If the EPA mandates a CO2 emissions tax, based on false data, the Director of the EPA should be charged with TREASON against the United States. Any congressman or congresswoman that supports any EPA CO2 regulations, based on false data should be charged with TREASON against the United States.
dogpile search "carbon credit is the new derivitive" ken lay/enron invented the usury, too, a whole buncha lawsuits are gonna hit the fan if they push this
technically O2 or oxygen is a poison. At one point it killed >95% of life. Today we eat 'antioxidents', they keep us looking younger and keep us healthy.
Or do you alos believe the earth is 6000 years old?
@syncro16se Yeah, fake global warming. Do me a favor, read some scientific papers and maybe get a geology degree and realize that Milankovic cycles (the processes that effect climate) take place over a 1000 years, not 100. Thats an order of magnitude. Something is happening, and whether humans have an influence on it or not remains to be proven, but the fact is the climate is changing...
@Vkob climate is always changing. and yes it can change for a few hundred years even less. there where times in recent history where places had winters almost all years long. and vice versa. the planet will always be changing. always has always will.
@wuweizhongyong Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
a methane car? but its exhaust fumes would contain CO2! There is no replacement for oil that can cope with world energy demand. The only option is for potential parents to choose to have less children.
30,000 scientists suing Al Gore for all his lies, old Al gore will make billions off of his Global warming carbon credit scam . global warming is a scam . period . whatever happened to acid rain?the DDT lie that killed over 300 million due to malaria left uncontroled . liberals are never held accountable for their lies,actions. the ice age of 72?the population bomb?the ozone hole? the r-12 lie . liberals want to control your life, limit population . libs lie its what they do.
That was a bs story. The former owner of the weather channel talked about bringing suit and he made mention of the questionable petition of 30k scientists. There was never a lawsuit and 30k scientists never advocated one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
30,000 scientists suing Al Gore for all his lies, old Al gore will make billions off of his Global warming carbon credit scam . global warming is a scam . period . whatever happened to acid rain?the DDT lie that killed over 300 million due to malaria left uncontroled . liberals are never held accountable for their lies,actions. the ice age of 72?the population bomb?the ozone hole? the r-12 lie . liberals want to control your life, limit population . libs lie its what they do.
Acid rain happens when Sulfur Dioxide mixes with moisture and rains causing acidity rates to go up killing fish in lakes and is 100% real. Since dead lakes are downwind from factories and the environmental action taken has helped in the US.
Plus just because DDT was made illegal for use in Africa doesn't mean they can afford it. It was legalized in 2000. But they can't afford to spray all of Africa so people still continue to die.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
notice this . liberal global warming scammers NEVER mention the sun or the effects of sunspots on earth temp. Why? Because THEY CANNOT CONTROL THE SUN! BESIDES IT IS YOU THEY WANT TO CONTROL! WAKE UP AMERICA! Carbon is a ELEMENT ! WE ARE CARBON BASED LIFEFORMS! Carbon Dioxide is the basic building block of PLANT LIFE! HENCE OXYGEN PRODUCTION! CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUNTANT ! PERIOD! Acid Rain , the DDT lie , the R-12 lie, ozone hole lie ...liberals lie to gain control.
Scientists actually do take into account the sun, sunspot activity, total solar irradiance, etc. Of course, if you had bothered to do any research into the area before your nonsensical rant, you would know this.
BUT EVEN WITH CRUIS CONTROL YOU STILL NEED TO STEER.
Stop yelling, it's hard to read your well thought out ideas when they are in all caps. It makes you look like the immature idiot you really are.
Wake up republicunts, they already control America -- democrats control everything, and we haven't fallen appart yet. Democrats are pussies and can't actually do any lasting damage, and republicans are too retarded; we're pretty safe.
@buisyman Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
Farts are NOT CO2, my young friend. they're composed of methane. The next time you fart, lay on your back, light a match, put it next to your butt-hole and let rip. blue flame. I sugest you wear pants, though. when I was a teenager, one of my friends did that in his underwear, and burned all the hair off his legs.
20%? Under your man-made global warming scenario, it takes much less than that to affect climate change. And you never answered my question. What's the difference between climate and temperature?
adamsinclair - its good to see you're still making to effort to educate some of the people here. I lost patience a while ago.
I'm politically central - so I make decisions based on all the evidence. e.g. i reckon the west need nukes but also regonise we need to cut carbon emissions.
The far left always take the moral high ground regardless of evidence. The far right side with the view that financially benefits them most future and seek evidence to support that view.
Starsandfunk, Yeppers, adamsinclair is a pretty good guy. I disagree with him on a lot of points, but that leads to some great discussions. Hell, if I only talked to those I agreed with all the time, I'd never learn anything new. He's a very smart man, I just think he's misguided on a few points.
And I just watched busiymans video LOL. He is the least educated person to enter this thread so far.
He states with conviction "CO2 does not contribute to global warming." then states "21% of the earths atmosphere is oxygen, the remainder are INERT GASES" LOL
Please, anyone reading this, go and see buisymans video for some go old American right wing expertise on global warming! LOL LOL LOL
And we were winning in 'Nam. We won every battle and had the Kong and Chinese on the ropes. Politicvians from both parties snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Estimated by whom? The only person I've heard speak that drivel is Al Gore.
Yea, Canada isa very nice place. They have a single payer healthcare system, which certain politicians want to implement here, but the people are great. All the speed limit signs are metric, though, so be careful.
The oceans haven't risen by any measurable level in over a century. The tidal charts written 150 years ago are still accurate within a half inch. If global warming is making the icecaps melt, and the oceans rise, where is it?
The earths orbit isn't stable, my friend. It changes. sometimes we're closer, sometimes we're farther. You must also take into consideration the shrinkage of the sun, due to fuel consumption. I score again. Give up, yet?
Obviously CO2 is not a pollutant. But like most things too much of it is bad. You are talking about the definition of the word 'pollutant' here. But we know from the peer reviewed publications (periodicals, journals etc.) written by scientists and reviewed by scientists that too much CO2 is bad and we have to do something about it. Never mind the policy makers, the crooks in governments, the EPA etc. The people who are the real experts (and there's thousands of them) are the ones to listen to.
Citizens lose jobs and we forget the history of WHY jobs went overseas (enviros/lawyers), they prepare a Cloward Piven strategy to shut this country down.
Right behind is Groningen Protocol type healthcare. Eugenics.
Save the smelt/marsh mouse, kill the humans (esp. unborn, elderly, disabled), for 'sustainability'.
More H1Bs, Pali refugees from Iraq, immig. leg. next. Is it me?
Folks just woke up re: 'bottled water', unknown source process, plastic.
The truth never hides or hinders challenging ideas.
When science starts to reject other ideas or perspectives you can bet they know they are wrong or indoctrinated by a liberal education that they may never recover from.
Where is the open mindedness the left boasts to have?
I guess you are a little confused at how science works.
The only way to refute science is with more science. The majority of skeptics do not do this, they cherrypick and quote mine. The ones that do legitimate work usually start out promising, but then further research doesn't hold up to their original position.
It is not acceptable for someone in the scientific community to go to the media or a politician when their ideas do not hold up against academic peer review.
Ideas are not rejected based on being counter to another. They are rejected when they do not hold up to academic scrutiny. This is not a liberal/conservative debate, it's a scientific one. I am amused that you would try to turn it into that.
I'm also amused that you would refer to the same academic institutions regarded by the world over as being the best there is as "liberal education". It's odd that you would abuse the same methodology that is responsible for your current quality of life.
The Associated Press claims that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since Bill Clinton's second inaugural. But after it was discovered that NASA's James Hansen, Gore's chief scientific ally, had been fudging the numbers,
the agency was forced to correct its data. The 10 warmest years turn out to be, in descending order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.
Believe me, that set off some flags for me as well. When looking into it, Hansen didn't fudge the numbers, it was a data collection error. It only applied to the surface temperature of the US and it only affected the temperatures from 2000 on. After correction, 1934 only beat out 1998 by 0.01 C. Overall, the same conclusions were reached regarding AGW. Why? US temp is different than avg global temp. If you want proof of warming, the NSIDC data on melting artic ice is very convincing.
CO2 absorbs and emits? at the same time? So basically you are saying that infrared radition which heats the earth comes from the sun, but makes a layover in CO2 molecules? If that is true, you are saying that CO2 delays the arrival of the radiation but doesn't stop it or magnify it either. So how does it follow that CO2 causes global warming?
Actually what I'm saying is that infrared photons emitting from heated surfaces on the planet either make their way back into space or, in the case of the majority of them, they interact with GHGs. THIS ISN'T DISPUTED, EVEN BY SKEPTICS!
I never said that they didn't interact. But you have yet to prove that CO2 causes global warming. You have repeatedly stated that CO2 traps heat, but have failed to prove how that can happen. You have even stated in your attempts to "explain" to me this process, that CO2 follows heat, not drives it. So you yourself have proven that CO2 does not cause global warming.
I am not about to attempt to explain to you how gammas and photons interact with matter. It would be like trying to explain the theory of relativity to a stray dog.
I said in a natural cycle, CO2 lags temperature (not heat). And I said that we are no longer in a natural cycle (which you can tell from the fact that CO2 concentration has broken its global temperature dependence). The reason they call it a greenhouse gas, is because the mechanism RESEMBLES A GREENHOUSE.
You are not going to explain to me, because you yourseld don't understand. You've already tried to state that CO2 absorbs heat, and then somehow this translates into global warming. I've already pointed out the flaw in this thinking. And CO2 doesn't change physical properties just because its container changes in volume or density. That would be like saying water turns to ice when I add it to more water.
No one claimed to be changing the physical properties of CO2. When you add water to water, it doesn't turn to ice. However, when you fire an incident partcle at it, interesting things happen. How do you think we get nuclear reactors to fire up. (Funny, water vapor also plays a role as a greenhouse gas. Go figure)
Good luck to you Tracy. Life is hard, it's harder when you're stupid. Hope that works out for you.
Nope, made no such claim. I said that IR photons interact with matter. As an example, I used a gamma interaction with water in the firing up of nuclear reactors. But hey, this isn't the first concept you've botched.
Gamma interactions are nuclear reactions, and as such change the physical properties of the atoms/molecules involved. Increasing the volume or density of a molecule in a container is not a nuclear reaction and therefore does not change the physical properties of a molecule. Temperature dependence is a physical property. So when you say that CO2's temperature dependency changes when the volume/density in the atmosphere changes, you are incorrect.
And gamma interactions are not nuclear reactions. They do not change the physical properties of the atoms/molecules involved.
And two, If you increase the density of a gas like CO2, then you increase the probability of interactions with the IR photons emanating from the earth. That means less of the photons go into space, and more get absorbed or deflected back to earth. Again, you are seriously arguing stuff that neither side denies.
Gamma particles are NUCLEAR particles genius, and when atoms/molecules behave differently due to the interactions, we say that their physical properties have been changed. Physical properties are all of the constants and normal behaviors associated with a given element/molecule/material. So temperature dependence is a physical property. As is weight, melting point, magnetism, etc.
No, they don't. A gamma can interact with matter in three very general ways. When it interacts with water, you still have the same properties of water (melting point, boiling point, etc.) And a gamma is a subatomic particle, not a nuclear particle.
O.K. gamma particles are more accurately referred to as subatomic particles because they do not come from the nucleus of an atom. Yet they are stilled used in nuclear reactions. There is a reason nuclear physicists work with gamma particles and not chemists. Nuclear physics refers to all subatomic reactions. It is in these reactions that physical properties can be changed. Regardless, volume increases still do not change the physical property of CO2.
I never claimed that a volume increase (or, more accurately, a quantity increase since we are talking about ppm here) changes the physical properties of CO2. However, a ppm increase does increase the probability of interactions with IR photons.
To help you understand the relationship between increased CO2 levels and heat, let's look at another greenhouse gas, H2O. When pressure is increased in a system, temperature increases (PV=nRT). So in areas with high humidity (dense water vapor), temperature is increased. This is due to a change in pressure alone. That is why you can feel a storm coming. That being said, deserts do not experience humidity and high pressure, ergo the global system has enough volume to offset pressure.
When you dig carbon out of the ground, you increase the volume of the containing atmosphere, because the ground has in essence been lowered. So when carbon is inserted into the atmosphere, the pressure does not increase (on a global scale). The container (the earth) never changes volume, nor does the total number of molecules of carbon in the container. Yes, localized systems vary, but the global system does. That has been my whole point.
By the way, and just another example of your complete ignorance of the subject matter, your "theory" on the temperature in a humid environment is completely bogus. If you want to know the ACTUAL relation between the temperature and humidity, then you're talking about wetbulb and drybulb temperatures. Essentially, drybulb is the air temperature and wetbulb is the temperature if there was 100% humidity. Wetbulb temperature is ALWAYS lower than drybulb. Pressure does not come into the picture.
Of course wetbulb temperature is lower, because it measures evaporative cooling, not the heat in the air. It is temperature as a drybulb at 100% relative humidity. That should tell you something. And everyone knows that pressure and humidity are linked. Have you never been to a humid climate? Once again you show your lack of understanding of the difference between measurements and actual heat.
Actually volume is one of the variables in the ideal gas law, so it is not necessarily fixed. Otherwise it would be a constant. You just contradicted youself about storms and pressure between your two comments, so who is the one B.S.ing here? And yes, humid environments have higher temperatures. I've already explained your wetbulb/drybulb error. Please quit while your ahead. You make it too easy for me.
Pressure and temperature are always directly related. Changes in volume affect the final outcome of the system, but that does not change the equation or the relationships. And once again, I defer to the fact that every weather map lists pressure systems and every meterologist measures pressure. Pressure and temperature go hand in hand. You can not deny it.
Nope, they sure as hell aren't when you're changing volume. By that very equation, if I raise temperature of a GAS while increasing the volume at the same time, PRESSURE doesn't change. Gee, go figure. Simple algebra too difficult for you now? The pressure and temperature do relate to each other in weather systems, but definitely NOT in the application by which you've completely misconstrued them.
So the temperature of a gas is ALWAYS raised to EXACTLY the amount needed to offset the increase in volume? I mean in reality, the pressure could even drop. But that doesn't change the equation. If pressure drops it would be due to the increase in volume not the increase in temperature. You wouldn't say that now temperature and pressure have an indirect relationship or a logarithmic or sinusoidal relationship. LOL
Prove you wrong? You're reinventing everything from physics to chemistry to meteorology now. You're completely full of crap. You said that if you vary the volume, temperature and pressure are ALWAYS directly proportional. By simple algebra, that is false. And rather than admit to being wrong, you backpeddle and try to justify your original asinine statement.
Directly proportional is the description of the relationship of two variables in an equation. I haven't violated any laws of algebra. You are when you state that any third or more variable has to be fixed. And I haven't back peddled on anything. Just pointed out your false assumptions and misinterpretations. Like I said, my comments speak for themselves.
Wrong yet again! Simple algebra here. If I say x is directly proportional to y; then when I raise x, y goes up in DIRECT PROPORTION. Not a difficult concept. But like science, I'm guessing math also isn't your strong suit. In order for temperature and pressure to be DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL in the ideal gas equation (which isn't even applicable in the discussion), you have to maintain volume constant. This isn't brain surgery, Tracy.
Don't take my word for it, this is from Encarta Encyclopedia:
mathematical relationship in which an increase in one variable by a given factor brings about an increase by the same factor in another variable
Note the use of the term factor in the definition. This does not imply solution. This is where you get confused. Pressure increases temperature while AT THE SAME TIME volume decreases it in your scenario. Volume is a VARIABLE. Can you not handle multi variable equations?
Actually I have no problem with multiple variables. I have a problem with you saying that temperature is directly proportional to pressure in the ideal gas equation without fixing volume. Why do I have a problem with it? Because that violates your encarta definition of two things being DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to one another. Don't take my word for it, ask any 8th grader.
I am curious as to what your actual academic and professional background is. You have no problems claiming that I'm wrong on everything by spewing out complete nonsense. But then again, what can I expect from someone who actually made the claim at the beginning of the discussion days ago that the idea of man increasing the amount of CO2 was ludicrous. Keep on truckin!
So when you can't prove me wrong, you reduce yourself to insults? Once again, I leave my responses to your idiotic comments as proof enough of who is the smarter person on the subject.
Oh trust me, I'm sure anyone reading this thread will have no problems picking out the person who's completely full of crap. I do wonder just what your background is, when you screw up simple high school physics and chemistry.
On top of that, the ideal gas law does not allow for phase changes (ie it does not apply to a wet vapor).
And you don't feel a storm coming because the pressure increases, you "feel" it coming because the barometric pressure DECREASES. It's usually at or near it's minimum WHEN THE STORM IS ON TOP OF YOU!
AND NONE OF THIS ADDRESSES THE BROADER CATEGORY OF GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL! You are utterly and completely ignorant of EVERY topic you've presented.
Well genius, unless you are going to tell me that warming happens when greenhouse gases become liquids or solids, phase changes have nothing to do with it. Also I never said that pressure increases with a coming storm. I just noted that you can feel it. Actually, you can feel the drop in pressure. After all you confirmed what I had to say by admitting that meteorologists rely on barometric pressure to predict the weather. Wow, you are really sad for an engineer.
Also, about the ideal gas law, it called the IDEAL gas law, because it only works out mathematically in a vacuum so to speak. The relationships are still the same. Pressure and temperature are DIRECTLY related as are volume and temperature. Pressure and volume are indirectly related. So if pressure had nothing to do with the temperature in the air, meteorologists wouldn't measure it. And you wouldn't see the letters L and H on their weather maps.
Are you kidding me?!? IN A VACUUM THERE IS NO GAS (SO GUESS WHAT GENIUS, NO GAS = NO IDEAL GAS LAW)! HOW DUMB ARE YOU?
PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE OF A GAS ARE ONLY DIRECTLY RELATED IF YOU MAINTAIN THE VOLUME THE SAME AND IF YOU DO NOT GO THROUGH A PHASE CHANGE (NOT APPLICABLE TO A WET VAPOR AS YOU CLAIM). THE L AND THE H ON THE WEATHER MAPS ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO WITH PRESSURE, BUT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED THEM.
I was being figurative about my vaccuum comments, which is why I said so to speak. And yes, the L and H on weather maps refer to pressure systems. Look it up. Prove me wrong. And once again, volume is a variable in the gas law, not a constant.
No, because humidity is not created by pressure, and is not the ONLY factor in pressure. That is why heightened temperarutes due to humidity are limited to only localized areas. And humidity is not the originator of heat, otherwise deserts would never be hot. Do you really think that global temperatures can be deduced to so few variables? This is the real problem with you alarmists. You have no comprehension how so many things can work in tandem.
So in your comment where you say "in areas with high humidity (dense water vapor), temperature is increased. This is due to a change in pressure alone" is, in fact, bogus? And your comment where a humid place is necessarily warmer than a dry place is also bogus? Excellent work, moron.
Note that I did NOT say that temperature is HIGH due to a change in pressure alone, but that the temperature is INCREASED due to pressure alone. Also, I NEVER said that humid areas have higher temperatures than dry areas. This is where you are so sorely lost. Pressure increases temperature. Fact. But pressure is not the ONLY variable and therefore, the FINAL temperature in a system can be lower.
So when you said "And yes, humid environments have higher temperatures." what other environments were you even comparing them to? I was infering, like any rational person, that you were relating them to non-humid environments(deserts). But assuming you weren't, if I increase the humidity in an area, the temperature does NOT go up. In fact, it goes down (approaching its wetbulb temperature). So stand by your statements all you want, doesn't make them true AT ALL.
This is seriously getting nowhere and we are completely off topic. You think I'm full of shit, and it's definitely my position that you are full of shit; and it's obvious neither of us will change the other's mind. So despite our differences, I hope you had a good Fourth of July and I wish you well. (although I doubt we'll be going for coffee anytime soon)
Tracy your response is SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE. I quote your statement: "D.) The constant absorbing and emitting would balance each other out no matter the CO2 level."
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! Each time the Co2 molecules absorb IR photons from the earths surface it has roughly a 50/50 chance of emitting it back down. More Co2 molecules mean more IR photos have a 50/50 chance of being emitted back down to the earths surface ...
No. It's simple logic. Let say for ease of simplicity that IR photons are emitted every 5 seconds. That means that every 5 seconds, the CO2 would be absorbing NEW IR photons. The "reflected" 50% from the first batch could therefore NOT be reabsorbed and reemitted. Think about a sponge. Once a sponge is filled with water, all subsequent water merely passes thru. Or more accurately, pushes the absorbed water out and takes its place. So do all subsequent batches of IR photons in CO2.
Here's an experiment for you. Take a transparent pipe that you are able to fill with your favorite greenhouse gas (although I wouldn't suggest methane). On one end of the pipe, put a candle. On the other end, put an IR camera. You'll notice you can see the candle semi-clearly (blurred by existing GHGs in the air) in the IR camera. Now, port in the GHG supply. You'll notice the flame blur and potentially disappear (depending on how much you port in).
If Tracy was right (which she's not), you'd see the same clarity of candle after the gas becomes "saturated" as before you ported the gas. Since she's completely full of shit and her analogy is bogus, this doesn't happen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Are you saying that CO2 then never emits IR photons, but rather acts as a black hole for IR photons? Is that your interpretation of this experiment? You yourself have stated that CO2 emits the absorbed IR photons with 50% of them returning to space. Did you lie?
Nope, didn't lie at all. As you add GHG, the image blurs (but initially doesn't go away, ie IR photons are making it to the other end of the pipe). If you added enough of the GHG, then the IR being admitted out would be absorbed by more of the GHG (that's why it would disappear). Again, I understand that this is difficult for you to comprehend, because you're a moron.
And by the way; if you spray a saturated sponge with water, you'll notice you actually get deflection from the sponge (water coming back at you). According to Tracy, that would defy simple logic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you spray a nonsaturated sponge with water, the water comes back at you. This is because the sprayed water is hitting the sponge faster than it can absorb the water. If you were to say that CO2 blocks IR photons, and bounces them off the molecules like a mirror, then you would be correct in saying that it traps them. Although, the opposite would be true, they would trap the photons before they came in. But CO2 in fact absorbs the IR photons.
Tracy, this makes sense to you because you are certifiable. Even if you spray a saturated sponge with water, some of the water is deflected back to you. You can test your bullshit hypothesis in your kitchen sink.
And no, I do not say that CO2 blocks IR photons. Mainly because you cannot use an anology involving fluid mechanics mesh perfectly with heat transfer. If CO2 absorbed the IR photons and then the heat was not radiated out, then the air would continuously heat up and never dissipate.
Once again, UV and visible light penetrate the atmosphere and heat the earth's surface. That heat is re-emitted in the form of IR photons. Those photons either a) pass through into space or b) become absorbed by GHGs. From there, the GHGs heat and radiate their own IR photons. Some go to the earth, some go out into space. The ones that go back to the earth contribute to the heating of the earth's surface. This isn't debated, even by skeptics. Did you get your engineering degree via mail order?
Whilst this is going on, more visible light photons are striking the earths surface creating more IR photons. So the number of IR photons that layover in our atmosphere will INCREASE when we increase Co2 in our atmosphere. This CONSTANT increased layover of IR photons directly contributes to global warming. That is physics 101.
Deciding on the conclusion you want and then changing science to science fiction to fit your argument is totally immoral. Not even fox news would stoop that low.
You mean the same IR photons that are reflected back out to space? How about cloud cover reflecting the visible light and inbound IR? How about the fact that Co2 is a trace gas of decrasing returns. There is not a 1-1 correlation of CO2 increase to heat.
You folks need to look at your charts and realize that when you double something minute it is still minute. Tiny, small.
And it doesn't matter anyway because the ideal gas law FALLS APART WHEN YOU GO THROUGH A PHASE CHANGE.
And NONE of this has anything to do with the broader concept of global warming. I don't believe you have an engineering degree; and if you do, I hope to all that's holy you're not in charge of engineering anything that could endanger anyone's life. You are a complete imbecile, posing as someone who claims to know what they are talking about.
per your comment: "So in areas with high humidity (dense water vapor), temperature is increased [FALSE]. This is due to a change in pressure alone [FALSE]. That is why you can feel a storm coming. That being said, deserts do not experience humidity and high pressure." Got it, so by your current contradiction, because deserts have low barometric pressure it should be storming there all the time. Get your money back from wherever you got your degree, because you're a moron.
HaHa. You totally misread the comment. Storms come because of CHANGES in pressure, not from being merely high or low pressure. And actually deserts do usually experience periods of storm activity. But once again, ask yourself, why do they report on low PRESSURE systems and high PRESSURE systems on the 10:00 news?
Yep, storms happen in deserts. But by definition they get less than 10 inches of rainfall annually. If we went back to your bogus example, then deserts would be low pressure because they are less humid and surrounding humid regions would be high pressure. IF THAT WERE THE CASE IT WOULD BE STORMING IN DESERTS ALL THE TIME. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
Once again, storms happen because of CHANGES in pressure. And pressure systems move across a variety of regions. Actually deserts storm more frequently than you realise. When there is no water, the storms are limited to lightning strikes. This is why you hear about so many forest fires in our southwestern states. And yes, those same states experience monsoon seasons. And once again, pressure and humidity are only 2 of thousands of varaibles that affect weather.
Again, less than 10 inches of rainfall a year in a desert (by definition). I grew up in a desert and now live in a humid climate, I'm aware of the weather patterns.
If what you're saying is correct, that the atmosphere does not trap heat, then please explain to me why the earth doesn't drop several hundred degrees at night.
In some areas, it drops as much as 50 degrees at night during the spring. And you don't take into account the varying distances and sizes of the other planets. You also seem to ignore the massive drop in temperature for certain areas of the globe during winter (or summer in the Southern Hemisphere).
Nope, I don't ignore that at all. But don't take my word for it. Ask any physicist, astronomer, meteorologist, or climatologist why our temperature does not drop several hundred degrees at night.
I won't take your word for it, because I already have talked with scientists and studied this myself. And unlike Dutchmaster, who I may disagree with, you spout off insults and make erroneous arguments, which I have corrected you on on several occasions now. I will let you have the last word, but I think the threads showing your gross misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts speak for themselves. I think I'll turn on my heat absorbing A/C now to heat my room...
The insults have been a reaction to your blatant attack on global warming without even understanding what it is. Crank up that A/C. Soon, the power that runs it will be exlusively nuclear or green tech and it won't matter. If you can find anyone with a PhD in any of the disciplines discussed that makes the claim that our atmosphere does not trap heat in any way shape or form, I will bow down to your superior intellect. Then again, I think there's a better chance of a monkey flying out of my ass.
Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center
Excellent! I'll be sure to look him up. Although a) I highly doubt that he will make the claim that our atmosphere does not trap heat and b) He doesn't have a PhD in any of the disciplines discussed.
No one, on either side of the issue of anthropogenic global warming, debates the mechanism of greenhouse gases. I'm sorry, but you are seriously mistaken.
Yu should read the white paper by these next two Professors out of Germany (I can't post the link): Gerhard Gerlich Institut fur Mathematische Physik Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig Mendelssohnstrae 3 D-38106 Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany Ralf D. Tscheuschner Postfach 60 27 62 D-22237 Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany
Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and is formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut
If you want a more abundant list of the skeptics concerning anthropogenic global warming, you can go to Realclimate org to see a long list. And NONE of them deny that the atmosphere traps heat.
a) He does not deny the mechanism of a greenhouse gas at all
b) I can't find any research he's done on the subject that's been subject to peer review
c) As far as credibility, I find it interesting that tobacco companies gave him literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for his "consulting services" which claimed the secondhand smoke link to cancer was junk
d) He's a FoxNews commentator (enough said)
e) No advanced degrees in any discipline of climate change
He DOES have advanced technical degrees. He DOES deny that greenhouse gas traps heat. And you can't just discard someone, because you don't like him. I mean I can list the many scientists (and other "experts") on the alarmist side who have investments in green technology. And yet you blindly follow them.
No, Milloy does not deny the greenhouse effect. His website, junkscience, as well as every written publication of his, does not deny the atmosphere trapping heat.
And no, he doesn't not have advanced technical degrees. His first degree was a B.A., not a B.S. From there (by your own comment) he went into Health Science and Law. I don't discard him because I don't like him, I discard him because he doesn't have a PhD in the disciplines discussed.
"A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed." (theory to practice)
Absorbing radiation or heat is not the same as trapping it. You have yet to prove that CO2 TRAPS heat, and I have already sent you two source that state otherwise.
No, actually you haven't. You sent me the name of a German who's a mathematical physicist who's paper was torn apart by research scientists and you sent me the name of a FoxNews commentator with no research or expertise on the subjectmatter. And then you claim to know all these scientists who are alarmists who have invested in green technology (which doesn't really mean anything, they're still subject to peer review). I don't know how to "prove" it to you in a youtube comment.
You asked for dissenters with PhD's and I gave them to you. Just because you don't like them, I can't help you. By the way, you read about Jason Hansen (one of the driving scientists for global warming) and how his former BOSS from NASA is a dissenter. And here I've given you names, and you have yet to give me names. As if names matter. Science is about the data and experiments. I'd rather you give that, which you cannot. Just empty explanations which you yourself don't even comprehend.
Nope, I asked for a PhD in either physics, chemistry, meteorology, climatatology that supported your view that the atmosphere does not trap heat. You have failed horribly.
As far as skeptics, yes they exist. I never said they didn't. If you want the data, NASA, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC, and virtually every other group doing work in the area have their own websites where they make the data available publicly. If you want explanations of the research, realclimate org is a good place to start.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, I have! Reread my posts. And I can give you many, many more. And yes, I have been to realclimate and many, many more websites. And yes, I am an engineer like you. And yes, my postings will show that it is I that corrected YOU on basic scientific concepts. And yes, you have failed to explain your position, but have merely restated it. This only shows YOUR lack of understanding. And goes to show how flawed your position really is.
Let's see, you claimed we cannot increase the CO2 concentration without a nuclear reaction, you claimed that gamma interactions with matter change the intrinsic properties, you believe that digging a fossil fuel out of the ground and burning it is a natural process (vice anthropogenic), you don't know what academic peer review is, you've butchered the ideal gas law, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the explanation of how storms bring hot and cold air (their called weather fronts)... I could go on.
And if you want a specific name, then group every PhD you can find with any expertise in the area. Now all you have to do is throw a rock, chances are far better than average you'll hit someone who will tell you anthropogenic global warming is very real. You saying that we don't comprehend what we talk about is given little weight when it's by someone who doesn't understand the most basic concepts discussed. I question whether you have any background in any scientific discipline at all.
So you refuse to give me any names? I've already done my research. If you haven't, that is YOUR problem. Either you have names or you don't. And quite frankly, science is NOT about name dropping or popularity contests. It is about data and experiments. So while all you care about is who said what, I care about what data and experiments support your position. But you can't give me that.
I've given you websites with entire database of names (including names of the skeptics). Then, after I give you reference to look at, you demand specific names, then you say it's not about name dropping. The data is there. Like I said before; NASA, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC, and every other group working on the research post their data and their conclusions publicly.
You keep making shit up. With every post you've shown your ignorance in every scientific concept brought up. Have a good Fourth of July.
And incidentally, realclimate org also has a long list of anthropogenic climate change skeptics. Far better and far more credible than your Fox News commentator who has a Bachelors of Arts in Natural Sciences which a) sounds like an oxymoron and b) hardly makes him an expert on climate change and c) also was funded by tobacco companies to counter the link between second hand smoke and cancer. So while you're cranking your A/C, may as well light up and blow smoke in a child's face as well.
No trapping and absorbing do not go hand in hand. Think about a sponge in a pipe. When a sponge is used, water moves from the pipe INTO the sponge leaving the pipe dry until more water comes and the sponge fills up. At which point the sponge becomes inconsequential. Now think about the water in the pipe being trapped instead. The pipe would fill up with more water in the process. Very different from being dried.
Your analogy is flawed from the begining. A better one would be that of a membrane, one that passes through one type of thing but then blocks another type of thing. I've already explained that the atmosphere is virtually transparent to incoming solar radiation (short wave). Then that is absorbed by the earth's surface and is re-emitted in the form of IR photons (long wave). Those photons either a) move right on through or b) become absorbed and irradiate the greenhouse gas.
No its not flawed. Because you are still assuming that being absorbed is the same thing as being trapped. And yes a sponge is a perfect analogy of absorption. Once again you are proving your lack of understanding of the most basic of concepts.
No, you seriously have no idea what you're talking about. But then again, ignorance is bliss. If you truly are an engineer, I question your background with your utter lack of understanding.
Yes, your sponge analogy is absolutely flawed. If you want to make it more correct, then you would have to have water bypass the sponge, wet the inner pipe, then get soaked up by the sponge, then squeeze the sponge so that some of the water goes out of the pipe and some goes back into the pipe (rewetting the surface). In this example, the "wetting" is analogous to "heating".
No. Laboratory experiments have shown that greenhouse gases are transparent to shortwave energy (that in the visible and ultraviolet portion of the spectra) and absorb longer-wave (infrared) energy. Just because you don't understand it does not make it idiotic. I do, however, question how a once proponent of the idea does not understand the greenhouse effect, does not acknowledge the melting arctic ice, and who cannot tell the difference between a natural and manmade source of CO2. Fib much?
The CO2 molecules can then absorb this radiation and re-emit it back down or back out to space. It follows that the more CO2 there is, the more infrared radiation will get emitted back to earth.
If that is true, you are saying that CO2 delays the arrival of the radiation but doesn't stop it or magnify it either. So how does it follow that CO2 causes global warming? See below.
A.) If CO2 absorbed radiation and then re-emitted it, it would simply be delaying the travels of said radiation. The radiation would be making "a layover" if you will.
B.) Absorption removes the radiation or heat from the outer system. So at the moment of absorption, the earth should be cooler.
C.) Emitting places radiation or heat back into the outer system, which should heat the earth.
D.) The constant absorbing and emitting would balance each other out no matter the CO2 level.
E.) If said radiation is bounced back off the earth's surface a second time so to speak, it would not be reabsorbed by a CO2 molecule, since they would be filled with radiation from subsequent emitting rays off the earth's surface from the sun.
F.) Heat is actually lost by convection through the poles. Convection pushes the heat (and radiation) up and out. Think about boiling water. Think how quickly a storm moves in bringing warm or cold weather.
Seriously Tracy, you have completely botched virtually every scientific concept you've brought up. You have stretched to come up with scientists to come up with your warped views, and failed. This leads me to believe you had them before you did any research at all in the matter. If you go into something with your mind already made up (probably by Fox News), then really, what's the point. But hey, try to have a good Fourth of July.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So you have your mind made up already about what I think, who I watch, and what my politics are? Who is the biased one here? Once again, this isn't about science with you. It's about who you like and don't like. Because you shut out anyone you don't like. YOU are the one who already has their mind made up. And for your info, I used to be on the side of global warming. But I actually went out of my way to educate myself and the theories are just guesses which are proving to be flawed.
Nope, never made any claim on your politics. But Fox News has a horrid track record of misinformation so it was a calculated guess that you would watch them. This topic is absolutely about science, and your jaw-dropping ignorance of it. I absolutely do not shut out people I don't like. In fact, I've read several studies from skeptics that looked promising, but then were abandoned because further research didn't support. Richard Lindzen's work is an excellent example.
That and the fact that the very first "expert" you produced was Milloy (who is not an expert by any stretch of the imagination and is a Fox News commentator). That sort of tipped me off.
Tracy, your examples are hideously off. Let me break it down to you. You've already admitted to a greenhouse gas absorbing heat. Well that gives you one of two options. Either the GHG absorbs the heat from the sun before it hits the earth (which would cool the earth, which doesn't happen), or it absorbs the heat coming off of the earth but then doesn't re-emit (in which case the temperature of the atmosphere would continue to go up and up and up and up, which again, isn't the case).
Im certain you will find scientists who deny that humans are causing global warming. There are physicists who think particle accelerators will create black holes and historians who deny the holocaust. The point is, in all these cases, the vast majority of experts in that field lean to the side of the argument that has the most evidence in it is favour.
Science is not about popularity contests. I don't pick which scientists to follow based on who is most popular. I look at the data, and there have been NO experiments to back up anthropogenic global warming OR the existence of the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere. Everything is else is just based on educated guessing. Sorry to break it you.
Oh my god, who the fuck said anything about being popular? You saying there hasn't been anything to back up anthropogenic global warming is ludicrous. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I wanted to thank you for this great video
elnorabouska 4 months ago
If the EPA mandates a CO2 emissions tax, based on false data, the Director of the EPA should be charged with TREASON against the United States. Any congressman or congresswoman that supports any EPA CO2 regulations, based on false data should be charged with TREASON against the United States.
LesPaulCustom79 1 year ago
CO2 fear mongering !
CO2 is not a poison !
The global tax on a faked "warming" that is not there - is a crime and the real poison is the Global Government they're trying to set up !
Wake up folks !
syncro16se 2 years ago
dogpile search "carbon credit is the new derivitive" ken lay/enron invented the usury, too, a whole buncha lawsuits are gonna hit the fan if they push this
justanothersheeple 2 years ago
@syncro16se
technically O2 or oxygen is a poison. At one point it killed >95% of life. Today we eat 'antioxidents', they keep us looking younger and keep us healthy.
Or do you alos believe the earth is 6000 years old?
okeeffdp 2 years ago
@syncro16se Yeah, fake global warming. Do me a favor, read some scientific papers and maybe get a geology degree and realize that Milankovic cycles (the processes that effect climate) take place over a 1000 years, not 100. Thats an order of magnitude. Something is happening, and whether humans have an influence on it or not remains to be proven, but the fact is the climate is changing...
Vkob 1 year ago
@Vkob climate is always changing. and yes it can change for a few hundred years even less. there where times in recent history where places had winters almost all years long. and vice versa. the planet will always be changing. always has always will.
gibblets17 11 months ago
leave it to the rumor monger gop, false prophets, heretics to pick one voice out of the crowd and only here him...
wuweizhongyong 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wuweizhongyong Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
shazizz 1 year ago
Comment removed
upsilon054 2 years ago
Never mind. Forget it.
upsilon054 2 years ago
yup, peak oil is here everybody buy a methane powered car
boundtogetdown 2 years ago
a methane car? but its exhaust fumes would contain CO2! There is no replacement for oil that can cope with world energy demand. The only option is for potential parents to choose to have less children.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
Blue camero needs to kill himself
peedpans 2 years ago
cameo ...
"
30,000 scientists suing Al Gore for all his lies, old Al gore will make billions off of his Global warming carbon credit scam . global warming is a scam . period . whatever happened to acid rain?the DDT lie that killed over 300 million due to malaria left uncontroled . liberals are never held accountable for their lies,actions. the ice age of 72?the population bomb?the ozone hole? the r-12 lie . liberals want to control your life, limit population . libs lie its what they do.
"
TylerNull 2 years ago
That was a bs story. The former owner of the weather channel talked about bringing suit and he made mention of the questionable petition of 30k scientists. There was never a lawsuit and 30k scientists never advocated one.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
30,000 scientists suing Al Gore for all his lies, old Al gore will make billions off of his Global warming carbon credit scam . global warming is a scam . period . whatever happened to acid rain?the DDT lie that killed over 300 million due to malaria left uncontroled . liberals are never held accountable for their lies,actions. the ice age of 72?the population bomb?the ozone hole? the r-12 lie . liberals want to control your life, limit population . libs lie its what they do.
bluecamaro98 2 years ago
Acid rain happens when Sulfur Dioxide mixes with moisture and rains causing acidity rates to go up killing fish in lakes and is 100% real. Since dead lakes are downwind from factories and the environmental action taken has helped in the US.
Plus just because DDT was made illegal for use in Africa doesn't mean they can afford it. It was legalized in 2000. But they can't afford to spray all of Africa so people still continue to die.
jrmsher33 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
notice this . liberal global warming scammers NEVER mention the sun or the effects of sunspots on earth temp. Why? Because THEY CANNOT CONTROL THE SUN! BESIDES IT IS YOU THEY WANT TO CONTROL! WAKE UP AMERICA! Carbon is a ELEMENT ! WE ARE CARBON BASED LIFEFORMS! Carbon Dioxide is the basic building block of PLANT LIFE! HENCE OXYGEN PRODUCTION! CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUNTANT ! PERIOD! Acid Rain , the DDT lie , the R-12 lie, ozone hole lie ...liberals lie to gain control.
bluecamaro98 2 years ago
Notice this, bluecamaro98 is a moron.
Scientists actually do take into account the sun, sunspot activity, total solar irradiance, etc. Of course, if you had bothered to do any research into the area before your nonsensical rant, you would know this.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
CAPS LOCK IS CRUIS CONTROL FOR COOL!!!!!
BUT EVEN WITH CRUIS CONTROL YOU STILL NEED TO STEER.
Stop yelling, it's hard to read your well thought out ideas when they are in all caps. It makes you look like the immature idiot you really are.
Wake up republicunts, they already control America -- democrats control everything, and we haven't fallen appart yet. Democrats are pussies and can't actually do any lasting damage, and republicans are too retarded; we're pretty safe.
vagitoe 2 years ago
I'm doing my part to fight Global warming........I'M EATING THE COWS!!!!!!!
buisyman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buisyman Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
shazizz 1 year ago
And watch lights fade in every room
buisyman 2 years ago
Farts are NOT CO2, my young friend. they're composed of methane. The next time you fart, lay on your back, light a match, put it next to your butt-hole and let rip. blue flame. I sugest you wear pants, though. when I was a teenager, one of my friends did that in his underwear, and burned all the hair off his legs.
buisyman 2 years ago
20%? Under your man-made global warming scenario, it takes much less than that to affect climate change. And you never answered my question. What's the difference between climate and temperature?
buisyman 2 years ago
adamsinclair - its good to see you're still making to effort to educate some of the people here. I lost patience a while ago.
I'm politically central - so I make decisions based on all the evidence. e.g. i reckon the west need nukes but also regonise we need to cut carbon emissions.
The far left always take the moral high ground regardless of evidence. The far right side with the view that financially benefits them most future and seek evidence to support that view.
Starsandfunk 2 years ago
Starsandfunk, Yeppers, adamsinclair is a pretty good guy. I disagree with him on a lot of points, but that leads to some great discussions. Hell, if I only talked to those I agreed with all the time, I'd never learn anything new. He's a very smart man, I just think he's misguided on a few points.
I'm sure he thinks the same thing about me. lol
buisyman 2 years ago
Starsandfunk,
Hell I do what I can. Some people just can't be reached.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
I believe it was a democrat that got us into Vietnam. killed a lot of innocent people there, didn't we? Go figure.
buisyman 2 years ago
What's your point with Vietnam? I think Vietnam was an abysmal failure. One of which we apparently haven't learned from.
As far as sea level rise. It's estimated that sea level has risen about 25-30 cm over the last century.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
And I just watched busiymans video LOL. He is the least educated person to enter this thread so far.
He states with conviction "CO2 does not contribute to global warming." then states "21% of the earths atmosphere is oxygen, the remainder are INERT GASES" LOL
Please, anyone reading this, go and see buisymans video for some go old American right wing expertise on global warming! LOL LOL LOL
Starsandfunk 2 years ago
Ok, Stars and funk, educate me on just how much oxygen is in our atmosphere, I'd really like to hear your expert estimation.
buisyman 2 years ago
And we were winning in 'Nam. We won every battle and had the Kong and Chinese on the ropes. Politicvians from both parties snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Estimated by whom? The only person I've heard speak that drivel is Al Gore.
buisyman 2 years ago
Yea, Canada isa very nice place. They have a single payer healthcare system, which certain politicians want to implement here, but the people are great. All the speed limit signs are metric, though, so be careful.
buisyman 2 years ago
The oceans haven't risen by any measurable level in over a century. The tidal charts written 150 years ago are still accurate within a half inch. If global warming is making the icecaps melt, and the oceans rise, where is it?
buisyman 2 years ago
Money and power.
buisyman 2 years ago
The earths orbit isn't stable, my friend. It changes. sometimes we're closer, sometimes we're farther. You must also take into consideration the shrinkage of the sun, due to fuel consumption. I score again. Give up, yet?
buisyman 2 years ago
You score again? You're an idiot.
The Earth's orbit is a very stable elliptical shape. If it wasn't stable, life would not be able to exist.
What I'm talking about with the moment of inertia as to do with Earth's spin. Again, not the brightest crayon in the box are you?
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Hottest where? not in Michigan or Texas.
buisyman 2 years ago
Even if that means abandoning some of your free trade at all costs principles.
kingdave84 2 years ago
Obviously CO2 is not a pollutant. But like most things too much of it is bad. You are talking about the definition of the word 'pollutant' here. But we know from the peer reviewed publications (periodicals, journals etc.) written by scientists and reviewed by scientists that too much CO2 is bad and we have to do something about it. Never mind the policy makers, the crooks in governments, the EPA etc. The people who are the real experts (and there's thousands of them) are the ones to listen to.
kingdave84 2 years ago
Citizens lose jobs and we forget the history of WHY jobs went overseas (enviros/lawyers), they prepare a Cloward Piven strategy to shut this country down.
Right behind is Groningen Protocol type healthcare. Eugenics.
Save the smelt/marsh mouse, kill the humans (esp. unborn, elderly, disabled), for 'sustainability'.
More H1Bs, Pali refugees from Iraq, immig. leg. next. Is it me?
Folks just woke up re: 'bottled water', unknown source process, plastic.
Read Sec 302 and 304 Cap/trade.
averitas 2 years ago
I don't agree with you on Global Climate Change but I think your political views are factual and true.
Surfme14 2 years ago
The truth never hides or hinders challenging ideas.
When science starts to reject other ideas or perspectives you can bet they know they are wrong or indoctrinated by a liberal education that they may never recover from.
Where is the open mindedness the left boasts to have?
mare652 2 years ago
I guess you are a little confused at how science works.
The only way to refute science is with more science. The majority of skeptics do not do this, they cherrypick and quote mine. The ones that do legitimate work usually start out promising, but then further research doesn't hold up to their original position.
It is not acceptable for someone in the scientific community to go to the media or a politician when their ideas do not hold up against academic peer review.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
That old "concensis of scientsts" argument, again? Al Gore reborn.
Might I remind you that a "concensis of scientists once said the world was flat.
buisyman 2 years ago
Wrong again on the whole "flat earth" argument. Show me a scientist that believed the Earth to be flat, sir.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Ideas are not rejected based on being counter to another. They are rejected when they do not hold up to academic scrutiny. This is not a liberal/conservative debate, it's a scientific one. I am amused that you would try to turn it into that.
I'm also amused that you would refer to the same academic institutions regarded by the world over as being the best there is as "liberal education". It's odd that you would abuse the same methodology that is responsible for your current quality of life.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
The Associated Press claims that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since Bill Clinton's second inaugural. But after it was discovered that NASA's James Hansen, Gore's chief scientific ally, had been fudging the numbers,
the agency was forced to correct its data. The 10 warmest years turn out to be, in descending order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.
RomeoMD25 2 years ago
Romeo,
Believe me, that set off some flags for me as well. When looking into it, Hansen didn't fudge the numbers, it was a data collection error. It only applied to the surface temperature of the US and it only affected the temperatures from 2000 on. After correction, 1934 only beat out 1998 by 0.01 C. Overall, the same conclusions were reached regarding AGW. Why? US temp is different than avg global temp. If you want proof of warming, the NSIDC data on melting artic ice is very convincing.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
so therefore global climate change is false? Lulz.
m3th0dm4n 2 years ago
CO2 absorbs and emits? at the same time? So basically you are saying that infrared radition which heats the earth comes from the sun, but makes a layover in CO2 molecules? If that is true, you are saying that CO2 delays the arrival of the radiation but doesn't stop it or magnify it either. So how does it follow that CO2 causes global warming?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Actually what I'm saying is that infrared photons emitting from heated surfaces on the planet either make their way back into space or, in the case of the majority of them, they interact with GHGs. THIS ISN'T DISPUTED, EVEN BY SKEPTICS!
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
I never said that they didn't interact. But you have yet to prove that CO2 causes global warming. You have repeatedly stated that CO2 traps heat, but have failed to prove how that can happen. You have even stated in your attempts to "explain" to me this process, that CO2 follows heat, not drives it. So you yourself have proven that CO2 does not cause global warming.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I am not about to attempt to explain to you how gammas and photons interact with matter. It would be like trying to explain the theory of relativity to a stray dog.
I said in a natural cycle, CO2 lags temperature (not heat). And I said that we are no longer in a natural cycle (which you can tell from the fact that CO2 concentration has broken its global temperature dependence). The reason they call it a greenhouse gas, is because the mechanism RESEMBLES A GREENHOUSE.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
You are not going to explain to me, because you yourseld don't understand. You've already tried to state that CO2 absorbs heat, and then somehow this translates into global warming. I've already pointed out the flaw in this thinking. And CO2 doesn't change physical properties just because its container changes in volume or density. That would be like saying water turns to ice when I add it to more water.
TracyII77 2 years ago
No one claimed to be changing the physical properties of CO2. When you add water to water, it doesn't turn to ice. However, when you fire an incident partcle at it, interesting things happen. How do you think we get nuclear reactors to fire up. (Funny, water vapor also plays a role as a greenhouse gas. Go figure)
Good luck to you Tracy. Life is hard, it's harder when you're stupid. Hope that works out for you.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
So now you are claiming that a nuclear reaction takes place with addition of CO2 into the atmosphere? Wow, send me the white papers on that.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Ok let me explain this.
Here are the steps.
1. C02 Gasses are emitted, that trap heat.
2. Sun gives off heat.
3. ????
4. Global warming!
VosAbeo 2 years ago
Nope, made no such claim. I said that IR photons interact with matter. As an example, I used a gamma interaction with water in the firing up of nuclear reactors. But hey, this isn't the first concept you've botched.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Gamma interactions are nuclear reactions, and as such change the physical properties of the atoms/molecules involved. Increasing the volume or density of a molecule in a container is not a nuclear reaction and therefore does not change the physical properties of a molecule. Temperature dependence is a physical property. So when you say that CO2's temperature dependency changes when the volume/density in the atmosphere changes, you are incorrect.
TracyII77 2 years ago
No, I am not saying that at all.
And gamma interactions are not nuclear reactions. They do not change the physical properties of the atoms/molecules involved.
And two, If you increase the density of a gas like CO2, then you increase the probability of interactions with the IR photons emanating from the earth. That means less of the photons go into space, and more get absorbed or deflected back to earth. Again, you are seriously arguing stuff that neither side denies.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Gamma particles are NUCLEAR particles genius, and when atoms/molecules behave differently due to the interactions, we say that their physical properties have been changed. Physical properties are all of the constants and normal behaviors associated with a given element/molecule/material. So temperature dependence is a physical property. As is weight, melting point, magnetism, etc.
TracyII77 2 years ago
No, they don't. A gamma can interact with matter in three very general ways. When it interacts with water, you still have the same properties of water (melting point, boiling point, etc.) And a gamma is a subatomic particle, not a nuclear particle.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
O.K. gamma particles are more accurately referred to as subatomic particles because they do not come from the nucleus of an atom. Yet they are stilled used in nuclear reactions. There is a reason nuclear physicists work with gamma particles and not chemists. Nuclear physics refers to all subatomic reactions. It is in these reactions that physical properties can be changed. Regardless, volume increases still do not change the physical property of CO2.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I never claimed that a volume increase (or, more accurately, a quantity increase since we are talking about ppm here) changes the physical properties of CO2. However, a ppm increase does increase the probability of interactions with IR photons.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
To help you understand the relationship between increased CO2 levels and heat, let's look at another greenhouse gas, H2O. When pressure is increased in a system, temperature increases (PV=nRT). So in areas with high humidity (dense water vapor), temperature is increased. This is due to a change in pressure alone. That is why you can feel a storm coming. That being said, deserts do not experience humidity and high pressure, ergo the global system has enough volume to offset pressure.
TracyII77 2 years ago
When you dig carbon out of the ground, you increase the volume of the containing atmosphere, because the ground has in essence been lowered. So when carbon is inserted into the atmosphere, the pressure does not increase (on a global scale). The container (the earth) never changes volume, nor does the total number of molecules of carbon in the container. Yes, localized systems vary, but the global system does. That has been my whole point.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Ok, now you're confusing the ideal gas law and barometric pressure with the mechanism by which a greenhouse gas traps heat.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
By the way, and just another example of your complete ignorance of the subject matter, your "theory" on the temperature in a humid environment is completely bogus. If you want to know the ACTUAL relation between the temperature and humidity, then you're talking about wetbulb and drybulb temperatures. Essentially, drybulb is the air temperature and wetbulb is the temperature if there was 100% humidity. Wetbulb temperature is ALWAYS lower than drybulb. Pressure does not come into the picture.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Of course wetbulb temperature is lower, because it measures evaporative cooling, not the heat in the air. It is temperature as a drybulb at 100% relative humidity. That should tell you something. And everyone knows that pressure and humidity are linked. Have you never been to a humid climate? Once again you show your lack of understanding of the difference between measurements and actual heat.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Comment removed
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Actually volume is one of the variables in the ideal gas law, so it is not necessarily fixed. Otherwise it would be a constant. You just contradicted youself about storms and pressure between your two comments, so who is the one B.S.ing here? And yes, humid environments have higher temperatures. I've already explained your wetbulb/drybulb error. Please quit while your ahead. You make it too easy for me.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Comment removed
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Pressure and temperature are always directly related. Changes in volume affect the final outcome of the system, but that does not change the equation or the relationships. And once again, I defer to the fact that every weather map lists pressure systems and every meterologist measures pressure. Pressure and temperature go hand in hand. You can not deny it.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Nope, they sure as hell aren't when you're changing volume. By that very equation, if I raise temperature of a GAS while increasing the volume at the same time, PRESSURE doesn't change. Gee, go figure. Simple algebra too difficult for you now? The pressure and temperature do relate to each other in weather systems, but definitely NOT in the application by which you've completely misconstrued them.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
So the temperature of a gas is ALWAYS raised to EXACTLY the amount needed to offset the increase in volume? I mean in reality, the pressure could even drop. But that doesn't change the equation. If pressure drops it would be due to the increase in volume not the increase in temperature. You wouldn't say that now temperature and pressure have an indirect relationship or a logarithmic or sinusoidal relationship. LOL
TracyII77 2 years ago
Prove you wrong? You're reinventing everything from physics to chemistry to meteorology now. You're completely full of crap. You said that if you vary the volume, temperature and pressure are ALWAYS directly proportional. By simple algebra, that is false. And rather than admit to being wrong, you backpeddle and try to justify your original asinine statement.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Directly proportional is the description of the relationship of two variables in an equation. I haven't violated any laws of algebra. You are when you state that any third or more variable has to be fixed. And I haven't back peddled on anything. Just pointed out your false assumptions and misinterpretations. Like I said, my comments speak for themselves.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Wrong yet again! Simple algebra here. If I say x is directly proportional to y; then when I raise x, y goes up in DIRECT PROPORTION. Not a difficult concept. But like science, I'm guessing math also isn't your strong suit. In order for temperature and pressure to be DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL in the ideal gas equation (which isn't even applicable in the discussion), you have to maintain volume constant. This isn't brain surgery, Tracy.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Don't take my word for it, this is from Encarta Encyclopedia:
mathematical relationship in which an increase in one variable by a given factor brings about an increase by the same factor in another variable
Note the use of the term factor in the definition. This does not imply solution. This is where you get confused. Pressure increases temperature while AT THE SAME TIME volume decreases it in your scenario. Volume is a VARIABLE. Can you not handle multi variable equations?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Actually I have no problem with multiple variables. I have a problem with you saying that temperature is directly proportional to pressure in the ideal gas equation without fixing volume. Why do I have a problem with it? Because that violates your encarta definition of two things being DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to one another. Don't take my word for it, ask any 8th grader.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
I am curious as to what your actual academic and professional background is. You have no problems claiming that I'm wrong on everything by spewing out complete nonsense. But then again, what can I expect from someone who actually made the claim at the beginning of the discussion days ago that the idea of man increasing the amount of CO2 was ludicrous. Keep on truckin!
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
So when you can't prove me wrong, you reduce yourself to insults? Once again, I leave my responses to your idiotic comments as proof enough of who is the smarter person on the subject.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Oh trust me, I'm sure anyone reading this thread will have no problems picking out the person who's completely full of crap. I do wonder just what your background is, when you screw up simple high school physics and chemistry.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
On top of that, the ideal gas law does not allow for phase changes (ie it does not apply to a wet vapor).
And you don't feel a storm coming because the pressure increases, you "feel" it coming because the barometric pressure DECREASES. It's usually at or near it's minimum WHEN THE STORM IS ON TOP OF YOU!
AND NONE OF THIS ADDRESSES THE BROADER CATEGORY OF GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL! You are utterly and completely ignorant of EVERY topic you've presented.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Well genius, unless you are going to tell me that warming happens when greenhouse gases become liquids or solids, phase changes have nothing to do with it. Also I never said that pressure increases with a coming storm. I just noted that you can feel it. Actually, you can feel the drop in pressure. After all you confirmed what I had to say by admitting that meteorologists rely on barometric pressure to predict the weather. Wow, you are really sad for an engineer.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Also, about the ideal gas law, it called the IDEAL gas law, because it only works out mathematically in a vacuum so to speak. The relationships are still the same. Pressure and temperature are DIRECTLY related as are volume and temperature. Pressure and volume are indirectly related. So if pressure had nothing to do with the temperature in the air, meteorologists wouldn't measure it. And you wouldn't see the letters L and H on their weather maps.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Are you kidding me?!? IN A VACUUM THERE IS NO GAS (SO GUESS WHAT GENIUS, NO GAS = NO IDEAL GAS LAW)! HOW DUMB ARE YOU?
PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE OF A GAS ARE ONLY DIRECTLY RELATED IF YOU MAINTAIN THE VOLUME THE SAME AND IF YOU DO NOT GO THROUGH A PHASE CHANGE (NOT APPLICABLE TO A WET VAPOR AS YOU CLAIM). THE L AND THE H ON THE WEATHER MAPS ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO WITH PRESSURE, BUT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED THEM.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
I was being figurative about my vaccuum comments, which is why I said so to speak. And yes, the L and H on weather maps refer to pressure systems. Look it up. Prove me wrong. And once again, volume is a variable in the gas law, not a constant.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Comment removed
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
No, because humidity is not created by pressure, and is not the ONLY factor in pressure. That is why heightened temperarutes due to humidity are limited to only localized areas. And humidity is not the originator of heat, otherwise deserts would never be hot. Do you really think that global temperatures can be deduced to so few variables? This is the real problem with you alarmists. You have no comprehension how so many things can work in tandem.
TracyII77 2 years ago
So in your comment where you say "in areas with high humidity (dense water vapor), temperature is increased. This is due to a change in pressure alone" is, in fact, bogus? And your comment where a humid place is necessarily warmer than a dry place is also bogus? Excellent work, moron.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Note that I did NOT say that temperature is HIGH due to a change in pressure alone, but that the temperature is INCREASED due to pressure alone. Also, I NEVER said that humid areas have higher temperatures than dry areas. This is where you are so sorely lost. Pressure increases temperature. Fact. But pressure is not the ONLY variable and therefore, the FINAL temperature in a system can be lower.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Really? You didn't make the following statements:
"So in areas with high humidity (dense water vapor), temperature is increased."
or
"And yes, humid environments have higher temperatures."
Oh, my mistake. Then again, when you talk out of your ass I can see how people can misconstrue you.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you can see that I did not say "And yes, humid environments have higher temperatures than deserts." You made that up all by yourself.
And I still stand by my statements. I never denied them.
TracyII77 2 years ago
So when you said "And yes, humid environments have higher temperatures." what other environments were you even comparing them to? I was infering, like any rational person, that you were relating them to non-humid environments(deserts). But assuming you weren't, if I increase the humidity in an area, the temperature does NOT go up. In fact, it goes down (approaching its wetbulb temperature). So stand by your statements all you want, doesn't make them true AT ALL.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
This is seriously getting nowhere and we are completely off topic. You think I'm full of shit, and it's definitely my position that you are full of shit; and it's obvious neither of us will change the other's mind. So despite our differences, I hope you had a good Fourth of July and I wish you well. (although I doubt we'll be going for coffee anytime soon)
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Tracy your response is SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE. I quote your statement: "D.) The constant absorbing and emitting would balance each other out no matter the CO2 level."
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! Each time the Co2 molecules absorb IR photons from the earths surface it has roughly a 50/50 chance of emitting it back down. More Co2 molecules mean more IR photos have a 50/50 chance of being emitted back down to the earths surface ...
Starsandfunk 2 years ago 2
No. It's simple logic. Let say for ease of simplicity that IR photons are emitted every 5 seconds. That means that every 5 seconds, the CO2 would be absorbing NEW IR photons. The "reflected" 50% from the first batch could therefore NOT be reabsorbed and reemitted. Think about a sponge. Once a sponge is filled with water, all subsequent water merely passes thru. Or more accurately, pushes the absorbed water out and takes its place. So do all subsequent batches of IR photons in CO2.
TracyII77 2 years ago
OMG, the retarded sponge analogy again.
Here's an experiment for you. Take a transparent pipe that you are able to fill with your favorite greenhouse gas (although I wouldn't suggest methane). On one end of the pipe, put a candle. On the other end, put an IR camera. You'll notice you can see the candle semi-clearly (blurred by existing GHGs in the air) in the IR camera. Now, port in the GHG supply. You'll notice the flame blur and potentially disappear (depending on how much you port in).
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
If Tracy was right (which she's not), you'd see the same clarity of candle after the gas becomes "saturated" as before you ported the gas. Since she's completely full of shit and her analogy is bogus, this doesn't happen.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you saying that CO2 then never emits IR photons, but rather acts as a black hole for IR photons? Is that your interpretation of this experiment? You yourself have stated that CO2 emits the absorbed IR photons with 50% of them returning to space. Did you lie?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Nope, didn't lie at all. As you add GHG, the image blurs (but initially doesn't go away, ie IR photons are making it to the other end of the pipe). If you added enough of the GHG, then the IR being admitted out would be absorbed by more of the GHG (that's why it would disappear). Again, I understand that this is difficult for you to comprehend, because you're a moron.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
And by the way; if you spray a saturated sponge with water, you'll notice you actually get deflection from the sponge (water coming back at you). According to Tracy, that would defy simple logic.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you spray a nonsaturated sponge with water, the water comes back at you. This is because the sprayed water is hitting the sponge faster than it can absorb the water. If you were to say that CO2 blocks IR photons, and bounces them off the molecules like a mirror, then you would be correct in saying that it traps them. Although, the opposite would be true, they would trap the photons before they came in. But CO2 in fact absorbs the IR photons.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Tracy, this makes sense to you because you are certifiable. Even if you spray a saturated sponge with water, some of the water is deflected back to you. You can test your bullshit hypothesis in your kitchen sink.
And no, I do not say that CO2 blocks IR photons. Mainly because you cannot use an anology involving fluid mechanics mesh perfectly with heat transfer. If CO2 absorbed the IR photons and then the heat was not radiated out, then the air would continuously heat up and never dissipate.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Once again, UV and visible light penetrate the atmosphere and heat the earth's surface. That heat is re-emitted in the form of IR photons. Those photons either a) pass through into space or b) become absorbed by GHGs. From there, the GHGs heat and radiate their own IR photons. Some go to the earth, some go out into space. The ones that go back to the earth contribute to the heating of the earth's surface. This isn't debated, even by skeptics. Did you get your engineering degree via mail order?
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Whilst this is going on, more visible light photons are striking the earths surface creating more IR photons. So the number of IR photons that layover in our atmosphere will INCREASE when we increase Co2 in our atmosphere. This CONSTANT increased layover of IR photons directly contributes to global warming. That is physics 101.
Deciding on the conclusion you want and then changing science to science fiction to fit your argument is totally immoral. Not even fox news would stoop that low.
Starsandfunk 2 years ago
You mean the same IR photons that are reflected back out to space? How about cloud cover reflecting the visible light and inbound IR? How about the fact that Co2 is a trace gas of decrasing returns. There is not a 1-1 correlation of CO2 increase to heat.
You folks need to look at your charts and realize that when you double something minute it is still minute. Tiny, small.
Alvin691 2 years ago
And it doesn't matter anyway because the ideal gas law FALLS APART WHEN YOU GO THROUGH A PHASE CHANGE.
And NONE of this has anything to do with the broader concept of global warming. I don't believe you have an engineering degree; and if you do, I hope to all that's holy you're not in charge of engineering anything that could endanger anyone's life. You are a complete imbecile, posing as someone who claims to know what they are talking about.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
per your comment: "So in areas with high humidity (dense water vapor), temperature is increased [FALSE]. This is due to a change in pressure alone [FALSE]. That is why you can feel a storm coming. That being said, deserts do not experience humidity and high pressure." Got it, so by your current contradiction, because deserts have low barometric pressure it should be storming there all the time. Get your money back from wherever you got your degree, because you're a moron.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
HaHa. You totally misread the comment. Storms come because of CHANGES in pressure, not from being merely high or low pressure. And actually deserts do usually experience periods of storm activity. But once again, ask yourself, why do they report on low PRESSURE systems and high PRESSURE systems on the 10:00 news?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Yep, storms happen in deserts. But by definition they get less than 10 inches of rainfall annually. If we went back to your bogus example, then deserts would be low pressure because they are less humid and surrounding humid regions would be high pressure. IF THAT WERE THE CASE IT WOULD BE STORMING IN DESERTS ALL THE TIME. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Once again, storms happen because of CHANGES in pressure. And pressure systems move across a variety of regions. Actually deserts storm more frequently than you realise. When there is no water, the storms are limited to lightning strikes. This is why you hear about so many forest fires in our southwestern states. And yes, those same states experience monsoon seasons. And once again, pressure and humidity are only 2 of thousands of varaibles that affect weather.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Again, less than 10 inches of rainfall a year in a desert (by definition). I grew up in a desert and now live in a humid climate, I'm aware of the weather patterns.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
If what you're saying is correct, that the atmosphere does not trap heat, then please explain to me why the earth doesn't drop several hundred degrees at night.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
It does get cooler at night.
TracyII77 2 years ago
The planet does not drop by several hundred degrees as it does with other planets that do not have an atmosphere.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
In some areas, it drops as much as 50 degrees at night during the spring. And you don't take into account the varying distances and sizes of the other planets. You also seem to ignore the massive drop in temperature for certain areas of the globe during winter (or summer in the Southern Hemisphere).
TracyII77 2 years ago
Nope, I don't ignore that at all. But don't take my word for it. Ask any physicist, astronomer, meteorologist, or climatologist why our temperature does not drop several hundred degrees at night.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
I won't take your word for it, because I already have talked with scientists and studied this myself. And unlike Dutchmaster, who I may disagree with, you spout off insults and make erroneous arguments, which I have corrected you on on several occasions now. I will let you have the last word, but I think the threads showing your gross misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts speak for themselves. I think I'll turn on my heat absorbing A/C now to heat my room...
TracyII77 2 years ago
The insults have been a reaction to your blatant attack on global warming without even understanding what it is. Crank up that A/C. Soon, the power that runs it will be exlusively nuclear or green tech and it won't matter. If you can find anyone with a PhD in any of the disciplines discussed that makes the claim that our atmosphere does not trap heat in any way shape or form, I will bow down to your superior intellect. Then again, I think there's a better chance of a monkey flying out of my ass.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
For starters, Steven J. Milloy:
Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center
TracyII77 2 years ago
Excellent! I'll be sure to look him up. Although a) I highly doubt that he will make the claim that our atmosphere does not trap heat and b) He doesn't have a PhD in any of the disciplines discussed.
No one, on either side of the issue of anthropogenic global warming, debates the mechanism of greenhouse gases. I'm sorry, but you are seriously mistaken.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
TracyII77 2 years ago
I'll look them up. Again, I highly doubt they'll agree to your assertion that the atmosphere does not trap heat.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
And here are some more skeptics with PhD's:
Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and is formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut
TracyII77 2 years ago
Yes, they are skeptics of the effect of anthropogenic global warming (I never said there wasn't). However, none of them deny the greenhouse effect.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
If you want a more abundant list of the skeptics concerning anthropogenic global warming, you can go to Realclimate org to see a long list. And NONE of them deny that the atmosphere traps heat.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Per Gerhard Gerlich in his Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics:
"I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note
merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a
very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar."
This does not refute the greenhouse effect.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Wow, I just looked him up.
a) He does not deny the mechanism of a greenhouse gas at all
b) I can't find any research he's done on the subject that's been subject to peer review
c) As far as credibility, I find it interesting that tobacco companies gave him literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for his "consulting services" which claimed the secondhand smoke link to cancer was junk
d) He's a FoxNews commentator (enough said)
e) No advanced degrees in any discipline of climate change
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
He DOES have advanced technical degrees. He DOES deny that greenhouse gas traps heat. And you can't just discard someone, because you don't like him. I mean I can list the many scientists (and other "experts") on the alarmist side who have investments in green technology. And yet you blindly follow them.
TracyII77 2 years ago
No, Milloy does not deny the greenhouse effect. His website, junkscience, as well as every written publication of his, does not deny the atmosphere trapping heat.
And no, he doesn't not have advanced technical degrees. His first degree was a B.A., not a B.S. From there (by your own comment) he went into Health Science and Law. I don't discard him because I don't like him, I discard him because he doesn't have a PhD in the disciplines discussed.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
"does not" instead of "doesn't not"
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Also, per a refutation of Gerlich's paper:
"A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed." (theory to practice)
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Absorbing radiation or heat is not the same as trapping it. You have yet to prove that CO2 TRAPS heat, and I have already sent you two source that state otherwise.
TracyII77 2 years ago
No, actually you haven't. You sent me the name of a German who's a mathematical physicist who's paper was torn apart by research scientists and you sent me the name of a FoxNews commentator with no research or expertise on the subjectmatter. And then you claim to know all these scientists who are alarmists who have invested in green technology (which doesn't really mean anything, they're still subject to peer review). I don't know how to "prove" it to you in a youtube comment.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
You asked for dissenters with PhD's and I gave them to you. Just because you don't like them, I can't help you. By the way, you read about Jason Hansen (one of the driving scientists for global warming) and how his former BOSS from NASA is a dissenter. And here I've given you names, and you have yet to give me names. As if names matter. Science is about the data and experiments. I'd rather you give that, which you cannot. Just empty explanations which you yourself don't even comprehend.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Nope, I asked for a PhD in either physics, chemistry, meteorology, climatatology that supported your view that the atmosphere does not trap heat. You have failed horribly.
As far as skeptics, yes they exist. I never said they didn't. If you want the data, NASA, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC, and virtually every other group doing work in the area have their own websites where they make the data available publicly. If you want explanations of the research, realclimate org is a good place to start.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, I have! Reread my posts. And I can give you many, many more. And yes, I have been to realclimate and many, many more websites. And yes, I am an engineer like you. And yes, my postings will show that it is I that corrected YOU on basic scientific concepts. And yes, you have failed to explain your position, but have merely restated it. This only shows YOUR lack of understanding. And goes to show how flawed your position really is.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Let's see, you claimed we cannot increase the CO2 concentration without a nuclear reaction, you claimed that gamma interactions with matter change the intrinsic properties, you believe that digging a fossil fuel out of the ground and burning it is a natural process (vice anthropogenic), you don't know what academic peer review is, you've butchered the ideal gas law, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the explanation of how storms bring hot and cold air (their called weather fronts)... I could go on.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Keep telling yourself that Tracy. Did you get your engineering degree from Bob's School of Engineering?
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
And if you want a specific name, then group every PhD you can find with any expertise in the area. Now all you have to do is throw a rock, chances are far better than average you'll hit someone who will tell you anthropogenic global warming is very real. You saying that we don't comprehend what we talk about is given little weight when it's by someone who doesn't understand the most basic concepts discussed. I question whether you have any background in any scientific discipline at all.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
So you refuse to give me any names? I've already done my research. If you haven't, that is YOUR problem. Either you have names or you don't. And quite frankly, science is NOT about name dropping or popularity contests. It is about data and experiments. So while all you care about is who said what, I care about what data and experiments support your position. But you can't give me that.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I've given you websites with entire database of names (including names of the skeptics). Then, after I give you reference to look at, you demand specific names, then you say it's not about name dropping. The data is there. Like I said before; NASA, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC, and every other group working on the research post their data and their conclusions publicly.
You keep making shit up. With every post you've shown your ignorance in every scientific concept brought up. Have a good Fourth of July.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
And incidentally, realclimate org also has a long list of anthropogenic climate change skeptics. Far better and far more credible than your Fox News commentator who has a Bachelors of Arts in Natural Sciences which a) sounds like an oxymoron and b) hardly makes him an expert on climate change and c) also was funded by tobacco companies to counter the link between second hand smoke and cancer. So while you're cranking your A/C, may as well light up and blow smoke in a child's face as well.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
And again, trapping and absorbing go hand in hand. If you new anything about IR photon interaction with matter, you would understand this.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
"knew" not "new"
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
No trapping and absorbing do not go hand in hand. Think about a sponge in a pipe. When a sponge is used, water moves from the pipe INTO the sponge leaving the pipe dry until more water comes and the sponge fills up. At which point the sponge becomes inconsequential. Now think about the water in the pipe being trapped instead. The pipe would fill up with more water in the process. Very different from being dried.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Your analogy is flawed from the begining. A better one would be that of a membrane, one that passes through one type of thing but then blocks another type of thing. I've already explained that the atmosphere is virtually transparent to incoming solar radiation (short wave). Then that is absorbed by the earth's surface and is re-emitted in the form of IR photons (long wave). Those photons either a) move right on through or b) become absorbed and irradiate the greenhouse gas.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
No its not flawed. Because you are still assuming that being absorbed is the same thing as being trapped. And yes a sponge is a perfect analogy of absorption. Once again you are proving your lack of understanding of the most basic of concepts.
TracyII77 2 years ago
No, you seriously have no idea what you're talking about. But then again, ignorance is bliss. If you truly are an engineer, I question your background with your utter lack of understanding.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Yes, your sponge analogy is absolutely flawed. If you want to make it more correct, then you would have to have water bypass the sponge, wet the inner pipe, then get soaked up by the sponge, then squeeze the sponge so that some of the water goes out of the pipe and some goes back into the pipe (rewetting the surface). In this example, the "wetting" is analogous to "heating".
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So now you see how idiotic the whole greenhouse effect idea is?
TracyII77 2 years ago
No. Laboratory experiments have shown that greenhouse gases are transparent to shortwave energy (that in the visible and ultraviolet portion of the spectra) and absorb longer-wave (infrared) energy. Just because you don't understand it does not make it idiotic. I do, however, question how a once proponent of the idea does not understand the greenhouse effect, does not acknowledge the melting arctic ice, and who cannot tell the difference between a natural and manmade source of CO2. Fib much?
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Hi Tracy apologies for my delay in response, I am working away from home and have intermittent internet connection. This will address your questions:
CO2 absorbs and emits? at the same time? No. A CO2 molecule does not absorb and emit radiation at the same time.
Starsandfunk 2 years ago
The CO2 molecules can then absorb this radiation and re-emit it back down or back out to space. It follows that the more CO2 there is, the more infrared radiation will get emitted back to earth.
If that is true, you are saying that CO2 delays the arrival of the radiation but doesn't stop it or magnify it either. So how does it follow that CO2 causes global warming? See below.
Starsandfunk 2 years ago
A.) If CO2 absorbed radiation and then re-emitted it, it would simply be delaying the travels of said radiation. The radiation would be making "a layover" if you will.
B.) Absorption removes the radiation or heat from the outer system. So at the moment of absorption, the earth should be cooler.
C.) Emitting places radiation or heat back into the outer system, which should heat the earth.
D.) The constant absorbing and emitting would balance each other out no matter the CO2 level.
TracyII77 2 years ago
E.) If said radiation is bounced back off the earth's surface a second time so to speak, it would not be reabsorbed by a CO2 molecule, since they would be filled with radiation from subsequent emitting rays off the earth's surface from the sun.
F.) Heat is actually lost by convection through the poles. Convection pushes the heat (and radiation) up and out. Think about boiling water. Think how quickly a storm moves in bringing warm or cold weather.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Seriously Tracy, you have completely botched virtually every scientific concept you've brought up. You have stretched to come up with scientists to come up with your warped views, and failed. This leads me to believe you had them before you did any research at all in the matter. If you go into something with your mind already made up (probably by Fox News), then really, what's the point. But hey, try to have a good Fourth of July.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you have your mind made up already about what I think, who I watch, and what my politics are? Who is the biased one here? Once again, this isn't about science with you. It's about who you like and don't like. Because you shut out anyone you don't like. YOU are the one who already has their mind made up. And for your info, I used to be on the side of global warming. But I actually went out of my way to educate myself and the theories are just guesses which are proving to be flawed.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Nope, never made any claim on your politics. But Fox News has a horrid track record of misinformation so it was a calculated guess that you would watch them. This topic is absolutely about science, and your jaw-dropping ignorance of it. I absolutely do not shut out people I don't like. In fact, I've read several studies from skeptics that looked promising, but then were abandoned because further research didn't support. Richard Lindzen's work is an excellent example.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
That and the fact that the very first "expert" you produced was Milloy (who is not an expert by any stretch of the imagination and is a Fox News commentator). That sort of tipped me off.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
And I also question the validity of your engineering degree when you can't even get the right definition of theory down.
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Tracy, your examples are hideously off. Let me break it down to you. You've already admitted to a greenhouse gas absorbing heat. Well that gives you one of two options. Either the GHG absorbs the heat from the sun before it hits the earth (which would cool the earth, which doesn't happen), or it absorbs the heat coming off of the earth but then doesn't re-emit (in which case the temperature of the atmosphere would continue to go up and up and up and up, which again, isn't the case).
adamsinclair007 2 years ago
Im certain you will find scientists who deny that humans are causing global warming. There are physicists who think particle accelerators will create black holes and historians who deny the holocaust. The point is, in all these cases, the vast majority of experts in that field lean to the side of the argument that has the most evidence in it is favour.
Starsandfunk 2 years ago
Science is not about popularity contests. I don't pick which scientists to follow based on who is most popular. I look at the data, and there have been NO experiments to back up anthropogenic global warming OR the existence of the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere. Everything is else is just based on educated guessing. Sorry to break it you.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Oh my god, who the fuck said anything about being popular? You saying there hasn't been anything to back up anthropogenic global warming is ludicrous. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.