- Banned
- #281
I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?
Burned dinosaur farts?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?
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 thereWait... 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.
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 didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?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?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.
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.
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?
Billy Bob,I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?"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.
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.
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.
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
Billy Bob,I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?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.
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.
I find there is little you can contribute in the way of arguments or ideas. You are on ignore.
I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?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.
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 concedingI didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?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.
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.
FlaCal,I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?"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.
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,I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?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.
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..
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.FlaCal,I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?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.
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..
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.
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.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.
FlaCal,I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?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.
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..
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?
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.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.
ah, the old acidification ploy