David Suzuki in 1990

[daveman]

Greenhouse gases a reckless gamble

It has been known since the last century that carbon-bearing compounds are transparent to sunlight but opaque to infra-red. In other words, sunlight passes through carbon-containing air whereas infra-red heat rays tend to be reflected by the carbon.

We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.​

 

[Crick]

Very impressive. Your friends here will disown you. Only a few mistakes. Carbon dioxide does not reflect infrared, it absorbs it. And there's no carbon in glass.

 

[daveman]

Very impressive. Your friends here will disown you. Only a few mistakes. Carbon dioxide does not reflect infrared, it absorbs it. And there's no carbon in glass.

Hey, dumbass. I didn't make those claims. David Suzuki, climate change activist and fascist advocate of jailing climate change deniers, did.

You just admitted one of your fellow cultists fucked up. Now, predictably, you will claim you never heard of him.

Surprise me. Don't make that claim.

 

[tinydancer]

Greenhouse gases a reckless gamble

It has been known since the last century that carbon-bearing compounds are transparent to sunlight but opaque to infra-red. In other words, sunlight passes through carbon-containing air whereas infra-red heat rays tend to be reflected by the carbon.

We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.​

Hey dearheart! How you been keeping my darlin?

Suzuki. Canuck son of a ***** who loves to take the money from what ever side is telling him to lie about. Oh and loves hanging out with Neil Young. Another lying Canuck.

 

[daveman]

Greenhouse gases a reckless gamble

It has been known since the last century that carbon-bearing compounds are transparent to sunlight but opaque to infra-red. In other words, sunlight passes through carbon-containing air whereas infra-red heat rays tend to be reflected by the carbon.

We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.​

Hey dearheart! How you been keeping my darlin?

Suzuki. Canuck son of a ***** who loves to take the money from what ever side is telling him to lie about. Oh and loves hanging out with Neil Young. Another lying Canuck.

Doin' good, darlin'. Thanks.

Suzuki really sucks at science. No wonder he's an AGW cultist.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Very impressive. Your friends here will disown you. Only a few mistakes. Carbon dioxide does not reflect infrared, it absorbs it. And there's no carbon in glass.

You're short-changing us on the science a bit I think. I've seen some of your other posts and you seem to be pretty knowlegable about this stuff. Give us the whole story though.
While CO2 does absorb a photon of IR it then re-emits a photon of IR. Same effect as reflection or not? And your statement "there's no carbon in glass" seems to be contradicted by this list of common ingredients in glass;

Common raw materials used for making glass consist of the following:

•Sand: finely divided rock and mineral particles, typically high in silica (silicon dioxide: SiO2).

•Soda ash: sodium carbonate: Na2CO3.

•Dolomite: calcium magnesium carbonate: CaMg(CO3)2.

•Limestone: a sedimentary rock composed largely of the mineral calcite (calcium carbonate: CaCO3)

Am I missing something?

 

[flacaltenn]

Suzuki was very confused in 1990...

Since our scientific knowledge base is minuscule and our ability to predict the consequences of humanity's impact on the planet is very poor, we should take the many eco-disaster scenarios seriously and act most conservatively to avoid them.

It is dangerous to keep putting out more greenhouse gases for no other reason than that we don't know what effects they will have.

Citing temp anomalies of "2 to 6 deg" Centigrade in the next 50 years.. A prediction that has little chance of ever happening by 2040 as of now..

And this "zero risk" public policy prescription is disturbing given that Suzuki has no clue of a plan to AVOID fossil fuels in that timeframe.

The car analogy is unfortunate -- for him.. The interior heats because all frequencies ABOVE infra-red penetrate the glass --- REGARDLESS of the material being "carbon" or silica.. And there is no convection path for the heat -- nor is the glass transparent to the infra radiation coming from the interior.

The issue of CO2 heat retention in the atmos is simple and often misunderstood. The Earth SURFACE is a blackbody radiator in the InfraRed and GHGases act as a "half-silvered" mirror to reflect some of the sky-bound heat back to the surface. A molecule of CO2 will only emit a photon when it's energy in vibrational modes exceeds a threshhold (a certain "temperature") So molecules RETAIN heat as vibrational energy until that event occurs.

GHGases don't HEAT the surface. Net IR heat flow is ALWAYS towards the sky. (especially at night). But it does REDUCE the cooling rate of the surface and cause a new equilibrium in the balance of Up and Dwn IR radiation..

 

[Kosh]

Very impressive. Your friends here will disown you. Only a few mistakes. Carbon dioxide does not reflect infrared, it absorbs it. And there's no carbon in glass.

More proof that the AGW cult does not have a clue beyond their religious programming.

 

[Crick]

I am slightly familiar with David Suzuki. His education is in biology and zoology, not physics, chemistry or atmospheric science. It's a bit disappointing that he should make such misstatements but it is completely irrelevant to the validity of AGW.

You deniers keep thinking you can defeat AGW by attacking the scientists (not that David Suzuki is a climate scientist). That just isn't going to work. If you want to defeat AGW, you have to attack the science. If you can't do that (and so far you cannot), then AGW stands.

 

[Sunni Man]

I am slightly familiar with David Suzuki. His education is in biology and zoology, not physics, chemistry or atmospheric science. It's a bit disappointing that he should make such misstatements but it is completely irrelevant to the validity of AGW.

You deniers keep thinking you can defeat AGW by attacking the scientists (not that David Suzuki is a climate scientist). That just isn't going to work. If you want to defeat AGW, you have to attack the science. If you can't do that (and so far you cannot), then AGW stands.

Translation: I know that I'm wrong.....but I still believe that I'm right. .

 

[daveman]

I am slightly familiar with David Suzuki. His education is in biology and zoology, not physics, chemistry or atmospheric science. It's a bit disappointing that he should make such misstatements but it is completely irrelevant to the validity of AGW.

You deniers keep thinking you can defeat AGW by attacking the scientists (not that David Suzuki is a climate scientist). That just isn't going to work. If you want to defeat AGW, you have to attack the science. If you can't do that (and so far you cannot), then AGW stands.

You really have no clue how science works, do you?

We don't have to prove anything. You have to prove AGW is real.

You haven't. Period.

 

[Crick]

As soon as you start talking about "prove" in the context of the natural sciences, it is demonstrated that it is YOU that has no clue how science works.

And your response certainly doesn't even address your attacks on Suzuki. That he, a biologist, should make flawed observations is completely meaningless so far as the validity of AGW is concerned. Meaningless.

 

[daveman]

As soon as you start talking about "prove" in the context of the natural sciences, it is demonstrated that it is YOU that has no clue how science works.

On the contrary -- it's not the deniers who are saying "The debate is over! The science is settled!"

Real scientists welcome debate. Climate "scientists" seek to silence dissent.

And your response certainly doesn't even address your attacks on Suzuki. That he, a biologist, should make flawed observations is completely meaningless so far as the validity of AGW is concerned. Meaningless.

Then perhaps he shouldn't speak about climate. But that never stops the Troo Beleevers! You're ALL experts!

 

[IanC]

Suzuki was very confused in 1990...

Since our scientific knowledge base is minuscule and our ability to predict the consequences of humanity's impact on the planet is very poor, we should take the many eco-disaster scenarios seriously and act most conservatively to avoid them.

It is dangerous to keep putting out more greenhouse gases for no other reason than that we don't know what effects they will have.

Citing temp anomalies of "2 to 6 deg" Centigrade in the next 50 years.. A prediction that has little chance of ever happening by 2040 as of now..

And this "zero risk" public policy prescription is disturbing given that Suzuki has no clue of a plan to AVOID fossil fuels in that timeframe.

The car analogy is unfortunate -- for him.. The interior heats because all frequencies ABOVE infra-red penetrate the glass --- REGARDLESS of the material being "carbon" or silica.. And there is no convection path for the heat -- nor is the glass transparent to the infra radiation coming from the interior.

The issue of CO2 heat retention in the atmos is simple and often misunderstood. The Earth SURFACE is a blackbody radiator in the InfraRed and GHGases act as a "half-silvered" mirror to reflect some of the sky-bound heat back to the surface. A molecule of CO2 will only emit a photon when it's energy in vibrational modes exceeds a threshhold (a certain "temperature") So molecules RETAIN heat as vibrational energy until that event occurs.

GHGases don't HEAT the surface. Net IR heat flow is ALWAYS towards the sky. (especially at night). But it does REDUCE the cooling rate of the surface and cause a new equilibrium in the balance of Up and Dwn IR radiation..

flac- I agree with your statement on equilibrium at the surface. We have both tried to beat it into the heads of a lot of posters here from both sides.

But I fail to see how temperature affects absorption/emission of CO2's favourite bands. That is a characteristic of the molecule. Kinetic energy and collisions is what generates the underlying blackbody radiation in all substances above zero. Because the average time of emission is greater than the average time between collisions much of the absorbed IR energy is thermalized into the atmosphere, especially at lower altitudes. Every iterization produces a new batch of IR which leaves through the 'window'. Energy will always find a path to leak out.

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary: Dave is upset because his hero Suzuki made a dumb mistake in 1990.

However, since nobody here but Dave seems to care about Suzuki, I don't see how it matters.

 

[flacaltenn]

Suzuki was very confused in 1990...

Since our scientific knowledge base is minuscule and our ability to predict the consequences of humanity's impact on the planet is very poor, we should take the many eco-disaster scenarios seriously and act most conservatively to avoid them.

It is dangerous to keep putting out more greenhouse gases for no other reason than that we don't know what effects they will have.

Citing temp anomalies of "2 to 6 deg" Centigrade in the next 50 years.. A prediction that has little chance of ever happening by 2040 as of now..

And this "zero risk" public policy prescription is disturbing given that Suzuki has no clue of a plan to AVOID fossil fuels in that timeframe.

The car analogy is unfortunate -- for him.. The interior heats because all frequencies ABOVE infra-red penetrate the glass --- REGARDLESS of the material being "carbon" or silica.. And there is no convection path for the heat -- nor is the glass transparent to the infra radiation coming from the interior.

The issue of CO2 heat retention in the atmos is simple and often misunderstood. The Earth SURFACE is a blackbody radiator in the InfraRed and GHGases act as a "half-silvered" mirror to reflect some of the sky-bound heat back to the surface. A molecule of CO2 will only emit a photon when it's energy in vibrational modes exceeds a threshhold (a certain "temperature") So molecules RETAIN heat as vibrational energy until that event occurs.

GHGases don't HEAT the surface. Net IR heat flow is ALWAYS towards the sky. (especially at night). But it does REDUCE the cooling rate of the surface and cause a new equilibrium in the balance of Up and Dwn IR radiation..

flac- I agree with your statement on equilibrium at the surface. We have both tried to beat it into the heads of a lot of posters here from both sides.

But I fail to see how temperature affects absorption/emission of CO2's favourite bands. That is a characteristic of the molecule. Kinetic energy and collisions is what generates the underlying blackbody radiation in all substances above zero. Because the average time of emission is greater than the average time between collisions much of the absorbed IR energy is thermalized into the atmosphere, especially at lower altitudes. Every iterization produces a new batch of IR which leaves through the 'window'. Energy will always find a path to leak out.

It is a characteristic of the molecule. Each of those bands are a different vibrational mode. And the avg time of emission is greater than average time of collision because MOST energy in those vibrational modes comes from absorption of photons, not actual kinetic collisions..

The wait between absorption and emission is due to the quantum levels BETWEEN the different bands. An IR photon from ONE emission line can elevate the target molecule energy ABOVE that emission band.. And it might take SEVERAL of those to get to the next band of higher energy. The thermal storage that results essentially "launders" the band origin of those photons. A higher energy photon emission can result from multiple hits of lower energy because energy is promoted to the different excitation modes within the molecule. The temperature of the molecule is a result of both photon absorbed energy and kinetically inherited. And the energy is distributed into the vibrational modes available.

 

[daveman]

Thread summary: Dave is upset because his hero Suzuki made a dumb mistake in 1990.

However, since nobody here but Dave seems to care about Suzuki, I don't see how it matters.

Wow. You SUCK at summarizing. So many mistakes in two sentences.

I'm not upset, you idiot. I'm making fun of one of the leading lights of the AGW movement. He's one of your side's heroes, not mine.

 

[mamooth]

I'm making fun of one of the leading lights of the AGW movement. He's one of your side's heroes, not mine.

Nobody here has ever mentioned Suzuki, other than yourself.

I've never heard his name mentioned in the context of global warming, ever.

You're just making stuff up when you claim he's a leader of the AGW movement. Lying, that is. You shouldn't do that.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm making fun of one of the leading lights of the AGW movement. He's one of your side's heroes, not mine.

Nobody here has ever mentioned Suzuki, other than yourself.

I've never heard his name mentioned in the context of global warming, ever.

You're just making stuff up when you claim he's a leader of the AGW movement. Lying, that is. You shouldn't do that.

I can understand why YOU would protect him.. He's a lot like you.. Bombs everytime the media gives him a podium on Global Warming.. Comes off as a complete ass. But his David Suzuki Foundation has Global Warming politics front and center. Even a page on the deniers and skeptics that he says "know less than he does" on the topic..

 

[mamooth]

I'm just asking why deniers are so obsessed with David Suzuki. Were you just told recently to assign godlike status to him?

Now, Westwall is going full tilt demonizing Gavin Schmidt, which makes more sense. Are you sure you've read your marching orders correctly?