Climate Change Gets Real For Americans

[CrusaderFrank]

I have seen the proof CO2 in enclosed environemnts raises heat retention. To deny it is pretty silly.

What you have seen in a closed environment is a demonstration of the heat of compression. In a closed bottle, the gasses can't expand when exposed to the heat and as a result, warm more than would be expected from the heat source alone due to the compression. CO2 being a heavier gas than standard air warms more because more compression is taking place in that jar than in the air jar. The heavier the gas is, the more heat is generated via compression. If you do the same experiment with a valve to keep the pressure equalized with the outside, then a jar filled with CO2 won't warm anymore than a jar filled with air.

What is silly is to be fooled by a scam. When you go to a magic show, do you really believe you see hankerchiefs being turned into doves and tigers disappering from one place and appearing in another?

Take a few minutes and look up and read about heat of compression and stop being a dupe. You might also familiarize yourself with the ideal gas laws. If you had any sort of grasp of them, then you wouldn't be fooled by the greenhouse in a jar type experiments.

Now I suppose we can liberally interpret things and find a way to say the earth works under a different set of rules as it is round or whatever. But at least that is a thought. Also it is fair to question how much a difference out ppm have made.

No difference at all. As I said, if you had a pressure release valve in the jar, a jar of CO2 would be the same temperature as a jar of air no matter what the PPM of CO2 was in the jar. CO2 can't cause warming in an open atmosphere.

SSDD, you constantly make statements without anything at all to back them up. Others on this board offer the statements and work of real scientists to show what backs up their statements. You offer nothing, and that is the value of your statements.

"You tell 'em!" -- Michael Mann, a "real" Scientist

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, you constantly make statements without anything at all to back them up. Others on this board offer the statements and work of real scientists to show what backs up their statements. You offer nothing, and that is the value of your statements.

What needs backing up? Heat of compression is a well known (to educated people) phenomenon. If you know about it, then your comment is pointless, if you don't, I suggested that you take some time to learn about it.

Are you saying that you never heard of the heat of compression? How about ideal gas laws?

 

[westwall]

I have seen the proof CO2 in enclosed environemnts raises heat retention. To deny it is pretty silly.

Now I suppose we can liberally interpret things and find a way to say the earth works under a different set of rules as it is round or whatever. But at least that is a thought. Also it is fair to question how much a difference out ppm have made.

To blame a heatwave on global warming is bad science though. Instead of being 105 degrees it would be 103. No difference if taken in a small sample. Gotta look at the bigger picture.

Anyways, I see the debate as being
1 we are competing with China for the future of humanity and will have time to get conservative with the environment later

Or
2 being such a conservative stick in the mud as I am I don't wanna screw things up for my kid. It isnt like I'm giving up my Markviii anyways.

No, you have seen an example of the Ideal gas Laws in effect. Not to mention the simple fact that the planet is not a sealed system. So you are wrong on two counts.

 

[daveman]

I have seen the proof CO2 in enclosed environemnts raises heat retention. To deny it is pretty silly.

To claim that an experimental box of CO2 with maybe three variables is the same as an entire planet, its nearest star, and cosmic radiation, all with millions of variables, is beyond ludicrous.

 

[tjvh]

I think the title should read: Climate Change Gets Real For agenda driven illusionists

 

[daveman]

What you have seen in a closed environment is a demonstration of the heat of compression. In a closed bottle, the gasses can't expand when exposed to the heat and as a result, warm more than would be expected from the heat source alone due to the compression. CO2 being a heavier gas than standard air warms more because more compression is taking place in that jar than in the air jar. The heavier the gas is, the more heat is generated via compression. If you do the same experiment with a valve to keep the pressure equalized with the outside, then a jar filled with CO2 won't warm anymore than a jar filled with air.

What is silly is to be fooled by a scam. When you go to a magic show, do you really believe you see hankerchiefs being turned into doves and tigers disappering from one place and appearing in another?

Take a few minutes and look up and read about heat of compression and stop being a dupe. You might also familiarize yourself with the ideal gas laws. If you had any sort of grasp of them, then you wouldn't be fooled by the greenhouse in a jar type experiments.




No difference at all. As I said, if you had a pressure release valve in the jar, a jar of CO2 would be the same temperature as a jar of air no matter what the PPM of CO2 was in the jar. CO2 can't cause warming in an open atmosphere.

SSDD, you constantly make statements without anything at all to back them up. Others on this board offer the statements and work of real scientists to show what backs up their statements. You offer nothing, and that is the value of your statements.

"You tell 'em!" -- Michael Mann, a "real" Scientist

He's a Nobel Prize winner, y'know.

 

[PredFan]

You know, they are right.

Two months ago it was hot and muggy here in Florida. Now it's mild, and some mornings it's cold!

Climate Change.

I'm going to kick the first SUV I see!

 

[Old Rocks]

Because the earth is warmer than it was and guess what nothing has happened.

LOL. I see. A sea level rise of about 300 ft is nothing happened? How about the drying out of the Sahara? Or, closer to home, the drying of the magnificent lakes we used to have in Central Oregon? And then there is the little matter of a continental ice cap that no longer covers the Northern parts of North America.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because the earth is warmer than it was and guess what nothing has happened.

LOL. I see. A sea level rise of about 300 ft is nothing happened? How about the drying out of the Sahara? Or, closer to home, the drying of the magnificent lakes we used to have in Central Oregon? And then there is the little matter of a continental ice cap that no longer covers the Northern parts of North America.

Sahara has been drying for thousands of years

North American ice cap disappearing for 15-20K years

Gecio Caveman burning fossil fuels?

 

[Old Rocks]

Absorption spectra of CO2 and the other GHGs are what is driving the present warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because the earth is warmer than it was and guess what nothing has happened.

LOL. I see. A sea level rise of about 300 ft is nothing happened? How about the drying out of the Sahara? Or, closer to home, the drying of the magnificent lakes we used to have in Central Oregon? And then there is the little matter of a continental ice cap that no longer covers the Northern parts of North America.

Sahara has been drying for thousands of years

North American ice cap disappearing for 15-20K years

Gecio Caveman burning fossil fuels?

And that warming occured with just a change of 100 ppm in atmospheric CO2. We have already increased the amount of CO2 by more than that. And increased the amount of CH4 by 2 1/2 times.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Absorption spectra of CO2 and the other GHGs are what is driving the present warming.

For the past 20,000 years?

Are you sure?

The chart says otherwise

 

[Flopper]

Climate Change Gets Real For Americans

Climate Change Gets Real For Americans : NPR

by Adam Frank


December 26, 2012 3:00 PM

December 26, 2012
javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(16....Action.PLAY_NOW, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, '0')
Listen to the Story

All Things Considered
3 min 9 sec

• Playlist
• Download

Something remarkable happened in 2012.


ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
Now to a scientist looking back at the year that's about to end. Commentator Adam Frank is an astrophysicist. And in the category of science, he is confident about the headline for 2012.

ADAM FRANK: Something remarkable has happened that may etch this year into history for centuries to come. 2012's importance comes not through elections, economic shifts or the new movements in art. No, 2012 may well be remembered for something far more elemental.
This was the year that climate change got real for Americans.
The scientific debate over climate change was settled years ago. The basic conclusion that the planet is warming, through fossil-fuel-based carbon dioxide release, is not in doubt. But that conclusion relied on technical arguments about things like greenhouse gas molecules and the interactions between the Earth's ocean, air and glacial systems.
Opponents of climate change used that technical complexity in the court of public opinion, to throw doubt on climate science via faux debates about hockey-stick diagrams, the influence of the sun or worse, false claims of manipulated data.
But after 2012 debates over technical abstractions lost their edge. That's because this year it finally became possible to see firsthand what climate change really means. The long summer of 2012 brought us heat waves that toppled records. Large sections of the U.S. remained trapped in extreme or even extraordinary drought for months. The summer's corn crop withered and cattle failed to find adequate grassland. It's now December and that drought has yet to abate.
Then, of course, came Hurricane Sandy. The storm surge pushed parts of New York underwater and cost tens of billions of dollars in damage. In its wake, government officials stated publicly what scientists had been saying in private for years. Climate change is happening now and from now on it must be built into all our plans for subways, for roads, sewers, and for electrical power distribution.
Even the question of attribution changed, as scientists developed methods providing quantitative links between any individual extreme weather event and the supercharged climate that comes from global warming.
In the end, 2012 brought a sea change in our understanding of climate change. The discussion shifted from the abstractions of scientific research to the concrete domain of visceral experience. The new normal has arrived.
SIEGEL: Commentator and astrophysicist Adam Frank reflecting on the year in science.

Unfortunately, the major effects of climate change is yet to come.

I notice in the news that Iceland is changing it's name to something more appropriate, maybe Rockland. Iceland’s economy stands to benefit from the earth’s rapid transformation. The melting glaciers that feed Iceland’s rivers will be a boon to the country’s hydroelectric industry. Also a more temperate climate will attract more tourist. In the 22nd century, Iceland may be a premium retirement destination.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. I see. A sea level rise of about 300 ft is nothing happened? How about the drying out of the Sahara? Or, closer to home, the drying of the magnificent lakes we used to have in Central Oregon? And then there is the little matter of a continental ice cap that no longer covers the Northern parts of North America.

Sahara has been drying for thousands of years

North American ice cap disappearing for 15-20K years

Gecio Caveman burning fossil fuels?

And that warming occured with just a change of 100 ppm in atmospheric CO2. We have already increased the amount of CO2 by more than that. And increased the amount of CH4 by 2 1/2 times.

You meant to say that warming lead to a 100PPM increase in CO2, right?

 

[Dot Com]

If the earth is a couple of degrees warmer nothing is going to happen.

The basis for that statement is?

Because the earth is warmer than it was and guess what nothing has happened.

you should do stand up

 

[Dot Com]

SSDD, you constantly make statements without anything at all to back them up. Others on this board offer the statements and work of real scientists to show what backs up their statements. You offer nothing, and that is the value of your statements.

What needs backing up? Heat of compression is a well known (to educated people) phenomenon. If you know about it, then your comment is pointless, if you don't, I suggested that you take some time to learn about it.

Are you saying that you never heard of the heat of compression? How about ideal gas laws?

He said "constantly" as opposed to "in this instance". Links are not "optional" when making assertions/debating. Its standard practice. People aren't going to "take your word for it" in a debate.

 

[Dubya]

SSDD, you constantly make statements without anything at all to back them up. Others on this board offer the statements and work of real scientists to show what backs up their statements. You offer nothing, and that is the value of your statements.

What needs backing up? Heat of compression is a well known (to educated people) phenomenon. If you know about it, then your comment is pointless, if you don't, I suggested that you take some time to learn about it.

Are you saying that you never heard of the heat of compression? How about ideal gas laws?

He said "constantly" as opposed to "in this instance". Links are not "optional" when making assertions/debating. Its standard practice. People aren't going to "take your word for it" in a debate.

I've tried to challenge these people to a place of debate and I admit to calling them names such as liars, when they proved themselves liars. I'll give them grace. If they truly want to debate, isn't there a forum in here that allows it? Watts isn't going to come, because I'm not going to allow fools to lead a debate.

I know how to debate on both sides of an issue, so let's get started! There is no person in this world I've totally agreed with and I doubt others have as well. Bring on your bad selves!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Climate Change Gets Real For Americans

Climate Change Gets Real For Americans : NPR

by Adam Frank


December 26, 2012 3:00 PM

December 26, 2012
javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(16....Action.PLAY_NOW, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, '0')
Listen to the Story

All Things Considered
3 min 9 sec

• Playlist
• Download

Something remarkable happened in 2012.


ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
Now to a scientist looking back at the year that's about to end. Commentator Adam Frank is an astrophysicist. And in the category of science, he is confident about the headline for 2012.

ADAM FRANK: Something remarkable has happened that may etch this year into history for centuries to come. 2012's importance comes not through elections, economic shifts or the new movements in art. No, 2012 may well be remembered for something far more elemental.
This was the year that climate change got real for Americans.
The scientific debate over climate change was settled years ago. The basic conclusion that the planet is warming, through fossil-fuel-based carbon dioxide release, is not in doubt. But that conclusion relied on technical arguments about things like greenhouse gas molecules and the interactions between the Earth's ocean, air and glacial systems.
Opponents of climate change used that technical complexity in the court of public opinion, to throw doubt on climate science via faux debates about hockey-stick diagrams, the influence of the sun or worse, false claims of manipulated data.
But after 2012 debates over technical abstractions lost their edge. That's because this year it finally became possible to see firsthand what climate change really means. The long summer of 2012 brought us heat waves that toppled records. Large sections of the U.S. remained trapped in extreme or even extraordinary drought for months. The summer's corn crop withered and cattle failed to find adequate grassland. It's now December and that drought has yet to abate.
Then, of course, came Hurricane Sandy. The storm surge pushed parts of New York underwater and cost tens of billions of dollars in damage. In its wake, government officials stated publicly what scientists had been saying in private for years. Climate change is happening now and from now on it must be built into all our plans for subways, for roads, sewers, and for electrical power distribution.
Even the question of attribution changed, as scientists developed methods providing quantitative links between any individual extreme weather event and the supercharged climate that comes from global warming.
In the end, 2012 brought a sea change in our understanding of climate change. The discussion shifted from the abstractions of scientific research to the concrete domain of visceral experience. The new normal has arrived.
SIEGEL: Commentator and astrophysicist Adam Frank reflecting on the year in science.

I'm curious about how being an astrophysicist - while impressive - qualifies him as a climatologist any more than Joe Blow down the street.

 

[Old Rocks]

The basis of the warming is the absorption spectra of the GHGs. That is basic physics, so a physicist is well qualified to comment on that aspect of the warming. An atmospheric physicist, such as Dr. James Hansen is even more qualified.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The basis of the warming is the absorption spectra of the GHGs. That is basic physics, so a physicist is well qualified to comment on that aspect of the warming. An atmospheric physicist, such as Dr. James Hansen is even more qualified.

I'm certain you're wrong; we have a 425,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature both on the increase and decrease.