The Sound of Settled Science

[daveman]

No...we don't. The earth, without human beings produces between 200 and 215 gigaton of CO2 per year...the variation from year to year can be as much as 15 gigaton. Human beings, with all our machines and cars, etc, produce about 8 gigatons of CO2 every year...about half of the amount that the earth's own CO2 making machinery varies from year to year.

Yes, more than the system can handle,that's the point.. every year, and increasing.

It's a cumulative effect.

View attachment 260650

But again, the oil companies are paying good money for useful idiots. They've probably got their underground domes already built for when the planet becomes uninhabitable.

"Underground domes".

Wow. Just...wow.

 

[daveman]

I doubt that they will have any effect on your belief (since your belief is based in politics rather than science) but here are several papers...peer reviewed, and published by climate scientists

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect. What a few sellouts to the Koch Brothers say doesn't bother me all that much.

Here's the thing. If you're wrong and we do nothing- EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!

If I'm wrong, and we do something- well, no harm. Probably a lot of good reasons to get off fossil fuels that have nothing to do with AGW. You know, like protecting other aspects of the environment and defunding very bad people.

If I'm wrong, and we do something- well, no harm.

More expensive, less reliable energy with trillions wasted is "no harm"?

HEY WRECKING THE ECONOMIES OF THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD IS NO BIG DEAL GUYS NO REALLY LIVING IN A YURT AND BURNING ANIMAL SHIT FOR HEAT IS REALLY AWESOME

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Okay. My problem is with the characterization that no external energy is required for the reaction.

Yet production of the metals of the anode and cathode, as well as the electrolyte, require energy to produce. The reaction within the battery may be spontaneous, but the production of the battery is not. Therefore it's a poor analogy for global warming.

Let me clarify what Tod said.

SSDD says no type of energy can move spontaneously from cold to hot objects. That is crucial to his fake science in questioning the role of GHGs.

He doesn't believe in radiation exchange equilibrium.

I gave a counter example that a battery discharge through a conductor is spontaneous, and it can fire a cold LED spontaneously, That shows photon energy can move from a cold to a hot object.

He got all bent out of shape and fired email to physics professors and asked if LEDs were spontaneous. They of course rightly said no. He didn't tell the professors that my contention is that it is the battery that is spontaneously furnishing the energy.

Another example that he went ape over is the spontaneity of phosphorescence. So his current assertion is if prior work was involved, it is no longer spontaneous. Of course a phosphor needs illumination (energy) before it spontaneously discharges it weaker glow.

He really went over the edge when he said anything man-made can never be spontaneous. He said that radium emission is not spontaneous because the radium was refined by man.

The idiocy is still continuing. He had to bring up the crap again on this thread. It is not strictly off topic because it addresses a very faulty process of SSDD's thinking when it comes to GHG's and atmospheric warming. But it does get tedious.

.

Yeah, I don't give a crap what he said. My issue is as I stated. Batteries are not a good analogy for climate change.

Batteries are not a good analogy for climate change.

No one claimed they were.

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet he holds up a heat pump as an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...or that CO2 can store energy in the atmosphere or some other misguided attempt to support a radiative greenhouse effect?

I wouldn't even ATTEMPT to use a CO2 heat pump to show energy moving from cool to warm because

A) it's a system with EXTERNAL POWER supply to do the work. AND
B) It's NOT USING "radiative" heat transfer as the primary resource here...

Maybe you're not following along because you haven't been TOLD how to refute that CO2 CAN BE an effective refrigerant gas BECAUSE it can store and transport heat energy in EITHER direction from the medium it's acting on as a compressible gas..

THE ONLY reason I toss that garlic at the vampire --- is that it blows your 'theory' about "CO2 not being able to store heat" right out of this universe of bad fallacies that you keep.. If it can do that - as a gas - in a water or air conditioning system --- it can do that in the atmosphere where it's RADIATIVE thermo properties are enhanced over it's CONDUCTIVE thermo properties....

You lose again.. Not doing this again til NEXT GroundHog day... You need to start your OWN THREADS if you're rewriting so much of science and physics and chemistry... Because you're hijacking most EVERY GW thread with same repetitive assertions and not really prevailing or settling anything.. ..

 

[flacaltenn]

Amen to that...These guys glom onto any tangent that they believe they can twist hard enough to try and make their invalid points. It serves no purpose for them to remain on topic because there isn't a shred of evidence that they can use as support...ergo the endless supply of misguided, and misunderstood tangents.

You are an absolute liar. You "glommed" onto that tangent. You started the battery topic again in post #117 in this thread. You were wrong then and you are still making up fake physics now.

And with THAT -- this thread diversion started several pages ago should end... Amen...

 

[flacaltenn]

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect.

What do they say about the MAGNITUDE of that effect in 2100?? Go look it up so we can discuss whether "this effect" amounts to a snooze or the BIGGEST THREAT to our existence.

The world is NOT ending in 12 years.. Did you KNOW that? In fact, in 12 years at the current rate of warming, it'll just be about 0.15DegC warmer... That's a wispy cloud passing thru on a summer's day..

 

[SSDD]

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect. What a few sellouts to the Koch Brothers say doesn't bother me all that much.

Nice little system of denial you have there. Tell me...do you have any evidence that the Koch brothers bought and paid for the papers I provided, or any peer reviewed, published papers for that matter?..or is that just your go to rant against anything that challenges you're belief.

You sound like a religious fundamentalist claiming that the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool us.

And then there is the 97% number you keep offering up...Can you name any other branch of science in which the number of people who subscribe to a hypothesis is used as "evidence" that it is correct? Any branch of science at all? I took some time to look, and I couldn't find a single one. Challenge the prevailing hypothesis, or any hypothesis in another branch of science and you get deluged with all sorts of evidence, from every point of view. That is the nature of actual science. Challenge AGW and you get told how many people support it, but no one seems to be able to provide any actual observed, measured evidence to support it. What sort of science is that?

Here's the thing. If you're wrong and we do nothing- EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!

Everyone is going to die from what? A degree of warming? Because that is what climate science is saying the sensitivity to CO2 is now...a degree or less. Clearly whoever gave you your opinion hasn't been keeping up with the science. Or the have been deliberately withholding it from you so that you remain a bedwetting, handwaving, hysteric fearing the end of the world.

And do you think that spending trillions of dollars on a non issue, rather than spending at least some of that money on actual environmental problems that have actual solutions is a good thing? You think that crippling whole national economies is a good thing? You think that driving the poor into even deeper poverty...because the poor are the ones who can least afford the solutions that climate science is proposing....is a good thing?

If I'm wrong, and we do something- well, no harm.

Again...crippling economies, driving whole industries and the people who depend on them to feed their families out of business, driving the poor even deeper into poverty, ignoring serious environmental problems that have actual solutions, etc is no harm in your mind? Wasting 10 trillion dollars is no harm? Really? Explain that.

Probably a lot of good reasons to get off fossil fuels that have nothing to do with AGW. You know, like protecting other aspects of the environment and defunding very bad people.

Do tell me which other aspects of the environment have received any special attention since the climate scam started? Can you describe any world wide efforts to address and solve any particularly serious environmental issue? There are dozens of serious environmental issues facing us now...can you name 3 that climate science has been instrumental in solving, or moving in a positive direction towards solving?

The fact is that none of the serious environmental problems facing the world are going to get any real attention so long as the climate scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

 

[SSDD]

More expensive, less reliable energy with trillions wasted is "no harm"?

How much are you paying for energy now? And you do really think petroleum is reliable when the whole market can be thrown into a panic because someone sank a tanker today?

You really haven't been paying attention have you?

Look at the nations who have jumped on the renewables band wagon...germany, australia, england...people are paying far more for energy than we do, and they are experiencing regular rolling black outs and brown outs...they are having to decide monthly whether to pay the power bill or to feed their kids..

 

[SSDD]

Not everyone. I'm sure, among others, the Koch Brothers and their families will survive.

I'm sure those wrinkled old fucks have their underground lair with their supermodel slave girls.

I bet you actually believe that...

 

[SSDD]

Meanwhile in the not crazy world.

Emissions of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere reach record high

Meanwhile in the not crazy world.

Emissions of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere reach record high

A short term record? Really? And even that isn't very accurate. The time span they give only goes deeper into an ice age where cold oceans are holding vast amounts of CO2. I didn't see any mention of the fact that if you go back to the period before the present ice age began, that atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000 ppm...wonder why they didn't mention that the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than double the present amount?

And what is sad, is that it is that sort of tripe that you believe is actual evidence to support your belief.

And the claim of a record fails even in the past 150 years...here are the results of over 90,000 chemical analyses of atmospheric CO2...and by the way, chemical analysis is far more accurate than the spectral analysis which is being used by climate science today..

 

[SSDD]

Maybe you're not following along because you haven't been TOLD how to refute that CO2 CAN BE an effective refrigerant gas BECAUSE it can store and transport heat energy in EITHER direction from the medium it's acting on as a compressible gas..

Of course I knew that...I also knew that it can only store and transport heat in its liquid form...If it didn't , there would be no need in wasting the energy required to compress it into its liquid form in the various residential and industrial applications...

THE ONLY reason I toss that garlic at the vampire --- is that it blows your 'theory' about "CO2 not being able to store heat" right out of this universe of bad fallacies that you keep..

I never said that it couldn't...I have said that it couldn't at atmospheric pressures and temperatures...a fact that you apparently were unaware of...

You lose again.. .

Sorry...I am not the one who didn't realize that CO2 could only store and transport heat in its liquid form...and I can't blame you for only doing this once a year...it must be embarrassing.

 

[JoeB131]

What do they say about the MAGNITUDE of that effect in 2100?? Go look it up so we can discuss whether "this effect" amounts to a snooze or the BIGGEST THREAT to our existence.

The world is NOT ending in 12 years.. Did you KNOW that? In fact, in 12 years at the current rate of warming, it'll just be about 0.15DegC warmer... That's a wispy cloud passing thru on a summer's day..

Oh, I see, if we are all dead by then, it won't matter.

Sorry, the time to address this problem is now, not in 12 years or 80 years.

 

[SSDD]

What do they say about the MAGNITUDE of that effect in 2100?? Go look it up so we can discuss whether "this effect" amounts to a snooze or the BIGGEST THREAT to our existence.

The world is NOT ending in 12 years.. Did you KNOW that? In fact, in 12 years at the current rate of warming, it'll just be about 0.15DegC warmer... That's a wispy cloud passing thru on a summer's day..

Oh, I see, if we are all dad by then, it won't matter.

Sorry, the time to address this problem is now, not in 12 years or 80 years.

Do you ever stop the handwaving hysterics. I have been waiting for pages now for you to produce even one piece of actual science to support your claims...you don't have any...do you. You can't support a single one of your claims with anything even resembling observed, measured data.

You are a religious, fundamentalist, zealot proclaiming that the end is near in a place where people are supposed to be debating the science. Are you not embarrassed in the least? Want to tell me about how the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool us?

 

[JoeB131]

Do you ever stop the handwaving hysterics. I have been waiting for pages now for you to produce even one piece of actual science to support your claims...

Again, I don't talk to conspiracy nuts...

There's only so much time you can waste on people who are invested in believing in fantasies against all evidence.

I've wasted too much already.

95% of climate scientists say we have a problem. If 19 out of 20 doctors tell you to fix something, you don't go with the 1 who says, "you'll be fine. Just keep smoking and eating those fatty foods!"

 

[SSDD]

Again, I don't talk to conspiracy nuts...

You are apparently the conspiracy nut. I am trying to discuss the science and you are going on about everything but science...claiming conspiracy with koch brothers to get science published...secret underground bunkers etc...

There's only so much time you can waste on people who are invested in believing in fantasies against all evidence.

Which evidence...that is what I keep asking for and you keep not providing. You keep talking about evidence and I keep asking to see it, and you keep dodging. What you are saying is that you really don't have time to talk to people who want to discuss the evidence...you only have time for fundamentalists such as yourself who don't require evidence...you only want to talk to the congregation because they won't challenge your faith.

95% of climate scientists say we have a problem. If 19 out of 20 doctors tell you to fix something, you don't go with the 1 who says, "you'll be fine. Just keep smoking and eating those fatty foods!"

Again with the 95%. I asked before if you could name any other branch of science where the number of people who believe a hypothesis is correct is offered up as evidence that the hypothesis is correct. You didn't answer for the same reason that you can't provide any observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because there are none. The number of people who support a hypothesis has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not...that is how pseudoscience works...actual science is all about the evidence. Got any? How about you just show a bit of the evidence that convinced you.

 

[JoeB131]

You are apparently the conspiracy nut. I am trying to discuss the science and you are going on about everything but science...claiming conspiracy with koch brothers to get science published...secret underground bunkers etc...

Naw, man, it's not a conspiracy when they do it pretty much out in the open. Almost all of the anti-Warming propaganda trails back to the Koches and the Oil industry.

cui bono - who benefits.

If we engaged in a Crash Program to get onto alternative clean energy, we could do it. Probably for a lot less than it costs us to play Hall Monitor in the Persian Gulf.

And not necessarily using all the things hippies like. I'd have no problem with increasing the number of nuclear plants, for instance. I think left wing hysteria over nukes in the 1980's has helped put us here.

But the oil companies benefit from the status quo, so they are happy to put out absolute bullshit about how it isn't happening or it isn't as bad as it looks, or gosh darn, we might all die, but that's better than letting the government tell us where to put our thermostats!!!!

Again with the 95%. I asked before if you could name any other branch of science where the number of people who believe a hypothesis is correct is offered up as evidence that the hypothesis is correct. You didn't answer

Because it was a stupid question. That's why I didn't bother with it.

I also don't question the 4 out of 5 dentists thing...

 

[SSDD]

Naw, man, it's not a conspiracy when they do it pretty much out in the open. Almost all of the anti-Warming propaganda trails back to the Koches and the Oil industry.

Really? Got any evidence for the science you claim they bought and paid for? Got any actual evidence of the underground bunkers etc? If it is out in the open, evidence shouldn't be hard to come by...I would be interested in seeing it.

If we engaged in a Crash Program to get onto alternative clean energy, we could do it. Probably for a lot less than it costs us to play Hall Monitor in the Persian Gulf.

Got any actual evidence to back that up? Better yet, got any actual evidence that supports the claim that we need it? My bet is that you have neither.. what you have is an opinion that someone else gave you and little to no actual knowledge on the topic.

But the oil companies benefit from the status quo, so they are happy to put out absolute bullshit about how it isn't happening or it isn't as bad as it looks, or gosh darn, we might all die, but that's better than letting the government tell us where to put our thermostats!!!!

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of business either...when the time arrives when there is a profit motive for producing energy from a different source, then that different source will come about...and you can bet that the inventors and manufacturers, and suppliers of such new energy will have names like exxon, mobile, chevron, etc. You seem to think that the best and brightest work for government...that couldn't be further from the truth...government hires the low bid...the best and brightest work in the private sector...for the people who are making the most money because they have hired the best and brightest.

Because it was a stupid question. That's why I didn't bother with it.

Why is it stupid? Look through history at all the theories and hypotheses that have been overturned and swept into the dustbin of history because of new knowledge...right up till the time that the old science was overturned, there were a high percentage of scientists who believed and defended the old science...and they did so based on actual evidence.

I keep asking for observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis and you keep not producing...and not just you...everyone who believes in the AGW hypothesis.. I understand that there is no such evidence when I ask...but you guys don't seem to understand or be willing to understand or just don't care that no such evidence exists.

I also don't question the 4 out of 5 dentists thing...

Any product that is endorsed by 4 out of 5 dentists has plenty of observed, measured, experimental evidence to support their claims. So if 95% of climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis, where is the observed, measured evidence that convinced them...lets see just one single piece of such evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one.

And I predict that you won't be producing it..nor will anyone else...the best you will be able to manage is just another excuse for not being able to step up to the plate with some real science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

it can store

Wrong;

It is incapable, in the gas form, of energy storage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it can store

Wrong;

It is incapable, in the gas form, of energy storage.

It is incapable, in the gas form, of energy storage.

How is any CO2 not in solid form at 0K?

 

[JoeB131]

Really? Got any evidence for the science you claim they bought and paid for?

Yes...

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

The Covert Attack on McCain's Climate Leadership: Koch and Exxon

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of business either...when the time arrives when there is a profit motive for producing energy from a different source, then that different source will come about...

Yeah, you see, sometimes you do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because someone is going to make a profit.