Arctic ice thins dramatically

[RWatt]

I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.

I don't know what you mean by "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege", but given the atmosphere can't be simulated in a lab then I wonder how you know "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege" to be the case in the actual atmosphere, unless you accept some other type of evidence than lab experiments?

This is like saying you can't predict planetary orbits because we can't put a planet in a lab.

You are the one who insisted that stuff must be proved in a lab to be science.

Interestingly you now allow an exception for planetary orbits. So I am no longer sure what you are arguing.

 

[RWatt]

Nope, Just pointing out that co2 has a very real effect at high enough levels and not that the earth is going to see anything even a thousandth of one percent of venus. [/B]

CO2 isn't the driver on venus either, pressure is. If venus had an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere much like earth with the pressure found on venus, it would still be an oven.

Pressure doesn't create heat. You can't create a canister of pressurized gas and use it as an infinite heat source to heat a house for example.

The act of pressurizing a gas creates heat, but it then dissipates. You'd have to be forever squeezing a gas to higher and higher pressure to generate more heat.

If there was no greenhouse effect on Venus the planet would cool down significantly to a level in balance with incoming sunlight, and as it cooled the pressure of the atmosphere would drop too.

Look at earth history. Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine. CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate. Certainly not a driver.

Yes look at Earth's history. Atmospheric CO2 was thousands of PPM and kept Earth warm despite a fainter sun.

 

[RWatt]

But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?

I just posted an experiment, and the directions for building the equipment yourself that proves quite convincingly that the greenhouse effect as described by warmists is simply not happening.

Or perhaps you might like to tell me how, if the phenomenon of downdwelling IR exists, how one might aim a solar oven at the nightime sky and get ice with an ambient temperature of nearly 48 degrees or realize a cooling during the day light hours. Describe that observed evidence in the context of a hypothesis that suggests that IR emitted by the earth is being backradiated 24 hours a day to the extent that the earth is warming.

Solar ice makers work by heating a gas up into liquid form, and then letting it evaporate later to create a refrigeration effect.

Given the cold part relies soley on a liquid evaporating it has no relevance to whether IR is coming from the atmosphere or not.

 

[wirebender]

We're supposed to take the word of someone who got on this board and said that H2CO3 isn't an acid?!?! Your rather fluid knowledge of science puts anything you have to say on this subject in a bad light. Got a cite where someone other than you did this experiment?

Actually, I never said any such thing, but do feel free to provide a post of me making such a claim if you like.

Of course, I gave the link already. It was the results of experiments performed by a physics professor and a bunch of students at BYU. If you aren't able to go back and find the link, I will post it again.

As I said, I provided the instructions for you to do the experiment yourself. I doubt that the total cost would be more than 10 or 15 dollars.

 

[wirebender]

Solar ice makers work by heating a gas up into liquid form, and then letting it evaporate later to create a refrigeration effect.

Given the cold part relies soley on a liquid evaporating it has no relevance to whether IR is coming from the atmosphere or not.

If you had read the links I provided, you would see that the cooling was achieved with a solar oven, not a solar ice maker and evaporation was not part of the experiment.

 

[polarbear]

We're supposed to take the word of someone who got on this board and said that H2CO3 isn't an acid?!?! Your rather fluid knowledge of science puts anything you have to say on this subject in a bad light. Got a cite where someone other than you did this experiment?

Actually, I never said any such thing, but do feel free to provide a post of me making such a claim if you like.

Of course, I gave the link already. It was the results of experiments performed by a physics professor and a bunch of students at BYU. If you aren't able to go back and find the link, I will post it again.

As I said, I provided the instructions for you to do the experiment yourself. I doubt that the total cost would be more than 10 or 15 dollars.

Look at this asshole "we are supposed to take the word of someone who said H2CO3 is not an acid...!!!"

This dimwit still doesn`t get it ...
I must have explained that to him half a dozen times by now that
[H+] + [HCO3-] is an acid but not tyhe undissociated form [H2CO3]

This moron simply can`t comprehend that acidity is the -decade log of the number of [H+] ions and not the number of un-dissociated molecules as in H2CO3...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the Hydrogen +ION is not dissociated from any given molecule , then that part of the molecule is not part of the acid...the [H+] Ions are the acid, and nothing else... else all acids would have the same pH value.
**** there is no way this moron could have passed basic Hi-school science, if he still doensn`t understand that



Here it is again...:
pH= -log( ([H+]) and the pKa= log ([H+]/[HA])
where HA is H2CO3 or HCl or H2SO4 or whatever...there is no special climate quackology equation in REAL SCIENCE which says that CO2 does not
have to obey the laws of Physisc & Chemistry....as is the case in this "Glow Screw-Ball Science"
But You simply can`t educate a retard,....

Every Chemist & Chemical engineer takes it for granted, that you can store pure Hydrochloric acid in an oridinary steel cylinder because the HCl is not dissociated to [H+] + [Cl-]

Add any amount of H2O which then allows HCl to dissociate to produce [H+] then it is an acid strong enough to eat through steel...

The same thing goes for H2SO4...
Nobody ever claimed that H2SO4, HCl etc are not "acids" as this ******* moron twists it...I explained it over and over again where he figured that a few ppm CO2 can acidify an entire ocean and where this retard said that ocean water at a pH of ~8.2 was "acid"..."acidified etc...in other words here we have a moron who did at that time not even know that there is no such thing as an "acid" at pH levels above 7 and he is coming back with the same garbage over and over again...because he simply can`t comprehend the whole concept of acids and bases

It`s something all these REAL science deniers climate quacks have in common...
they haven`t got a ******* clue about science...no math no chem, no physics...just their freak out web page buzzword terminology which they copy and paste into forums like this one...

 

[Old Rocks]

So, we are supposed to take the word of some dip on a message board over that of scientists that study the ocean?

NAS Ocean Acid Report

Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the

Challenges of a Changing Ocean

Committee on the Development of an Integrated

Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring,

Research, and Impacts Assessment; National Research

Council


Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books from the

National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of

Medicine, and the National Research Council:



Download hundreds of free books in PDF



Read thousands of books online, free



Sign up to be notified when new books are published



Purchase printed books



Purchase PDFs



Explore with our innovative research tools

Thank you for downloading this free PDF. If you have comments, questions or just want

more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, you may

contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or

send an email toc o m m e n t s @ n a p .e d u.

This free book plus thousands more books are available ath t t p : / / w w w . n a p . e d u .

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. Permission is granted for this material to be

shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the

reproduced materials, the Web address of the online, full authoritative version is retained,

and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written

permission from the National Academies Press.

ISBN: 0-309-15360-3, 175 pages, 6 x 9, (2010)

This free PDF was downloaded from:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12904.htm

 

[polarbear]

Nope, Just pointing out that co2 has a very real effect at high enough levels and not that the earth is going to see anything even a thousandth of one percent of venus. [/B]

CO2 isn't the driver on venus either, pressure is. If venus had an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere much like earth with the pressure found on venus, it would still be an oven.

Pressure doesn't create heat.

The act of pressurizing a gas creates heat, but it then dissipates. You'd have to be forever squeezing a gas to higher and higher pressure to generate more heat.

If there was no greenhouse effect on Venus the planet would cool down significantly to a level in balance with incoming sunlight, and as it cooled the pressure of the atmosphere would drop too.

Look at earth history. Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine. CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate. Certainly not a driver.

Yes look at Earth's history. Atmospheric CO2 was thousands of PPM and kept Earth warm despite a fainter sun.

****, unbelievable how dumb and ignorant you are...
"Pressure does not "create" heat...".....?????????????


Really....?

And you argue your "point" that

You can't create a canister of pressurized gas and use it as an infinite heat source to heat a house for example.

So tell us how do you "create energy"...?

Are you God or something...
there is no way to CREATE ENERGY you moron...
Even a high school kid knows that...

But pressure does "create" heat, just as long as you have the energy to supply the pressure..
So how are houses heated then...which "infinite heat source" are you using...???

And all of the physics equations which show how heat relates to pressure don`t apply in quackology...well that`s no surprise...

So why do`nt you explain it to us with your qauckology why gas gets hotter the more you compress it, you ******* moron...
Then you must be one of these retards who would look for spark-plugs on a Diesel engine unless someone gives you a Wikipedia reference to Diesel Engines and how they work
Somebody should hold down your faggy hands against the cylinder of a running compressor and ask you to repeat your retard statement..:
"Pressure does not create heat"

By the way there are heating systems that do heat houses exactly like that,....they are called "heat-pumps" look it up

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL, BiPolar calling anyone else a moron.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Based on measurements of air pressure differences, another way of measuring La Niña besides sea-surface temperatures, this La Niña in February was the most intense on record. Accurate measurements go back to 1950.

 

[wirebender]

LOL, BiPolar calling anyone else a moron.

And still, you remain unable to rebutt a single thing he says. If he is a moron, and you are unable to form a coherent rebuttal to anything he says, how abysmally stupid does that make you?

Only a genuine idiot calls someone who is clearly his intellectual superior a moron.

 

[RWatt]

****, unbelievable how dumb and ignorant you are...
"Pressure does not "create" heat...".....?????????????

It doesn't.

Heat is only produced during the act of compressing a gas. Once it's compressed, if you just leave it in that state it won't produce any more heat. You'd have to be compressing it more and more to get more heat.

Obviously Venus is not compressing more and more, hence it's very high temperature cannot be explained by the pressure of it's atmosphere. Nor can it be explained by the amount of Sunlight it aborbs (which is less than mercury aborbs yet venus is hotter).

The reason Venus is so warm is because it has a strong greenhouse effect. If it's atmosphere was pure nitrogen, a non-greenhouse gas, it would be far colder.

So why do`nt you explain it to us with your qauckology why gas gets hotter the more you compress it, you ******* moron...

It doesn't stay hot though does it? No-one buys a canister of compressed gas planning to drop it in the middle of their living room to act as a source of heat.

 

[wirebender]

Obviously Venus is not compressing more and more, hence it's very high temperature cannot be explained by the pressure of it's atmosphere. Nor can it be explained by the amount of Sunlight it aborbs (which is less than mercury aborbs yet venus is hotter).

Clearly, you don't have a clue as to what is going on in the atmosphere of venus and have even less of an idea of how it relates to earth. Here is a cut and paste of a bare bones, fairly easy to understand lesson on venus, its atmosphere, and PV=nRT. I will give you the link so that you can read the whole thing and look at the graphs if you like.

If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT.

Because we have a sun providing energy to the periphery of the atmospheric system, the atmosphere circulates vertically and horizontally to maintain equilibrium. Falling air moves to regions of higher pressure, compresses and warms. The greater the pressure, the greater the warming. Rising air moves to regions of lower pressure, expands, and cools. The amount of warming (or cooling) per unit distance is described as the “lapse rate.” On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C.

It is very important to note that despite radically different compositions, both atmospheres have approximately the same dry lapse rate. This tells us that the primary factor affecting the temperature is the thickness of the atmosphere, not the composition. Because Venus has a much thicker atmosphere than Earth, the temperature is much higher.

dT = -10 * dh where T is temperature and h is height.

With a constant lapse rate, an atmosphere twice as thick would be twice as warm. Three times as thick would be three times as warm. etc. Now let’s do some experiments using this information.

Experiment # 1 – Atmospheric pressure on Venus’ surface is 92 times larger than earth, because the atmosphere is much thicker and thus weighs more. Now suppose that we could instantly change the molecular composition of Venus atmosphere to match that of Earth. Because the lapse rate of Earth’s atmosphere is very similar to that of Venus, we would see little change in Venus temperature.

Experiment #2 – Now, lets keep the atmospheric composition of Venus constant, but instead remove almost 91/92 of it – to make the mass and thickness of Venus atmosphere similar to earth. Because lapse rates are similar between the two planets, temperatures would become similar to those on earth.

Experiment #3 – Let’s take Earth’s atmosphere and replace the composition with that of Venus. Because the lapse rates are similar, the temperature on Earth would not change very much.

Experiment #4 – Let’s keep the composition of Earth’s atmosphere fixed, but increase the amount of gas in the atmosphere by 92X. Because the lapse rates are similar, the temperature on Earth would become very hot, like Venus.

Venus Envy | Watts Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

So saith an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and Bentwire falls at his feet in worship.

 

[wirebender]

So saith an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and Bentwire falls at his feet in worship.

And still nothing even approaching a coherent statement from old rocks. Do you dispute any of what I posted regarding venus or the property of pressure and density on temperature? Can you provide any information that proves even the smallest part wrong?

Lets see the science rocks. Lets see the proof.

In typical fashion, you don't have a clue as to whether the information is correct or not, you just don't like the source and therfeore you disregard it.

 

[Chris]

 

[RWatt]

Because we have a sun providing energy to the periphery of the atmospheric system, the atmosphere circulates vertically and horizontally to maintain equilibrium. Falling air moves to regions of higher pressure, compresses and warms. The greater the pressure, the greater the warming. Rising air moves to regions of lower pressure, expands, and cools.

The reason it is wrong is that the movement of air in this fashion does not add heat to the system, it simply moves it within the system.

The amount of warming (or cooling) per unit distance is described as the “lapse rate.” On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. It is very important to note that despite radically different compositions, both atmospheres have approximately the same dry lapse rate. This tells us that the primary factor affecting the temperature is the thickness of the atmosphere, not the composition.

All it tells you is the fall of temperature with height. It tells you nothing about the temperature at the surface. Evidentially, because both Earth and Venus have very different surface temperatures yet as noted above very similar lapse rates.

Because Venus has a much thicker atmosphere than Earth, the temperature is much higher.

Venus couldn't maintain such a high temperature if it's atmosphere was transparent to infrared.

If Venus's atmosphere was transparent to infrared then all 16,000 watts per square meter of energy radiated by the 460 degree C surface would go straight into space.

What's the problem with that? Well Venus only absorbs about 65 watts per square meter of sunlight.

So if the atmosphere was completely transparent to infrared then Venus would be losing staggering amounts of energy, and hence cool.

There is no solution to Venus's temperature if the atmosphere is transparent to infrared.

 

[wirebender]

Venus couldn't maintain such a high temperature if it's atmosphere was transparent to infrared.

If the atmosphere of venus were identical to earth in every respect except retained its atmospheric pressure, the temperature of venus would still be as hot as it is right now.

Pressure is what makes venus like it is, not the chemical composition of its atmosphere.

 

[RWatt]

Venus couldn't maintain such a high temperature if it's atmosphere was transparent to infrared.

If the atmosphere of venus were identical to earth in every respect except retained its atmospheric pressure, the temperature of venus would still be as hot as it is right now.

Pressure is what makes venus like it is, not the chemical composition of its atmosphere.

If the atmosphere of Venus could not absorb infrared it would cool significantly and the pressure would drop.

 

[wirebender]

If the atmosphere of Venus could not absorb infrared it would cool significantly and the pressure would drop.

Lets see some science that proves such a rediculous statement. By the way, "greenhouse" gasses don't trap infrared. They absorb and emit precisely the same amount and the waves they emit are to long to be absorbed by another like molecule.