Science vs Global Warming

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

Notice, this thread has been moved to the Physical &Life Sciences forum. This new forum's SOP may be different than the original location. Please abide by this forum's SOP.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm still not sure why global warmist's keep ignoring the empirical evidence that there have been warming periods every 125,000 years and man had nothing to do with them.

So let us look at the only empirical data there is, a record of the Earth's inter-glacial periods. Notice that those in the past were all several degrees warmer than today.

This is because CO2 is an insulator - not a magic one way mirror. It kept the Earth from reaching the highs of the previous warming periods. This period of warmth has lasted longer. This is because CO2 is an insulator - not a magic one way mirror. It has prevented the Earth from beginning that downward slide into the next glacial period.

Man didn't cause this warming period, it began over 25,000 years ago. Man has only kept us from having to wear furs. You should all be glad CO2 is as high as it is.....

 

[Heissonear]

Fair enough, but it still doesnt change the fact that numbers have been falsely presented to push an agenda.
Im old enough to remember when we were told all the polar bears would be dead, the polar caps melted, new york under water.
Its rhetoric on the left side of the aisle, the same way the right side uses gun control and end of the world.

Yes, since to 1980's over promotion of enormous doom for the world has been presented.

Massive absence of benefitual effects.

The UN IPCC has been a joke.

We lost balanced science from the start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still not sure why global warmist's keep ignoring the empirical evidence that there have been warming periods every 125,000 years and man had nothing to do with them.

View attachment 244619
So let us look at the only empirical data there is, a record of the Earth's inter-glacial periods. Notice that those in the past were all several degrees warmer than today.

This is because CO2 is an insulator - not a magic one way mirror. It kept the Earth from reaching the highs of the previous warming periods. This period of warmth has lasted longer. This is because CO2 is an insulator - not a magic one way mirror. It has prevented the Earth from beginning that downward slide into the next glacial period.

Man didn't cause this warming period, it began over 25,000 years ago. Man has only kept us from having to wear furs. You should all be glad CO2 is as high as it is.....

As usual you make false claims about scientists. They are aware of the temperatures in any the past. As to your graph what matters is how fast the temperature is changing and how that will affect life today. The low lying islands that would have been covered in the past have people living on them today. The rapid change will make "100 year storms" more and more common. Yes, it was warmer in the past. That is besides the point.

Plus you indicate no knowledge at all of how the greenhouse effect works. Carbon dioxide does work as a one way mirror and how has been understood since the 1800's. I can explain it to you if you care to learn.

 

[sparow]

As usual you make false claims about scientists. They are aware of the temperatures in any the past. Plus your graph looks highly suspicious. What site is that from?

Plus you indicate no knowledge at all of how the greenhouse effect works. Carbon dioxide does work as a one way mirror and how has been understood since the 1800's. I can explain it to you if you care to learn.

I am interested in how co2 works as a one way mirror, but I will probably dis agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am interested in how co2 works as a one way mirror, but I will probably dis agree.

Fair enough. I could go over the Stefan Boltzmann Law, but let's keep it simple for now. As you probably realize air is transparent to light. Carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light as well. Most of the Sun's energy comes to the Earth in the form of visible light.

By the way, if you want anything that I claim to be supported by various sources feel free to ask. This is all well known facts so far.

Carbon dioxide is not transparent to certain wavelengths of infrared. It will absorb that energy and then reradiate it in random directions. When sunlight hits the Earth, after it goes through the transparent atmosphere some is absorbed and some is reflected back into space. What we need to be concerned with is the absorbed light. That will not be reradiated as visible light. That will be reradiated as infrared light. And here is where carbon dioxide plays an important role. That heat will have a hard time leaving the atmosphere. It will be absorbed and reradiated in random directions. So instead of the heat leaving immediately some of it will be rereadiaated in the direction of the Earth, keeping it warm.

Any questions? Here is a simple video that illustrates this aspect of carbond dioxide:

 

[Willis Gravning]

Fair enough. I could go over the Stefan Boltzmann Law, but let's keep it simple for now. As you probably realize air is transparent to light. Carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light as well. Most of the Sun's energy comes to the Earth in the form of visible light.

By the way, if you want anything that I claim to be supported by various sources feel free to ask. This is all well known facts so far.

Carbon dioxide is not transparent to certain wavelengths of infrared. It will absorb that energy and then reradiate it in random directions. When sunlight hits the Earth, after it goes through the transparent atmosphere some is absorbed and some is reflected back into space. What we need to be concerned with is the absorbed light. That will not be reradiated as visible light. That will be reradiated as infrared light. And here is where carbon dioxide plays an important role. That heat will have a hard time leaving the atmosphere. It will be absorbed and reradiated in random directions. So instead of the heat leaving immediately some of it will be rereadiaated in the direction of the Earth, keeping it warm.

Any questions? Here is a simple video that illustrates this aspect of carbond dioxide:

There are laboratory instruments which measure the amount of CO2 in a gas mixture by measuring infrared absorption. Infrared is heat energy. More CO2 makes it hotter. It is simple and direct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are laboratory instruments which measure the amount of CO2 in a gas mixture by measuring infrared absorption. Infrared is heat energy. More CO2 makes it hotter. It is simple and direct.

Not quite. All light is "heat energy". We sense infrared as heat energy because we cannot see it. Infrared is merely lower frequency light . Understanding how the atmosphere is transparent to visible light allows one to understand how heat enters. That CO2 and other greenhouse gases are opaque to infrared explains how that energy is kept in.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As usual you make false claims about scientists. They are aware of the temperatures in any the past. As to your graph what matters is how fast the temperature is changing and how that will affect life today. The low lying islands that would have been covered in the past have people living on them today. The rapid change will make "100 year storms" more and more common. Yes, it was warmer in the past. That is besides the point.

Plus you indicate no knowledge at all of how the greenhouse effect works. Carbon dioxide does work as a one way mirror and how has been understood since the 1800's. I can explain it to you if you care to learn.

The temperature isn't changing this period any faster than it did in any other. In fact it can't even get close to the other periods in temperature.

The rapid change is over. You have seen all the major temperature increase you ever will...

In fact, it fluctuates up and down within that top peak.

And is actually lower now than it was in the medieval warming period. When Islands inhabited then are still inhabited now.....

None of the data supports any of the claims made by global warming extremists....

Except the ones that are doctored by the extremists to make the rise look faster and higher....

 

[Subduction Zone]

The temperature isn't changing this period any faster than it did in any other. In fact it can't even get close to the other periods in temperature.

The rapid change is over. You have seen all the major temperature increase you ever will...

In fact, it fluctuates up and down within that top peak.

View attachment 244681
And is actually lower now than it was in the medieval warming period. When Islands inhabited then are still inhabited now.....

View attachment 244683

None of the data supports any of the claims made by global warming extremists....

Except the ones that are doctored by the extremists to make the rise look faster and higher....

View attachment 244682

Your coarse graphs cannot support that claim. To compare rates you need to use the same scale. And graphs without links are worthless in a debate. There are far too many dishonest sites that are willing to try to distort the message. Try to use proper sources with linking if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your coarse graphs cannot support that claim. To compare rates you need to use the same scale. And graphs without links are worthless in a debate. There are far too many dishonest sites that are willing to try to distort the message. Try to use proper sources with linking if you want to be taken seriously.

Google them yourself, do your own research. Every site will post the exact same thing....

Don't try to pawn off your pure laziness and lack of any data to support your claims upon me.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

double post

 

[Subduction Zone]

Google them yourself, do your own research. Every site will post the exact same thing....

Don't try to pawn off your pure laziness and lack of any data to support your claims upon me.....

That is not how this is done. You made the claim it is up to you to support it. If you can't support your claim with valid sources my little friend wavey is eagerly waiting to refute your claims once again.

 

[sparow]

Fair enough. I could go over the Stefan Boltzmann Law, but let's keep it simple for now. As you probably realize air is transparent to light. Carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light as well. Most of the Sun's energy comes to the Earth in the form of visible light.

By the way, if you want anything that I claim to be supported by various sources feel free to ask. This is all well known facts so far.

Carbon dioxide is not transparent to certain wavelengths of infrared. It will absorb that energy and then reradiate it in random directions. When sunlight hits the Earth, after it goes through the transparent atmosphere some is absorbed and some is reflected back into space. What we need to be concerned with is the absorbed light. That will not be reradiated as visible light. That will be reradiated as infrared light. And here is where carbon dioxide plays an important role. That heat will have a hard time leaving the atmosphere. It will be absorbed and reradiated in random directions. So instead of the heat leaving immediately some of it will be rereadiaated in the direction of the Earth, keeping it warm.

Any questions? Here is a simple video that illustrates this aspect of carbond dioxide:

The title of the thread amuses me; a contest between two non-descripts. The diversity of the physics of climate are infinitely great; what you describe is a small speck.

What you say about co2 and it's function may be true but there is a status-quo. The planet absorbs energy from the sun and unused energy is radiated out into space to form a temperature equilibrium.

We always have had co2 in the atmosphere. Global warming science would need to prove that the balance point between the earths dissipation and retention of the suns energy is proportional to or determined by co2 levels; what the proportion is; is it positive or negative or zero. I have just looked at a graph that shows that after slowly reducing to 180 ppm every 50000 years the co2 levels rapidly reach 300 ppm and we are at one of these high levels now except that since 1950 when I was 11 years old, the ppm has increased to 400 ppm; I haven't personally observed any change to climate, knowing the previous climate history from my parents and grandparents.

I would like us to conserve our hydrocarbons, we will need them when the next ice age hits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The title of the thread amuses me; a contest between two non-descripts. The diversity of the physics of climate are infinitely great; what you describe is a small speck.

What you say about co2 and it's function may be true but there is a status-quo. The planet absorbs energy from the sun and unused energy is radiated out into space to form a temperature equilibrium.

We always have had co2 in the atmosphere. Global warming science would need to prove that the balance point between the earths dissipation and retention of the suns energy is proportional to or determined by co2 levels; what the proportion is; is it positive or negative or zero. I have just looked at a graph that shows that after slowly reducing to 180 ppm every 50000 years the co2 levels rapidly reach 300 ppm and we are at one of these high levels now except that since 1950 when I was 11 years old, the ppm has increased to 400 ppm; I haven't personally observed any change to climate, knowing the previous climate history from my parents and grandparents.

I would like us to conserve our hydrocarbons, we will need them when the next ice age hits.

Did you not understand the explanation? That described the greenhouse effect.

You are wandering too much considering that you did not even understand that simple concept. There was nothing controversial about the greenhouse effect before we realized that AGW was a problem.

 

[sparow]

Did you not understand the explanation? That described the greenhouse effect.

You are wandering too much considering that you did not even understand that simple concept. There was nothing controversial about the greenhouse effect before we realized that AGW was a problem.

I understand greenhouse and the metaphor "greenhouse effect"; the concept is not the problem; the concept is not applicable to our climate or atmosphere. AGW is a theory that fails to be proven; AGW may not be a theory; does AGW walk like a theory, does it talk like a theory, does it swim like a theory, no, it is a duck.

If our atmosphere was 100% co2 we would have a problem but one part in 2500, the co2 does what it is supposed to do; there are many questions, does the co2 displace other parts or add to them. What would interest me is how many parts of co2 would constitute a health problem.

I regard AGW and Climate Change as weapons in the same nature of Political correctness and other things.

The video in post 66 was silly, co2 is used in fire extinguishes and coming out of a compressed tank it is a refrigerant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand greenhouse and the metaphor "greenhouse effect"; the concept is not the problem; the concept is not applicable to our climate or atmosphere. AGW is a theory that fails to be proven; AGW may not be a theory; does AGW walk like a theory, does it talk like a theory, does it swim like a theory, no, it is a duck.

If our atmosphere was 100% co2 we would have a problem but one part in 2500, the co2 does what it is supposed to do; there are many questions, does the co2 displace other parts or add to them. What would interest me is how many parts of co2 would constitute a health problem.

I regard AGW and Climate Change as weapons in the same nature of Political correctness and other things.

The video in post 66 was silly, co2 is used in fire extinguishes and coming out of a compressed tank it is a refrigerant.

You contradicted yourself almost immediately. If you understood the Greenhouse Effect you would understand how it applies to our atmosphere.


Since you did not understand why not try to learn?

 

[sparow]

You contradicted yourself almost immediately. If you understood the Greenhouse Effect you would understand how it applies to our atmosphere.


Since you did not understand why not try to learn?

Greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. This process maintains the Earth’s temperature at around 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be, allowing life on Earth to exist.

Enhanced greenhouse effect
The problem we now face is that human activities – particularly burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing – are increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is contributing to warming of the Earth.

Greenhouse effect
Step 1: Solar radiation reaches the Earth's atmosphere - some of this is reflected back into space.

Step 2: The rest of the sun's energy is absorbed by the land and the oceans, heating the Earth.

Step 3: Heat radiates from Earth towards space.

Step 4: Some of this heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, keeping the Earth warm enough to sustain life.

Step 5: Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and land clearing are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

Step 6: This is trapping extra heat, and causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

Step 6: is an assumption; every second scientist will tell you the earth is not warming; there is no evidence that the extra co2 has changed anything which may mean the whole greenhouse model is fiction.

The changes could easily be beneficial as not; and the science trying to determine the matter is not physics but ideology, politicalology and psychology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. This process maintains the Earth’s temperature at around 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be, allowing life on Earth to exist.

Enhanced greenhouse effect
The problem we now face is that human activities – particularly burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing – are increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is contributing to warming of the Earth.

Greenhouse effect
Step 1: Solar radiation reaches the Earth's atmosphere - some of this is reflected back into space.

Step 2: The rest of the sun's energy is absorbed by the land and the oceans, heating the Earth.

Step 3: Heat radiates from Earth towards space.

Step 4: Some of this heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, keeping the Earth warm enough to sustain life.

Step 5: Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and land clearing are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

Step 6: This is trapping extra heat, and causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

Step 6: is an assumption; every second scientist will tell you the earth is not warming; there is no evidence that the extra co2 has changed anything which may mean the whole greenhouse model is fiction.

The changes could easily be beneficial as not; and the science trying to determine the matter is not physics but ideology, politicalology and psychology.

Copying and pasting something does not mean that you do understand it.

And no, step 6 is not an assumption. The rising temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and the seas have been observed and measured. And no, not every second scientist will not tell you that the Earth is not warming. The vast majority of climate scientists, and scientists in general accept the observed event of AGW. By the way you cannot just claim something to be an assumption. When you make that claim you put the burden of proof upon yourself. So how is it an assumption or were you just speaking out of an orifice meant for other purposes?

 

[sparow]

Copying and pasting something does not mean that you do understand it.

And no, step 6 is not an assumption. The rising temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and the seas have been observed and measured. And no, not every second scientist will not tell you that the Earth is not warming. The vast majority of climate scientists, and scientists in general accept the observed event of AGW. By the way you cannot just claim something to be an assumption. When you make that claim you put the burden of proof upon yourself. So how is it an assumption or were you just speaking out of an orifice meant for other purposes?

I can see you are getting angry and are trying to dictate rules. AGW is obsolete; it is now climate change which is less specific.

The first part describes what is normal and has been normal for thousands of years and comes from a Gov site.

<<Greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. This process maintains the Earth’s temperature at around 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be, allowing life on Earth to exist.>>

The above is normal, the status quo; it is not AWG or climate change.

<<Enhanced greenhouse effect
The problem we now face is that human activities – particularly burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing – are increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is contributing to warming of the Earth.>>

This is the problem. I agree that over the last two hundred years fossil fuels are being burned and land is cleared at an increasing rate but the effects are not what is expected.

The big change is over-population; if people were mice or grasshoppers they would have been spayed a long time ago.