Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.
SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature? Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?
SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.
on Earth, the atmosphere at any particular longitude will both warm up AND puff up as it rotates through the Sun's radiance. some of the energy goes into warming, some into potential energy. as that longitude passes out of radiance it will both cool and contract, losing both kinetic (temperature) energy and potential energy. the next day the cycle repeats.
there is a general pattern to atmospheres which allows us to make general estimates if we know the depth, density and energy flux. this general estimate is worthless for Earth where we are looking for changes of tenths of a degree not tens.
Ian, Ian, Ian... very disappointing. You know that SSDD is not talking about diurnal cycles. He's yet to mention sunlight, potential/kinetic energy tradeoffs or anything else you're talking about. SSDD believes that compressed gases produce thermal energy for all eternity. If you really want to put yourself down in print here as holding that "not totally wrong", then you're going to have to accept the rest of us will be forced to conclude that you put supporting your denier buddies above the truth.
SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature? Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?
as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.
If you believe those "holes" exist and are intentional, you're not skeptical, you're paranoid.
Besides, anyone who provides SSDD's psycho-physics the slightest bit of support has completely abandoned the qualifications to make the SLIGHTEST claim of skepticism
hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.
SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.
on Earth, the atmosphere at any particular longitude will both warm up AND puff up as it rotates through the Sun's radiance. some of the energy goes into warming, some into potential energy. as that longitude passes out of radiance it will both cool and contract, losing both kinetic (temperature) energy and potential energy. the next day the cycle repeats.
there is a general pattern to atmospheres which allows us to make general estimates if we know the depth, density and energy flux. this general estimate is worthless for Earth where we are looking for changes of tenths of a degree not tens.
Ian, Ian, Ian... very disappointing. You know that SSDD is not talking about diurnal cycles. He's yet to mention sunlight, potential/kinetic energy tradeoffs or anything else you're talking about. SSDD believes that compressed gases produce thermal energy for all eternity. If you really want to put yourself down in print here as holding that "not totally wrong", then you're going to have to accept the rest of us will be forced to conclude that you put supporting your denier buddies above the truth.
SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature? Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?
as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.
If you believe those "holes" exist and are intentional, you're not skeptical, you're paranoid.
Besides, anyone who provides SSDD's psycho-physics the slightest bit of support has completely abandoned the qualifications to make the SLIGHTEST claim of skepticism
hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.
positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature
Yeah...zero is less than 1C....prepare yourself.
positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature. I think there is a distinct possibility that the ~1C/doubling theoretical calculation for CO2 will eventually be found to produce less than 1C.
positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature
Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.
Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.
If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.
If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.
Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right
Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.
positive (total) feedbacks are unstable
positive (total) feedbacks are unstable
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... = 2
That's how, for example, the water vapor feedback works in climate. Positive and infinite, but bounded.
Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.
Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.
If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.
If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.
Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right
Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.
So Venus atmosphere no longer generates heat, what does? Manmade global Warming?
Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.
Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.
Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults? Yours truly suck.
I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument. Why don't you explain his math for us?
Or did you want a comment on how all those "positive feedbacks" will never add up to much in the real world?? And certainly not add to the ORIGINAL hysterical "climate sensitivity" figures that got everyone's nuts in a tizzy...
Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.
Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.
If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.
If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.
Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right
Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.
So Venus atmosphere no longer generates heat, what does? Manmade global Warming?
Oohh.. you're getting close. Increases in GHGs in our atmosphere increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and raise the Earth's temperature. That's what's been happening since the Industrial Revolution began.
Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?
Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?
As "the sun" is a complete answer, yes, we did give up trying to explain it more. After all, it can't be dumbed down any further than that.
