Science vs Global Warming

[Subduction Zone]

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 AGW is obsolete; it is now climate change which is less specific.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.

Quotes without links are less than worthless. And AGW is still a perfectly acceptable term since on average climate change is from a general warming.

 

[sparow]

Quotes without links are less than worthless. And AGW is still a perfectly acceptable term since on average climate change is from a general warming.

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Department of the Environment and Energy

 

[Subduction Zone]

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Department of the Environment and Energy

Good, now let's get back to the Greenhouse Effect. Did you understand that explanation? It was rather basic. I did not mention the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but that law describes what temperature that a perfect black body would be with a specific amount of energy hitting it. We can go over that if you like. This is a law that is observable and measurable. When applied to the Earth it predicts a temperature far lower than is observed. That is how scientists knew that something was insulating the Earth. That led to the discovery of the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[sparow]

Good, now let's get back to the Greenhouse Effect. Did you understand that explanation? It was rather basic. I did not mention the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but that law describes what temperature that a perfect black body would be with a specific amount of energy hitting it. We can go over that if you like. This is a law that is observable and measurable. When applied to the Earth it predicts a temperature far lower than is observed. That is how scientists knew that something was insulating the Earth. That led to the discovery of the Greenhouse Effect.

The earth and the sola system is a complicated piece of gear; to call the earth a greenhouse or glass house would be an insult if the earth could be offended. The greenhouse effect is specially invented for AGW and is vested interests taking advantage of the planets predicaments.

The description of Stefan-Boltzmann law that I have found does not say whether the model is in a vacuum or in a gaseous environment but in any case the earth is not a black body and is unpredictably less efficient at radiating heat.

I believe over the last 20 or 30 years the earths temperature has dropped.

What we do not know is what normally cases the co2 levels to drop to 180 ppm every 50000 years; could it be that the human race gets wiped out every 50000 years.

When we talk about real scientist they say, "Today we BELEIVE such and such, in ten years time we will probably BELIEVE some thing else".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The earth and the sola system is a complicated piece of gear; to call the earth a greenhouse or glass house would be an insult if the earth could be offended. The greenhouse effect is specially invented for AGW and is vested interests taking advantage of the planets predicaments.

So you do not understand the Greenhouse effect. Why didn't you say so?

The description of Stefan-Boltzmann law that I have found does not say whether the model is in a vacuum or in a gaseous environment but in any case the earth is not a black body and is unpredictably less efficient at radiating heat.

There is a simple fix for bodies that are not black bodies. In the sciences one starts with a very simple model and then adds refinements as one learns more. The Earth should be even colder than a perfect black body would be. Let's add the Stefan Boltzmann Law to concepts that you do not understand.

I believe over the last 20 or 30 years the earths temperature has dropped.

You are wrong.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

What we do not know is what normally cases the co2 levels to drop to 180 ppm every 50000 years; could it be that the human race gets wiped out every 50000 years.

When we talk about real scientist they say, "Today we BELEIVE such and such, in ten years time we will probably BELIEVE some thing else".

No, we know what causes the changes in CO2. The problem is that we "should" be in a stable period right now and man has upset the balance. You are going to need to learn some basics, such as the Stefan Boltzmann law and how the Greenhouse Effect works before you can understand how we hav messed up the climate and how we know that man is to blame.

 

[sparow]

So you do not understand the Greenhouse effect. Why didn't you say so?



There is a simple fix for bodies that are not black bodies. In the sciences one starts with a very simple model and then adds refinements as one learns more. The Earth should be even colder than a perfect black body would be. Let's add the Stefan Boltzmann Law to concepts that you do not understand.



You are wrong.


View attachment 244791

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov



No, we know what causes the changes in CO2. The problem is that we "should" be in a stable period right now and man has upset the balance. You are going to need to learn some basics, such as the Stefan Boltzmann law and how the Greenhouse Effect works before you can understand how we hav messed up the climate and how we know that man is to blame.

My understanding is different to yours, I haven't been coned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding is different to yours, I haven't been coned.

You could not be more wrong.

You have no understanding of even the basics and you have appealed to false authorities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Instead of listening to completely ignorant people, such as John Coleman, why not listen to those that understand the topic? You could even learn some of the basics yourself. I have tried to help you on the noncontroversial concept of the Greenhouse Effect and you ran away from that.

While I wait here is an article on Coleman:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-change/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dfa32b010364

 

[USincognito]

The earth and the sola system is a complicated piece of gear; to call the earth a greenhouse or glass house would be an insult if the earth could be offended. The greenhouse effect is specially invented for AGW and is vested interests taking advantage of the planets predicaments.

Greenhouses existed before the greenhouse effect was described scientifically. And it was being postulated by the mid-1800s. Arrhenius explained it in 1896. To suggest that it's some contemporary conspiracy theory is laughable.

I believe over the last 20 or 30 years the earths temperature has dropped.

Your beliefs are not consistent with the actual observations.

What we do not know is what normally cases the co2 levels to drop to 180 ppm every 50000 years; could it be that the human race gets wiped out every 50000 years.

Rank speculation has no place in a discussion of known causes and effects and actual observations made over the last 100 years.

When we talk about real scientist they say, "Today we BELEIVE such and such, in ten years time we will probably BELIEVE some thing else".

Yes, that is proper scientific verbiage because science doesn't deal in absolutes (with a few exceptions).

 

[USincognito]

My understanding is different to yours, I haven't been coned.

lol That last video mentions the laughable Oregon Petition.
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia
and features a talk at the denier Heartland Institute. It's hard to take stuff like that seriously.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Scientific proposals are not proven, then I'm going to suggest some refresher study if we're going to discuss the topic in a scientific context.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

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.

You seem to be missing the point about greenhouse gasses. They prevent heat from being radiated back out into space. CO2 levels were at about 320ppm in the 1950s. They currently are over 400ppm. That means there's a lot more of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that persists. Water vapor is another greenhouse gas, but it has about a three week cycle precipitating out as rain, snow, etc. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for years to decades and builds up the more we pump into it. If the heating continues the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia will begin to melt and that will add a bunch of methane to the mix which will make global warming even worse.

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

Trying to frame a scientific issue as a political one does not change the scientific facts.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Climate change will have dire consequences for US, federal report concludes

Climate change will be devastating for US, hurting health and costing billions - CNN

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Good, now let's get back to the Greenhouse Effect. Did you understand that explanation? It was rather basic. I did not mention the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but that law describes what temperature that a perfect black body would be with a specific amount of energy hitting it. We can go over that if you like. This is a law that is observable and measurable. When applied to the Earth it predicts a temperature far lower than is observed. That is how scientists knew that something was insulating the Earth. That led to the discovery of the Greenhouse Effect.

A black body would also prevent any outside radiation from entering.

Insulating the earth, I agree. Insulating from both outside and inside, not a one-way mirror. This is why global temperatures have always been higher in the past, it insulated the Earth from outside radiation. This is why this warming cycle has been longer than the ones in the past. It kept the heat in for longer.

Notice the data is in full agreement. Past temperatures were higher, but also lasted for shorter periods.

Man should be thankful for the rise in CO2, or else we would have already began that downward slide that begins after every NATURAL heating period that occurs in a cyclic pattern.... A heating cycle which began according to the data 25,000 years ago and had nothing to do with man at all. The only thing man has done is made it less hot than in the past and make the warmth stay longer..... but that is what insulators do, they insulate (both ways), not act as magic one-way mirrors.....

 

[sparow]

Greenhouses existed before the greenhouse effect was described scientifically. And it was being postulated by the mid-1800s. Arrhenius explained it in 1896. To suggest that it's some contemporary conspiracy theory is laughable.

Your beliefs are not consistent with the actual observations.

Rank speculation has no place in a discussion of known causes and effects and actual observations made over the last 100 years.

Yes, that is proper scientific verbiage because science doesn't deal in absolutes (with a few exceptions).

In a green house used in a garden, the glass is the initial and secondary agent, which insulates, not green house gases; in sophisticated green houses the environment is controlled with refrigeration and heating; various gases and water vapour are also controlled for the purpose of emulating specific climatic conditions. If the degree of complexity of such a greenhouse was one an infinite scale, the degree of complexity of the earth's climate is infinite, the sun being the primary agent; to change the climate the effect of the sun would need to be inhibited or amplified in the case of warming. The energy from the sun varies according to sunspots; we are passing through a period of low sunspot activity and this is the reason for average temperatures dropping over the last few years.

Arrhenius' science would have been specific, he would have had coefficients to determine the energy
absorbed and released by co2; co2 is a refrigerant which means it releases heat on decompression. A co2 fire extinguisher can be used to freeze beer.

<<Arrhenius knew that carbon dioxide (to him, carbonic acid) absorbs infrared radiation, felt by us as a form of heat. He also knew that the Industrial Revolution’s steam engine-powered locomotives, ships, and industrial looms burned coal—lots of coal—and that burning coal produces vast quantities of carbon dioxide.>>

This quote from Science History Institute is stuffing hyperbole words into to the dead scientist's mouth.

 

[sparow]

lol That last video mentions the laughable Oregon Petition.
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia
and features a talk at the denier Heartland Institute. It's hard to take stuff like that seriously.

"Serious" is not consistent with your Climate change religion.

 

[USincognito]

"Serious" is not consistent with your Climate change religion.

Your attempt to denigrate science as mere religion is a laughably pathetic as the Oregon Petition.

 

[sparow]

Scientific proposals are not proven, then I'm going to suggest some refresher study if we're going to discuss the topic in a scientific context.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

You seem to be missing the point about greenhouse gasses. They prevent heat from being radiated back out into space. CO2 levels were at about 320ppm in the 1950s. They currently are over 400ppm. That means there's a lot more of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that persists. Water vapor is another greenhouse gas, but it has about a three week cycle precipitating out as rain, snow, etc. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for years to decades and builds up the more we pump into it. If the heating continues the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia will begin to melt and that will add a bunch of methane to the mix which will make global warming even worse.

Trying to frame a scientific issue as a political one does not change the scientific facts.

Regarding the link; it explains your position or predicament to me; but to me it is new speak. By scientific proposal do you mean a precursor to a theory or is proposal as far as you are prepared to go?

I haven't missed your point; I do not believe it; greenhouse effect is a misnomer. If heat stopped radiating out we would have been cooked a long time ago. The biggest problem would be water vapour or humidity which prevents our sweat from vaporising and it stores heat.

 

[sparow]

Your attempt to denigrate science as mere religion is a laughably pathetic as the Oregon Petition.

I reject what you call science; articulated misnomer hyperbole; chicken little as the authority that the climate is changing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A black body would also prevent any outside radiation from entering.

Insulating the earth, I agree. Insulating from both outside and inside, not a one-way mirror. This is why global temperatures have always been higher in the past, it insulated the Earth from outside radiation. This is why this warming cycle has been longer than the ones in the past. It kept the heat in for longer.

View attachment 245772
Notice the data is in full agreement. Past temperatures were higher, but also lasted for shorter periods.

Man should be thankful for the rise in CO2, or else we would have already began that downward slide that begins after every NATURAL heating period that occurs in a cyclic pattern.... A heating cycle which began according to the data 25,000 years ago and had nothing to do with man at all. The only thing man has done is made it less hot than in the past and make the warmth stay longer..... but that is what insulators do, they insulate (both ways), not act as magic one-way mirrors.....

Amazing, so you do not even understand the Greenhouse effect. This is not a controversial idea at all. When you can't get 1 + 1 = 2 you will never be able to understand multiplication tables.

Would you care to go over the science behind the concept?

 

[PaoloPorini1972]

I like this guy (At least what he says that is science driven) - anyone else heard of him?

He spent a day and a half on Google to learn about Global Warming?????

Well. Guess those folks who bothered to get PhD's in earth and atmospheric sciences must feel pretty chagrinned right now!

C'mon.