Why do so many people deny climate change

[bripat9643]

If glaciers were static objects that never experienced gains or losses of mass, often simultaneously, you might have a point. They are not, so you are wrong in your assumption.

The climate isn't static either but you warmers seem to think it is. Show me one study that finds, and proves a definitive human finger print in the present global climate.

The dumbest question of the night. Which point do you disagree with?

Human's burn fossil fuels.

Burning fossil fuels create carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide from energy production is released to the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gasses are those that absorb longwave radiation.

Once GHGs absorb radiation they immediately emit it in all directions.

The part that goes down, as compared to up, is absorbed by the earth's water, land, life, ice, and atmosphere.

The only way that planetary energy balance can be maintained is to energize outgoing radiation by higher surface temperatures.

Which one is in question in your mind?

All that can be true, and it still doesn't prove that humans are causing the Earth's climate to warm. Furthermore, even if you managed to prove that humans were causing the Earth's climate to warm, you still have to prove that the consequences are as dire as you nutburgers claim.

 

[bripat9643]

What would you call people who deny science?

I call them members of the AGW cult.

Tell us about the science that they deny.

The WMP, for starters.

 

[westwall]

CO2 experiment - YouTube

The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube

The list goes on and on.

If you still are not convinced, you can do it yourself.

Materials:

1. Automobile
2. Dry Ice
3. Duct Tape
4. Thermometer
5. Sunny spot
6. Record Book
7. Clock.

Seal all the vents and cracks in your car with duct tape. Purchase twenty pounds of dry ice. Put it in the back seat of your car. Park the car in the sun. Sit in front seat. Hold thermometer. Record temperature every five minutes.

Had you ever taken a physics class you would realize they are demonstrating the IDEAL GAS LAWS, not global warming.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 experiment - YouTube

The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube

The list goes on and on.

Yes, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, you fail to realize that the list is the number of side show charlatans who have fooled you. In the first video, the whole experiment was found to be rigged...that is, the cameras were set to a very small portion of the CO2 absorption spectrum. Something that the fraudster failed to mention...probably because he didn't know was that when a CO2 molecule absorbs IR, it emits that energy at a slightly lower frequency. With the camera set to record a very narrow bandwidth, the emissions quickly left that bandwidth and thus the illusion was complete.

In the second, note that the bottles are capped. Ever hear of a phenomenon known as the heat of compression? Learn it, or at least read up on it and you will see that he provided a fine demonstration of the heat of compression...not of any greenhouse warming.

In every other experiment you might find to post, do take a minute or two and try and determine what the CO2 concentration is in the experiment and does it demonstrate warming when in the control it is a trace gas in the experiment and does it demonstrate that an additional 100ppm causes warming.

The ease with which you guys are fooled never fails to startle me. Children are more difficult to fool.

If you still are not convinced, you can do it yourself.

Materials:

1. Automobile
2. Dry Ice
3. Duct Tape
4. Thermometer
5. Sunny spot
6. Record Book
7. Clock.

Seal all the vents and cracks in your car with duct tape. Purchase twenty pounds of dry ice. Put it in the back seat of your car. Park the car in the sun. Sit in front seat. Hold thermometer. Record temperature every five minutes.[/QUOTE]

Your own experiment is a fine demonstration of the heat of compression as well. You raise the CO2 concentrations far above those found in the atmosphere and seal any pressure release vents.....again, learn about the heat of compression.

If you want to do an experiment with a car, park two side by side, windows up or down or slightly open. You sit in one, no one sits in the other. In a very short while, your own respiration will raise the concentration of CO2 in the car by 100ppm or so and the longer you sit there, the higher it will get. Measure the temperatures in the two cars and see that the slight increase in the trace gas will not cause one car to be warmer than the other. After an hour or so, the CO2 concentration in the car should be above 600ppm and still you will see no difference between the interior temperature of the cars.

Stop being so gullible and for God's sake, learn something.

 

[SSDD]

If glaciers were static objects that never experienced gains or losses of mass, often simultaneously, you might have a point. They are not, so you are wrong in your assumption.

The climate isn't static either but you warmers seem to think it is. Show me one study that finds, and proves a definitive human finger print in the present global climate.

The dumbest question of the night. Which point do you disagree with?

Human's burn fossil fuels.

Burning fossil fuels create carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide from energy production is released to the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gasses are those that absorb longwave radiation.

Here is where we part company.

GHGs absorb radiation they immediately emit it in all directions.

While it is true that it is possible for a molecule to emit in any direction, show me some proof that it will emit in any direction under any circumstance.

part that goes down, as compared to up, is absorbed by the earth's water, land, life, ice, and atmosphere.

The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth) As of today, the second law says nothing about statistic probabilities or any other such thing and till it is changed to express that idea, it remains written in absolute terms....energy will not move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. If you think differently, prove differently....there will surely be a nobel in it for you.

only way that planetary energy balance can be maintained is to energize outgoing radiation by higher surface temperatures.

I bet that you are under the impression that in order to maintain an energy balance, that energy out must equal energy in. Am I correct?

Which one is in question in your mind?

None...as if you could school me.... you arrogant little pissant.

 

[Abraham3]

If you want to do an experiment with a car, park two side by side, windows up or down or slightly open. You sit in one, no one sits in the other. In a very short while, your own respiration will raise the concentration of CO2 in the car by 100ppm or so and the longer you sit there, the higher it will get. Measure the temperatures in the two cars and see that the slight increase in the trace gas will not cause one car to be warmer than the other. After an hour or so, the CO2 concentration in the car should be above 600ppm and still you will see no difference between the interior temperature of the cars.

Stop being so gullible and for God's sake, learn something.

What we seem to be learning are your outstanding intellectual limitations.

That's your idea of a controlled experiment with meaningful results? Let's do a little math. 0.9C/(150 years*365 days/yr) gives us 1.64e-5C per 24 hour day warming from an average of about 340 ppm. Just how long were you going to wait to find a discernible temperature increase in your car and how were you controlling for the heat the occupant's metabolism was creating (and the bacterial metabolism in his rotting corpse)?

Again, someone correct me, aren't you the one claiming to be an actual research scientist?

I tell ya, what we seem to be "learning" are your outstanding intellectual (or ethical) limitations.

 

[Abraham3]

The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth) As of today, the second law says nothing about statistic probabilities or any other such thing and till it is changed to express that idea, it remains written in absolute terms....energy will not move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. If you think differently, prove differently....there will surely be a nobel in it for you.

The Second Law gives ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTRAINTS on the motion of energy. Here's YOUR challenge: find us a statement of the Second Law from any recognized authority that clearly indicates any restriction on the motion of energy.

And your sig continues to do nothing but show Mamooth to be the superior intellect. The Second Law can be reproduced EXACTLY by a purely statistical approach. The two are EQUIVALENT. The universe is filled with discrete pieces of matter and discrete packets of energy - there is no continuum. To insist that a statistical approach will not work is to deny reality.

 

[SSDD]

That's your idea of a controlled experiment with meaningful results? Let's do a little math. 0.9C/(150 years*365 days/yr) gives us 1.64e-5C per 24 hour day warming from an average of about 340 ppm. Just how long were you going to wait to find a discernible temperature increase in your car and how were you controlling for the heat the occupant's metabolism was creating (and the bacterial metabolism in his rotting corpse)?

Again, someone correct me, aren't you the one claiming to be an actual research scientist?

First, I have never claimed to be a research scientist. Must you lie about every thing?

Second, in so far as an experiment to demonstrate that additional CO2 (as a trace gas) in an open atmosphere either does or does not cause warming my experiment is far more realistic than goofball's who intends to flood the atmosphere with CO2 and then tape it up so that you get a demonstration of the heat of compression which has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse hypothesis. If you weren't a clueless idiot, you might have picked up on that fact. Of course no warming will happen in my experiment just as additional CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause warming.

 

[SSDD]

The Second Law gives ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTRAINTS on the motion of energy. Here's YOUR challenge: find us a statement of the Second Law from any recognized authority that clearly indicates any restriction on the motion of energy.

Any statement that places constraints on the direction of energy flow by default places constraints on the motion of energy. Here, from the physics department of the University of Georgia....

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.

your sig continues to do nothing but show Mamooth to be the superior intellect. The Second Law can be reproduced EXACTLY by a purely statistical approach. The two are EQUIVALENT. The universe is filled with discrete pieces of matter and discrete packets of energy - there is no continuum. To insist that a statistical approach will not work is to deny reality.

Only a true idiot thinks that a branch of mathematics is a fundamental mechanism of anything as opposed to being a means to try and describe the result of the workings of a fundamental mechanism. When mamooth wrote that, I thought that s/he must be the stupidest person on the board...the number of you morons who have stepped forward to try and defend that moronic statement has proven that either you are all socks belonging to mamooth or the board is heavily populated with morons.

As to the second law being a statement of statistics, if that were true, then I suppose it would be stated as such. It is not. You suffer from the post modern malady of substituting models for reality and believing them to be reality.

 

[Abraham3]

That's your idea of a controlled experiment with meaningful results? Let's do a little math. 0.9C/(150 years*365 days/yr) gives us 1.64e-5C per 24 hour day warming from an average of about 340 ppm. Just how long were you going to wait to find a discernible temperature increase in your car and how were you controlling for the heat the occupant's metabolism was creating (and the bacterial metabolism in his rotting corpse)?

Again, someone correct me, aren't you the one claiming to be an actual research scientist?

First, I have never claimed to be a research scientist. Must you lie about every thing?

Second, in so far as an experiment to demonstrate that additional CO2 (as a trace gas) in an open atmosphere either does or does not cause warming my experiment is far more realistic than goofball's who intends to flood the atmosphere with CO2 and then tape it up so that you get a demonstration of the heat of compression which has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse hypothesis. If you weren't a clueless idiot, you might have picked up on that fact. Of course no warming will happen in my experiment just as additional CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause warming.

Pardon me if I have you confused with someone else. When I first arrived here, someone on your side of the argument claimed to have a PhD in Geology. If that wasn't you, a thousand pardons.

Warming will take place in your experiment because you put a living breathing human being into your vehicle. Being about as sloppy an apparatus as I've ever heard of, you'd do even worse by having the vehicles open to the atmosphere. You should have suggested a sealed pressure compensation device (a balloon) or to have simply taken pressure changes into account with some high tech brain, pen and paper.

This whole experiment discussion is a red herring because you haven't the slightest intent of ever admitting that any experiment is valid no matter how it is done. I said so when you started. You aren't interested in facts, knowledge or truth. You're simply looking for more opportunities to insult your debating opponents.

I asked that you suggest a real experiment that would actually show whether or not greenhouse warming can take place. If this two-cars-in-the-parking lot is the best you can come up... then please stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[SSDD]

Pardon me if I have you confused with someone else. When I first arrived here, someone on your side of the argument claimed to have a PhD in Geology. If that wasn't you, a thousand pardons.

Pardon you for not checking the facts before you speak? That's what you do. Do you ask for pardon every time you speak?

will take place in your experiment because you put a living breathing human being into your vehicle. Being about as sloppy an apparatus as I've ever heard of, you'd do even worse by having the vehicles open to the atmosphere. You should have suggested a sealed pressure compensation device (a balloon) or to have simply taken pressure changes into account with some high tech brain, pen and paper.

The body heat would be the only warming and any experiment that doesn't allow convection and conduction to take place is not analogous to the atmosphere. All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

whole experiment discussion is a red herring because you haven't the slightest intent of ever admitting that any experiment is valid no matter how it is done. I said so when you started. You aren't interested in facts, knowledge or truth. You're simply looking for more opportunities to insult your debating opponents.

Well it is a set up, but not a red herring. There are no experiments that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and there are no experiments that demonstrate backradiation as required by the greenhouse hypothesis. The entire claim is no more real than the flawed computer models that have replaced your reality. There is an atmospheric thermal effect, which is far larger than the fictitious greenhouse effect but it could care less what gasses compose the atmosphere beyond their atomic weights.

asked that you suggest a real experiment that would actually show whether or not greenhouse warming can take place. If this two-cars-in-the-parking lot is the best you can come up... then please stop wasting everyone's time.

There is no experiment that can demonstrate greenhouse warming as described by climate science because it simply is not happening. There is no experiment that can demonstrate backradiation because it is not possible. You believe in a thing that can not be substantiated in any way that might be construed to adhere to the scientific method.

 

[mamooth]

All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[PMZ]

Pardon me if I have you confused with someone else. When I first arrived here, someone on your side of the argument claimed to have a PhD in Geology. If that wasn't you, a thousand pardons.

Pardon you for not checking the facts before you speak? That's what you do. Do you ask for pardon every time you speak?

will take place in your experiment because you put a living breathing human being into your vehicle. Being about as sloppy an apparatus as I've ever heard of, you'd do even worse by having the vehicles open to the atmosphere. You should have suggested a sealed pressure compensation device (a balloon) or to have simply taken pressure changes into account with some high tech brain, pen and paper.

The body heat would be the only warming and any experiment that doesn't allow convection and conduction to take place is not analogous to the atmosphere. All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

whole experiment discussion is a red herring because you haven't the slightest intent of ever admitting that any experiment is valid no matter how it is done. I said so when you started. You aren't interested in facts, knowledge or truth. You're simply looking for more opportunities to insult your debating opponents.

Well it is a set up, but not a red herring. There are no experiments that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and there are no experiments that demonstrate backradiation as required by the greenhouse hypothesis. The entire claim is no more real than the flawed computer models that have replaced your reality. There is an atmospheric thermal effect, which is far larger than the fictitious greenhouse effect but it could care less what gasses compose the atmosphere beyond their atomic weights.

asked that you suggest a real experiment that would actually show whether or not greenhouse warming can take place. If this two-cars-in-the-parking lot is the best you can come up... then please stop wasting everyone's time.

There is no experiment that can demonstrate greenhouse warming as described by climate science because it simply is not happening. There is no experiment that can demonstrate backradiation because it is not possible. You believe in a thing that can not be substantiated in any way that might be construed to adhere to the scientific method.

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.

Climate Myth...
Greenhouse effect has been falsified

"[T]he influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven. In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming.


This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility. The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.' (Heinz Thieme)


Some climate change skeptics dispute the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’, which keeps the surface temperature of the Earth approximately 33 degrees C warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be largely uninhabitable.

How do we know for sure this effect is real? The principle is demonstrated through basic physics, because a bare rock orbiting the sun at the distance of the Earth should be far colder than the Earth actually is. The explanation for this observation was based on the work of John Tyndall, who discovered in 1859 that several gases, including carbon dioxide and water vapour, could trap heat. This was the first evidence for what we know now as greenhouse gases. Then, towards the end of the same century, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius proved the relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures.

Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect
We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).

Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no water vapour or other greenhouse gases, because of course it has no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon; without the heat trapped overnight in the atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or animals could survive even a single one.

The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases.

Disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, laws of physics and direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.


Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

 

[flacaltenn]

All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

Same reaction I have when some dweeb posts a youtube or MythBusters PROOF of the power of CO2 warming.. Did ya watch the Mythbuster "proof" led by a 14 yr scientist?

The amount of CO2 to be added to those enclosures to DOUBLE CO2 concentration would have been a chunk of dry ice the size of a flea.. HOW MUCH did they add? How much water vapor was present? What spectral content did the lamp sources have?

[[My favorite is the one with the poser wearing a grounding strap on his wrist.. Yep static electricity is controlled !!! Unfortuneately, the rest of the experimental setup is a crap pile...


Sesame Street.. It's a gas....

 

[westwall]

That's your idea of a controlled experiment with meaningful results? Let's do a little math. 0.9C/(150 years*365 days/yr) gives us 1.64e-5C per 24 hour day warming from an average of about 340 ppm. Just how long were you going to wait to find a discernible temperature increase in your car and how were you controlling for the heat the occupant's metabolism was creating (and the bacterial metabolism in his rotting corpse)?

Again, someone correct me, aren't you the one claiming to be an actual research scientist?

First, I have never claimed to be a research scientist. Must you lie about every thing?

Second, in so far as an experiment to demonstrate that additional CO2 (as a trace gas) in an open atmosphere either does or does not cause warming my experiment is far more realistic than goofball's who intends to flood the atmosphere with CO2 and then tape it up so that you get a demonstration of the heat of compression which has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse hypothesis. If you weren't a clueless idiot, you might have picked up on that fact. Of course no warming will happen in my experiment just as additional CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause warming.

Pardon me if I have you confused with someone else. When I first arrived here, someone on your side of the argument claimed to have a PhD in Geology. If that wasn't you, a thousand pardons.

Warming will take place in your experiment because you put a living breathing human being into your vehicle. Being about as sloppy an apparatus as I've ever heard of, you'd do even worse by having the vehicles open to the atmosphere. You should have suggested a sealed pressure compensation device (a balloon) or to have simply taken pressure changes into account with some high tech brain, pen and paper.

This whole experiment discussion is a red herring because you haven't the slightest intent of ever admitting that any experiment is valid no matter how it is done. I said so when you started. You aren't interested in facts, knowledge or truth. You're simply looking for more opportunities to insult your debating opponents.

I asked that you suggest a real experiment that would actually show whether or not greenhouse warming can take place. If this two-cars-in-the-parking lot is the best you can come up... then please stop wasting everyone's time.

That's me.

 

[westwall]

All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

Look up the Ideal Gas Laws there admiral...

 

[PMZ]

I think that the denialists need to check with the Fox News scientists and ask them why the moon's climate is so different from earth's.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think that the denialists need to check with the Fox News scientists and ask them why the moon's climate is so different from earth's.

All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.

 

[mamooth]

All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.

That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.

Look up the Ideal Gas Laws there admiral...

So Westwall also climbs into the clown car.

Here's a hint, clowns. Nothing has been compressed.

 

[itfitzme]

The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

Dude, you are so out in left field with this. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The second law states no such thing. The second law says that energy gets spread out randomly with time.

That you are still insisting on this complete nonsense makes it obvious you are incapable of learning.