Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[Pete7469]

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Burned dinosaur farts?

 

[Pete7469]

Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2. The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus. Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2. It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot. In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content. It is physically impossible.

You do realize you'd be better off teaching atmospheric science to a fishtank right?

 

[jc456]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2. The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus. Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2. It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot. In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content. It is physically impossible.

But no human lives there

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2. The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus. Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2. It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot. In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content. It is physically impossible.

You do realize you'd be better off teaching atmospheric science to a fishtank right?

how about this......

 

[CultureCitizen]

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

And those probes have verified what we know about that planet. It lays waste to your straw-man arguments.

 

[westwall]

Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2. The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus. Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2. It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot. In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content. It is physically impossible.

You do realize you'd be better off teaching atmospheric science to a fishtank right?

I engage in these sorts of discussions because there are MANY who merely observe the discussion but take no part. I am educating them. People like CC who pretty obviously is either a true believer, or simply ignorant of science, are actually quite useful. Those who are ignorant of science ask real questions so they can be educated on the subject.

True believers on the other hand try and come across as reasonable yet ask the same tired questions over and over and even after you have shown how the science, the actual science, not the computer derived fiction, doesn't add up will still blissfully ignore the discussion and proclaim their undying belief in the volcano Gods.

They are both equally useful. The seeker of knowledge gets to learn new facts and how science actually works, and the true believer shows the seekers how they are not interested in science at all, and are in fact political operatives.

Seekers aren't stupid, unlike the true believers.

 

[CultureCitizen]

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

And those probes have verified what we know about that planet. It lays waste to your straw-man arguments.

Billy Bob,
I find there is little you can contribute in the way of arguments or ideas. You are on ignore.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

Yet again you try and compare an elephant with a fly. Venus is not hot due to GHGs. It is hot because of the density of its atmosphere. Nitrogen (not nitrous oxide) is not a GHG yet if you replaced the Venusian atmosphere's CO2 with nitrogen the temperature would remain the same. It is not the type of gas it is its density that makes the difference. You really need to learn some of the basics.

Yes, it is an extreme case comparision. That said , pressure is not the only factor .
At 50 km of height Venus' atmospheric pressure is equal to earth's , and yet the tempreture is 75 C ( not the 462 of the surface, but still a lot hotter than Earth.

Indeed the co2 concentration is higher even at 50 km of altitude ( though I haven't find any sources of the exact concentrations at that altitude ) .
Our current concentration of co2 is about 0.4% . The Earth has had much higher concentrations, but not in the short existence of any human like creature.
So yes, I am still convinced that this high concentration of CO2 , coupled with deforestation are having an effect on weather. If this change will turn into a catastrophe still remains to be seen ( I am waiting until 2020 before doing any judgement, not much we can do anyway as clean energy is barely economically pheasible right now).

Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

Yet again you try and compare an elephant with a fly. Venus is not hot due to GHGs. It is hot because of the density of its atmosphere. Nitrogen (not nitrous oxide) is not a GHG yet if you replaced the Venusian atmosphere's CO2 with nitrogen the temperature would remain the same. It is not the type of gas it is its density that makes the difference. You really need to learn some of the basics.

Yes, it is an extreme case comparision. That said , pressure is not the only factor .
At 50 km of height Venus' atmospheric pressure is equal to earth's , and yet the tempreture is 75 C ( not the 462 of the surface, but still a lot hotter than Earth.

Indeed the co2 concentration is higher even at 50 km of altitude ( though I haven't find any sources of the exact concentrations at that altitude ) .
Our current concentration of co2 is about 0.4% . The Earth has had much higher concentrations, but not in the short existence of any human like creature.
So yes, I am still convinced that this high concentration of CO2 , coupled with deforestation are having an effect on weather. If this change will turn into a catastrophe still remains to be seen ( I am waiting until 2020 before doing any judgement, not much we can do anyway as clean energy is barely economically pheasible right now).

Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not the only factor but by far and away THE dominant factor. The temperature at altitude is due to the radiation from the surface. The heat is the same as if you heat a pan and hold your hand above it. The higher you go the less heat there is. It is a simple yet accurate analogy and has nothing to do with GHG's and everything to do with how damned hot the surface of Venus is.

Any attempt to use Venus as a analogy for Earth is imbecilic. The two are so vastly different that the attempt to pair the two exposes either a gross ignorance of science, or outright deception.

 

[Billy_Bob]

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

And those probes have verified what we know about that planet. It lays waste to your straw-man arguments.

Billy Bob,
I find there is little you can contribute in the way of arguments or ideas. You are on ignore.

Too funny: I ask you to produce the empirical evidence while providing you with empirical evidence disproving your theroys and you run and hide..

Very telling. Those who disagree with you and can prove their positions with empirical evidence you runaway from. When your straw-man arguments are torn apart with facts By others and myself, you double down while not fully understanding how these false comparisons fail.

You never once addressed the empirical evidence I provided.Typical alarmist drone. But that has been apparent from the start.

This is what happens when you expose an alarmist and pin them down... "I'm putting you on Ignore"... Thank you for telling me I have won this argument!

 

[flacaltenn]

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

You need to very careful comparing planets. Our GHouse effect is a finely tuned combination of happy coincidences. The very thin absorption lines of CO2/Methane/ect could be thrown off radically because of small shift in the shape of the planet IR Blackbody radiation spectrum or the incident amount solar energy changed by the large differences in water vapor content. The albedo and the shape and center freq of VENUS's surface IR radiation IS a lot different from Earth..

So -- It's truely silly to jump to CO2 as the major and only factor in it's "climate" and compare that to Earth. Unless of course -- you're James Hansen

Even TINY shifts in the sun's radiation spectrum could change both the downdwelling radiation and the GH insulation factor. IN FACT --- for the past 25 years or so-- we've had space observatories accurately measuring these spectral shifts and are learning that they DO modulate the GH effect at different times of a solar cycle. We MIGHT discover that there are also some LONGER term trends at play..

 

[jc456]

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

I see you have no answer. But thanks for conceding

 

[CultureCitizen]

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

You need to very careful comparing planets. Our GHouse effect is a finely tuned combination of happy coincidences. The very thin absorption lines of CO2/Methane/ect could be thrown off radically because of small shift in the shape of the planet IR Blackbody radiation spectrum or the incident amount solar energy changed by the large differences in water vapor content. The albedo and the shape and center freq of VENUS's surface IR radiation IS a lot different from Earth..

So -- It's truely silly to jump to CO2 as the major and only factor in it's "climate" and compare that to Earth. Unless of course -- you're James Hansen

Even TINY shifts in the sun's radiation spectrum could change both the downdwelling radiation and the GH insulation factor. IN FACT --- for the past 25 years or so-- we've had space observatories accurately measuring these spectral shifts and are learning that they DO modulate the GH effect at different times of a solar cycle. We MIGHT discover that there are also some LONGER term trends at play..

FlaCal,
If Co2 and methane were THE only factors at play , I would agree with you, but there are other factors at play : deforestation , sea acidification due to rapid co2 ( I know we've had higher co2 levels, but the biosphere had thousands of years to adapt not just one century ) , the change in the albedo of snow, the massive extintion of species.
The big difference between venus and earth is not just chemical , but the fact that Earth's biosphere plays a significant role in the weather and we are not just messing with co2 or methane , but with a lot of other factors.
So again , we are not in an emergency , but I will continue using compact cars and energy saving devices, I benefit from it as well as the companies that make those products.

 

[westwall]

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

You need to very careful comparing planets. Our GHouse effect is a finely tuned combination of happy coincidences. The very thin absorption lines of CO2/Methane/ect could be thrown off radically because of small shift in the shape of the planet IR Blackbody radiation spectrum or the incident amount solar energy changed by the large differences in water vapor content. The albedo and the shape and center freq of VENUS's surface IR radiation IS a lot different from Earth..

So -- It's truely silly to jump to CO2 as the major and only factor in it's "climate" and compare that to Earth. Unless of course -- you're James Hansen

Even TINY shifts in the sun's radiation spectrum could change both the downdwelling radiation and the GH insulation factor. IN FACT --- for the past 25 years or so-- we've had space observatories accurately measuring these spectral shifts and are learning that they DO modulate the GH effect at different times of a solar cycle. We MIGHT discover that there are also some LONGER term trends at play..

FlaCal,
If Co2 and methane were THE only factors at play , I would agree with you, but there are other factors at play : deforestation , sea acidification due to rapid co2 ( I know we've had higher co2 levels, but the biosphere had thousands of years to adapt not just one century ) , the change in the albedo of snow, the massive extintion of species.
The big difference between venus and earth is not just chemical , but the fact that Earth's biosphere plays a significant role in the weather and we are not just messing with co2 or methane , but with a lot of other factors.
So again , we are not in an emergency , but I will continue using compact cars and energy saving devices, I benefit from it as well as the companies that make those products.

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline. Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

 

[jc456]

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

You need to very careful comparing planets. Our GHouse effect is a finely tuned combination of happy coincidences. The very thin absorption lines of CO2/Methane/ect could be thrown off radically because of small shift in the shape of the planet IR Blackbody radiation spectrum or the incident amount solar energy changed by the large differences in water vapor content. The albedo and the shape and center freq of VENUS's surface IR radiation IS a lot different from Earth..

So -- It's truely silly to jump to CO2 as the major and only factor in it's "climate" and compare that to Earth. Unless of course -- you're James Hansen

Even TINY shifts in the sun's radiation spectrum could change both the downdwelling radiation and the GH insulation factor. IN FACT --- for the past 25 years or so-- we've had space observatories accurately measuring these spectral shifts and are learning that they DO modulate the GH effect at different times of a solar cycle. We MIGHT discover that there are also some LONGER term trends at play..

FlaCal,
If Co2 and methane were THE only factors at play , I would agree with you, but there are other factors at play : deforestation , sea acidification due to rapid co2 ( I know we've had higher co2 levels, but the biosphere had thousands of years to adapt not just one century ) , the change in the albedo of snow, the massive extintion of species.
The big difference between venus and earth is not just chemical , but the fact that Earth's biosphere plays a significant role in the weather and we are not just messing with co2 or methane , but with a lot of other factors.
So again , we are not in an emergency , but I will continue using compact cars and energy saving devices, I benefit from it as well as the companies that make those products.

good for you. you feel good. nice. You're wrong, with your thoughts, but hey, you feel good fkn the poor.

 

[mamooth]

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.

For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.

And if you disagree, I suggest you also tell the medical community they're getting it all wrong, as "acidosis" is defined as blood pH falling below 7.35.

Deniers also don't understand water chemistry. pH 7.0 is only the neutral state in one type of system, pure water undergoing strong acid/base interactions. In a system with multiple layers of buffering like the oceans, pH 7.0 is a number of no significance.

 

[jc456]

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.

For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.

Deniers also don't understand chemistry. pH 7.0 is only the neutral state in one type of system, pure water undergoing strong acid/base interactions. In a system with multiple layers of buffering like the oceans, pH 7.0 is a number of no significance.

For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.
ah, the old acidification ploy

 

[Billy_Bob]

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

You need to very careful comparing planets. Our GHouse effect is a finely tuned combination of happy coincidences. The very thin absorption lines of CO2/Methane/ect could be thrown off radically because of small shift in the shape of the planet IR Blackbody radiation spectrum or the incident amount solar energy changed by the large differences in water vapor content. The albedo and the shape and center freq of VENUS's surface IR radiation IS a lot different from Earth..

So -- It's truely silly to jump to CO2 as the major and only factor in it's "climate" and compare that to Earth. Unless of course -- you're James Hansen

Even TINY shifts in the sun's radiation spectrum could change both the downdwelling radiation and the GH insulation factor. IN FACT --- for the past 25 years or so-- we've had space observatories accurately measuring these spectral shifts and are learning that they DO modulate the GH effect at different times of a solar cycle. We MIGHT discover that there are also some LONGER term trends at play..

FlaCal,
If Co2 and methane were THE only factors at play , I would agree with you, but there are other factors at play : deforestation , sea acidification due to rapid co2 ( I know we've had higher co2 levels, but the biosphere had thousands of years to adapt not just one century ) , the change in the albedo of snow, the massive extintion of species.
The big difference between venus and earth is not just chemical , but the fact that Earth's biosphere plays a significant role in the weather and we are not just messing with co2 or methane , but with a lot of other factors.
So again , we are not in an emergency , but I will continue using compact cars and energy saving devices, I benefit from it as well as the companies that make those products.

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline. Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

He is now grasping at straws..

Acidifcation is a non issue as a group of AGW scientists has now found, while trying to prove this theroy, that plankton grows so rapidly it consumes more CO2 than the ocean can sequester. Increased carbon dioxide enhances plankton growth, opposite of what was expected

Deforestation is a localized event and creates localized changes. it is not global. This shows the conflation between local events and global events.

Extinctions of species is at an all time low according to the paleo records. This is a natural cyclic event. not sure where he is able to make this a man caused event.

Snow Albedo is an easy one. Particulate matter, not CO2 is the issue. Naturally occurring fires and man caused fires will place particulates into the atmosphere which eventually make it to the poles. The Northerner hemisphere has changed massively in the last 30 years reducing the particulate matter in the arctic region. It has been seriously reduced and the snow is now near its postindustrial age color again.

The AGW folks dont care that most if not all of their doom and gloom scenarios failed to materialize. Like this alarmist, he is pulling out all of the stops without addressing the failure of his models to predict anything and the empirical evidence which lays waste to the CAGW theroy. The use of totally bogus comparisons is their game because most dont know how or why heat is higher on Venus when no IR (short or long wave ) makes it to the surface.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.

For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.

Deniers also don't understand chemistry. pH 7.0 is only the neutral state in one type of system, pure water undergoing strong acid/base interactions. In a system with multiple layers of buffering like the oceans, pH 7.0 is a number of no significance.

For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.
ah, the old acidification ploy

More acidic or more alkalitic (trending towards acid or alkali) are the terms used in most all labs. Even medical people use the terms acidotic and alkalotic. Lower Ph means it is 'more acidic' or 'trending towards acid' it does not mean it is acid. Fools like mantooth cant figure it out..