More bad poll news for the k00ks!!!

[wirebender]

Logic tells you it's true.

Wrong. Logic tells you that it is untrue. A CO2 molecule has no mechanism by which to absorb and retain IR energy. That being a fact, logic tells me that CO2 can not be a climate driver whereas H2O can trap and retain energy and therefore can be a climate driver.

Logic can only tell you that your version is true if you have a flawed understanding of the basics which you have proven beyond doubt to be the case.

Waiting for the proof you or this guy wants, may be too late.

So you admit that there is no hard proof to support the piss poor hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change?

I'm certainly not going to take the word of someone who doesn't even know about electron quantum states and how energy is absorbed and released by changing those states.

I have asked for your explanation, feel free to step on up and prove that you know what you are talking about. I was ready with explanations, IN MY OWN WORDS for all your questions, lets hear what you have.

I'm no fool.

Of course you are. You proved it when you tried to bluff me with electron clouds and quantum states and their relation to energy supposedly being retained by a molecule that has no mechanism by which to retain energy.

You throw out a good rap, but you're either lying or are totally ignorant about the subject.

I throw out fact and am able to explain my statements. You, on the other hand spend most of your time shuckin and jiving and aren't even able to find a credible cut and paste to support your claims.

You ask for proof, but who's got time to review high school chemistry with you? You should have that under your belt BEFORE coming here.

I certainly had time to review junior high chemistry with you when you had no idea how or why water vapor could trap and hold IR when other "ghg's" could not. You tipped your hand right HERE when you acknowledged that you don't have the slightest grasp of the basics.

Don't try to bluff me with electron clouds and quantum states when you have already acknowledged a complete ignorance of the energy balance equation of the phase change of water. You have proved that you don't know jack and you will further prove it by your complete inability to form a coherent explanation as to how the quantum state of an electron cloud might somehow retain energy when the emission spectra (which is the precise opposite of the absorption spectra) of the molecule proves conclusively that no energy has been retained.


You have shown at an intellectual gunfight armed with a fingernail file. Sorry guy, you loose and you will continue to loose so long as you hold a faith based position in the face of hard science that says you are wrong.

 

[wirebender]

Studied science and logic. That's what happened.

In all classes, someone graduates at the top and someone must occupy the bottom. IF and that is a very large if, you studied science, you were at the bottom. You proved that when you acknowledged HERE that you had no knowledge of the phase change of water and how it relates to water vapor's ability to trap and retain energy.

Since we know CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is going up, how can we expect anything but warming, if the trend continues?

We know no such thing. The fact is that the emission spectra of CO2 is precisely the opposite of the absorption spectra. The fact is that since they are precisely opposite, that is proof that no energy is retained. X amount is absorbed and the same X amount is emitted. No energy retention at all.

Once more, step on up and describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 to be able to absorb and retain energy.

I grew up. What's your excuse?!?!

You grew older. Clearly, you have not grown up.

 

[wirebender]

On the contrary. If siding with anyone at all on the subject, I'm siding with the scientific fact that manmade warming is a real.

Can you provide the hard, observed evidence upon which you make the claim that AGW is a scientific fact? Any hard observed evidence that constitutes unequivocal proof that the activities of man are responsible for the changing global climate will do.

 

[wirebender]

no cut&pastes, just a simple explanation in your own words. can you do it?

Not a chance in hell. He was completely unaware of the fact that water vapor can absorb and retain energy due to its various phases. If he doesn't understand that most basic chemistry, he isn't going to have a clue as to the quantum states of electron clouds and how they may give a gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy the ablity to do it anyway regardless of the evidence that the absorption and emission spectra of the gas says.

 

[wirebender]

REALITY truly doesn't care what a poll of humans thinks.

We're not going to be able to VOTE AWAY global warming by proclaimation.

The amount of barbon 14 in the atmosphere is the smoking gun that proves that most of the change in the atmosphere is the result of us burning hydrocarbons.

Such evidence is not refuted by a poll.

Sorry guy, proof of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is not proof that manmade CO2 or any CO2 for that matter is the cause of climate change. Confusing cause and effect with correlation is a most elementary error and, in effect, disqualifies the one who made the error from any technical discussion.

Now, if you have some hard observed proof that CO2 is a climate driver, by all means, step on up to the plate and present it. I, for one would be damned interested in seeing it.

 

[konradv]

REALITY truly doesn't care what a poll of humans thinks.

We're not going to be able to VOTE AWAY global warming by proclaimation.

The amount of barbon 14 in the atmosphere is the smoking gun that proves that most of the change in the atmosphere is the result of us burning hydrocarbons.

Such evidence is not refuted by a poll.

Sorry guy, proof of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is not proof that manmade CO2 or any CO2 for that matter is the cause of climate change. Confusing cause and effect with correlation is a most elementary error and, in effect, disqualifies the one who made the error from any technical discussion.

Now, if you have some hard observed proof that CO2 is a climate driver, by all means, step on up to the plate and present it. I, for one would be damned interested in seeing it.

CO2 absorbing energy isn't correlation, that's fact. If it keeps absorbing energy, that would seem to indicate a rise in temps. You can ask for all the proof you want, but if you don't get the logic, there really isn't much poimnt in discussing it with you. You may fool others with claims of knowledge of the chemistry, but you're not fooling me. What about Conservation of Energy? If energy is trapped it has to go somewhere and statistically only half would be re-emitted into space. Tell me. Where does it go? You constantly ask for proof. How about answering a simple question?

 

[IanC]

lets see if we cant sum up konradv's position for him.

1. CO2 is increasing
2. CO2 can absorb infrared photons of ~5 and ~15 units, which it then almost immediately re-emits as the same 5 or 15 unless rotational or collision effects change the wavelength. because these photons are emitted in a random direction half goes earthward (only the up/down component matters because the escape route sideways is so much longer). this scattering of the direction of the photons makes up greenhouse effect. at low altitudes the CO2/H2O absorption is 'saturated' and radiation of IR is mostly limited to photons that have been transformed into ~10 units. The vast majority of heat is taken aloft by latent heat (phase change from liquid to vapour) that rises because humid air is lighter than dry air. this latent heat is released as the air pressure becomes less at higher altitudes and by precipitation (phase change from vapour to liquid or solid).
3. because CO2 increases the retention of heat at the surface there is more evaporation, therefore more H2O greenhouse gas scattering of IR emitted at the surface boundary, even though the lower atmosphere is already almost completely saturated there is always a little more that can be scattered.
4. above the clouds any released latent heat in the same ~5 or ~15 units is slowed down from escaping by back scatter.

as anyone can see it is water that does the heavy lifting here. radiation only becomes a relevent method once the energy is released upwards from the top of the clouds. of course clouds have effects on albedo and other things as well. climate modelers admit that they do not understand the water system very well but they choose to consider it a positive feedback because they CAN understand what happens at the surface boundary. the main problem with climate science is that they place too much importance on the simple mechanics that they do understand a bit but just ignore the complex mechanisms that are beyond their ken. like looking at a handful of pocket change through a blurry lense, they can pick out the pennies by the colour but cant tell the difference between a nickel or a quarter. unfortunately the pennies dont really count much for the overall total.

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh I thought from the title that this was another Palin thread.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL!!! Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!

S0n........not sure you're aware but you are one of these board members who should have to take a NAIVE test before stepping up from People.com Message Boards.

Chemistry and Physics and the laws attached to them are provable. Zero in the climate business is provable.

So that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact?

Halfwits like you can post all the spam in the world, and it will not change the reality of the warming, and the resultant climate change one whit.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL!!! Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!

Lets talk about the "laws" of chemistry and physics. How about you start by describing the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can capture and retain energy. Once we have that knocked out, perhaps we can discuss how you believe an object that is passively warmed can further warm its source of heat.

Hell, there are all sorts of topics regarding chemistry and physics that we can discuss. Of course, if all you are capable of is cut and paste, I am afraid that you won't get far in the discussion.

So lets talk. How about that CO2 heat trapping mechanism you believe so fervently in? How does it work?

Well, dumb fuck, you have been told many times. Here is the explanation by the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Realizing that it is an article written by real scientists, therefore you will not read it. But for others, this is a definative article, with many links, written by physicists. Not some idiotic political opinion peice written by some doped out fat radio jock.

 

[Old Rocks]

Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.

I'm glad you didn't get roped into the propaganda of inevitable climate shift though.

Yes, seeing is believing. And I have seen nearly seven decades on this planet. I have seen major changes in what grows at what altitudes in the mountains of Oregon and Washington. I have seen the shrinking of the glaciers in the Cascades, Sierras, Rockies, and ever ealier melts in the Blues.

Many people that I know whose career is in geological fields have witnessed first hand the melting of the Arctic Ice and Permafrost.

Seeing is not believing for all too many here who purposely close their eyes to the changes around them in order to maintain their alternative universe version of reality.

 

[IanC]

LOL!!! Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!

S0n........not sure you're aware but you are one of these board members who should have to take a NAIVE test before stepping up from People.com Message Boards.

Chemistry and Physics and the laws attached to them are provable. Zero in the climate business is provable.

So that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact?

Halfwits like you can post all the spam in the world, and it will not change the reality of the warming, and the resultant climate change one whit.

do any of those societies actually give their reasoning? or do they just say that mankind's production of CO2 obviously has an impact on the climate (with no values given) and therefore we must acknowledge the possibility of negative (or positive) changes to future climate?

 

[Old Rocks]

In the late 1960's the liberals sang a song. "Sha la la la la la, Let's live for today, and don't worry about tomorrow". NOW, these very same liberals are worried about the future of the world. Were the "all knowing" libs wrong THEN, or are they wrong NOW?

Studied science and logic. That's what happened. Since we know CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is going up, how can we expect anything but warming, if the trend continues?

I grew up. What's your excuse?!?!

So the answer to the question is....The "all knowing" liberals were wrong THEN. Thank you...LMAO!!

Really? Like the present rate of tornados? How about the melt of the ice caps, both north and south?

Yes, you will ignore all evidence of the change and remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.

I'm glad you didn't get roped into the propaganda of inevitable climate shift though.

Glad I don't get fooled by your non sequiturs. You examples from the past say nothing about this subject. I think I'll stick with logic, rather than fall for your "reasonable" post that just had to use the word 'propaganda'. Don't fool yourself, you don't actually have a clue as to who's getting roped into what.

On the contrary. If siding with anyone at all on the subject, I'm siding with the scientific fact that manmade warming is a real. Whether or not I believe the impact can be substantiated beyond natural occurring climate shift remains to be seen.

In the end, living consciously and sustainably is what is best for everyone and everthing on Earth. Sure though, i have no clue.....

Well, if you need more information, here are some sites that are written by scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Copenhagen Diagnosis

Philosophical Transactions A - Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature change of four degrees and its implications

 

[Old Rocks]

no cut&pastes, just a simple explanation in your own words. can you do it?

Not a chance in hell. He was completely unaware of the fact that water vapor can absorb and retain energy due to its various phases. If he doesn't understand that most basic chemistry, he isn't going to have a clue as to the quantum states of electron clouds and how they may give a gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy the ablity to do it anyway regardless of the evidence that the absorption and emission spectra of the gas says.

Oh boy, here we go again. Once again, dumb fuck, water vapor is the primary GHG. However, it's residence time in the atmosphere is less than 10 days. The residence time of CO2 is about two centuries. By heating the atmosphere, CO2 causes more water vapor to be evaporated into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the heat retained in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a feedback, same as the natural source of CO2, the oceans, are in the Milankovic Cycles. However, man production of CO2 from fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric load of CO2 by 40%, and that of CH4, by 150%. And we have added many industrial compounds that have thousands of times the ability to retain heat that CO2 does.

I started this with an insult, and will end it with and insult. You claim scientific knowledge, but I have yet to see any demonstrated. All you do is post silly yap-yap. With absolutely nothing to back that yap-yap. You are, and probably always will be, a dumb fuck.

 

[Old Rocks]

ohh i thought from the title that this was another palin thread.

lol

 

[Old Rocks]

S0n........not sure you're aware but you are one of these board members who should have to take a NAIVE test before stepping up from People.com Message Boards.

Chemistry and Physics and the laws attached to them are provable. Zero in the climate business is provable.

So that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact?

Halfwits like you can post all the spam in the world, and it will not change the reality of the warming, and the resultant climate change one whit.

do any of those societies actually give their reasoning? or do they just say that mankind's production of CO2 obviously has an impact on the climate (with no values given) and therefore we must acknowledge the possibility of negative (or positive) changes to future climate?

Ian, you are being purposely obtuse. Something you are very good at. There has been hundreds of sites posted here where the scientists give the reasons for the increasing warming from GHGs. A few of them have already been posted in this thread. Many more can easily be posted, not that you or most here will even bother to read them. Willfull ignorance is your stock in trade and that will not change.

 

[RollingThunder]

Gallup: Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat | CNSnews.com

Looking over this silly thread again, I noticed that none of the deniers seem to have read the actual Gallup poll but instead are just going by an article about the poll. They apparently just accepted the somewhat biased editorial selection provided by Conservative News Service(CNS) of a small part of the information in the poll without bothering to actually look at the source. If you read it, the poll actually shows that, worldwide, the number of people who see global warming as a threat has gone up slightly and although some people in some countries don't see global warming to be as big a threat as they did a few years ago before economic hard times or other troublesome stuff arrived on their plate, in a lot of other countries, like most of South America, more people see it as a bigger threat, and, in the majority of countries, the majority of people still see global warming/climate changes as a threat to their families. Moreover it is the most educated nations, for the most part, where people perceive AGW to be the more threatening and the poorest, least developed, least educated nations where the threat is not high on their list. Puts the denier cultists in appropriate company.

If you liked that Gallup poll though, perhaps you'd be interested in another poll they came out with two days after the one referred to in the OP.

Gallup - Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, what's up with that Himilayan glacier lie?

Why do these global warming weirdos constantly get caught lying about their data and such?

Why is Algore continuing to make millions off these gullible fools?

It truly does boggle the mind that these lefty idiots continue to buy into the bullshit....But then, they're lefty's so, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

 

[skookerasbil]

Studied science and logic. That's what happened. Since we know CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is going up, how can we expect anything but warming, if the trend continues?

I grew up. What's your excuse?!?!

So the answer to the question is....The "all knowing" liberals were wrong THEN. Thank you...LMAO!!

Really? Like the present rate of tornados?.

LMAO........hysterics. Thats all these people can ever talk in. Shit........even the weather guy the other night was talking about the midwest storms being an "every 50 year event". These dolts make like outbreaks of tornado's are something brand spanking fuckking new!!!


http://www.wildwildweather.com/united_states_tornado_history.pdf


HISTORY OF MIDWEST TORNADO'S

Environmental k00ks never like you to know about climate history.............