Climate Change!

[Greatcloud]

Very interesting expieriment proving that CO2 does not retain heat very well as is believed by the theory if fact it loses heat rapidly.


AGW Debunked for £5.00 Part2.mov - YouTube

 

[rambot]

12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming

100,000 glaciers around the world and you're concerned about 12?

IS there any consistency in your argument GW?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Very interesting expieriment proving that CO2 does not retain heat very well as is believed by the theory if fact it loses heat rapidly.

LOL. Thanks Greatcloud, that was hilarious! It's good to have a laugh once in a while. There should be a climate change humor section.

Now here's a few pointers:

1. The concept that CO2 absorbs in the IR region of the spectrum is pretty much settled science since about the 1850's. You want to prove it to yourself? Go talk to a chemistry teacher at a local community college. Have them show you an FTIR (an IR spectrometer) and have them run a "background" scan for you. This is what it will look like:

See that deep, deep valley around 2350 wavenumbers there? That's due to CO2. IT ABSORBS IR RADIATION.

2. Your wonderful video there also would have me believe that there's no difference in "greenhouse gas functionality" between a closed bottle with standing water in it and a bottle of "dry air". Well, interestingly enough, H2O is an even stronger greenhouse gas!

Look at that picture I just posted up there. See those valleys around 1600 wavenumbers? That's largley due to water.

Do you know why these molecules absorb IR?

3. Because they have the right kind of bonds and molecular motions to be uniquely capable of absorbing IR. It's pretty basic physics and you can, if you so care to, learn more about it HERE

Remember: when a vidiot using plastic bottles and a heat lamp suggests that he is able to overturn 150 years of pretty solid science that has been proven time and again using a number of techniques, you might want to ask what they are really saying. How much of standard science has to be destroyed in order to account for the video maker's hypothesis?

Just about all of it.

Or, gosh, who knows, it could be that:

1. The video maker didn't really know what he was measuring (no one debates that CO2 can't re-emit IR and heat)

2. The video maker found results that do not match up with 150 years of actual science while running an experiment using plastic bottles, stick on thermometers and a heat lamp. Could he have made some foundational errors? Or is it more likely that 150 years of science are simply wrong?

 

[rambot]

Very interesting expieriment proving that CO2 does not retain heat very well as is believed by the theory if fact it loses heat rapidly.


AGW Debunked for £5.00 Part2.mov - YouTube

You know what is amazing?
The FIRST evidence of a flying cow!

And don't give me no hokum that it's nonsense!

I found it on the internet okay so, game set match!

 

[Greatcloud]

Our glaciers are growing, not melting: More falsehoods from Al Gore -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net





CO2

 

[rambot]

Our glaciers are growing, not melting: More falsehoods from Al Gore -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net





CO2

2 year old article quoting 6 year old research of a tiny percentage of glaciers around the world becomes a legitimate argument?

I mean, really HOW convincing is it when all the glaciers in the world that are advancing can actually be named in one blog post? It SHOULDN'T be convincing, but it is.

So, I took the time to read your article, perhaps you could do the same in fairness?


Are glaciers growing or retreating?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's a 'refereed journal'?

A journal that uses peer reviewers.

-- Huh?

You mean a journal used by peer reviewers?

 

[thaumaturgy]

-- Huh?

You mean a journal used by peer reviewers?

No.

A refereed journal takes in submitted papers. They go to an editor. The editor finds appropriate "peer reviewers" (people who have experience and/or knowledge in the particular topic of the paper) and forwards it out to the peer reviewers. The reviewers get a copy of the paper and instructions on how to judge the value and publishability of the paper.

The reviewers then read the paper and check if the facts mentioned line up with what is known in the "art", what is known in general science and see if the results make sense. If the results are completely revolutionary it is very good to have several reviewers. The reviewers also critique the methods used and how the data was interpretted.

The reviewer writes his or her comments about the paper's substance, point-by-point (it's almost never just a "OK"/"Not OK"). They may ask questions in the review for the writers to consider and they may (as I would occasionally do) recommend and suggest ways to improve the paper (provide more support, check the grammar, etc.).

They put an assessment of whether the paper;

1. Should be published as is
2. Should be rejected
3. Should be published after minor modifications
4. Should be re-submitted for review after major modifications

Not all journals use the same review format and not all provide that many options, but most that I have reviewed for are similar.

 

[Greatcloud]

Rambot I read your article but was unconvinced. Why are any glaciers growing ? Why are all the Himalayin glaciers growing at least the of ones we monitor about 250 are growing. Why if AGW is true are any glaciers growing ?






CO2

 

[Cromulent]

Very interesting expieriment proving that CO2 does not retain heat very well as is believed by the theory if fact it loses heat rapidly.


AGW Debunked for £5.00 Part2.mov - YouTube

CO2 contributes to global warming by absorbing certain wavelengths of light and reemmitting them.

Its specific heat capacity has nothing whatsoever to do with its effect as a greenhouse gas.

If you need any of the above terms explained, you don't really have any business trying to contribute to a scientific debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

A refereed journal takes in submitted papers. They go to an editor. The editor finds appropriate "peer reviewers" (people who have experience and/or knowledge in the particular topic of the paper) and forwards it out to the peer reviewers. The reviewers get a copy of the paper and instructions on how to judge the value and publishability of the paper.

The reviewers then read the paper and check if the facts mentioned line up with what is known in the "art", what is known in general science and see if the results make sense. If the results are completely revolutionary it is very good to have several reviewers. The reviewers also critique the methods used and how the data was interpretted.

The reviewer writes his or her comments about the paper's substance, point-by-point (it's almost never just a "OK"/"Not OK"). They may ask questions in the review for the writers to consider and they may (as I would occasionally do) recommend and suggest ways to improve the paper (provide more support, check the grammar, etc.).

They put an assessment of whether the paper;

1. Should be published as is
2. Should be rejected
3. Should be published after minor modifications
4. Should be re-submitted for review after major modifications

Not all journals use the same review format and not all provide that many options, but most that I have reviewed for are similar.

Okay ... thank you.

What if I submitted Genesis 1 for peer review?

What would you, personally, do with it?

 

[CabVet]

Okay ... thank you.

What if I submitted Genesis 1 for peer review?

What would you, personally, do with it?

That is why religion and science should not mix. Genesis 1 requires a personal spiritual connection that leads you to believe (i.e. have faith) in it. Science requires observations of natural phenomena.

To answer your question, if I had the same spiritual connection that you do, I would accept Genesis 1, if I did not, I would not accept it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if I submitted Genesis 1 for peer review?

That is why religion and science should not mix. Genesis 1 requires a personal spiritual connection that leads you to believe (i.e. have faith) in it. Science requires observations of natural phenomena.

Who told you it was religion?

What if I submitted God stretching the universe out as proof of the universe expanding for peer review?

What if I submitted the Jews as God's chosen people for peer review?

What if I submitted the tribe of Asher for peer review?

It sounds to me like you're saying you're trained to spot certain key words, such as 'God', as indicators to view the material as non-scientific, and therefore automatically reject it.

 

[rambot]

Rambot I read your article but was unconvinced.

Unconvinced? What are you unconvinced of? Originally, you said that 12 glaciers were growing (didn't, in YOUR post, even TOUCH on AGW...so I also didn't). I gave you a link that showed a pretty clear the glacial ice volumes are RAPIDLY decreasing.

Am I to understand, before I answer these other questions, that you now accept that glaciers around the world are, generally, in retreat even if you aren't sure why some are growing?

Why if AGW is true are any glaciers growing ?

Sorry, if you asked that question, I do not believe for a moment that you read most of that article as it discusses factors that can affect growth....and even touches on how global warming can cause glacial growth (my article specifically referenced the glaciers in Norway during the 90s).

 

[thaumaturgy]

Okay ... thank you.

What if I submitted Genesis 1 for peer review?

What would you, personally, do with it?

Wait for someone to submit a science paper?

 

[Greatcloud]

Rambot no, I did read it but don't accept that that is why glaciers are growing. I believe that snowfall is why these glaciers are growing and that the WW temp. has been stagnant for the last 15 years and that is another reason glaciers are growing.

Please in your own words why do you believe glaciers are growing hundreds and hundreds of them, all over the world ?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Who told you it was religion?

Well, if you think it is "real" then you are doing so in spite of the observational science and you are taking an account that reads like many other "creation myths" as truth, ergo it must be religion.

What if I submitted God stretching the universe out as proof of the universe expanding for peer review?

First you'd have to provide sufficient evidence for "God".

What if I submitted the Jews as God's chosen people for peer review?

What if I countered that you still hadn't provided sufficient evidence for "God'?

What if I submitted the tribe of Asher for peer review?

What if I took a Edsel car and spoonerized it into desk lamp cabbage? Then I three-hole-punched the staple machine with a grunion hat.

What then?

It sounds to me like you're saying you're trained to spot certain key words, such as 'God', as indicators to view the material as non-scientific, and therefore automatically reject it.

No, we are trained to spot terms that are not defined and ask what they mean. And then further to ask for ample evidence that these terms actually relate to real objects and factors.

You could easily have said "Moroni" or "Aharu Mazda" or "Yahweh and his Asherah".

 

[rambot]

Rambot no, I did read it but don't accept that that is why glaciers are growing. I believe that snowfall is why these glaciers are growing and that the WW temp. has been stagnant for the last 15 years and that is another reason glaciers are growing.

I don't want to take away from the fact that you have a belief, but I hope you can recognize that the context of your belief has only a tenuous grip on fact. That is, believe that snowfall HAS made a few glaciers bigger, but then accept that the VAST majority of glaciers ARE losing ice and that, when taken as a whole, ice volume is decreasing.

Please in your own words why do you believe glaciers are growing hundreds and hundreds of them, all over the world ?

Wow! Your numbers are increasing? Up from 12? I've read this one, and the article from that ice age now guy. From what I remember, I only got about 30-40 worldwide glaciers that are growing. So I'll just assume that's uncited hyperbole and get to your main message.

I don't believe there are glaciers growing on Earth. I KNOW there are glaciers growing. I know that because the scientific evidence presented, indicates as such. I KNOW this in the same way that I KNOW most glaciers are retreating.

I believe some glaciers grow due to heightenned precipitation trends (that's probably the most obvious one) and/or localized cooling trends. From what I recall hearing, the himilayan glaciers are growing because they are soooooooo high up, though I don't understand why that would be.

That's my own words.

IF there is increased snowfall AND the temperature has been stagnate as you report (leading to a few bigger glaciers), could you explain to me how so much ice, on the whole, is being lost? Why are there not MORE glaciers growing?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Rambot no, I did read it but don't accept that that is why glaciers are growing. I believe that snowfall is why these glaciers are growing and that the WW temp. has been stagnant for the last 15 years and that is another reason glaciers are growing.

Please in your own words why do you believe glaciers are growing hundreds and hundreds of them, all over the world ?

Here's a shocking revelation: global climate change is complex.

Some glaciers are growing in the Himalayas probably directly DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING! (LINKY)

HOW DOES THAT WORK?

Well first we need to remember what snow is: it's moisture in the air that has turned to ice in the high levels of the atmosphere.

The capacity for WARM air for carrying moisture is higher than for cool air.

Snow in the Himalayas may very well be due to the WESTERLIES which are carrying more humidity due to warming in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic oceans!

But it's not all good news:

"As temperatures continue increasing, they will overtake additional mass provided by snow," Fountain said. "The freezing level will keep rising, and glaciers will melt." (ibid)

Too bad science is complex and knowing more of the story often results in a non-cofirmation of the given bias.

 

[AV1611VET]

[deleted with apology to Thaumaturgy]