Har Har Har Global warming crap

[Woodbutcher]

mm,You just won a prize for the dumbest post ever. You linked into daily mail twice. I posted your posts. QED. As before, get some grammar school kid to point this out to you. I'm glad I keep you amused, your posts express eloquently why you have the ideas you have. You can't comprehend science, so you guess. Have you checked your diaper lately, the load seems to be affecting your brain. I'm glad you are kept away from people.

[mistermack]

I'm starting to feel a bit guilty now. You were clearly out of your depth, even before the sea levels rose, so I'm going to try to leave your posts alone in future.
There's no future in explaining stuff to a brick, even if it was fun for a while.

[Tero]

Just the thing for Mrmack:
http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Drago ... ap_title_0

It sounded so convincing!

But then:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/a-disc ... agon-myth/

[mistermack]

Tero, it's occurred to me that your graph for the sea level rises, showing a steady continuous rise since about 1880, actually match the Scripps study that I posted, which was derided, that said that ocean warming started happening from a very similar date.
That actually makes complete sense, since it's the expansion of the oceans due to warming that is the major cause of sea level rises. You would expect the sea-level curve to closely match the ocean temperature curve.
In other words, your sea-level graph is good evidence for a start to ocean warming in the late 19th century.
Of course, none of this can be put down to CO2 levels, which didn't really start taking off till about 1950.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1858

[Woodbutcher]

I'm starting to feel a bit guilty now. You were clearly out of your depth, even before the sea levels rose, so I'm going to try to leave your posts alone in future.
There's no future in explaining stuff to a brick, even if it was fun for a while.

Sorry dude, you are out of your depth on wet pavement. You quote daily mail as factual. Obviously your family killed the wrong pig once...

[Tero]

The graph comes from this blog and they do not give any exact reference. Presumably from IPCC report
http://www.vegeme.co.nz/community/vegan ... tions.aspx

[Tero]

The Wiki graph is essentially the same but in inches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

[Bella Fortuna]

Piscator, this is a reminder for this post which contains a personal attack on another member.

Woodbutcher, this is a reminder for this post which contains a personal attack on another member.

And as a general reminder for all and sundry, please address arguments rather than attacking individuals.

[piscator]

I just used it in the same sense mistermack did when he called me dumb and hurt my feelings so so horribly. I'm sensitive about that, you know. Could you please delete this so no one will know but us?

[Tero]

There will be a stop to sea level ride once temps level off to a max, as well as all the glaciers melt. Wiki lists the estimate.

On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in even higher sea level rise. Partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, could contribute 4 to 6 m (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise.

[mistermack]

There are many mechanisms in nature that tend to stabilise systems. Runaway reactions can occur, but they are rarer than equilibrium.
The same applies to the Earth. If it gets warmer, it naturally radiates heat faster.
Like iron in a flame. It heats up really quickly, when it's cold. But as it gets red hot, it needs an awful lot of energy, just to get a tiny bit hotter. The Earth is much like that.
One molecule of CO2 can only trap so much energy at a time. It then needs to re-emit it, before it can trap any more.
There's a limit to how much energy the CO2 in the atmosphere can physically trap. When most of the CO2 is busy, the heat goes straight past into space.

There is also a stabilising mechanism in the ocean floors. As the deep ocean warms, the flow of geothermal energy through the lithosphere slows, because the temperature gradient becomes reduced. So there is less energy going into the ocean/atmosphere system from below. A warmer ocean actually reduces warming.

[Tero]

Ah, so this what you did not understand! Marvelous!

The Earth is much like that.
One molecule of CO2 can only trap so much energy at a time. It then needs to re-emit it, before it can trap any more.

In air, O2 and N2 do not absorb IR light the way more complex water and CO2 do. Think of them as drug dealers. They even deal independent drugs, unrelated. They pass the heat to the first inert molecule they hit, probably nitrogen. They can then immediately receive more IR light and sell that.

Highly trained scientists in fields outside chemistry often miss crucial mechanistic details. So don't feel bad. Do I need to post the coke bottle CO2 and light bulb experiment youtube?

Also, think of water in the microwave oven. You hit them with microwaves. Do they emit back microwaves? No, they pick up motion, they boil (light turns into kinetic energy).

[mistermack]

Ah, so this what you did not understand! Marvelous!

The Earth is much like that.
One molecule of CO2 can only trap so much energy at a time. It then needs to re-emit it, before it can trap any more.

In air, O2 and N2 do not absorb IR light the way more complex water and CO2 do. Think of them as drug dealers. They even deal independent drugs, unrelated. They pass the heat to the first inert molecule they hit, probably nitrogen. They can then immediately receive more IR light and sell that.

Highly trained scientists in fields outside chemistry often miss crucial mechanistic details. So don't feel bad. Do I need to post the coke bottle CO2 and light bulb experiment youtube?

Also, think of water in the microwave oven. You hit them with microwaves. Do they emit back microwaves? No, they pick up motion, they boil (light turns into kinetic energy).

If that was so, it would change absolutely nothing. It's harder to pass heat to warm Nitrogen than cold Nitrogen.
Even poorly trained physicists could tell you that.

[Tero]

You are thinking thermodynamics and normal heat transfer again. This is light that is transferred.

I'll dig up the coke bottle video again.

I think it is the second hit from google, first hit may be the same concept.
https://www.google.com/#q=youtube+green ... oke+bottle

what is your training anyway? I'm an organic chemist, so I rarely deal with gases other than hydrogen.

[mistermack]

You are thinking thermodynamics and normal heat transfer again. This is light that is transferred.

I'll dig up the coke bottle video again.

As far as I remember, CO2 absorbs infra-red, then slowly re-emits it in roughly the same wavelength.
Slowly being the important part.