse effect or that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. You're talking pure pseudoscience drivel. You would have to know that what you are claiming goes against mainstream science, unless you are mentally ill.



Edited on 05-01-2016 14:28
05-01-2016 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?

How about you and IBdaMann wander over to the Science section, find any textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, and read it?

There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.


We already have them. Tu quoque.


And you still won't give the title of any textbook that you supposedly 'already have'. Why so shy?


I don't need to. I am not here to answer your demands. Go to your local bookstore or Amazon. Perhaps your library will have one of them if you're too cheap. You do your own footwork.

Remember that a book is an opinion also. Some textbooks support your model, others don't. There is nothing magick about a book. No book is a final authority.

Physics textbooks don't discuss the atmosphere in particular, but they do discuss thermodynamics. History texts do not discuss the atmosphere either, but they do discuss how the laws of thermodynamics and other laws of science were discovered. Some atmospheric textbooks don't even mention carbon dioxide at all (since it's unimportant), others do.

You need to read across disciplines and not just a couple of atmospheric textbooks that support your belief, preconcluded by you before you even start.

There is NO textbook which supports your ridiculous claims that there is no greenhouse effect or that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. You're talking pure pseudoscience drivel. You would have to know that what you are claiming goes against mainstream science, unless you are mentally ill.


An argument of ignorance. You do not know science, for there is no such thing as 'mainstream' science.

Ad hominem ignored this time.

This argument is done. Since you have no intention of actually doing the research or anything, like I have, you have no further valid point to make here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-01-2016 20:47
05-01-2016 20:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Into the Night wrote: This argument is done.

I question your implication that it ever started. Ceist has yet to make a positive contribution to this forum.

Into the Night wrote: Since you have no intention of actually doing the research or anything, like I have, you have no further valid point to make here.

I question your implication that Ceist had previous valid points.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-01-2016 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This argument is done.

I question your implication that it ever started. Ceist has yet to make a positive contribution to this forum.

Into the Night wrote: Since you have no intention of actually doing the research or anything, like I have, you have no further valid point to make here.

I question your implication that Ceist had previous valid points.


.


Now that you mention it, I have to cede to your argument. You are quite right. I was simply attempting to show him how to do his own research.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2016 23:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
This is the textbook on atmospheric physics that is recommended for use by undergraduate physics students at Oxford University:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/introduction-atmospheric-physics-2nd-edition

It explains the rationale behind the almost universally held opinion among climate and other scientists that the greenhouse effect is real.

Your turn now, guys. Can you suggest a physics textbook that maintains that the greenhouse effect isn't real?
Edited on 05-01-2016 23:21
05-01-2016 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
This is the textbook on atmospheric physics that is recommended for use by undergraduate physics students at Oxford University:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/introduction-atmospheric-physics-2nd-edition

It explains the rationale behind the almost universally held opinion among climate and other scientists that the greenhouse effect is real.

Your turn now, guys. Can you suggest a physics textbook that maintains that the greenhouse effect isn't real?


Read the post I wrote to Ceist concerning books. I am not here to take turns quoting book titles either. Do your own research rather than just using a couple of books as absolute authority.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 00:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This is the textbook on atmospheric physics that is recommended for use by undergraduate physics students at Oxford University:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/introduction-atmospheric-physics-2nd-edition

It explains the rationale behind the almost universally held opinion among climate and other scientists that the greenhouse effect is real.

Your turn now, guys. Can you suggest a physics textbook that maintains that the greenhouse effect isn't real?


Read the post I wrote to Ceist concerning books. I am not here to take turns quoting book titles either. Do your own research rather than just using a couple of books as absolute authority.

No. You and IBdaMann are the ones who are making the extraordinary claim that the greenhouse effect is non-existent. It is up to you to substantiate your claim by giving some sort of supporting argument. You can't baldly assert that something is or isn't true and expect people to simply believe you.

Also, you seem to be confusing references with appeals to authority. I'm not saying that the greenhouse effect is real because the author of the textbook I mentioned is a distinguished fellow; I am referring you to the theoretical and experimental evidence that he sets out in his book.

So where is the evidence for your claim? Where can I find details of an alternative theory of radiative transfer that is able to explain such phenomena as observed planetary emission spectra and thermal atmospheric thermal profiles as well as the theory set out in the textbook I referenced?
06-01-2016 00:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This is the textbook on atmospheric physics that is recommended for use by undergraduate physics students at Oxford University:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/introduction-atmospheric-physics-2nd-edition

It explains the rationale behind the almost universally held opinion among climate and other scientists that the greenhouse effect is real.

Your turn now, guys. Can you suggest a physics textbook that maintains that the greenhouse effect isn't real?


Read the post I wrote to Ceist concerning books. I am not here to take turns quoting book titles either. Do your own research rather than just using a couple of books as absolute authority.

No. You and IBdaMann are the ones who are making the extraordinary claim that the greenhouse effect is non-existent. It is up to you to substantiate your claim by giving some sort of supporting argument. You can't baldly assert that something is or isn't true and expect people to simply believe you.

Also, you seem to be confusing references with appeals to authority. I'm not saying that the greenhouse effect is real because the author of the textbook I mentioned is a distinguished fellow; I am referring you to the theoretical and experimental evidence that he sets out in his book.

So where is the evidence for your claim? Where can I find details of an alternative theory of radiative transfer that is able to explain such phenomena as observed planetary emission spectra and thermal atmospheric thermal profiles as well as the theory set out in the textbook I referenced?


I have already explained it to you multiple times. So has IBDaMann. I have also explained to you the real value of evidence in science including any papers, data, books, and materials.

The fact that you refuse to research this properly or understand the scientific process and instead turn to your dogma just shows your own bullheadedness. I am arguing with a Stone.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-01-2016 00:38
06-01-2016 00:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This is the textbook on atmospheric physics that is recommended for use by undergraduate physics students at Oxford University:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/introduction-atmospheric-physics-2nd-edition

It explains the rationale behind the almost universally held opinion among climate and other scientists that the greenhouse effect is real.

Your turn now, guys. Can you suggest a physics textbook that maintains that the greenhouse effect isn't real?


Read the post I wrote to Ceist concerning books. I am not here to take turns quoting book titles either. Do your own research rather than just using a couple of books as absolute authority.

No. You and IBdaMann are the ones who are making the extraordinary claim that the greenhouse effect is non-existent. It is up to you to substantiate your claim by giving some sort of supporting argument. You can't baldly assert that something is or isn't true and expect people to simply believe you.

Also, you seem to be confusing references with appeals to authority. I'm not saying that the greenhouse effect is real because the author of the textbook I mentioned is a distinguished fellow; I am referring you to the theoretical and experimental evidence that he sets out in his book.

So where is the evidence for your claim? Where can I find details of an alternative theory of radiative transfer that is able to explain such phenomena as observed planetary emission spectra and thermal atmospheric thermal profiles as well as the theory set out in the textbook I referenced?


I have already explained it to you multiple times. So has IBDaMann. I have also explained to you the real value of evidence in science including any papers, data, books, and materials.

The fact that you refuse to research this properly or understand the scientific process and instead turn to your dogma just shows your own bullheadedness. I am arguing with a Stone.

All you've offered so far is a bit of confused hand-waving. It's not my job to try to substantiate your claims. It's yours!

Why would anyone in their right mind listen to your unsupported claims rather than those that are supported by reams of theoretical and experimental evidence?

Put up or shut up.
06-01-2016 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

I have already explained it to you multiple times. So has IBDaMann. I have also explained to you the real value of evidence in science including any papers, data, books, and materials

The fact that you refuse to research this properly or understand the scientific process and instead turn to your dogma just shows your own bullheadedness. I am arguing with a Stone.

All you've offered so far is a bit of confused hand-waving. It's not my job to try to substantiate your claims. It's yours!

Why would anyone in their right mind listen to your unsupported claims rather than those that are supported by reams of theoretical and experimental evidence?

Put up or shut up.

Q.E.D. As demonstrated. I am arguing with a Stone.

You seem to feel I am passing the burden of proof on to you. I am saying there is no burden of proof to pass.

Remember, supporting evidence has no place in science. I don't care how many forests you've cut down to prove your position. You cannot prove anything. There is no proof in science either.

Of course I've already said this, but you ignored that too.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 03:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

I have already explained it to you multiple times. So has IBDaMann. I have also explained to you the real value of evidence in science including any papers, data, books, and materials

The fact that you refuse to research this properly or understand the scientific process and instead turn to your dogma just shows your own bullheadedness. I am arguing with a Stone.

All you've offered so far is a bit of confused hand-waving. It's not my job to try to substantiate your claims. It's yours!

Why would anyone in their right mind listen to your unsupported claims rather than those that are supported by reams of theoretical and experimental evidence?

Put up or shut up.

Q.E.D. As demonstrated. I am arguing with a Stone.

You seem to feel I am passing the burden of proof on to you. I am saying there is no burden of proof to pass.

Remember, supporting evidence has no place in science. I don't care how many forests you've cut down to prove your position. You cannot prove anything. There is no proof in science either.

Of course I've already said this, but you ignored that too.

So, after much Googling you're still unable to find any textbooks that support your assertions. Obviously that doesn't surprise me, given that you're talking total crap.
06-01-2016 05:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

I have already explained it to you multiple times. So has IBDaMann. I have also explained to you the real value of evidence in science including any papers, data, books, and materials

The fact that you refuse to research this properly or understand the scientific process and instead turn to your dogma just shows your own bullheadedness. I am arguing with a Stone.

All you've offered so far is a bit of confused hand-waving. It's not my job to try to substantiate your claims. It's yours!

Why would anyone in their right mind listen to your unsupported claims rather than those that are supported by reams of theoretical and experimental evidence?

Put up or shut up.

Q.E.D. As demonstrated. I am arguing with a Stone.

You seem to feel I am passing the burden of proof on to you. I am saying there is no burden of proof to pass.

Remember, supporting evidence has no place in science. I don't care how many forests you've cut down to prove your position. You cannot prove anything. There is no proof in science either.

Of course I've already said this, but you ignored that too.

So, after much Googling you're still unable to find any textbooks that support your assertions. Obviously that doesn't surprise me, given that you're talking total crap.

You can't read textbooks on Google. You have ignored everything I've said about books. I am arguing with a Stone.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 07:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Trying to argue with a Sky Dragon Slayer is like arguing with a delusional psychotic patient in a mental health unit who is off his meds.


06-01-2016 14:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote: So, after much Googling you're still unable to find any textbooks that support your assertions. Obviously that doesn't surprise me, given that you're talking total crap.

Please ask me that.

I know you think actual science is total crap, so you will probably think likewise of this particular reference:



Chapters 17-20 cover thermodynamics very well.
Chapter 39 covers Planck's Radiation Law very well.
Unfortunately this text does not review "cause/effect", considering it a prerequisite.

i.e. if you understand "cause/effect" then this text contains everything you need to understand to know that "greenhouse effect" is complete bunk.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-01-2016 15:16
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
MASSIVE FAIL!

IBdaMann finally, after more than 1000 posts of gibberish, actually cites a physics textbook to support his assertions. Then hilariously hoists himself with his own petard.


Clearly he has never read the Young and Goodman textbook he cites, for low and behold what do we find toward the end of chapter 17- the very chapter he cites?

University Physics with Modern Physics -Hugh D. Young and Roger A. Goodman

Thermodynamics and Heat - Chapter 17

17.7 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer


Radiation, Climate, and Climate Change

"Our planet constantly absorbs radiation coming from the sun. In thermal equilibrium, the rate at which our planet absorbs solar radiation must equal the rate at which it emits radiation into space. The presence of an atmosphere on our planet has a significant effect on this equilibrium.

Most of the radiation emitted by the sun (which has a surface temperature of 5800 K) is in the visible part of the spectrum, to which our atmosphere is transparent.

But the average surface temperature of the earth is only 287 K (14°C).
Hence most of the radiation that our planet emits into space is infrared radiation, just like the radiation from the person shown in Fig. 17.28.

However, our atmosphere is not completely transparent to infrared radiation. This is because our atmosphere contains carbon dioxide , which is its fourth most abundant constituent (after nitrogen, oxygen, and argon). Molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere have the property that they absorb some of the infrared radiation coming upward from the surface. They then re-radiate the absorbed energy, but some of the re-radiated energy is directed back down toward the surface instead of escaping into space. In order to maintain thermal equilibrium, the earth's surface must compensate for this by increasing its temperature T and hence its total rate of radiating energy (which is proportional to T ^ 4.)

This phenomenon, called the greenhouse effect, makes our planet's surface temperature about 33°C higher than it would be if there were no atmospheric If were absent, the earth's average surface temperature would be below the freezing point of water, and life as we know it would be impossible.

While atmospheric CO2 has a beneficial effect, too much of it can have extremely negative consequences. Measurements of air trapped in ancient Antarctic ice show that over the past 650,000 years has constituted less than 300 parts per million of our atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial age, however, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum has elevated the atmospheric concentration to unprecedented levels (Fig. 17.29a).

As a consequence, since the 1950s the global average surface temperature has increased by and the earth has experienced the hottest years ever recorded (Fig. 17.29b).

If we continue to consume fossil fuels at the same rate, by 2050 the atmospheric concentration will reach 600 parts per million, well off the
scale of Fig. 17.29a. The resulting temperature increase will have dramatic effects on climate around the world. In the polar regions massive quantities of ice will melt and run from solid land to the sea, thus raising ocean levels worldwide and threatening the homes and lives of hundreds of millions of people who live near the coast. Coping with these threats is one of the greatest challenges facing 21st century civilization."


Watch to see how he tries to squirm his way out the huge hole he dug for himself.




Edited on 06-01-2016 16:03
06-01-2016 15:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ceist wrote:
MASSIVE FAIL!

IBdaMann finally, after more than 1000 posts of gibberish, actually cites a physics textbook to support his assertions. Then hilariously hoists himself with his own petard.


Clearly he has never read the Young and Goodman textbook he cites, for low and behold what do we find in chapter 17- the very chapter he cites?

University Physics with Modern Physics -Hugh D. Young and Roger A. Goodman

Chapter 17

17.7 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer


Radiation, Climate, and Climate Change

"Our planet constantly absorbs radiation coming from the sun. In thermal equilibrium, the rate at which our planet absorbs solar radiation must equal the rate at which it emits radiation into space. The presence of an atmosphere on our planet has a significant effect on this equilibrium.

Most of the radiation emitted by the sun (which has a surface temperature of
5800 K) is in the visible part of the spectrum, to which our atmosphere is transparent.

But the average surface temperature of the earth is only 287 K (14°C).
Hence most of the radiation that our planet emits into space is infrared radiation, just like the radiation from the person shown in Fig. 17.28. However, our atmosphere is not completely transparent to infrared radiation. This is because our atmosphere contains carbon dioxide , which is its fourth most abundant constituent (after nitrogen, oxygen, and argon). Molecules of in the atmosphere have the property that they absorb some of the infrared radiation coming upward from the surface. They then re-radiate the absorbed energy, but some of the re-radiated energy is directed back down toward the surface instead of escaping into space. In order to maintain thermal equilibrium, the earth's surface must compensate for this by increasing its temperature T and hence its total rate of radiating energy (which is proportional to T 4.)

This phenomenon, called the greenhouse effect, makes our planet's surface temperature about 33°C higher than it would be if there were no atmospheric If were absent, the earth's average surface temperature would be below the freezing point of water, and life as we know it would be impossible.

While atmospheric has a beneficial effect, too much of it can have extremely negative consequences. Measurements of air trapped in ancient Antarctic ice show that over the past 650,000 years has constituted less than 300 parts per million of our atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial age, however, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum has elevated the atmospheric concentration to unprecedented levels (Fig. 17.29a).

As a consequence, since the 1950s the global average surface temperature has increased by and the earth has experienced the hottest years ever recorded (Fig. 17.29b). If we continue to consume fossil fuels at the same rate, by 2050 the atmospheric concentration will reach 600 parts per million, well off the
scale of Fig. 17.29a. The resulting temperature increase will have dramatic effects on climate around the world. In the polar regions massive quantities of ice will melt and run from solid land to the sea, thus raising ocean levels worldwide and threatening the homes and lives of hundreds of millions of people who live near the coast. Coping with these threats is one of the greatest challenges facing 21st century civilization."


Watch to see how he tries to squirm his way out the huge hole he dug for himself.

I imagine he'll claim that the authors were forced at gunpoint by Marxists to write that section, or some such tosh.


Thanks for that; I was wondering what the latest edition had to say. I still have the 7th Edition (published in 1987) of Sears, Zemansky and Young from my own undergraduate days, and the only mention of climate change that I can find is the following sentence on page 384: "The long-range effects on our climate of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by combustion are unknown, but some scientists believe that they may be serious or even catastrophic". Of course, this was only 6 years after Hansen's ground-breaking 1981 paper predicting the rise in temperature that has since been observed over the past few decades. Things have come a long way since then.
06-01-2016 15:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:

I imagine he'll claim that the authors were forced at gunpoint by Marxists to write that section, or some such tosh.

Thanks for that; I was wondering what the latest edition had to say. I still have the 7th Edition (published in 1987) of Sears, Zemansky and Young from my own undergraduate days, and the only mention of climate change that I can find is the following sentence on page 384: "The long-range effects on our climate of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by combustion are unknown, but some scientists believe that they may be serious or even catastrophic". Of course, this was only 6 years after Hansen's ground-breaking 1981 paper predicting the rise in temperature that has since been observed over the past few decades. Things have come a long way since then.

Have sent you a PM with a link to download it.

Oops I meant to type Freedman, not Goodman. Was thinking of Goody and Young.



Edited on 06-01-2016 16:26
06-01-2016 16:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:
Chapter 17

17.7 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer


Radiation, Climate, and Climate Change

"Our planet constantly absorbs radiation coming from the sun. In thermal equilibrium, the rate at which our planet absorbs solar radiation must equal the rate at which it emits radiation into space. The presence of an atmosphere on our planet has a significant effect on this equilibrium.

Most of the radiation emitted by the sun (which has a surface temperature of
5800 K) is in the visible part of the spectrum, to which our atmosphere is transparent.

But the average surface temperature of the earth is only 287 K (14°C).
Hence most of the radiation that our planet emits into space is infrared radiation, just like the radiation from the person shown in Fig. 17.28. However, our atmosphere is not completely transparent to infrared radiation. This is because our atmosphere contains carbon dioxide , which is its fourth most abundant constituent (after nitrogen, oxygen, and argon). Molecules of in the atmosphere have the property that they absorb some of the infrared radiation coming upward from the surface. They then re-radiate the absorbed energy, but some of the re-radiated energy is directed back down toward the surface instead of escaping into space. In order to maintain thermal equilibrium, the earth's surface must compensate for this by increasing its temperature T and hence its total rate of radiating energy (which is proportional to T 4.)

This phenomenon, called the greenhouse effect, makes our planet's surface temperature about 33°C higher than it would be if there were no atmospheric If were absent, the earth's average surface temperature would be below the freezing point of water, and life as we know it would be impossible.


Like all things Global Warming, this is a complete fabrication. Chapter 17 is all about mechanisms of heat transfer (i.e. conduction, convection and thermal radiation) and makes no references to any religious theology whatsoever.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 06-01-2016 16:15
06-01-2016 16:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Amazing. Just deny it even exists. Wait a moment and I'll do a screenshot.



Edited on 06-01-2016 16:51
06-01-2016 16:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ceist wrote:
Amazing. Just deny it even exist. Wait a moment and I'll do a screenshot.

IBdaMann's denial has reached a new and surreal level. He must be trolling; it's hard to believe that anyone could really be so disconnected from reality. Mind you, it's also hard to believe that anyone could be so sad as to spend so much of their time getting their kicks from trolling climate forums. There's nowt so queer as folk, as they say round here.
06-01-2016 16:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Here's a screenshot of the page. It's on pages 576-577 just before the Summary of Chapter 17 under Applications of Radiation





Edited on 06-01-2016 17:19
06-01-2016 16:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Amazing. Just deny it even exists. Wait a moment and I'll do a screenshot.

IBdaMann's denial has reached a new and surreal level. He must be trolling; it's hard to believe that anyone could really be so disconnected from reality. Mind you, it's also hard to believe that anyone could be so sad as to spend so much of their time getting their kicks from trolling climate forums. There's nowt so queer as folk, as they say round here.


Or if he truly believes what he posts, I suspect he has mental health issues.

I need to bookmark this thread.




Edited on 06-01-2016 17:09
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Why would CO2 cause sea level to rise and ocean to acidify?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)15615-10-2019 21:00
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact