[MOVED] Global warming is unscientific

[greatcloudlives]

Your explanation of why the temperature was not hot enough to boil water was just a bunch of word dancing. This is still a valid question and has implications about carbon dioxide saturation. For instance why does this model of the effect of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is valid. If you have a model of the CO2 in the atmosphere and remove all the CO2 it will be cool . Then increase the amount in small incriminates of CO2 and plot the results on a graph . You will see an initial sharp increase in temperature. What happens is the increase flattens out. Any further increase results in negligible effect. That's the way CO2 works in the atmosphere.

 

[sjastro]

Given time they would both be the same. Prove your conclusion.

Now you are being deceitful.
Your original answer was the aluminium base results in a warmer greenhouse, but even this about face fails given most greenhouses are now made from twin walled polycarbonate separated by an air gap which provides thermal insulation.
The temperature inside will not have time to reach thermal equilibrium with the external temperature at night.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Heat as defined by Plank is a broad spectrum of frequency of osillacions. Not a flux as defined by most climate scientists. Therefore it is not cumaltive.

 

[Herman Hedning]

@greatcloudlives seems to put a lot of faith in scientists from the 19th century, disregarding everything that has happened afterwards. As for Knut Ångströms observation that CO₂ did not contribute greatly to absorption of radiation in the atmosphere, that was based on faulty observations.

Here is Ångströms paper (in German): Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre
and here is an explanation of the mistakes made and an expositon of later research done by others: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Heat as defined by Plank is a broad spectrum of frequency of osillacions. Not a flux as defined by most climate scientists. Therefore it is not cumaltive.

This, like so much of the physics-like stuff you post, is gibberish. Heat flux is not a definition of heat, it's concerns the flow of heat. Neither have any direct relation to whether it is cumulative or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the links and I don't see where you have the notion that large level of CO2 in the atmosphere would fry the earth. I don't believe that is true. Prove it.

Since you dodged a reasonable question that I asked you earlier you almost certainly would not understand the evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Heat as defined by Plank is a broad spectrum of frequency of osillacions. Not a flux as defined by most climate scientists. Therefore it is not cumaltive.

From your first sentence, you seem to be describing Planck's black body spectrum, which is the spectrum of light given off thermally by a body because it has a higher temperature than its surroundings. The radiative spectrum of the earth at night is roughly a Planck black body, as does the Sun (a much warmer black body), each of the planets, and you and I. IT IS NOT *HEAT*, it is radiation.

Heat, contrary to the ancient Greeks, is not a substance, nor even a property of matter. It is the *flow* of thermal energy from one object to another that we describe as heat in thermodynamics. English is full of bad colloquial uses of the word "heat", though the sentence "The sun's rays heat the Earth in the daytime." is thermodynamically correct.

Finally, climate scientists use thermodynamics, chemistry, hydrodynamics, atomic and molecular physics, and radiative transfer in the same, and correct fashion and understanding that physicists, chemists, astrophysicists, engineers, and other professionals (and university students) do. They do not have some bizarre usage of these basic properties and behaviors of matter that is at odds with usage in other fields. This is *not* a fruitful avenue of attack of climate science and you should stop before you reach the mantle.

 

[greatcloudlives]

GHG theroy can't possibly be true.

whyclimatechanges.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

GHG theroy can't possibly be true.

whyclimatechanges.com

It seems as if Mr. Peter Ward is *definitely* off the deep end.

And of course, green house gas theory can be true, there is no definitive demonstration that it is wrong. (And frankly a lot of supporting evidence for it.)

 

[greatcloudlives]

whyclimarechanges.com. You have not refuted any of Dr Peter Wards claims. His theroy is a good plausible deniability of CO2 greenhouse theroy. It explains the rapid rise of temperatures in the ninties and the subsequent pause after 1998 much better than AGW.

 

[Hans Blaster]

whyclimarechanges.com. You have not refuted any of Dr Peter Wards claims. His theroy is a good plausible deniability of CO2 greenhouse theroy. It explains the rapid rise of temperatures in the ninties and the subsequent pause after 1998 much better than AGW.

Ward's whole thing is based on his claim that (proper) climate scientists don't understand "heat" flow in the atmosphere. He is *WRONG* and it's not controversial. He's a geophysicist who studied seismology and volcanism. These fields do *not* require knowledge of transfer of heat by radiation (photons) and one can have a successful career (which he seems to have had) in those fields with a broken idea radiative heat transfer. (Or he developed his wrong idea during his geology career. It doesn't matter.)

His ideas about heat aren't just "non-standard" they are *WRONG* and his entire climate analysis is based upon them. Therefore, we can IGNORE everything he says, and since you are just copying (sometimes poorly) things that Mr. Ward has written, we can ignore you as well.

 

[greatcloudlives]

You are very much simplifying his findings, which are based on the laws of theroynamics and Planck's laws of spectrum physics. Also you didn't mention his alternative theroy of ozone depletion to explain global warming.

 

[greatcloudlives]

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[greatcloudlives]

Go to Wikipedia type in what are the highest temperatures records for each state most of them are dated from the 1930 's none except Nevada are from the last five years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Go to Wikipedia type in what are the highest temperatures records for each state most of them are dated from the 1930 's none except Nevada are from the last five years.

You're.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All.

. . . . .Over.
The.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are very much simplifying his findings, which are based on the laws of theroynamics and Planck's laws of spectrum physics. Also you didn't mention his alternative theroy of ozone depletion to explain global warming.

Any "scientist" how starts his climate science page by telling us that proper climatologists don't understand heat flows contrary to every other bit of information (and not tied to use in climate science) *AUTOMATICALLY* ends any consideration of the rest of their work. I have more training in climate than he does.

He is selling a book to suckers, and has you pegged for one.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Peter L. Ward has a lagitament alternative theroy to the GHG theroy. In fact it explains global warming better than the GHG theroy, there are less problems with it and it explains warming better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

GHG theroy can't possibly be true.

whyclimatechanges.com

Then you do not understand even the basics of this argument since the Greenhouse Effect is well understood.

Arguing about something that one has no understanding of will never go anywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peter L. Ward has a lagitament alternative theroy to the GHG theroy. In fact it explains global warming better than the GHG theroy, there are less problems with it and it explains warming better.

Then why can't your hero prove his claims?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Peter L. Ward has a lagitament alternative theroy to the GHG theroy. In fact it explains global warming better than the GHG theroy, there are less problems with it and it explains warming better.

It is neither a "lagitament alternative theroy" nor is it a legitimate alternative theory.