Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sounds like a huge waste of money. Glad I'm not invested in their stock.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

      You can always send in complaints..
      I'm sure the Smithsonian, Scientific American, and your NOAA would love to read them.
      I may consider such after you show me where in these source material you think proof is presented showing how small amount of heat retained by one molecule equally transfers to 2,499 other molecules, especially of different components.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

        It’s like claiming NASA is hiding evidence of aliens on the moon and Mars... while using images taken by NASA.
        Actually, been there and done that. The whole controversy of the "Face on Mars" spun out of NASA Viking images from the mid 1970s and such remains a bit contested still for a number of factors not fully resolved.

        Similar applies from several years ago of a NASA flyby of Saturn moon Iapetus where the photo images are intriguing and it seems the radar was turned off when such might have yielded interesting interior data - it had been used on all other moon/satellite flybys around Saturn. BTW, in case of Iapetus, initial investigator questioning NASA wasn't suggesting "aliens" but rather the case for past greater Earthly civilization that had declined since then.

        Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
        The " deniers " seem to ignore the recent data yet cling onto the past data. You can’t have one without the other.
        1st; try to be more specific and qualify what you mean by "deniers". ...
        2nd; consider advancing how "recent data" PROVES case for anthropogenic versus Natural causes which "past data" does validate. Also what you mean with that muddled comment of your final sentence ~ since "one" is being compared to the "other" by we "deniers". ...

        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          I may consider such after you show me where in these source material you think proof is presented showing how small amount of heat retained by one molecule equally transfers to 2,499 other molecules, especially of different components.
          NOPE.
          I* spent a lot of time outlining the theory- for you - and you were , IMHO, just looking for a verbal fracas.
          It's a simple theory, ( the basis of it, anyway,) I didn't invent it, and if you can't be bothered,
          "WHATS in it for me?"
          HOWEVER;
          HERE IT IS AGAIN. JUST READ it- ok?


          https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxid...ared-radiation
          Last edited by marktwain; 14 Feb 20, 21:34.
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • A series of posts was removed that consisted of posters taking digs at each other, commenting on staff action and/or trolling each other were removed.
            Please don't repeat this behaviour.
            Thank you
            ACG Staff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

              I may consider such after you show me where in these source material you think proof is presented showing how small amount of heat retained by one molecule equally transfers to 2,499 other molecules, especially of different components.
              I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want to prove that in the first place.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want to prove that in the first place.
                The primary foundation(hypothesis) of anthropogenic climate change/global warming(ACC/AGW) is that the carbon dioxide (CO2) retains enough heat to pass onto and heat up the rest of the atmosphere. At a level of 400 ppm(parts per million)dry; (don't include water vapor) that equals 400/1,000,000 which reduces down to a ratio of 1/2,500. Hence each molecule of CO2 is heating up 2,499 other molecules of argon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. (less water vapor, H2O which is it's own "greenhouse gas").

                Therefore, to "PROVE" the hypothesis of ACC/AGW one needs to show/prove how the one molecule heats up the other 2,499.

                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                  NOPE.
                  I* spent a lot of time outlining the theory- for you - and you were , IMHO, just looking for a verbal fracas.
                  It's a simple theory, ( the basis of it, anyway,) I didn't invent it, and if you can't be bothered,
                  "WHATS in it for me?"
                  HOWEVER;
                  HERE IT IS AGAIN. JUST READ it- ok?


                  https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxid...ared-radiation
                  There are other forms of energy besides the IR and both oxygen and nitrogen can absorb energy, or not. When O2 and N2 are in liquid states, they are much colder than when in gas state as when in the atmosphere, which means they have less energy/warmth. Hence atmospheric temperature is more than just that of CO2, it includes the energy/temperature of the other gases.

                  Also, note that CO2 is one molecule of Carbon, atomic weight 12, and two of Oxygen, atomic weight 8 each for total of 16. So 12 of the atomic weight of the CO2 total, which is 28 (12+8+8), is Carbon. So if Oxygen can't absorb any IR energy (per your link) than it would be only the Carbon portion, which is about 40% of the total weight of the CO2 molecule, that is "absorbing"(temporary retaining) IR energy.

                  This means that of the 400ppm of CO2, only about 160ppm is the Carbon, "heat trapping" component, per the information in your link, which assumes that only IR energy is a source of atmospheric heat.

                  If we take this approach, than the ratio of the IR energy absorber(Carbon atoms) to whole dry atmosphere is even more fantastic, about one part per 10,000.

                  Your link is either double-talk flim-flam or excluding some other essential aspects of the whole energy/atmosphere equation.
                  Last edited by G David Bock; 15 Feb 20, 01:28.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                    I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want to prove that in the first place.
                    It does get - interesting. We either lack a specialist in molecular science on our site that can explain chemical resonance on the molecule level-
                    or we have such a correspondent- and he's wise enough to stay out of the discussions...
                    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      The primary foundation(hypothesis) of anthropogenic climate change/global warming(ACC/AGW) is that the carbon dioxide (CO2) retains enough heat to pass onto and heat up the rest of the atmosphere.
                      Ok, based on my understanding of climate science, your very first sentence here is not true. Where did you hear this?

                      Edit: Not sure why I'm asking this, as none of the answers provided are going to change anything.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                        Ok, based on my understanding of climate science, your very first sentence here is not true. Where did you hear this?

                        Edit: Not sure why I'm asking this, as none of the answers provided are going to change anything.
                        Because you are both bold and fearless in the quest for the truth..?

                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

                          It’s like claiming NASA is hiding evidence of aliens on the moon and Mars... while using images taken by NASA.

                          The deniers seem to ignore the recent data yet cling onto the past data. You can’t have one without the other.
                          I've always wondered if some people cling to the caloric theory of heat retention and transfer, which fails at the molecular level...

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory
                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                            I've always wondered if some people cling to the caloric theory of heat retention and transfer, which fails at the molecular level...

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory
                            Who knows, scientists knew the dangers of lead poisoning and were against it being added in petrol back in the 1920s... the lobbyists won that battle until the data was too much to ignore.

                            Same with the clean air act, scientists knew of the health benefits from implementing it, yet it is still under attack by lobbyists...

                            Scientists know nothing about climate change apparently...

                            "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                            Ernest Hemingway.

                            Sapere aude.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

                              Who knows, scientists knew the dangers of lead poisoning and were against it being added in petrol back in the 1920s... the lobbyists won that battle until the data was too much to ignore.

                              Same with the clean air act, scientists knew of the health benefits from implementing it, yet it is still under attack by lobbyists...

                              Scientists know nothing about climate change apparently...
                              They’ve never been right I don’t go to a doctor who constantly says that I’m going to die soon unless I do what they say and I never do die when I don’t listen to them I sure as hell ain't going to believe people whose apocalyptic scenarios about climate change that don’t come true either they’ve been at it for over 100 years and they still aren’t right with their predictions and never will be

                              446DCDC3-F877-44B5-A391-4A6276E92843.jpeg
                              Last edited by Snowshoveler; 15 Feb 20, 14:31.

                              Comment


                              • 2000 is correct. This winter no snow and temp sometimes below freezing. Tomorrow 16C but being in tropical Germany that's normal...
                                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X