Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by CrusaderFrank, Jun 6, 2011.

  1. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,194
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,938
    I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

    Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,670
    You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,194
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,938
    See what I mean?
     
  4. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,315
    Thanks Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,930
    The basic premise is the relase of long term sequestered organic carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

    Carbon in the form of oil, coal and natural gas is now stored in a form that is kept out of the atmosphere. By burning it we are returning it to the atmosphere.

    By using it faster than it is sequestered you increase the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere, increasing the retention of heat in the atmosphere, and thus AGW.

    My issues arent with the general cycle, it is known. My issues are with

    1) the true impact of increases in CO2 concentration, i.e. is it a functional increase or is there some sort of "buffer" or "dead-band" effect that mitigates increases.

    2) The ability of models to appricate every sink and addition to a system this large. Also can some sinks be triggered by increased concentration.

    3) The effects of AGW vs. normal background variation and changes.\

    4) That the overall proposals put together to fight AGW basically consist of more government, and more sacrifice by certain groups of people.
     
  5. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    There has never been any logic presented; only a blind faith. In the past day or so, I gave you guys instructions to manufacture a very inespensive device that will prove that downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the AGW, and greenhouse hpothesies) simply does not exist.

    It involves pointing a parabolic dish at the sky and producing a cooling effect. (precisely what the second law of thermodynamics predicts). In fact it produces such a cooing effect that during night time hours, one can actually produce ice when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees and depending on altitude and relative humidity, maybe even at higher temperatures. In addition, the dish can be used to realise some cooling during daylight hours.

    If downdwelling radiation from greenhouse gasses existed, you could not point a parabolic dish into the sky and cool anything. Day or night, the downdwelling IR would always cause warming. Feel free to describe the physical law that would allow downdwelling IR from "greenhouse gasses" to warm the atmosphere and at the same time allow one to create ice by pointing a parabolic dish at that downdwelling radiation when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees.

    Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus.
     
  6. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,670
    Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus.

    What hypothesis would that be? Your posts are so disjointed and jump from topic to topic so erratically, you're going to have to be more specific. To keep it simple for you, CO2 and the other GHGs act like a blanket, keeping in more heat. It's easily demonstrated in a lab that they absorb IR and since statistically half would be re-emitted towards earth, the earth stays warmer. Add another blanket(more GHGs) and the atmosphere would retain even more heat than if they weren't present.
     
  7. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,670
    "See, see" says the blind man!!! :cool:
     
  8. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,670
    BTW, what requires more "faith"? The notion that since GHGs trap IR, they may be adding heat to the globe or the notion the earth is so large that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate?
     
  9. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    You keep saying blanket, blanket, as if that meant something. Do you have one of the new temporal thermometers for kids? The sort that you touch the child's skin with to read a surface temperature? If so, try this out. Take the temperature of your skin. Then put a blanket over your skin for a minute or so, then take the surface temperature of your skin. Do you know what you will see? The surface temperature of your skin will have dropped. Heat will have flowed from your skin to the blanket, exactly as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. Putting a blanket over yourself actually cools your surface temperature.

    As to downward emitted radiation, try the experiment I have provided with the parabolic dish. If IR were being emitted downward, you could not achieve a cooler temperature than the surrounding air by pointing a dish upwards at the downdwelling radiation. Do you have such a poor grasp of the science that you believe that downdwelling IR could actually warm the planet and promote cooling if one points a parabolic dish towards it? What laws of physics do you suppose predict such a thing?
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,194
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,938
    Konrad is flailing badly from the get go, so let's help him out

    "...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."

    Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

Share This Page