Evidence supporting AGW

[CrusaderFrank]

Me: Post your Experiment

Crick



Me: That's not an Experiment, that's "Are you Experienced"

Crick: DENIER!!

 

[elektra]

And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. That should be quite the hoot!

Poor addled Westwall, so completely ignorant of the basics of the science.

We could explain to him about his mistake, but it's much more fun to first see him flail about in a rage for a while.

Then again this AGW drone has never heard of atmospheric compression

And who even knows what poor addled Kosh is babbling about here. I hope -- nay, I pray! -- that he will make our day by spelling it out in detail.

Other than posting links to press releases you ignorantly believe is, "science". I see all you do is attempt to flame other's posts.

funny, or telling, that your posts are all "moot", mamoot.

 

[mamooth]

Elektra, think twice about becoming one of my obsessive stalkers. It rarely turns out well for those who choose that path. They tend to end up self-destructing in a highly amusing fashion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Elektra, think twice about becoming one of my obsessive stalkers. It rarely turns out well for those who choose that path. They tend to end up self-destructing in a highly amusing fashion.

Yeah like who?

Polar made one math error in hundreds of posts. He has shrunken heads of all the Warmers hanging off his belt

 

[Crick]

Look at the chart and answer the following question (Multiple Choice)

How much of an increase temperature increased is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2

A. Donuts
B. I saved 15% by switching to Geico
C. Chart does not provide the information requested

No. Admit that this is not a computer model and that it was produced in a lab. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and is responsible for almost every bit of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

Ummmm, because that is not a fact, and your whole religion is based on science fiction....kind of like scientology....

What is not a fact? Are you going to try to reject the greenhouse effect once more?

 

[westwall]

No. Admit that this is not a computer model and that it was produced in a lab. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and is responsible for almost every bit of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

Ummmm, because that is not a fact, and your whole religion is based on science fiction....kind of like scientology....

What is not a fact? Are you going to try to reject the greenhouse effect once more?

Never. Just pointing out the fact that you mutton heads don't know how it works, or if CO2 has any effect on it at all. In fact all empirical evidence states that CO2 rises as a function of temperature...not the other way around.

Why don't you figure out to explain that littler conundrum then you can come back and play with the big boys.

 

[SSDD]

And who even knows what poor addled Kosh is babbling about here. I hope -- nay, I pray! -- that he will make our day by spelling it out in detail.

You really don't know what he is talking about? Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?

 

[SSDD]

Elektra, think twice about becoming one of my obsessive stalkers. It rarely turns out well for those who choose that path. They tend to end up self-destructing in a highly amusing fashion.

Are you claiming to be a duper hero now? Do you wear a cape? What other duper power do you have besides being able to lie at the speed of thought and being as dumb as dirt?

 

[Crick]

Do you claim to not be batting ZERO in basic science?

 

[Crick]

You really don't know what he is talking about? Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?

Here's a fine example of your perfect misapprehension of fundamental science: you and the ideal gas laws. You think a column of air will have a temperature gradient due to its pressure gradient. What a fine and discerning grasp of 8th grade science you possess. Unfortunately, in the 9th grade, apparently after you chose to drop out, they presented the idea of HEAT TRANSFER.

Think about how long has that column of air - the one in the Earth's atmosphere - been sitting there? Do you really believe it still holds a temperature gradient from its static pressure?

OR

Let me guess: you believe that pressure spontaneously and continuously generates heat energy and that the higher pressure at the base of that column will generate more heat energy than will the lower pressure at its apex and that generation continues apace since the planet formed to this very day. Is that it?

As with almost every science topic you choose to address, your beliefs are so far from reality and so twisted by insane and incomprehensible nonsense, one knows not where to begin when attempting to correct you. Or what we might possibly owe you to motivate such beneficence.

 

[SSDD]

You really don't know what he is talking about? Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?

Here's a fine example of your perfect misapprehension of fundamental science: you and the ideal gas laws. You think a column of air will have a temperature gradient due to its pressure gradient. What a fine and discerning grasp of 8th grade science you possess. Unfortunately, in the 9th grade, apparently after you chose to drop out, they presented the idea of HEAT TRANSFER.

Think about how long has that column of air - the one in the Earth's atmosphere - been sitting there? Do you really believe it still holds a temperature gradient from its static pressure?

OR

Let me guess: you believe that pressure spontaneously and continuously generates heat energy and that the higher pressure at the base of that column will generate more heat energy than will the lower pressure at its apex and that generation continues apace since the planet formed to this very day. Is that it?

As with almost every science topic you choose to address, your beliefs are so far from reality and so twisted by insane and incomprehensible nonsense, one knows not where to begin when attempting to correct you. Or what we might possibly owe you to motivate such beneficence.

Here, try to educate yourself out of that abyss of ignorance you wallow in.

http://wwwuser.oats.inaf.it/astrobiology/planhab/docs/vladilo13apj767.pdf

This one describes repeatable experiments that show that your assumptions are quite wrong although I doubt that repeatable experimental data means much to a drone like you.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You really don't know what he is talking about? Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?

Here's a fine example of your perfect misapprehension of fundamental science: you and the ideal gas laws. You think a column of air will have a temperature gradient due to its pressure gradient. What a fine and discerning grasp of 8th grade science you possess. Unfortunately, in the 9th grade, apparently after you chose to drop out, they presented the idea of HEAT TRANSFER.

Think about how long has that column of air - the one in the Earth's atmosphere - been sitting there? Do you really believe it still holds a temperature gradient from its static pressure?

OR

Let me guess: you believe that pressure spontaneously and continuously generates heat energy and that the higher pressure at the base of that column will generate more heat energy than will the lower pressure at its apex and that generation continues apace since the planet formed to this very day. Is that it?

As with almost every science topic you choose to address, your beliefs are so far from reality and so twisted by insane and incomprehensible nonsense, one knows not where to begin when attempting to correct you. Or what we might possibly owe you to motivate such beneficence.

....which explains how the Deep Pacific Ocean ate all the Global Warming

 

[mamooth]

Here, try to educate yourself out of that abyss of ignorance you wallow in.

http://wwwuser.oats.inaf.it/astrobiology/planhab/docs/vladilo13apj767.pdf

Has zilch to do with your kooky claims. This is the best part

"We interpret these results in terms of the pressure dependence of the greenhouse effect"

Doh! Your reference directly supports the greenhouse effect. That's got to sting. Also, you might want to try reading your links in the future.

This one describes repeatable experiments that show that your assumptions are quite wrong although I doubt that repeatable experimental data means much to a drone like you.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

So, an amateur scientist uses some wonky thermistors to declare the second law of thermodynamics is all wrong, and that pressure really does constantly generate heat. I hope he's going to submit his results to a journal for peer review, so he can get that Nobel Prize he so richly deserves.

 

[westwall]

Here, try to educate yourself out of that abyss of ignorance you wallow in.

http://wwwuser.oats.inaf.it/astrobiology/planhab/docs/vladilo13apj767.pdf

Has zilch to do with your kooky claims. This is the best part

"We interpret these results in terms of the pressure dependence of the greenhouse effect"

Doh! Your reference directly supports the greenhouse effect. That's got to sting. Also, you might want to try reading your links in the future.

This one describes repeatable experiments that show that your assumptions are quite wrong although I doubt that repeatable experimental data means much to a drone like you.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

So, an amateur scientist uses some wonky thermistors to declare the second law of thermodynamics is all wrong, and that pressure really does constantly generate heat. I hope he's going to submit his results to a journal for peer review, so he can get that Nobel Prize he so richly deserves.

Professional scientists know about the Ideal Gas Laws, and have for a very long time. How is it that a supposed "Nuclear Watch Officer" hasn't heard of them....admiral? Here's the wiki link as that seems to be the limit of your research skills.



Common form[edit]

The most frequently introduced form is
PV=nRT\,
where:

P is the pressure of the gas

V is the volume of the gas

n is the amount of substance of gas (also known as number of moles)

R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant, equal to the product of the Boltzmann constant and the Avogadro constant.

T is the temperature of the gas

In SI units, P is measured in pascals, V is measured in cubic metres, n is measured in moles, and T in kelvins (273.15 kelvins = 0.00 degrees Celsius). R has the value 8.314 J·K−1·mol−1 or 0.08206 L·atm·mol−1·K−1or ≈2 calories if using pressure in standard atmospheres (atm) instead of pascals, and volume in liters instead of cubic metres.




Ideal gas law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Crick]

You really don't know what he is talking about? Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?

Here's a fine example of your perfect misapprehension of fundamental science: you and the ideal gas laws. You think a column of air will have a temperature gradient due to its pressure gradient. What a fine and discerning grasp of 8th grade science you possess. Unfortunately, in the 9th grade, apparently after you chose to drop out, they presented the idea of HEAT TRANSFER.

Think about how long has that column of air - the one in the Earth's atmosphere - been sitting there? Do you really believe it still holds a temperature gradient from its static pressure?

OR

Let me guess: you believe that pressure spontaneously and continuously generates heat energy and that the higher pressure at the base of that column will generate more heat energy than will the lower pressure at its apex and that generation continues apace since the planet formed to this very day. Is that it?

As with almost every science topic you choose to address, your beliefs are so far from reality and so twisted by insane and incomprehensible nonsense, one knows not where to begin when attempting to correct you. Or what we might possibly owe you to motivate such beneficence.

Here, try to educate yourself out of that abyss of ignorance you wallow in.

http://wwwuser.oats.inaf.it/astrobiology/planhab/docs/vladilo13apj767.pdf

While this one uses the word "pressure" and even the term "pressure-dependent" repeatedly, no where does it make the slightest suggestion in support of your nonsense.

This one describes repeatable experiments that show that your assumptions are quite wrong although I doubt that repeatable experimental data means much to a drone like you.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

And, in this one, you missed one crucial term: "insulated tubes". Surely you were aware that the intended function of insulation is to prevent of heat transfer. Right? Right?

My god are you stupid. I never really thought much of that Dunning Kreuger thing, but you are the absolute paragon of the idea. And you actually believe the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere will MAINTAIN a temperature gradient. Wow.... you are so gone.

 

[mamooth]

Professional scientists know about the Ideal Gas Laws, and have for a very long time. How is it that a supposed "Nuclear Watch Officer" hasn't heard of them....admiral? Here's the wiki link as that seems to be the limit of your research skills.

Are you agreeing with SSDD that a gas under pressure keeps generating heat forever? Please give a simple "yes" or "no", instead of doing that weasel two-step thing that you're so famous for.

If you are agreeing, that's just your usual thing where you get every bit of the science totally wrong.

And if you're not agreeing, that's just your usual thing of raging at me out of impotent frustration.

So, let us know whether you agree with SSDD's kook thermodynamics, as without that info, I don't know the correct reason to laugh at you.

 

[Crick]

I would very much like to hear Westwall's opinion of SSDD's interpretation of the Ideal Gas Law and, while we're at it, radiative heat transfer.

FCT started trying to correct SSDD on radiation just the other day and I may have erred by sticking my nose in far enough to say I was glad to see the discussion taking place. We should find out what happened.

...

So far, neither FCT nor SSDD has returned to that conversation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would very much like to hear Westwall's opinion of SSDD's interpretation of the Ideal Gas Law and, while we're at it, radiative heat transfer.

FCT started trying to correct SSDD on radiation just the other day and I may have erred by sticking my nose in far enough to say I was glad to see the discussion taking place. We should find out what happened.

...

So far, neither FCT nor SSDD has returned to that conversation.

Relax Francis. SSDD's thermodynamics confusion in no way vindicates AGW fearmongering.

It in no way excuses "green energy" boondogles.

 

[Crick]

But it is precisely that confused understanding with which he claims to overturn AGW. Those who think he knows what he's talking about could be seriously misled. Thermodynamics is not a well understood topic among the general population.

ps: I don't indulge in fear mongering. I indulge in mainstream science. If that makes you afraid, then you very likely should be afraid.

pps: who is Francis?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it is precisely that confused understanding with which he claims to overturn AGW. Those who think he knows what he's talking about could be seriously misled. Thermodynamics is not a well understood topic among the general population.

ps: I don't indulge in fear mongering. I indulge in mainstream science. If that makes you afraid, then you very likely should be afraid.

pps: who is Francis?

But it is precisely that confused understanding with which he claims to overturn AGW.

Luckily we're not depending on his confused understanding.

I indulge in mainstream science.

That is awesome. Using your mainstream science, explain the temperature hike that fits the graph of all that increased energy content in the ocean.