patrick.net

Ironman says

And this is where your argument goes completely in the toilet. CO2 does NOT produce HEAT!!!

CO2 absorbs heat that would otherwise be radiated out to space. One might say that it removes part of a heat loss, but it is fine to call absorbing heat that would be removed a 'heat source'. Removal of a heat sink and addition of a heat source are the same thing in an energy balance equation. Stop trying to sound smart. Ironman says

why??

There is no long term 60 degree rise in my backyard. There is an annual 40 oF swing (22 oC) and a daily 20 oF (11oC) swing. These swings have always been there and will not lead to any of the effects predicted by the IPCC.

Do you think that we will not have melting ice and rising sea levels?

Do you think that the daily and yearly temperature changes in VA prove that a 2oC increase in global average temperature will not produce higher sea levels and melting ice?

Do you think that an extra 5-10 oF in hot areas in the summer will not lead to earlier deaths from stroke or heart attack?

Do the cold temperatures experienced during the night and winter show you that?

You have not presented a single argument to show any of these things or anything like that, so it's unclear why you are presenting such obvious factoids as if they are relevant.

No problem with AGW as long as Republican's children suffer.

Ironman says

How much heat does water vapor keep in?

The reason for splitting these myths up into separate threads is to try to get you to discuss each of them and make a cogent argument. Instead, it is your style to just post lots of graphs that you cannot interpret and move on. Let's focus on this one.

Ironman says

How much ice is in your backyard in July versus January??

This is not a concern. Why would it be? What impact does this have on ocean levels or global average ice extents?

The rest of your comment is basically stating over and over again that the sun is the source of energy on our planet. While true, this doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

Ironman says

Why is that?? Is it because they can see that you're a nut case??

Or nobody is willing to try to defend your ridiculous assertions.

Ironman says

So if that's the case, how does the atmosphere transfer the heat to the oceans, since it's just laying on the surface of the water? How does CO2 in the atmosphere make the water warmer?

Again, you are avoiding the topic. You seem to be picking up information in the other thread with an article by an industrial chemist. It's a completely crap article. Heat is transferred by radiation, convection, and conduction. Air is not just laying on the surface of the water. The air mixes, and the water does too (convection). They can radiate to each other. There can be conduction through a boundary, but conduction really just describes heat transfer in each layer. The boundary conditions are that the temperature is the same at the air / water interface and that the flux is equal. If his problem is that conduction would be slow through the ocean, then he's neglecting ocean currents and assuming that the ocean would all have to achieve the same temperature. If the ocean conducted heat less, then the surface ocean temperature would rise more quickly as it is heated, not less quickly.

Heat and mass transfer is the subject matter of chemical engineering, which I have a PhD in. It's also something that you simply don't understand.

I'd love to see this idiot get into the senate and then try to question climate scientists on the senate floor. That would be pretty funny.

Ironman says

So, a chemical engineer is an expert climatologist??

A chemical engineer knows more about heat transfer than a chemist, and certainly more than you. Go look up chemical engineering curricula, and you will see lots of courses on heat and mass transfer as well as thermodynamics. You seem confused about this.

Ironman says

What is the ORIGINAL SOURCE

Irrelevant. We've been down this road before. In fact, I addressed it in post 7 of this thread.

A chemical engineer isn't a climatologist, but I never claimed to be a climatologist. I did claim to know about heat transfer. That's why I'm telling you to go look at the curricula. It's important, because you are getting fooled by the article listed in this thread: https://patrick.net/1304501/2017-03-30-chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming. You simply don't have the toolset to evaluate it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)

This is a dujuer favorite on the conspiracy web.

Since no one can explain the phenomenon, the theory is that this giant hot water pocket was created by US govt to mimic global warming.

I'm not saying I believe them, but wth is scientific explanation of the blob?

Ironman says

So if the sun disappears tomorrow, all the abundant CO2 in the atmosphere will keep us all warm?? Is that your assertion???

No. The sun heats the earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat when the earth radiates it back to other objects. Everybody knows this.

Hater says

What do you think the sun does?

Ironman thinks that because the sun is the source of energy on earth that nothing else can warm the earth (cause the temperature to increase). We all agree that the sun warms the earth, but other things can cause the earth temperature to go up. What ironman doesn't seem to admit is that the earth radiates heat back to space and that gases can interfere with this process.

Hater says

What other objects?

Other planets or debris in space. Radiation is interesting, because it just needs a clear line of site. It doens't need something to be close by. All of the heat absorbed by the sun is balanced by heat radiated back to space. If that didn't happen, conservation of energy would require that the earth heat up indefinitely. This is literally called 'the first law of thermodynamics.'

Ironman says

So, does CO2 replace that NET heat loss the next day??

No. CO2 reduces the net loss at night and increases the net gain during the day. This is simple stuff. Everyone who has a basic understanding of how this works already knows that the part of the earth that is experiencing night (pointed away from the sun) has a net heat loss. Of course, the other side of the planet is heating, so there is no period of time when the earth is on balance experiencing a big net loss. I say big, because there are always minor fluctuations due to random things, but those cancel each other out.

Ironman says

Hmmm, like radiational cooling?

You bring this up like I don't know what radiation heat transfer is. But, you can find me discussing it in this thread in comments 3 and 11. In comment 3 I even discussed how CO2 reduces the heat loss from radiation.

Ironman says

So, a 20 to 30 degree change from day to night is just a "minor" fluctuation from random things?

No. I never said that. I said that the other side of the planet was heating, so on average there is no period of time when the earth is cooling. You might not know this, but there is no daytime and nighttime for the planet earth. Other than lunar eclipses, it is always sitting in the sun. When the temperature drops at 'night', that is a local phenomenon.

Here's the quote. Maybe you missed the 'on balance' part. The explanation of what is happening on the other side of the planet is there. Did you read and understand it?

YesYNot says

Of course, the other side of the planet is heating, so there is no period of time when the earth is on balance experiencing a big net loss.

Ironman says

You don't... post after post of yours proves that.

You are too ignorant to understand most of my posts. This is evident by your poor reading comprehension.