Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change

[SSDD]

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, seeing how it is too tiny a percentage of the atmospher

Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation
The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9 × 10^18 grams.
The approximate mass of carbon dioxide is 3 × 10^18 grams

A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The weight of CO2 is about a quarter of the weight of water vapor. The volume ratio is about a factor of 10 which is the number to use for back radiation.

In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere. If you insist .04 is a small concentration, you must also insist that water vapor is a trace gas with a small concentration.

Thanks for your link which makes my point, not yours. Here is a quote from your link.

ntent.

The situation is even more extreme than what was presented just above because the greenhouse gases vary in their effectiveness in absorbing thermal radiation. A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2.

And the percentage of h2o is? 100,000 times greater than co2? All infrared radiation absorbed by co2, has 1st been absorbed by h2o and then remitted, radiation emitted by co2 is absorbed by the nearest h20 molecules, which are in the thousands, whereas there is only one lonely co2 molecule.

But he believes...he has partook of the koolaid...he has faith...he is one of the church of the unholy CO2 molecule...and us skeptics are apostates worthy of nothing short of death....note crick's quote in my sig line..

 

[Wuwei]

But he believes...he has partook of the koolaid...he has faith...he is one of the church of the unholy CO2 molecule...and us skeptics are apostates worthy of nothing short of death....note crick's quote in my sig line..

A social commentary is worthless argument in science.

 

[Wuwei]

And the percentage of h2o is? 100,000 times greater than co2? All infrared radiation absorbed by co2, has 1st been absorbed by h2o and then remitted, radiation emitted by co2 is absorbed by the nearest h20 molecules, which are in the thousands, whereas there is only one lonely co2 molecule.

I disagree with all your statements. The link please.

 

[kwc57]

For the same reason that we ban the stupidity of Intelligent Design from the biology classes, we ban the lying ignorance of the denialists from the discussion of AGW in science classes. Because they have no science behind them at all.

And we ban the stupid, lying ignorance of the scientific denialists who don't believe that a fetus is human.......oh wait.........we reject that settled science. Never mind.

 

[SSDD]

But he believes...he has partook of the koolaid...he has faith...he is one of the church of the unholy CO2 molecule...and us skeptics are apostates worthy of nothing short of death....note crick's quote in my sig line..

A social commentary is worthless argument in science.

So are claims of CAGW when there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW...but that doesn't stop any of you..does it? You are, by definition, a believer because you have been shown no real evidence to support what you believe. Sorry, I am not a believer...science, especially science concerning observable, measurable, quantifiable entities such as the atmosphere and climate requires observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is altering it and alas...none exists.

 

[Wyatt earp]

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Hmm...

Wikipedia would seem to disagree with you

Greenhouse gas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5] In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain gases that cause a greenhouse effect.

References

1. ^ Jump up to:a b "IPCC AR4 SYR Appendix Glossary" (PDF). Retrieved 14 December 2008.
2. Jump up^ "NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Greenhouse Gases: Refining the Role of Carbon Dioxide". www.giss.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2016-04-26.
3. Jump up^ Karl TR, Trenberth KE (2003). "Modern global climate change". Science 302 (5651): 1719–23. Bibcode:2003Sci...302.1719K. doi:10.1126/science.1090228.PMID 14657489.
4. Jump up^ Le Treut H.; Somerville R.; Cubasch U.; Ding Y.; Mauritzen C.; Mokssit A.; Peterson T.; Prather M. (2007). Historical overview of climate change science. In: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon S., Qin D., Manning M., Chen Z., Marquis M., Averyt K. B., Tignor M. and Miller H. L., editors) (PDF). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 14 December 2008.
5. Jump up^ "NASA Science Mission Directorate article on the water cycle". Nasascience.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-16.

Can you explain?

Why does it say last edited by crick 5/25/2016 ?


.

 

[Wuwei]

So are claims of CAGW when there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW...but that doesn't stop any of you..does it? You are, by definition, a believer because you have been shown no real evidence to support what you believe. Sorry, I am not a believer...science, especially science concerning observable, measurable, quantifiable entities such as the atmosphere and climate requires observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is altering it and alas...none exists.

"Sorry, I am not a believer..." Yes, that is a sorry state of your mind.
Yes we all know you are not a believer in science. We know you don't believe scientists of the last 100 years. You believe in smart photons. Go ahead and stay in your cave of shadows.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you can't completely prove your theory, how do you get everyone to accept and comply with it? You BAN any opposition or any alternate theory, of course!


School Board Votes to Ban Materials That ‘Cast Doubt’ on Climate Change

Obama and his DOJ have already begun looking into how they can criminalize any opposition to Global Warming, not the banning of any opposition to it in schools has begun.

Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.

But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.

why don't you want the kids to choose what they believe or not. Why do you feel you need to dictate something, anything?

Firstly, I believe in getting kids to think for themselves. I've seen it done in a classroom, and done very, very well. It's possible even with kids who are like 11 years old.

Secondly, some things kids need to be told is the way to do things. Like how to behave in society, what's in the food they eat and so on. They do need to be told the relevant facts of things. They do need to learn the rules of society.

so you're ok with teaching them that they can't challenge something or express an opinion.

and no child should be the recipient of dictatorship by anyone except their parent.

Teach the rules and the consequences to not following, the decision is theirs on whether to follow or not. Climate science isn't rule of law. And this action is a dictatorship toward children and is fked up.

No, I'm not teaching them that at all. In fact, if you bother to read after "Firstly" you'll see what I think.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, schools should be about teaching kids to use their brains.

But like with most things on the right, if one person does something they don't like, ALL PEOPLE they don't like did it.

So believing in a hypothesis which is not supported by the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence is using your brain? Where exactly is the critical thinking in that proposition? If you can prove your hypothesis with actual fact...observed, measured, quantified data, then do it...if you can't, then your only alternatives are to either admit it, or silence those who are posing questions you can't answer....all the great tyrants in history have followed the same template.

See crick's solution in my sig line...

The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?

What is this, international simplistic arguments day?

If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?


The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.

People are making attempts at understanding it.

Others are saying that until we 100% understand it, there is no climate change.

The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?

No, it means what is being said is not correct and it's time to find something that can be validated. That's all, but of course you wouldn't know that would you, you just believe cause someone said believe. Brain dead is your position. Mine is mind wide open. And I know where I live, there ain't global warming. So factually I have observations on my side, you.....nope!

Yes, it means it's not 100% correct.

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

If the weather says it's raining outside, and you know there's only a 90% chance it's right, are you going outside in your raincoat, or are you going to say that it's wrong, stuff this, and go out in something non-waterproof?

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct

And it doesn't mean it is 90% correct now is it?

Me personally, I don't understand why warmers are afraid of data that may help explain the climate. What's it to you? you have no solution so what is it your fearful of? Are you really that susceptible to someone stating doom and gloom on something that isn't even validated? Really? Wow.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

what is worse is someone that doesn't know for sure to disregard data that may be important and might influence further studies. I don't care what the percentage is. Or are you saying that scientists can't be wrong? LOL

I can say everyday of my life that rain is possible with some percentage. You know why? Because weather isn't settled. because the earth is unpredictable.

No, it doesn't. I was giving an example, and used a figure.

You think I'm afraid of data? Why would you think that? You don't know me.

I want to understand the TRUTH. I've looked at lots of things and I've seen that there is a change in the climate. I also believe we should be going through a global cooling phase right now, though on that I'm never going to be certain.

But the biggest thing for me is that when humans start messing around with things, we find we're unable to stop them, and this causes massive problems.

 

[SSDD]

"Sorry, I am not a believer..." Yes, that is a sorry state of your mind.

But you are...since you can't produce any observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe.

Yes we all know you are not a believer in science. We know you don't believe scientists of the last 100 years. You believe in smart photons. Go ahead and stay in your cave of shadows.

Of course I am...what you believe in is not science....we are talking about the climate...the atmosphere...and yet, you can't produce any observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting your claim that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y warming....If I ask a chemist if I add X amount of A to Y amount of B what will happen...he will then tell me precisely what will happen and if we then add X amount of A to Y amount of B precisely that will happen...not so with climate pseudoscience...it is all alarmism...dire warnings...unsupported claims...and great herds of believers spewing their belief apparently unaware that there is no actual evidence out there to support their beliefs...and when confronted with that fact...rather than ask yourself why there is no evidence, you either A) claim it is there while at the same time not being able to provide it.. B) claim that the non evidence you can find is what I am asking for or C) claim that it is established science and such evidence is not necessary....

So there you are...you are a believer whether you know it or not..

 

[Wuwei]

"Sorry, I am not a believer..." Yes, that is a sorry state of your mind.

But you are...since you can't produce any observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe.

Yes we all know you are not a believer in science. We know you don't believe scientists of the last 100 years. You believe in smart photons. Go ahead and stay in your cave of shadows.

Of course I am...what you believe in is not science....we are talking about the climate...the atmosphere...and yet, you can't produce any observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting your claim that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y warming....If I ask a chemist if I add X amount of A to Y amount of B what will happen...he will then tell me precisely what will happen and if we then add X amount of A to Y amount of B precisely that will happen...not so with climate pseudoscience...it is all alarmism...dire warnings...unsupported claims...and great herds of believers spewing their belief apparently unaware that there is no actual evidence out there to support their beliefs...and when confronted with that fact...rather than ask yourself why there is no evidence, you either A) claim it is there while at the same time not being able to provide it.. B) claim that the non evidence you can find is what I am asking for or C) claim that it is established science and such evidence is not necessary....

So there you are...you are a believer whether you know it or not..

You are trying to shift the argument from fundamental radiation physics to climate science. I am referring to the fact that you don't believe in fundamental science, ie you believe in smart photons. Show me a reference that explicitly states that photons cannot move from a cold object to a hot object in black body radiation.

 

[jc456]

So believing in a hypothesis which is not supported by the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence is using your brain? Where exactly is the critical thinking in that proposition? If you can prove your hypothesis with actual fact...observed, measured, quantified data, then do it...if you can't, then your only alternatives are to either admit it, or silence those who are posing questions you can't answer....all the great tyrants in history have followed the same template.

See crick's solution in my sig line...

The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?

What is this, international simplistic arguments day?

If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?


The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.

People are making attempts at understanding it.

Others are saying that until we 100% understand it, there is no climate change.

The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?

No, it means what is being said is not correct and it's time to find something that can be validated. That's all, but of course you wouldn't know that would you, you just believe cause someone said believe. Brain dead is your position. Mine is mind wide open. And I know where I live, there ain't global warming. So factually I have observations on my side, you.....nope!

Yes, it means it's not 100% correct.

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

If the weather says it's raining outside, and you know there's only a 90% chance it's right, are you going outside in your raincoat, or are you going to say that it's wrong, stuff this, and go out in something non-waterproof?

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct

And it doesn't mean it is 90% correct now is it?

Me personally, I don't understand why warmers are afraid of data that may help explain the climate. What's it to you? you have no solution so what is it your fearful of? Are you really that susceptible to someone stating doom and gloom on something that isn't even validated? Really? Wow.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

what is worse is someone that doesn't know for sure to disregard data that may be important and might influence further studies. I don't care what the percentage is. Or are you saying that scientists can't be wrong? LOL

I can say everyday of my life that rain is possible with some percentage. You know why? Because weather isn't settled. because the earth is unpredictable.

No, it doesn't. I was giving an example, and used a figure.

You think I'm afraid of data? Why would you think that? You don't know me.

I want to understand the TRUTH. I've looked at lots of things and I've seen that there is a change in the climate. I also believe we should be going through a global cooling phase right now, though on that I'm never going to be certain.

But the biggest thing for me is that when humans start messing around with things, we find we're unable to stop them, and this causes massive problems.

I want to understand the TRUTH
It's all I want. It's a sad that people think they already know it. Now that is the problem. The science is not settled. AR5 states it. your IPCC not mine.

I've seen that there is a change in the climate.
what change in climate have you seen? how many years you been watching climate?

 

[SSDD]

You are trying to shift the argument from fundamental radiation physics to climate science. I am referring to the fact that you don't believe in fundamental science, ie you believe in smart photons. Show me a reference that explicitly states that photons cannot move from a cold object to a hot object in black body radiation.

STIMPY...YOU IDIOT.....We are talking about the atmosphere.....an observable...measureable...quantifiable entity.....If the "fundamental" science you claim is correct, then it should damned well be observable, measurable, quantifiable, and predictable...it isn't...

And I already have...and in your abject stupidity, you think that there is a special version of the second law of thermodynamics for refrigerators....you think that in the case of refrigerators energy can't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object but for everything else in the universe it can? You actually thought that out and said it as if you believe it...do you believe that...that the second law of thermodynamics makes special exception for refrigerators, but not to rocks rolling down a hill, or air pressure escaping from a tire...or cellular decay, or water flowing through a hydroelectric dam, or electrons running down a copper wire or a black body?....is that really what you think? If energy can't move spontaneously from cold to warm for refrigerators because the second law says so...then energy can't move spontaneously from cold to warm for anything else either...including black bodies.

 

[SSDD]

I've seen that there is a change in the climate.
what change in climate have you seen? how many years you been watching climate?

As if there has ever been a time when the climate was static....

 

[jc456]

So are claims of CAGW when there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW...but that doesn't stop any of you..does it? You are, by definition, a believer because you have been shown no real evidence to support what you believe. Sorry, I am not a believer...science, especially science concerning observable, measurable, quantifiable entities such as the atmosphere and climate requires observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is altering it and alas...none exists.

"Sorry, I am not a believer..." Yes, that is a sorry state of your mind.
Yes we all know you are not a believer in science. We know you don't believe scientists of the last 100 years. You believe in smart photons. Go ahead and stay in your cave of shadows.

Check this Scientist out Dr Hans Jelbring, Peer reviewed paper in 2003.

DOH! I guess not every scientist.

Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass

"PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012
My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience. However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
Hans Jelbring 2003

ABSTRACT
The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse
Warming (AGW )” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a
major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such
models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and
the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the
Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse
gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as
mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of
ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal
proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary
atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that
the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.
Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In
a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced
GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere
bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW,
accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and
probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes
causing climate change."

 

[jc456]

Google results are terrible, look up a fact about h2o and Google gives results about co2 and global warming. This is activism on the part of google.

go here and read:
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
"ABSTRACT
The paper explains why the physics involved in atmospheric and sub-surface heat transfer appears to have been misunderstood, and incorrectly applied, when postulating that a radiative “greenhouse effect” is responsible for warming the surfaces of planets such as Venus and our own Earth. A detailed discussion of the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics endeavours to settle the much debated issue as to whether or not a thermal gradient evolves spontaneously in still air in a gravitational field. The author is aware of attempted rebuttals of this hypothesis, but cogent counter arguments are presented, together with reference to empirical evidence."

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, seeing how it is too tiny a percentage of the atmospher

Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation
The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9 × 10^18 grams.
The approximate mass of carbon dioxide is 3 × 10^18 grams

A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The weight of CO2 is about a quarter of the weight of water vapor. The volume ratio is about a factor of 10 which is the number to use for back radiation.

In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere. If you insist .04 is a small concentration, you must also insist that water vapor is a trace gas with a small concentration.

Thanks for your link which makes my point, not yours. Here is a quote from your link.

ntent.

The situation is even more extreme than what was presented just above because the greenhouse gases vary in their effectiveness in absorbing thermal radiation. A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2.

And the percentage of h2o is? 100,000 times greater than co2? All infrared radiation absorbed by co2, has 1st been absorbed by h2o and then remitted, radiation emitted by co2 is absorbed by the nearest h20 molecules, which are in the thousands, whereas there is only one lonely co2 molecule.

More stinky 'facts' that Elektra has pulled out of her ass. LOL

 

[Wuwei]

STIMPY...YOU IDIOT.....We are talking about the atmosphere.....an observable...measureable...quantifiable entity.....If the "fundamental" science you claim is correct, then it should damned well be observable, measurable, quantifiable, and predictable...it isn't...

Insults don't make an argument. You were shown the back radiation measurements. But you rejected it because you reject quantum mechanics. We have already gone through that.

...and in your abject stupidity, you think that there is a special version of the second law of thermodynamics for refrigerators....you think that in the case of refrigerators energy can't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object but for everything else in the universe it can?

More insults. You seem to be getting desperate. You aren't thinking clearly again. The law of thermodynamics is universal. Radiation exchange does not violate the law because black body thermal radiation is always greater from the hotter to the colder object. We went through that already, but you don't believe in quantum mechanics.

If energy can't move spontaneously from cold to warm for refrigerators because the second law says so...then energy can't move spontaneously from cold to warm for anything else either...including black bodies.

I agree, assuming you are talking about thermal energy.

 

[IanC]

There are two versions of radiation physics . SSDD'S and the everyone else's.

The standard theory is that every object is trying to get rid of its energy and reach the goal of being at absolute zero temperature. It does this by turning kinetic energy into radiation when particles collide. Random collisions produce random radiation, both in direction and magnitude.

Because other objects are also trying to shed their energy, radiation from one object is being swapped with other nearby objects. Any one object may be warming if it is receiving more radiation than it is losing; cooling if it is receiving less; or staying at the same temperature if the radiation is balanced between absorption and emission.


In SSDD'S version, only the net amount of radiation is produced. Apparently information is transferred between the objects and random collisions are no longer random, or random emissions are no longer random. How does this information get transferred, or the collisions and emissions get controlled? Unknown and unknowable.

Occam's razor suggests that the simpler explanation is more likely. The choice is between all objects radiating as fast as they can in all directions, or objects radiating less and only in certain directions which are controlled by unknown mechanisms using information transferred by unknown means.


One other thing to consider. Emitting a photon transfers momentum somewhat like firing a gun. If two objects refuse to to emit towards each other while continuing to emit in other directions then momentum will push them together. This is a violation of entropy. SSDD seems to like certain laws of thermodynamics more than others.

 

[Wuwei]

Your argument is valid only if you believe in quantum mechanics.