Wyld Kard
Platinum Member
I'll put it another way.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE......
and......
........YOU ARE THE PARROT WHO IS REPEATING THOSE LIES.
Damn you're gullible!
Last edited:
Evidence that global warming IS happening
- Thread starter Abraham3
- Start date
I'll put it another way.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE......
and......
........YOU ARE THE PARROT WHO IS REPEATING THOSE LIES.
Damn you're gullible!
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Show me a study that produces a measured quantity of the greenhouse effect. I predict, no such study will be forthcoming as no greenhouse effect has ever been measured. For all the talk about the greenhouse effect, don't you suppose it might have been measured and quantified if it existed?
You believe in a hoax because you aren't very bright.
Wyld Kard
Platinum Member
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub4hSZjCCzY]Global Warming Hoax - YouTube[/ame]
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #144
What disinformation? What fraudulent science? What lies?
Are you having trouble coming up with particulars?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #145
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
Starting back in the late1850s, [John] Tyndall studied the action of radiant energy on the constituents of air, and it led him onto several lines of inquiry, and his original research results included the following:
Tyndall's setup for measuring the radiant heat absorption of gases. Detailed explanation at File:TyndallsSetupForMeasuringRadiantHeatAbsorptionByGases annotated.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth's atmosphere in terms of the capacities of the various gases in the air to absorb radiant heat, also known as infrared radiation. His measuring device, which used thermopile technology, is an early landmark in the history of absorption spectroscopy of gases.[7] He was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. (year 1859). He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation.[8] Relatedly, Tyndall in 1860 was first to demonstrate and quantify that visually transparent gases are infrared emitters.[9]
He devised demonstrations that advanced the question of how radiant heat is absorbed and emitted at the molecular level. He appears to be the first person to have demonstrated experimentally that emission of heat in chemical reactions has its physical origination within the newly created molecules (1864).[10] He produced instructive demonstrations involving the incandescent conversion of infrared into visible light at the molecular level, which he called calorescence (1865), in which he used materials that are transparent to infrared and opaque to visible light or vice versa.[11] He usually referred to infrared as "radiant heat", and sometimes as "ultra-red undulations", as the word "infrared" did not start coming into use until the 1880s. His main reports of the 1860s were republished as a 450-page collection in 1872 under the title Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat.
In the investigations on radiant heat in air it had been necessary to use air from which all traces of floating dust and other particulates had been removed.[12] A very sensitive way to detect particulates is to bathe the air with intense light. The scattering of light by particulate impurities in air and other gases, and in liquids, is known today as the Tyndall Effect or Tyndall Scattering.[13] In studying this scattering during the late 1860s Tyndall was a beneficiary of recent improvements in electric-powered lights. He also had the use of good light concentrators. He developed the nephelometer and similar instruments that show properties of aerosols and colloids through concentrated light beams against a dark background and are based on exploiting the Tyndall Effect. (When combined with microscopes, the result is the ultramicroscope, which was developed later by others).
He was the first to observe and report the phenomenon of thermophoresis in aerosols. He spotted it surrounding hot objects while investigating the Tyndall Effect with focused lightbeams in a dark room. He devised a better way to demonstrate it, and then simply reported it (1870), without investigating the physics of it in depth.[14]
In radiant-heat experiments that called for much laboratory expertise in the early 1860s, he showed for a variety of readily vaporizable liquids that, molecule for molecule, the vapor form and the liquid form have essentially the same power to absorb radiant heat.[15] (In modern experiments using narrow-band spectra, some small differences are found that Tyndall's equipment was unable to get at; see e.g. absorption spectrum of H2O).
He consolidated and enhanced the results of Desains, Forbes, Knoblauch and others demonstrating that the principal properties of visible light can be reproduced for radiant heat – namely reflection, refraction, diffraction, polarization, depolarization, double refraction, and rotation in a magnetic field.[16]
Using his expertise about radiant heat absorption by gases, he invented a system for measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in a sample of exhaled human breath (1862, 1864). The basics of Tyndall's system is in daily use in hospitals today for monitoring patients under anesthesia.[17] (See capnometry.)
When studying the absorption of radiant heat by ozone, he came up with a demonstration that helped confirm or reaffirm that ozone is an oxygen cluster (1862).[18]
**********************************************************************
So incredibly stupid.
Last edited:
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
So no actual measurement and quantification of the greenhouse effect. That's what I thought. You have been so thoroughly duped that you see evidence where none exists everywhere.
By the way, those transparent gasses only emit what they have absorbed.....no actual measurement of the greenhouse effect.
By the way, those transparent gasses only emit what they have absorbed.....no actual measurement of the greenhouse effect.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #147
Read the article. Tyndall made quantitative measurements of IR absorption. And that was 1859-1860. Do you think there might have been a little more work on the topic? Do you think there might have been some developments in test equipment?
Now it YOUR GODDAMNED TURN TO SHOW US SOME PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS.
Now it YOUR GODDAMNED TURN TO SHOW US SOME PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS.
Last edited:
Wyld Kard
Platinum Member
You're a slow learner. Must be all that Kool-Aid that you drink?
EVERYTHING! Every goddamn thing about global warming is a lie!
Why global warming science is nothing but fraud - English pravda.ru
Wyld Kard
Platinum Member
your ******* ignorance bores me!
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #152
31,000 scientists did not sign a petition saying I was wrong. Pravda has as much integrity and credibility as the National Enquirer.
The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists. The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher. No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees. Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.
The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists. Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals. They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.
The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists. The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher. No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees. Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.
The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists. Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals. They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #153
Then feel free to get back to the Cartoon Channel. And don't let your mom catch you getting her makeup on your Batman sheet set.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #154
SSDD
John Tyndall performed quantitative experiments demonstrating and measuring the absorption and reradiation of IR from most of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases. That satisfies your demand. Your turn. Show us some valid research that supports your contentions.
John Tyndall performed quantitative experiments demonstrating and measuring the absorption and reradiation of IR from most of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases. That satisfies your demand. Your turn. Show us some valid research that supports your contentions.
Last edited:
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
No one is claiming that CO2 doesn't absorb IR. You seem to believe that absorbing IR constitutes a greenhouse effect and therefore accounts for the temperature on earth. It doesn't. I can't help but notice that you completely avoided my earlier question and I suspect that you will continue to avoid it as answering will, in fact, cast serious doubt on the greenhouse hypothesis. So I will ask again.
If the greenhouse effect as described by climate science accounts for the temperature on earth, why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth in spite of being 30 times further away from the sun and having an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium....certainly not GHGs?
And lets expand that thought further....here on earth, the dry adiabatic lapse rate...that is the adiabatic lapse rate without the primary greenhouse gas (H2O) is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate. Twice as steep. Do you understand what the adiabatic lapse rate is? If so, then answer this question.... Since the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate....does the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere warm or cool?
Following the same line of thought, explain why the temperature on the dark side of venus doesn't get cooler during its 2000 hour night. Why do you suppose that is? And speaking of venus, why do you suppose that the temperature in the Venusian atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, the temperature is the same as that of earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely composed of CO2? And on the other end of the spectrum...Uranus which is 30 times further from the sun than earth has a temperature at the base of the troposphere that is 33k warmer than the base of the troposphere of earth.
When one looks at the temperature profiles of the various planets in the solar system, and tries to apply the greenhouse effect as described by climate science, one finds that it only works here....and only by coincidence since direct measurement shows us that the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere cools rather than warms since the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice that of the wet adiabatic lapse rate.
I would like to see a rational and scientifically sound explanation for the examples above. If the greenhouse effect is king, why doesn't the surface of venus cool during a 2000 hour night and why is the base of the troposphere of Uranus 33k warmer than here on earth?
Clearly, when you look around the solar system, gravity and pressure are responsible for the temperatures of the various planets, not a greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and while you are explaining, try explaining why the greenhouse effect as described by climate science only works here on earth.....do you believe the laws of physics change once you leave earth?
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Can you actually refute the article or is a circumstantial ad hominem against Pravda the best you can do?
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
You keep telling yourself what while you answer the questions I posed to you above.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
I am afraid that it doesn't. As I pointed out, the dry adiabatic lapse rate...that is the adiabatic lapse rate without the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (H2O) is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate. This tells us that H2O has a cooling effect in the atmosphere...and again, there is the inconvenient fact that the base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth in spite of the fact that Uranus is 30 times further away from the sun and has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium....and the fact that the surface of Venus doesn't cool during its 2000 hour night....
The fact of the matter is that if the earth had no atmosphere, the temperature would be 255K....the temperature with so called GHGs is 288K and the temperature here with the same mass but no GHG's would be approximately 304K...and before you erupt into hand waving paroxysms of wailing...remember that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate...that means that the dominant GHG in the system has a cooling effect.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
That was science....sorry you didn't recognize it. I can't believe that you don't think the ideal gas laws are science or evidence to support a claim. What sort of idiot are you?
What will NEVER happen is you being able to explain the temperatures on other planets using the greenhouse hypothesis...it only works here because it is an ad hoc construct...not science.
Everyone is watching you not being able to answer my questions....you see yourself as so smart but are unable to answer my questions...you claim that I am an idiot but can't answer my straight forward questions....if the greenhouse effect were real, you could apply it to the atmosphere of any planet and provide an answer with which to slap me down....is that happening? Of course not. You are running away from the questions hurling insult and ad hominem as fast as you can in an attempt to make the questions disappear. You have been pwned...congratulations.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
American Nationalism is whitecentric eventhough they claim its colorblind yes or no?- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 1
-
Lebanese Maronite Catholic priest killed by Israeli tank fire in southern Lebanon- Started by Andrew_Jackson_FTW
- Replies: 4
-
-
