To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Crick]

as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.

If you believe those "holes" exist and are intentional, you're not skeptical, you're paranoid.

Besides, anyone who provides SSDD's psycho-physics the slightest bit of support has completely abandoned the qualifications to make the SLIGHTEST claim of skepticism

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature? Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?

Your tank is a static column of air idiot child...it reached equilibrium precisely because it isn't going anywhere...

 

[IanC]

SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.

on Earth, the atmosphere at any particular longitude will both warm up AND puff up as it rotates through the Sun's radiance. some of the energy goes into warming, some into potential energy. as that longitude passes out of radiance it will both cool and contract, losing both kinetic (temperature) energy and potential energy. the next day the cycle repeats.

there is a general pattern to atmospheres which allows us to make general estimates if we know the depth, density and energy flux. this general estimate is worthless for Earth where we are looking for changes of tenths of a degree not tens.

Ian, Ian, Ian... very disappointing. You know that SSDD is not talking about diurnal cycles. He's yet to mention sunlight, potential/kinetic energy tradeoffs or anything else you're talking about. SSDD believes that compressed gases produce thermal energy for all eternity. If you really want to put yourself down in print here as holding that "not totally wrong", then you're going to have to accept the rest of us will be forced to conclude that you put supporting your denier buddies above the truth.

SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature? Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?

in the past, I have questioned SSDD's version of temp vs atmosphere. I am more interested in steering people in the right direction, rather than 'winning' an argument. do you disagree that an atmosphere provides a general estimate of temperatures just by being there?

 

[IanC]

as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.

If you believe those "holes" exist and are intentional, you're not skeptical, you're paranoid.

Besides, anyone who provides SSDD's psycho-physics the slightest bit of support has completely abandoned the qualifications to make the SLIGHTEST claim of skepticism

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[SSDD]

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....

 

[IanC]

positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature. I think there is a distinct possibility that the ~1C/doubling theoretical calculation for CO2 will eventually be found to produce less than 1C.

 

[flacaltenn]

SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.

on Earth, the atmosphere at any particular longitude will both warm up AND puff up as it rotates through the Sun's radiance. some of the energy goes into warming, some into potential energy. as that longitude passes out of radiance it will both cool and contract, losing both kinetic (temperature) energy and potential energy. the next day the cycle repeats.

there is a general pattern to atmospheres which allows us to make general estimates if we know the depth, density and energy flux. this general estimate is worthless for Earth where we are looking for changes of tenths of a degree not tens.

Ian, Ian, Ian... very disappointing. You know that SSDD is not talking about diurnal cycles. He's yet to mention sunlight, potential/kinetic energy tradeoffs or anything else you're talking about. SSDD believes that compressed gases produce thermal energy for all eternity. If you really want to put yourself down in print here as holding that "not totally wrong", then you're going to have to accept the rest of us will be forced to conclude that you put supporting your denier buddies above the truth.

SSDD, how did my 3,000 psi scuba tank get down to ambient temperature? Why, without some external input (like sunlight), does it show not the slightest indication of wanting to get any warmer?

Your scuba tank did not heat when filled because it was filled from a higher pressure source. In fact -- the contents probably cooled on filling.

The tank would LOSE any heat it gained thru conduction over time. That's got nothing to do with DYNAMIC air systems -- on ANY planet. The mixing and turbulence in the atmos and the friction gained as the Earth rotates beneath the air masses is a constant source of adiabatic compression and cooling. A high pressure system is an air mass at constant thermal energy that simply gets compressed and therefore has more BTUs/m3. It's the energy in the MOVEMENT of the air masses that pumps temperature up and down.

However -- if you were to increase the density of the atmos uniformly and it came to thermal equilibrium -- then all those dynamic "heating and cooling" actions would be magnified.

 

[Crick]

as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.

If you believe those "holes" exist and are intentional, you're not skeptical, you're paranoid.

Besides, anyone who provides SSDD's psycho-physics the slightest bit of support has completely abandoned the qualifications to make the SLIGHTEST claim of skepticism

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

Since my position is based on the consensus of mainstream science on the matter, I can not fit the bill of crazy. SSDD does so in spades, as is obvious to all.

 

[Crick]

positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature

What is your basis for claiming feedbacks are unstable? This unidentified graphic?

Feedback processes as a group are not inherently stable or unstable. That that are stable, are almost universally seen to occur. Don't overgeneralize, particularly when you have no basis.

 

[SSDD]

positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature. I think there is a distinct possibility that the ~1C/doubling theoretical calculation for CO2 will eventually be found to produce less than 1C.

Yeah...zero is less than 1C....prepare yourself.

 

[Crick]

positive (total) feedbacks are unstable, therefore seldom seen in nature

What is your basis for claiming feedbacks are unstable? This unidentified graphic?

Feedback processes as a group are not inherently stable or unstable. That that are stable, are almost universally seen to occur. Don't overgeneralize, particularly when you have no basis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.

Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.

If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.

If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.

Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right

Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.

So Venus atmosphere no longer generates heat, what does? Manmade global Warming?

 

[mamooth]

positive (total) feedbacks are unstable

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... = 2

That's how, for example, the water vapor feedback works in climate. Positive and infinite, but bounded.

 

[SSDD]

positive (total) feedbacks are unstable

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... = 2

That's how, for example, the water vapor feedback works in climate. Positive and infinite, but bounded.

Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.

 

[Crick]

Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.

Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.

If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.

If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.

Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right

Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.

So Venus atmosphere no longer generates heat, what does? Manmade global Warming?

Oohh.. you're getting close. Increases in GHGs in our atmosphere increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and raise the Earth's temperature. That's what's been happening since the Industrial Revolution began.

 

[Crick]

Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.

Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults? Yours truly suck.

I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument. Why don't you explain his math for us?

 

[flacaltenn]

Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.

Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults? Yours truly suck.

I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument. Why don't you explain his math for us?

Yeah sure.. I could work with SSDD on his insults. Or did you want a comment on how all those "positive feedbacks" will never add up to much in the real world?? And certainly not add to the ORIGINAL hysterical "climate sensitivity" figures that got everyone's nuts in a tizzy...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.

Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.

If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.

If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.

Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right

Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.

So Venus atmosphere no longer generates heat, what does? Manmade global Warming?

Oohh.. you're getting close. Increases in GHGs in our atmosphere increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and raise the Earth's temperature. That's what's been happening since the Industrial Revolution began.

Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?

 

[mamooth]

Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?

As "the sun" is a complete answer, yes, we did give up trying to explain it more. After all, it can't be dumbed down any further than that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?

As "the sun" is a complete answer, yes, we did give up trying to explain it more. After all, it can't be dumbed down any further than that.

No content flame removed.