PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
Born 1953
Seattle area used to getheaqvy snowfalls up through the 60s
always wentsledding
now they geta pitufull traces of snowfalls
Are you trying to have a flame war or something?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Born 1953
Seattle area used to getheaqvy snowfalls up through the 60s
always wentsledding
now they geta pitufull traces of snowfalls
Born 1953
Seattle area used to getheaqvy snowfalls up through the 60s
always wentsledding
now they geta pitufull traces of snowfalls
Are you trying to have a flame war or something?
Born 1953
Seattle area used to getheaqvy snowfalls up through the 60s
always wentsledding
now they geta pitufull traces of snowfalls
Are you trying to have a flame war or something?
trying to get pepole to grow up - like not do childrens activities like skateboarding or ridibg bikes
What a person recalls in his own life isn't even a drop in the geological bucket. Sure the planet is warming, and cooling but we didn't cause it. Look at ice core samples if you want perspective on weather history. There was once a glacier covering New York. We didn't do it. You can find evidence of tropical sea shells on east coast mountains. We didn't do it. To paraphrase a Clinton campaign slogan, "it's the sun stupid".
What a person recalls in his own life isn't even a drop in the geological bucket. Sure the planet is warming, and cooling but we didn't cause it. Look at ice core samples if you want perspective on weather history. There was once a glacier covering New York. We didn't do it. You can find evidence of tropical sea shells on east coast mountains. We didn't do it. To paraphrase a Clinton campaign slogan, "it's the sun stupid".
You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?
You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?
You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?
It is always the sun + something else be it alterations in the jet stream due to alterations in ocean currents or any number of other combinations. What it isn't is CO2 + or - anything.
You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?
It is always the sun + something else be it alterations in the jet stream due to alterations in ocean currents or any number of other combinations. What it isn't is CO2 + or - anything.
That's because you're under the delusion that CO2 is an inert molecule.
It is always the sun + something else be it alterations in the jet stream due to alterations in ocean currents or any number of other combinations. What it isn't is CO2 + or - anything.
That's because you're under the delusion that CO2 is an inert molecule.
Describe, in detail, the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 causes warming. And do try to give an explanation that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For your viewing pleasure, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Keep in mind that simple absorption and emission do not constitue work. Have fun.
Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!
Yeah the planet is beginning to crack up again. Don't let it trouble you though, it's not the fault of humans. It's cyclic. We'll be transiting through the galactic equatorial plane soon. The Dark Rift. All the geological evidence proves it's cyclic. .
Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!
As has been explained to you over and over konradv, a photon is a packet of energy. It is the smallest possible bit of energy in the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. Energy can not flow in two directions along any given vector. Claiming that radiation from the atmosphere can reach the earth is like claiming that if you run a wire from a car battery to a AAA battery, power from the AAA battery will reach the car battery.
I am not making a mistake and have done the math right here on this board for everyone to see. While several of you didn't care for the results, no one on this board, or any other board for that matter has pointed to any error on my part. Radiation from the atmosphere can not reach the surface of the earth. Period.
That's because you're under the delusion that CO2 is an inert molecule.
Describe, in detail, the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 causes warming. And do try to give an explanation that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For your viewing pleasure, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Keep in mind that simple absorption and emission do not constitue work. Have fun.
Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!
Yeah the planet is beginning to crack up again. Don't let it trouble you though, it's not the fault of humans. It's cyclic. We'll be transiting through the galactic equatorial plane soon. The Dark Rift. All the geological evidence proves it's cyclic. .
It's interesting that "all" of the geological suggests this to you, and yet the US Geological Society say completely the opposite.
I wonder who understand geology better?
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change
Describe, in detail, the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 causes warming. And do try to give an explanation that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For your viewing pleasure, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Keep in mind that simple absorption and emission do not constitue work. Have fun.
Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!
If the remedy for warming is the reduction of CO2, then CO2 must be the prime driver of the rise of temperature. Is this a valid conclusion or not?
If it is valid or not, why does the temperature rise and fall while the CO2 rises with consistency. It seems that if it is valid, then temperature would mirror the rises and falls of CO2. Since there have been nothing but rises in CO2, how to you explain the falls in the temperature?
So what I need to have explained is this:
When Temperature both rises and falls while CO2 only rises, why should we accept that CO2 is the primary driver of climate and changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate?
If there are other drivers of climate that apparently supersede the effects of CO2, why waste our time on a weak driver of climate that apparently has no real impact on the climate in any real sense?
Yeah the planet is beginning to crack up again. Don't let it trouble you though, it's not the fault of humans. It's cyclic. We'll be transiting through the galactic equatorial plane soon. The Dark Rift. All the geological evidence proves it's cyclic. .
It's interesting that "all" of the geological suggests this to you, and yet the US Geological Society say completely the opposite.
I wonder who understand geology better?
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change
And yet the climate has stalled or cooled for the last decade while the rise of CO2 continues apace.
What up with that?
Is the climate just too stupid to follow natural law?
Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!
If the remedy for warming is the reduction of CO2, then CO2 must be the prime driver of the rise of temperature. Is this a valid conclusion or not?
If it is valid or not, why does the temperature rise and fall while the CO2 rises with consistency. It seems that if it is valid, then temperature would mirror the rises and falls of CO2. Since there have been nothing but rises in CO2, how to you explain the falls in the temperature?
So what I need to have explained is this:
When Temperature both rises and falls while CO2 only rises, why should we accept that CO2 is the primary driver of climate and changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate?
If there are other drivers of climate that apparently supersede the effects of CO2, why waste our time on a weak driver of climate that apparently has no real impact on the climate in any real sense?
No one has said CO2 is the primary driver of climate. It's just the one over which we have control and has gone up at the same time as temps have been going up. It isn't obliterating natural cycles, just raising the average over time. Saying CO2 is "weak" or that it has no impact is merely your characterization and contradicts what's known about its properties and rising concentration.
It's interesting that "all" of the geological suggests this to you, and yet the US Geological Society say completely the opposite.
I wonder who understand geology better?
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change
And yet the climate has stalled or cooled for the last decade while the rise of CO2 continues apace.
What up with that?
Is the climate just too stupid to follow natural law?
Why do reminders about natural cycles have to be made to the skeptics?
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.