Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

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

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Your subjective OPINION. Please explain how this isn't another way of saving the same thing;

    "Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes."
    it is irrelevant. You appear to be on the verge of declaring CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. If that's the case, then your argument is with physicists and chemists, not with climate scientists. Have fun with that.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

      Nice graph. Perceptive readers will note that human history is pretty much the last section on the left, and industrial human history is the last pixel on the graph.
      More perceptive readers whom know how to read graphs and describe such to others will note that human history is the last section on the RIGHT.

      The Left side of the graph is showing conditions on early Earth shortly after the hydrosphere (oceans and atmosphere) had formed (and then the relation of temprature and carbon dioxide there after)

      Originally posted by DingBat View Post
      Ah, the power of logarithmic graph scales.
      And in the case of this one, showing how often temperatures were increasing when CO2 was decreasing, and vice-versa, would illustrate that;
      1) Temperature now is no where near as high as has been in the past.
      2) CO2 levels are no where the highest ever, often being much more in the past.
      3) Little if any linkage showing increase of CO2 produces increase of temperature. (more likely the opposite)
      4) Value of full long term perspective to show the gauge of current conditions (and hyperbolic distortions and dis-information coming from the pro-ACC/AGW "gorebots")
      Last edited by G David Bock; 16 Feb 20, 14:15.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

        it is irrelevant. You appear to be on the verge of declaring CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. If that's the case, then your argument is with physicists and chemists, not with climate scientists. Have fun with that.
        If that is your take, can see somewhat how you've gone down the path of error.

        I totally acknowledge CO2 as a greenhouse gas and the history of NATURAL Climate Change/Flux.
        What I dispute is that 0.04% of dry atmosphere content can cause heat increase to the other 99.96%, especially when most of that is different elements/molecules.

        You may want to re-examime some physics and chemistry, along with maths.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          If that is your take, can see somewhat how you've gone down the path of error.

          I totally acknowledge CO2 as a greenhouse gas and the history of NATURAL Climate Change/Flux.
          What I dispute is that 0.04% of dry atmosphere content can cause heat increase to the other 99.96%, especially when most of that is different elements/molecules.

          You may want to re-examime some physics and chemistry, along with maths.
          So, you really don't have much room to maneuver here.

          If you claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then you have an argument with basic physics and chemistry.
          If you accept it is a greenhouse gas, then you accept that greenhouse gasses are opaque to infrared radiation and so trap heat and then radiate it outward again.
          If you don't accept that greenhouse gasses behave in this way then you again have an argument with basic physics and chemistry.
          If you do accept that greenhouse gasses behave in this way then CO2 is acting in the same way it has throughout time and your question is already answered, by basic physics and chemistry.

          Your red herring doesn't actually have anything to do with climate science. Just basic physics and chemistry.

          Unless, of course, you are claiming that physicists and chemists are also part of the leftist climate change conspiracy. Is that what you're claiming?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            And in the case of this one, showing how often temperatures were increasing when CO2 was decreasing, and vice-versa, would illustrate that;
            1) Temperature now is no where near as high as has been in the past.
            2) CO2 levels are no where the highest ever, often being much more in the past.
            3) Little if any linkage showing increase of CO2 produces increase of temperature. (more likely the opposite)
            4) Value of full long term perspective to show the gauge of current conditions (and hyperbolic distortions and dis-information coming from the pro-ACC/AGW "gorebots")
            First, I would like to, once again, stop and savor the irony of someone trying to undermine the case for climate change while using a chart constructed by..... climate scientists.

            ......

            Ok, done.

            So are you claiming that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate? It sounds like you're claiming CO2 is the only thing that affects climate.

            Comment


            • On 3/28 2014 Adam Weinstein proposed to put climate change deniers in prison . RFK jr proposed the same . Paul Krugman said that Congress members who did not believe in climate change,were traitors .
              This indicates the degree of democracy of the GW lobby .

              The climate change deniers do not propose to put Weinstein, RFKjr and Krugman in prison .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                The climate change deniers do not propose to put Weinstein, RFKjr and Krugman in prison .
                Go ahead, if it makes you feel better. Climate scientists probably won't care that much. And RFKjr is an anti-vaxxer anyway.

                Knock yourself out.

                Comment


                • The overwhelming consensus on climate change

                  A good article reviewing the reasons behind the consensus, plus reviewing some of the most common objections (many of which are frequently used here). Good read.

                  Comment


                  • RFK jr is also a Green Jihadist .And a hypocrite : he bought a manse of $ 5 million in Malibu : how will he heat it ?And how will he go from Malibu to Washington ? Will he use a bicycle ?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DingBat View Post
                      The overwhelming consensus on climate change

                      A good article reviewing the reasons behind the consensus, plus reviewing some of the most common objections (many of which are frequently used here). Good read.
                      The title indicates that it is not a good article and the author is that wise to remain anonymous.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post


                        .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............................................to
                        Is gravity outdated?

                        Examples presented on IR wavelength absorption would appear to apply to only about 0.04%(or less) of dry atmospheric content so if you have an alternate for consideration that applies to the other 99.96% consider doing the "scientific thing" and present such.

                        Cartoon sequences are no more redundant than the many supposed "scientific articles" that say little and don't address the full spectrum of the topic/subject, which have also been presented dozens of times.

                        Illustrations can often convey a thought or concept better than paragraphs to pages of dry and obscure text.
                        Now THAT is a very good comparison.
                        Newtonian Physics is a handy rule of thumb, but we now realise that is is underlain by the quantum theory ..
                        So its not outdated- BUT- there are some assumptions, such as the existence of Caloric , that were used to explains heat transfer under Newtonian principles that we NOW know apply to molecular quantum theory. Which tells us that heat is a property of the vibration rates of molecules...
                        Hope this helps.

                        Note; change that to resonance rates of molecules...vibration is an obsolete term...
                        Last edited by marktwain; 17 Feb 20, 08:35.
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • Basically, in the most coarse sense, the planet works on a Carnot cycle. That is, you have energy in, and energy out with a work and flow cycle moving between the two.



                          The problem is, we have no idea what the values of all the inputs and outputs are so ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                            Now THAT is a very good comparison.
                            Newtonian Physics is a handy rule of thumb, but we now realise that is is underlain by the quantum theory ..
                            So its not outdated- BUT- there are some assumptions, such as the existence of Caloric , that were used to explains heat transfer under Newtonian principles that we NOW know apply to molecular quantum theory. Which tells us that heat is a property of the vibration rates of molecules...
                            Hope this helps.
                            I still don't understand the whole point of the entire line of reasoning. The argument seems to be based on the idea that a small portion of the atmosphere couldn't possibly have a noticeable impact. This seems questionable when you consider ozone. It constitutes about 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. We kinda noticed when some of it was missing.

                            Green house gasses trap heat in exactly the same way they've done for the past several billion years. Nothing has changed (If you want a real experiment, try removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere and see what happens to the climate).

                            Comment


                            • Not climate change specific, but an interesting, useful read all the same.

                              Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience: How to Tell the Difference

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock
                                Again, as so often displayed by you and many others, the divergence with basic physics and chemistry is on your part. I've asked repeatedly for you to display~PROVE how one molecule can transfer an equal level of energy/heat to 2,500 others and repeatedly you dodge, fail, and engage false semantics.
                                Note that I have refrained from insults in this exchange, whereas you have continually pushed the boundaries. One wonders why you bother to even have a discussion with a "fanatical true-believer", "Left-Wing loonie"? Btw, if you want to stick to your convictions and just not talk to the loonie, I'm ok with that too.

                                If you turn on a heater in a room, how does the heat transfer to the molecules in the air? How is the mechanism of heat transfer due to the greenhouse effect any different? You seem to be asking how one molecule of CO2 transfers 1 unit of energy to 2500 other molecules so that the new result is 2500 units of energy. That doesn't seem like a reasonable question. So, again, how is heat transfer from CO2 molecules different from any other transfer of heat in the atmosphere?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X