October 'Noreaster!

[Old Rocks]

That is exactly what the AIP site states.

 

[Si modo]

Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.

There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.

There is no doubt that pissing in the ocean will increase its alkalinity.

There IS no science indicating the magnitude or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.

Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.

The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.

But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.

In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.

So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.

There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.

There is no doubt that pissing in the ocean will increase its alkalinity.

There IS no science indicating the magnitude or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit and you know it. We are measuring the effects when we measure the decrease in outgoing IR and decrease in reflected energy in other wave lengths.

CO2 is IR active. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. That is not going to affect the amount of retained heat? Come on, Sis, you are letting politics blind you to reality.

Or do you claim the CO2 is from some other source? Is so, would you care to inform us as to that source?

 

[Si modo]

Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.

There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.

There is no doubt that pissing in the ocean will increase its alkalinity.

There IS no science indicating the magnitude or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit and you know it. We are measuring the effects when we measure the decrease in outgoing IR and decrease in reflected energy in other wave lengths.

CO2 is IR active. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. That is not going to affect the amount of retained heat? Come on, Sis, you are letting politics blind you to reality.

Or do you claim the CO2 is from some other source? Is so, would you care to inform us as to that source?

And when you piss in the ocean you increase its alkalinity.

There is no science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you really wanted to show my statement is bullshit, show the science demonstrating the significance an magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's a simple thing to do, if you can.

 

[Intense]

I'm wondering when was Al Gore proven right.

In a Perfect World, Al Gore would be sharing a Cell Block with Bernard, Madoff, with a Life Sentence for His Carbon Credit Ponzi Scheme. Nobody is touching on the damage and cost to the poor and the quality of Life, issues this utter Bullshit will create. They seem to want us as hostages.

Fucking dumb as they come!

So you think that Al Gore should be jailed for stating what all the Scientific Societies, all that National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are stating. As far as the Carbon Credit idea goes, we used the same method to get the pollution from the dirty coal generating plants vastly reduced. Won't work that well for carbon, but would be better than what we are doing now.

But since it did not pass, and won't pass, how is it you state that it is hurting the poor, or anybody, for that matter?

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't neg rep for that. You don't have much tolerance for perspectives outside your own, that's wort neg repping. I don't think Al should be jailed for his perspective. I think Al should be jailed for his Ponzi Scheme, scam, on Energy, something that has big plans for bleeding us dry. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Stop obstructing the manufacture of clean Coal Technology if you really give a shit. What happens everywhere Photosynthesis stops on Earth? The production of CO2 by plant life, on Earth, and in our Oceans. Fuck Off, and learn more about what you study before applying Snake Oil Science on the rest of us.

 

[Intense]

There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.

There is no doubt that pissing in the ocean will increase its alkalinity.

There IS no science indicating the magnitude or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit and you know it. We are measuring the effects when we measure the decrease in outgoing IR and decrease in reflected energy in other wave lengths.

CO2 is IR active. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. That is not going to affect the amount of retained heat? Come on, Sis, you are letting politics blind you to reality.

Or do you claim the CO2 is from some other source? Is so, would you care to inform us as to that source?

And when you piss in the ocean you increase its alkalinity.

There is no science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you really wanted to show my statement is bullshit, show the science demonstrating the significance an magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's a simple thing to do, if you can.

Why not capture it and use it as the refrigerant it is?

 

[westwall]

Are you playing at science, kid?

You mean like the AIP, the AGU, the GSA, and all the other Scientific Societies in the world? Sis, you denigrate virtually all the other scientists in the world, then expect us to see you as anything but a pretender? LOL

No, you lie.

I'm denigrating someone who posts blogs thinking they are science then says he has analyzed data.

Well, not really laughing at him/her, more asking them to stop soiling science by playing at it.

I'm surprised that you of all people wouldn't recognize exactly what I was saying.

To understand what you are saying requires an intellect greater than a grapefruit.

 

[Si modo]

You mean like the AIP, the AGU, the GSA, and all the other Scientific Societies in the world? Sis, you denigrate virtually all the other scientists in the world, then expect us to see you as anything but a pretender? LOL

No, you lie.

I'm denigrating someone who posts blogs thinking they are science then says he has analyzed data.

Well, not really laughing at him/her, more asking them to stop soiling science by playing at it.

I'm surprised that you of all people wouldn't recognize exactly what I was saying.

To understand what you are saying requires an intellect greater than a grapefruit.

Apparently so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.

I want to see the day when real scientists throw your Global Warming Cultists off every campus and University in this once great nation.

 

[skookerasbil]

si Modo is pwning all on this thread!!!!

epic pwning................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.

Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.

The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.

But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.

In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.

So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.

Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?

We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer

 

[konradv]

There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.

Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.

The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.

But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.

In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.

So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.

Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?

We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer

That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!

 

[Si modo]

There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.

Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.

The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.

But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.

In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.

So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.

Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?

We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer

That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!

Correlation is not causation.

 

[gslack]

There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.

Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.

The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.

But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.

In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.

So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.

Oldsocks if you are going to refer to Fourier's theory, please explain how his flat 2-dimensional based mathematics signifying the earth as a black body (non energy emitting body) could possibly be accurate.

1. The earth is not 2-dimensional it is in fact 3-dimensional. And with the shape being a sphere, and the electro-magnetic field of the earth losing about 10% strength the last 150 years. His theory in modern application of Greenhouse theory is dubious to say the least..

2. TSI is not the only factor in determining the amount of radiation we receive from the sun or the amount of other radiation from space we receive. As mentioned above the electro-magnetic field of the earth has altered in the last 150 years alone and studies show it has changed drastically at different times over the centuries. There is also our relative position to the sun at any given point in space and time, the amount of cosmic rays a less-active sun will allow into our solar system from outside forces, the relative position of our solar system relative to our galaxy and the natural track of our system through that galaxy. And many many other factors both known and as of yet unknown.

3. CO2's reaction to IR emitted back from the planets surface according to popular greenhouse theory is molecular vibration. That vibration would be kinetic energy. That kinetic energy will be expelled out as heat leading to more and more reactions across the atmosphere of heat to vibration and heat again. In effect making one photon an almost infinite source of energy. Which would make all known laws of thermodynamics and physics inapplicable... And frankly thats highly unlikely, natural laws are natural laws, they cannot be dismissed to support a theory..

4. The earth emits heat and energy. Its core is molten and it churns and rotates constantly emitting heat and an electro-magnetic field. The term black body in reference to the Earth is misleading as well inaccurate I would contend.

If you support Fourier's theory today in the world as we know it and all the information we have since then, you have to operate under the incorrect assumption that in the case of greenhouse gas theory the natural laws do not apply as they do and have in virtually every other area save aspects of Quantum Mechanics.

But then according to oldsocks I'm an idiot so what do I know...

 

[Si modo]

There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.

Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.

The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.

But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.

In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.

So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.

Oh, I missed this. I suppose because gender is so important to you, that you were talking to me.

So, if you piss in the ocean, the alkalinity increases. That's just a fact. No dispute about that because it is simple acid/base chemistry.

We know there are many factors that determine the pH of the sea, though.

We also know the significance of your pissing in the ocean is nothing.

It's the same thing. Yes, we know CO2 is IR active. We do not know the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming. When the state of the science allows that, we will know what to conclude. Until then we cannot conclude if it is like pissing in the ocean or dissolving three moles of ammonia in a liter of water, or somewhere in between.

You can believe whatever you want, but honesty would require you to acknowledge that it is nothing but a belief at this point.

Christ, I keep telling you the same thing.

 

[konradv]

Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?

We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer

That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!

Correlation is not causation.

No one said it is. But, when one says that CO2 has the ability to trap IR radiation, that isn't correlation, that's a fact shown in the lab. When one says that humans are the cause of the rise in CO2, that isn't correlation, but the result of subtracting out all other sources. When one says that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable, that isn't correlation, but a logical conclusion derived from my first two statements. QED, you failed..., AGAIN!!!

 

[Si modo]

That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!

Correlation is not causation.

No one said it is. But, when one says that CO2 has the ability to trap IR radiation, that isn't correlation, that's a fact shown in the lab.

....

Indeed it is.

.... When one says that humans are the cause of the rise in CO2, that isn't correlation, but the result of subtracting out all other sources.

....

So, show the algorithm doing so.

.... When one says that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable, that isn't correlation, but a logical conclusion derived from my first two statements.

....

No, it is not logical. Your second statement has no substance. You just defined correlation.

Correlation is not causation.

... QED, you failed..., AGAIN!!!

Just because you are ignorant in science, logic, and reasoning does not mean you win something.

 

[gslack]

I just love it when they use the claim "CO2 traps heat" or "CO2 traps "IR radiation"...

CO2 DOES NOT TRAP ANYTHING!!!!! It reacts to IR.. There is no heat sponge and it being a gas it will not expand and hold in IR..

CO2 reacts to IR by molecular vibration. IR hits it causing the molecules to vibrate. This vibration is what is claimed to cause new heat... All this nonsense to make it easy for people to understand is what leads to confusion and keeps otherwise intelligent people (not konradv or oldsocks of course) from asking the obvious questions about infinite energy creation from a finite source..

 

[Si modo]

I just love it when they use the claim "CO2 traps heat" or "CO2 traps "IR radiation"...

CO2 DOES NOT TRAP ANYTHING!!!!! It reacts to IR.. There is no heat sponge and it being a gas it will not expand and hold in IR..

CO2 reacts to IR by molecular vibration. IR hits it causing the molecules to vibrate. This vibration is what is claimed to cause new heat... All this nonsense to make it easy for people to understand is what leads to confusion and keeps otherwise intelligent people (not konradv or oldsocks of course) from asking the obvious questions about infinite energy creation from a finite source..

Exactly.

It doesn't 'trap' IR, it absorbs it in quantums equivalent to the energy associated with the available modes of molecular vibration.

But, the poster is obviously not too informed in chemistry, so I just let that slide. If that is what he needs to believe, I can work with that.

There is no new heat at all. IR energy is converted to modes of molecular vibration, thus kinetic energy, and there is heat associated with that.

But there is no new heat.

But also, folks acknowledge that "greenhouse" is a misnomer in discussing GHGs in the environment.

Lots of areas for misunderstanding whenever accuracy isn't valued. I know that in other sciences, such blatant inaccuracies are dealt with immediately.