In summary...

[IanC]

[

radiation does not need a medium. conduction does.

does this clear anything up for you? are you actually trying to understand any of this?

And what force causes energy conducting through a material to migrate towards cooler regions...and what force prevents it form trying to move back towards the warmer region?....what might that force be...and does it only work inside matter...or is it at work everywhere?

read the article on phonons.

 

[SSDD]

[

radiation does not need a medium. conduction does.

does this clear anything up for you? are you actually trying to understand any of this?

And what force causes energy conducting through a material to migrate towards cooler regions...and what force prevents it form trying to move back towards the warmer region?....what might that force be...and does it only work inside matter...or is it at work everywhere?

read the article on phonons.

That article doesn't even begin to answer the questions I just asked...I am not going to go off and look for something that isn't there. The fact is, Ian, that you talk a lot of talk...pretending that you know what the hell is going on with energy transfer but you are just full of $hit. I believe that you believe what you say...such is the depth of the lies that you have told yourself.

 

[IanC]

read the article on phonons.

That article doesn't even begin to answer the questions I just asked...I am not going to go off and look for something that isn't there. The fact is, Ian, that you talk a lot of talk...pretending that you know what the hell is going on with energy transfer but you are just full of $hit. I believe that you believe what you say...such is the depth of the lies that you have told yourself.

my lies? hahahahaha.

coming from someone who espouses smart photons, that is rich. or have you switched over to smart emitters yet?

 

[SSDD]

read the article on phonons.

That article doesn't even begin to answer the questions I just asked...I am not going to go off and look for something that isn't there. The fact is, Ian, that you talk a lot of talk...pretending that you know what the hell is going on with energy transfer but you are just full of $hit. I believe that you believe what you say...such is the depth of the lies that you have told yourself.

my lies? hahahahaha.

coming from someone who espouses smart photons, that is rich. or have you switched over to smart emitters yet?

Funny that you have now joined the likes of rocks...thinking that elements of nature must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of nature....sad ian...very sad and testament to how far you have fallen in your worship of the magic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[
Why yes, the most abundant and prevalent GHG is water vapor. And it's residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 days. While that of CO2 is centuries. So, in times of rapidly declining CO2, like the end of the Ordivician, there were continental glaciations near the equator. Even though there was still the same amount of water on this planet..

One word for you rocks....BULLSHIT. You know perfectly well that the residence time for CO2 is nothing like that and study after study has stated as much...

Here are 37 studies...31 of them find the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere to be less than 10 years...notice that the IPCC has pegged the bullshit meter at 100 years and you are claiming multiple centuries....

Here is some figures from Princeton University;

http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/TauL1b.pdf

From Yale;

Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Yale Climate Connections

Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.

It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.

Residence Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Fig. 9a: Decay of a small pulse of CO2 added to today's atmosphere, based on analytic approximation to the Bern carbon cycle model
(Joos F et al., An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanc and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake, Tellus, 48B, 397-417, 1996; Shine et al., Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases, Clim. Change, 68, 281-302, 2005, see equation given in figure).

In this approximation of the carbon cycle,

• • about 1/3 of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere after 100 years, and
  • 1/5 after 1000 years.

The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.

Sorry rocks...there are still 36 studies...not driven by the AGW agenda finding that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is closer to 10 years....but thanks for confirming that you will believe anything so long as it fits well with your politics.

As little as three years and as long as 24 years was the range.. It certainly was not "Centuries" Even Goldirocks post shows he hasn't a clue and their residency time was just 10 years..

 

[Crick]

He presents a study from Yale with data and links. You rattle off some numbers and accuse him of believing "anything".

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

And I presented 36 studies that say a decade or less...so which do you believe?....why the one that supports your religious beliefs of course....talk about stupid.

 

[jc456]

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

You're a ******* retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?

I really don't care why you asked me why the oceans warmed. I'm an individual and as such don't need to play your games. you think you're this smart goody too shoe climate dude and you're just a hack that believes CO2 warms something and you have absolutely no evidence to support that. tricks won't work here bubba. I know the oceans warm due to the sun and that's it. temperatures vary around the globe currents carry warm water. and on and on. have fun with your game, but I don't play. by the way, you still haven't actually stated why conduction and radiation are different. anytime though if you think you have something in another toy box.

the temperature of the oceans is important because CO2 comes out of solution and is released when seawater warms. a warming ocean adds to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

my statements are typically curt and idea dense, with the basic idea implied by context. I am sorry that you cannot keep up.

Well again, why do I care how much CO2 comes out of the ocean. again, CO2 doesn't warm anything. So, yeah CO2 is released from oceans when the water is warm. yep. Still unclear why you think conduction and radiation are different, you swam around that buoy and came up with this idiotic ocean warms thingy for some reason to try and make a point. That point is CO2 is released from warm oceans. Congrats you wrote an actual fact. Now, explain why conduction and radiation are different.

 

[LaDexter]

He presents a study from Yale with data

FUDGE is not data. Your side NEVER releases the RAW DATA before it is FUDGED.

 

[IanC]

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

You're a ******* retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?

I really don't care why you asked me why the oceans warmed. I'm an individual and as such don't need to play your games. you think you're this smart goody too shoe climate dude and you're just a hack that believes CO2 warms something and you have absolutely no evidence to support that. tricks won't work here bubba. I know the oceans warm due to the sun and that's it. temperatures vary around the globe currents carry warm water. and on and on. have fun with your game, but I don't play. by the way, you still haven't actually stated why conduction and radiation are different. anytime though if you think you have something in another toy box.

the temperature of the oceans is important because CO2 comes out of solution and is released when seawater warms. a warming ocean adds to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

my statements are typically curt and idea dense, with the basic idea implied by context. I am sorry that you cannot keep up.

Well again, why do I care how much CO2 comes out of the ocean. again, CO2 doesn't warm anything. So, yeah CO2 is released from oceans when the water is warm. yep. Still unclear why you think conduction and radiation are different, you swam around that buoy and came up with this idiotic ocean warms thingy for some reason to try and make a point. That point is CO2 is released from warm oceans. Congrats you wrote an actual fact. Now, explain why conduction and radiation are different.

Did you even read my post pointing out the differences between radiation and conduction? I even used a quote from your link.

I think you guys get off on asking the same question over and over again. And then pretend it hasn't been answered multiple times, in multiple ways.

Go for it. Sand box rules for sand box intellects. Suits you to a 'T'.

 

[Boss]

Imagine our atmosphere is a 10,000 seat stadium. The number of seats in the stadium which represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given point in time is.... 4.
FOUR!

Now you can think this is a serious problem and you can point to all sorts of doom and gloom predictions but the fact remains, the Earth has survived much higher CO2 levels and much warmer temperatures. In fact, a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is very beneficial to plant life.

Plants, as much as you people apparently hate them and want them to starve to death, do something very beneficial for people... they provide a thing called Oxygen. This is something humans, and many other life forms need to live.

Of course, maybe life doesn't matter to you? We know it doesn't matter when it's still in the womb because most of you who are parroting this nonsense are okay with killing it. And you don't seem to comprehend that your proposed anti-capitalist policies and restrictions on energy will cause the deaths of millions in third world countries who desperately need any energy they can find.

As is the case with most Socialists... Life simply takes a back seat to totalitarian rule over people. Like Hillary Clinton, you don't really care how many dead bodies you leave in your wake, it's all about power and control. If people die as a result of your policies, that's just too bad.

 

[jc456]

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

You're a ******* retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?

I really don't care why you asked me why the oceans warmed. I'm an individual and as such don't need to play your games. you think you're this smart goody too shoe climate dude and you're just a hack that believes CO2 warms something and you have absolutely no evidence to support that. tricks won't work here bubba. I know the oceans warm due to the sun and that's it. temperatures vary around the globe currents carry warm water. and on and on. have fun with your game, but I don't play. by the way, you still haven't actually stated why conduction and radiation are different. anytime though if you think you have something in another toy box.

the temperature of the oceans is important because CO2 comes out of solution and is released when seawater warms. a warming ocean adds to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

my statements are typically curt and idea dense, with the basic idea implied by context. I am sorry that you cannot keep up.

Well again, why do I care how much CO2 comes out of the ocean. again, CO2 doesn't warm anything. So, yeah CO2 is released from oceans when the water is warm. yep. Still unclear why you think conduction and radiation are different, you swam around that buoy and came up with this idiotic ocean warms thingy for some reason to try and make a point. That point is CO2 is released from warm oceans. Congrats you wrote an actual fact. Now, explain why conduction and radiation are different.

Did you even read my post pointing out the differences between radiation and conduction? I even used a quote from your link.

I think you guys get off on asking the same question over and over again. And then pretend it hasn't been answered multiple times, in multiple ways.

Go for it. Sand box rules for sand box intellects. Suits you to a 'T'.

they both transfer energy, so why are they different?

 

[Old Rocks]

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

You're a ******* retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?

I really don't care why you asked me why the oceans warmed. I'm an individual and as such don't need to play your games. you think you're this smart goody too shoe climate dude and you're just a hack that believes CO2 warms something and you have absolutely no evidence to support that. tricks won't work here bubba. I know the oceans warm due to the sun and that's it. temperatures vary around the globe currents carry warm water. and on and on. have fun with your game, but I don't play. by the way, you still haven't actually stated why conduction and radiation are different. anytime though if you think you have something in another toy box.

Well jc, they really don't make physics books for people with 80 IQ's. So you are out of luck. As for your other 'points', they are about as valid as your saying that I never showed global increase in CO2, when one of the graphs was clearly labeled Global. You can't seem to read, and totally have no grasp of what a graph represents.

The oceans have warmed, the land temps are up, the cryosphere is melting, and the CO2 level is above 400 ppm worldwide.

 

[Old Rocks]

Imagine our atmosphere is a 10,000 seat stadium. The number of seats in the stadium which represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given point in time is.... 4.
FOUR!

Now you can think this is a serious problem and you can point to all sorts of doom and gloom predictions but the fact remains, the Earth has survived much higher CO2 levels and much warmer temperatures. In fact, a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is very beneficial to plant life.

Plants, as much as you people apparently hate them and want them to starve to death, do something very beneficial for people... they provide a thing called Oxygen. This is something humans, and many other life forms need to live.

Of course, maybe life doesn't matter to you? We know it doesn't matter when it's still in the womb because most of you who are parroting this nonsense are okay with killing it. And you don't seem to comprehend that your proposed anti-capitalist policies and restrictions on energy will cause the deaths of millions in third world countries who desperately need any energy they can find.

As is the case with most Socialists... Life simply takes a back seat to totalitarian rule over people. Like Hillary Clinton, you don't really care how many dead bodies you leave in your wake, it's all about power and control. If people die as a result of your policies, that's just too bad.

Well, well, here we go again. Another really stupid ass that is so proud of their ignorance. You weigh many tens of thousand of grams. How could it be that one gram of anything could hurt you? So just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cyanide.

As far as the rest of your very stupid rant goes, I am sure that you check under your bed every night for commies.

As far as energy for very poor nations, where the hell are the people in those nations going to get the infrastructure for coal or natural gas? They can put in small solar and wind generators, with a storage battery owned by the whole village or town, and have energy for light and computers tomorrow, at a price that is a fraction of the cost of coal and natural gas. Not only that, they own and control the source of their power, instead of some corporation. But you really don't like the idea of an individual being independent of the corporations, do you. You want us all to be under the thumbs of 'Bosses'. Well, **** you buddy, the world is moving in a different direction, and you can piss into the wind all you want. You no longer count.

 

[Boss]

How could it be that one gram of anything could hurt you? So just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cyanide.

Strawman because CO2 is not a poison.

As far as the rest of your very stupid rant goes, I am sure that you check under your bed every night for commies.

No, I don't need to... I know where they are and I am well-armed.

As far as energy for very poor nations, where the hell are the people in those nations going to get the infrastructure for coal or natural gas? They can put in small solar and wind generators, with a storage battery owned by the whole village or town...

Where the hell are they getting the infrastructure (and capital) for THAT? And no... dimwit, they certainly can't do solar/wind cheaper than oil/natural gas... if that were possible, we'd all be doing it. This is just more of your typical pie-in-the-sky nonsense because you don't really give two shits about these people. This is ALL about your control and power over "evil" capitalism.

Well, **** you buddy, the world is moving in a different direction, and you can piss into the wind all you want. You no longer count.

Well no, jerkoff, the world isn't moving in a different direction. Who the **** do you think you are? You don't get to decide all on your own what direction we move in. You may WISH that... but you don't.

This "global warming" ...oops, "climate change" crap is the latest import from Socialists in Europe who's ass your head is firmly up. For whatever reason, you simply reject individual liberty for the false promise of socialist utopia. You had rather believe in failed losers who are jealous of capitalism and freedom than to embrace you own personal liberty and defend it. They snicker at you behind your back and they have a "pet name" for you... Useful Idiot!

 

[SSDD]

Strawman because CO2 is not a poison.

Rocks is always dragging out that old cyanide comparison as if it were valid...every time, it gets shot down and it is pointed out to him that CO2 is not poison...but it is all he has, so he continues to use it...old, tired, and feeble as it is.

 

[Crick]

poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
www.dictionary.com

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a toxic gas at high concentration, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs only at high concentrations. The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined in the table.
Exposure limits
(% in air) - - - - - -Health Effects
2-3 - - - - - Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath
3 - - - - - Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest
3-5 - - - - - Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5 - - - - - Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse
7.5 - - - - - Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears
8-15 - - - - Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen
10 - - - - - Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes
15 - - - - - Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable
25+ - - - - - Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

 

[LaDexter]

crick is a toxic gas

dangerous exposure levels


read 2-3 of his posts - possible shock at the level of dishonesty and fraud
read 5-10 of his posts - long term depression possible at how stupid his FRAUD is
read more than 10 - stroke possible that some actually take him seriously

 

[SSDD]

When rocks drags out his cyanide bullshit...he fails to mention that CO2 actually becomes toxic like cyanide when it reaches the range of about 60,000ppm...so either he is stupid and just doesn't know...or a damned bald faced liar who knows exactly how deceptive he is being...

How about you crick...stupid or deliberately deceptive?..which is it...or both?

 

[Boss]

poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
www.dictionary.com

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a toxic gas at high concentration, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs only at high concentrations. The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined in the table.
Exposure limits
(% in air) - - - - - -Health Effects
2-3 - - - - - Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath
3 - - - - - Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest
3-5 - - - - - Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5 - - - - - Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse
7.5 - - - - - Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears
8-15 - - - - Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen
10 - - - - - Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes
15 - - - - - Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable
25+ - - - - - Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Okay... time for your math lesson. Let's take the lowest figure in your scale for CO2 to have ANY sort of physical impact on humans... 2%. This translates to 20,000 ppm. At 400 ppm, I think we're safe. Even OSHA regulations allow human exposure to as much as 6,000 ppm.

Also, when we compare the amount of CO2 man produces through burning of fossil fuels with natural sources of CO2, we find that nature produces about 97% to man's 3%. Of course, in fairness, that 97% does include man's natural emissions from breathing as well as other mammals. We can also look at other much more toxic gases, such as methane and carbon monoxide... Again, we find that those far outweigh the relatively small amount of CO2 produced by man's burning of fossil fuels. Cattle alone produce about 1,000% more methane than man produces CO2 through industrialization, and methane is far more dangerous.

But you are really stretching it to consider CO2 toxic. Indeed, anything is toxic to humans in pure concentration, even oxygen.