Gather all ye Greenhouse Skeptics

[Abraham3]

Atmospheric CO2 does NOT create linear warming. We know that from basic principles and physics. It's a logarithmic effect. You always need MORE CO2 to get the previous temperature effect. So it effectively limits the warming power as concentrations grow.

But as for your PROOF --- nobody can recreate a planetary atmosphere in the lab.. But HERE is PRODUCT you can buy that uses CO2 in a heat pump to warm your water..

You think a heat pump using CO2 as a working fluid is some sort of analog to greenhouse warming? Those heat exchangers, are they radiative? Why, NO. Global warming is a continuous process. The CO2 is a middleman. It's heat capacity is irrelevant in the continuous process.

MANY different types of CO2 compressors on the market. Very GREEN actually since they replace Chloro-Fluoro alternatives to refrigerants..

I'm sure any of these companies can give you thermal efficiency charts as a function of CO2 concentration.

I'm sure they can't. Do you think they start out with air in their system and then jack up the CO2 to 5% and check the efficiency? Don't be stupid. They're running 100% CO2 and have ever since they came up with the idea of subbing it for freon.

There are BASIC table look-ups and properties that TELL US exactly how CO2 behaves. There really isn't a mystery to it.

Let's hope everyone is reading.

OUR GAP --- is how it contributes to Earth's Climate --- and you're NOT gonna get a working model of that on YouTube..

The complication isn't how CO2 contributes. And it isn't really how the Greenhouse Effect itself works. It all behaves in the atmosphere exactly as it behaves in the lab. The question is: what is the climate going to do with the extra energy the Greenhouse Effect is putting into it.

 

[SwimExpert]

I've done a lot more educating here in the last three days than has Mr Gifted since you got here.

It's not my job to educate you. You make assertions, YOU have to be able to support them. But I will call you out at each and every failure of reasoning and/or fact.

Empty threat. No science.

I think your fans are getting disheartened.

This is your show, bub. You're the one who is lighting the beacons of Gondor about global warming. Make your case already.j

 

[Abraham3]

I've been making my case for the last several years. You've yet to start. Still going through your stretches?

 

[PredFan]

Atmospheric CO2 does NOT create linear warming. We know that from basic principles and physics. It's a logarithmic effect. You always need MORE CO2 to get the previous temperature effect. So it effectively limits the warming power as concentrations grow.

But as for your PROOF --- nobody can recreate a planetary atmosphere in the lab.. But HERE is PRODUCT you can buy that uses CO2 in a heat pump to warm your water..

You think a heat pump using CO2 as a working fluid is some sort of analog to greenhouse warming? Those heat exchangers, are they radiative? Why, NO. Global warming is a continuous process. The CO2 is a middleman. It's heat capacity is irrelevant in the continuous process.

MANY different types of CO2 compressors on the market. Very GREEN actually since they replace Chloro-Fluoro alternatives to refrigerants..

I'm sure any of these companies can give you thermal efficiency charts as a function of CO2 concentration.

I'm sure they can't. Do you think they start out with air in their system and then jack up the CO2 to 5% and check the efficiency? Don't be stupid. They're running 100% CO2 and have ever since they came up with the idea of subbing it for freon.

There are BASIC table look-ups and properties that TELL US exactly how CO2 behaves. There really isn't a mystery to it.

Let's hope everyone is reading.

OUR GAP --- is how it contributes to Earth's Climate --- and you're NOT gonna get a working model of that on YouTube..

The complication isn't how CO2 contributes. And it isn't really how the Greenhouse Effect itself works. It all behaves in the atmosphere exactly as it behaves in the lab. The question is: what is the climate going to do with the extra energy the Greenhouse Effect is putting into it.

His analogy is actually a lot less ridiculous than your greenhouse analogy.

 

[Abraham3]

His analogy is actually a lot less ridiculous than your greenhouse analogy.

The Greenhouse Effect is not MY analogy. And the difference in the mechanism between LW trapping and real greenhouses is noted in virtually every article on the topic. I note, however, the effectiveness of solar water heaters is significantly improved by the presence of glazing that reflects IR. Water heaters using Lucite, for instance, would suck.

 

[PredFan]

His analogy is actually a lot less ridiculous than your greenhouse analogy.

The Greenhouse Effect is not MY analogy. And the difference in the mechanism between LW trapping and real greenhouses is noted in virtually every article on the topic. I note, however, the effectiveness of solar water heaters is significantly improved by the presence of glazing that reflects IR. Water heaters using Lucite, for instance, suck.

The greenhouse effect is the analogy that you subscribe to is it not?

 

[Abraham3]

His analogy is actually a lot less ridiculous than your greenhouse analogy.

The Greenhouse Effect is not MY analogy. And the difference in the mechanism between LW trapping and real greenhouses is noted in virtually every article on the topic. I note, however, the effectiveness of solar water heaters is significantly improved by the presence of glazing that reflects IR. Water heaters using Lucite, for instance, suck.

The greenhouse effect is the analogy that you subscribe to is it not?

Is the problem that English is not your native tongue?

The Greenhouse Effect is a name applied to an atmospheric process. The name seems to have been coined by Alexander Graham Bell (another ignorant, science-as-religion nut-job, eh). The process is not an analogy. And I am not the only one that subscribes to it. It is accepted, I am quite certain, by more than 99% of degreed scientists and likely a similarly high number of the general public with even the most basic of science education. You would be one of the people that FlaCalTenn is embarrassed to admit exist: vocal global warming deniers who reject the Greenhouse Effect. You did catch what Swim Coach had to say about such folks did you not? I saved it on my Desktop for ready access.

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But, hey, disagree with the hundreds of millions of us if you must, I cannot force you to be correct.

 

[PredFan]

The Greenhouse Effect is not MY analogy. And the difference in the mechanism between LW trapping and real greenhouses is noted in virtually every article on the topic. I note, however, the effectiveness of solar water heaters is significantly improved by the presence of glazing that reflects IR. Water heaters using Lucite, for instance, suck.

The greenhouse effect is the analogy that you subscribe to is it not?

Is the problem that English is not your native tongue?

The Greenhouse Effect is a name applied to an atmospheric process. The name seems to have been coined by Alexander Graham Bell (another ignorant, science-as-religion nut-job, eh). The process is not an analogy. And I am not the only one that subscribes to it. It is accepted, I am quite certain, by more than 99% of degreed scientists and likely a similarly high number of the general public with even the most basic of science education. You would be one of the people that FlaCalTenn is embarrassed to admit exist: vocal global warming deniers who reject the Greenhouse Effect. You did catch what Swim Coach had to say about such folks did you not? I saved it on my Desktop for ready access.

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But, hey, disagree with the hundreds of millions of us if you must, I cannot force you to be correct.

And you are the typical wing nut. I explained to you in another post how wrong you are about my beliefs on the greenhouse effect and other things yet here you are in another thread making false assumptions and making a fool of yourself. Thanks for yet again proving me right in that it's a waste of time trying to talk sense to the AGW faithful.

And yeah idiot, hundreds of millions of people believe that god created the universe. I guess that makes you wrong now doesn't it dumbass?

 

[Abraham3]

The hundreds of millions of people that believe in god have no evidence whatsoever. The hundreds of millions that believe the Greenhouse Effect to exist and work as described have thousands of experiments and direct observations dating back over 150 years.

Please tell us in a simple and straightforward manner, what you DO believe regarding the Greenhouse Effect and global warming?

And, please keep in mind that you have already posted numerous comments here on the topic to which we all have access.

 

[PredFan]

The hundreds of millions of people that believe in god have no evidence whatsoever. The hundreds of millions that believe the Greenhouse Effect to exist and work as described have thousands of experiments and direct observations dating back over 150 years.

Please tell us in a simple and straightforward manner, what you DO believe regarding the Greenhouse Effect and global warming?

And, please keep in mind that you have already posted numerous comments here on the topic to which we all have access.

You have been measured and been found wanting. There is no need to re-argue points that we have already been over. Drop the partisan crap, open your mind, employ a healthy dose of skepticism, reassess your position and the come back. You might fare better.

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]




Oooooooooops!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

What the hell happened to your threads ABE?? You call us all in here and wont discuss your OPs.

I've posted heavily in here, given my schedule. Recall that I still have a more than full-time job [excuse] and, to be honest, I hadn't noticed you putting anything up that bore discussion [insult].

Not gonna fall for this shit again.

Be still my beating heart...

. Been AGES since weve had a warmer here who could DISCUSS any of their cut paste jobs.....

Okay, you win. Give us a peer reviewed reference, in writing, that agrees with your evaluations of long term TSI and CO2's climate sensitivity.

The way Abraham would handle this post...

Excuses ---- no science. Dismissed.

You cant even focus on the ORGANIZATION of your own threads. CANT discuss the OP on your own.. Im pretty much done with this crop of warmers.. They are cut and paste automatons.

I know more about their religious beliefs then they do.. ive honestly pondered how to salvage this kindergarten recess.. Only thing ive come up with is for me to switch sides and post stoned stupid..

 

[Abraham3]

So you don't have a peer reviewed reference, in writing, that agrees with your evaluations of long term TSI and CO2's climate sensitivity. Got it.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you don't have a peer reviewed reference, in writing, that agrees with your evaluations of long term TSI and CO2's climate sensitivity. Got it.

You dont have athread here.. why would I waste perfectly good science discussion to bury it it in a pit like this one? Or discuss heavy topics with lightweights who cant even organize and defend their OWN material? Pretty much done with this nonsense.

 

[Abraham3]

And yet here you are, once more avoiding conversation on the topic, failing to produce any supportive material. You seem to be learning from the new denier head, Swim God: insult everyone and don't risk presenting an actual argument.