Why do so many people deny climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

No reports of an explanation from Fox News scientists to explain the reason that the moon's climate is so different than earth's.

Perhaps, unlike real world science, they have no explanation. They're stumped.

All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.

 

[PMZ]

No reports of an explanation from Fox News scientists to explain the reason that the moon's climate is so different than earth's.

Perhaps, unlike real world science, they have no explanation. They're stumped.

All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.

You already used that one. That the best that the crack Fox News science team can come up with?

Seems like high paid boobs and boobies could do better.

 

[itfitzme]

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

Says the idgit who doesn't understand how the heat of compression applies to the experiments above. Excuse me while I laugh in your face.

The heat of compression doesn't apply, that is why your so completely off base.

The heat of compression is the result of what???? Oh, COMPRESSION. And how do we compress a gas? We reduce the volume.

The first and second laws of thermo give us dU=dQ-dW.. That is the change in energy is the change in heat minus the work done by the system. When a system is COMPRESSED, as in a cylinder, then work is done on the system, increasing the energy of the system.

How then is the energy stored in the system, once compressed? As an increase in temperature and pressure.

So, what is the heat of compression? Energy from the pressurization of a gas or liquid converted to heat. When the gas is pressurized, by compression, it gets hotter. This is the exact opposite of what happens when compressed gas is allowed to depressurize.

The heat of pressurization is noticeable when you pump up your bicycle tire.

The opposite is noticeable when the valve is opened on a canister of compressed gas. It is typical for ice crystals to form around the nozzle where the gas escapes. As the gas escapes, it decompresses and cools.

So, now explain your concept. Or are you sticking with "do do head" because you have nothing?

Or perhaps you would like to move forward and do some calculations on the energy that is turned into heat as a cylinder of gas is compressed.

All we need it PV=nRT and the first law, dU=dQ-dW. (maybe we need dQ=T dS).

 

[PMZ]

I know what the heat of compression is. I'm just waiting for you to explain how it supposedly fits in with CO2 experiments.

The two experiments above were both carried out in sealed containers. If you understand the heat of compression, then you should grasp how it applies to the above experiments.

already got the 2nd law wrong. Do demonstrate how badly you have heat of compression.

You are saying that the physics department at the Georgia State University doesn't know what the second law of thermodynamics says?

No, I am saying that you don't know what the Georgia State University is talking about. You have misinterpreted it, taking it out of the context of the discussion that they present.

What I am saying is that your entire basis of knowledge is on a single page presented by the Georgia State University.

What I am saying is that, unfortunately for your, the Georgia State University made an error in wording that has led to your confusion.

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

On the other item, by all means, show us the calculations that show amount of heat that resulted from the measured pressure rise.

Oh, that's right, you don't actually have any proof that all the experiments were done in sealed containers nor have you made the calculations that prove that the temperature rise was due to pressure change. Nor can you explain, then, given that CO2 does absorb IR, how much of the temperature rise was due to pressure change and how much was due to the IR absorption.

Oh, and that is just assuming that your concept is even functional.

What you fail to understand is that your concept is not functional because you don't understand how thermodynamics functions and the conditions necessary to yield increased temperature from pressure. What you are confused about is that the experiments don't create pressure that then results in heating. Rather, even if your concept is marginally correct in the containers being sealed, it is the heat that is absorbed by the CO2 that results in a pressure change. This would then be actual demonstrated evidence that, in fact, the gas got hot as expected and that CO2 is a green house gas.

Ah, what the hell.

Here is how it works. A cylinder containing gas is compressed. The work that goes into the compression of the gas is turned into heat.

Here is the situation you are trying to apply it to. A cylinder containing CO2 is heated by shining IR at it. As the temperature increases, the pressure in the cylinder increases.

There is simply no science that supports what they want to be true. That simple. None. They are forced to make up exotic explanations that sound like they might be true and might fool those who don't know science which is primarily themselves.

 

[Abraham3]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

 

[itfitzme]

The two experiments above were both carried out in sealed containers. If you understand the heat of compression, then you should grasp how it applies to the above experiments.



You are saying that the physics department at the Georgia State University doesn't know what the second law of thermodynamics says?

No, I am saying that you don't know what the Georgia State University is talking about. You have misinterpreted it, taking it out of the context of the discussion that they present.

What I am saying is that your entire basis of knowledge is on a single page presented by the Georgia State University.

What I am saying is that, unfortunately for your, the Georgia State University made an error in wording that has led to your confusion.

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

On the other item, by all means, show us the calculations that show amount of heat that resulted from the measured pressure rise.

Oh, that's right, you don't actually have any proof that all the experiments were done in sealed containers nor have you made the calculations that prove that the temperature rise was due to pressure change. Nor can you explain, then, given that CO2 does absorb IR, how much of the temperature rise was due to pressure change and how much was due to the IR absorption.

Oh, and that is just assuming that your concept is even functional.

What you fail to understand is that your concept is not functional because you don't understand how thermodynamics functions and the conditions necessary to yield increased temperature from pressure. What you are confused about is that the experiments don't create pressure that then results in heating. Rather, even if your concept is marginally correct in the containers being sealed, it is the heat that is absorbed by the CO2 that results in a pressure change. This would then be actual demonstrated evidence that, in fact, the gas got hot as expected and that CO2 is a green house gas.

Ah, what the hell.

Here is how it works. A cylinder containing gas is compressed. The work that goes into the compression of the gas is turned into heat.

Here is the situation you are trying to apply it to. A cylinder containing CO2 is heated by shining IR at it. As the temperature increases, the pressure in the cylinder increases.

There is simply no science that supports what they want to be true. That simple. None. They are forced to make up exotic explanations that sound like they might be true and might fool those who don't know science which is primarily themselves.

Odd, isn't it. I can't imagine intentionally creating a fantasy at the expense of understanding how the universe functions.

It was more fun learning this stuff in a positive way. Revisiting it through their mistakes will just have to do.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is some interesting links

http://www.iit.edu/arc/workshops/pdfs/Thermodynamic_Properties.pdf

Here is the statement that has SSDD all screwed up because Hyperphysics got sloppy and used "energy" instead of "heat".

"Statement 2: No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one"

(it's why I always read multiple sources.)

The applicable laws are the ideal gas law PV=nRT and dU=dQ-dW, the first law of thermo.

A "heat of compression" process would be an isothermal process.

In isothermal compression (no heat is exchange with the environment),

Q = -W = R T ln(V1/V2)

The work done by the compression, in changing the volume of the cylinder, is turned into heat.

The effect of more heat is increased pressure.

So, Q = -W = R T ln(P1/P2)

Curiously, "heat of compression" really doesn't search well. You have to know what you are looking for.


The example is

Air is compressed from an initial condition of 1 bar and 25℃ to a final state of 5 bar and 25℃ by three different mechanically reversible processes in a closed system:

(b) Isothermal compression.

(b) Equation for the isothermal compression of an ideal gas applies here:

(8.314) (298.15) ln (1/5) = 3990J

 

[bripat9643]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

 

[itfitzme]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually situation in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious.

Do you have some water vapor data? Do you have some actual numbers to back this up, or are you just supposin'?

Oh, and any explanation as to why CO2 is demonstrably accountable for some 80% of the variance in the temperature anomaly since 1960?

Oh, any explanation as to how and why there has been this mysterious specter of rising water vapor since 1850?

And, your opinion on the quality of an experiment doesn't really count for much.

Oh, here it is...

"Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000)"

So, water vapor is accounted for.

 

[bripat9643]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually situation in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious.

Do you have some water vapor data? Do you have some actual numbers to back this up, or are you just supposin'?

Oh, and any explanation as to why CO2 is demonstrably accountable for some 80% of the variance in the temperature anomaly since 1960?

And, your opinion on the quality of an experiment doesn't really count for much.

No one has demonstrated that CO2 is accountable for 80% of the temperature variance since 1960.

I didn't make any claims about the magnitude of the effect water vapor has on temperature, so why would have need to provide any figures? I simply said it has an effect. Are you denying that it does?

My opinion doesn't count for much only among the flock of nutburgers that you identify with. Rational people have a different opinion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No reports of an explanation from Fox News scientists to explain the reason that the moon's climate is so different than earth's.

Perhaps, unlike real world science, they have no explanation. They're stumped.

All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.

You already used that one. That the best that the crack Fox News science team can come up with?

Seems like high paid boobs and boobies could do better.

It worked once to hightlight your idiocy, why mess with success?

 

[itfitzme]

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually situation in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious.

Do you have some water vapor data? Do you have some actual numbers to back this up, or are you just supposin'?

Oh, and any explanation as to why CO2 is demonstrably accountable for some 80% of the variance in the temperature anomaly since 1960?

And, your opinion on the quality of an experiment doesn't really count for much.

No one has demonstrated that CO2 is accountable for 80% of the temperature variance since 1960.

I didn't make any claims about the magnitude of the effect water vapor has on temperature, so why would have need to provide any figures? I simply said it has an effect. Are you denying that it does?

My opinion doesn't count for much only among the flock of nutburgers that you identify with. Rational people have a different opinion.

You claim it is water vapor. You do know what you post, don't you? "it ignores the effects of water vapor." You brought it up. So, do you have some numbers to show it is all water vapor and not CO2? Or are you just supposin'?

I've showed CO2 as being responsible for some 80% of the variance in temp anomaly multiple times. That's what that graph next to my screen name shows.

The IPCC has co2 as contributing about 45 times as much as TSI, so that is about 80%.

That is what these show





So, I'm just wondering, what you have for the actual effect of water vapor, seeing as you say it is ignored.

Or are you saying the value is zero? That is a number, and effect of zero.

I figure, seeing as you are so eminently qualified to determine if an experiment on IR absorption by CO2 is any good, you surely must have some info on the water vapor you suppose...

 

[flacaltenn]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

Not sure what provoked that misunderstanding. I'll assume it was the comments about the lamps used in some of these "proofs in a box"..

Of course CO2 absorbs IR in few narrow bands.. But not as well in the presence of moderate vapor as BriPat just pointed out.. AND in the atmosphere at 300ppm --- ONE of the three major absorbtion bands is already saturated. Another 1/2 overlaps water vapor. So the forcing function estimates are wildly high IN PRACTICE.. I don't doubt the theory part..

But back to the experimental lighting.. The only power of CO2 is to absorb IR. And to test temperature effects, the source OUGHT to be limited to the long wave bands that mimick the earth's surface. Because with a huge stage light --- it's NOT DESIGNED to produce IR illumination.. It's designed to provide VISIBLE bands. So just the normal HEATING effects of the metal around the bulb, variations in the spectrum of the individual bulbs, LIFETIME effects of those lamps is too much of confusion factor compared to the 1 deg the MythBuster's child scientist found.

Many NEWER theatrical lamps even FILTER the IR to produce a cooler beam. (my first wife had a degree in technical theatre arts)...

Too much out of band heating. Not enough calibration and control of the wavelengths that matter..

 

[PMZ]

All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.

You already used that one. That the best that the crack Fox News science team can come up with?

Seems like high paid boobs and boobies could do better.

It worked once to hightlight your idiocy, why mess with success?

You mean my idiocy that you can't refute that proves conclusively that you have only anti science behind what you wish was true?

You've become the village idiot.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you have some water vapor data? Do you have some actual numbers to back this up, or are you just supposin'?

Oh, and any explanation as to why CO2 is demonstrably accountable for some 80% of the variance in the temperature anomaly since 1960?

And, your opinion on the quality of an experiment doesn't really count for much.

No one has demonstrated that CO2 is accountable for 80% of the temperature variance since 1960.

I didn't make any claims about the magnitude of the effect water vapor has on temperature, so why would have need to provide any figures? I simply said it has an effect. Are you denying that it does?

My opinion doesn't count for much only among the flock of nutburgers that you identify with. Rational people have a different opinion.

You claim it is water vapor. You do know what you post, don't you? "it ignores the effects of water vapor." You brought it up. So, do you have some numbers to show it is all water vapor and not CO2? Or are you just supposin'?

I've showed CO2 as being responsible for some 80% of the variance in temp anomaly multiple times. That's what that graph next to my screen name shows.

The IPCC has co2 as contributing about 45 times as much as TSI, so that is about 80%.

That is what these show





So, I'm just wondering, what you have for the actual effect of water vapor, seeing as you say it is ignored.

Or are you saying the value is zero? That is a number, and effect of zero.

I figure, seeing as you are so eminently qualified to determine if an experiment on IR absorption by CO2 is any good, you surely must have some info on the water vapor you suppose...

You are so FOS.. THe act really fails when you make SWEEPING assertions of shit you THINK you've proven --- but you don't have A CLUE about how water vapor and CO2 SHARE some of the same absorption bands..

So in the presence of even MODEST amounts of water vapor --- CO2 loses some of it's superpowers.. Water vapor is by FAR the dominant GHGas..

WHOOPSIE...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You already used that one. That the best that the crack Fox News science team can come up with?

Seems like high paid boobs and boobies could do better.

It worked once to hightlight your idiocy, why mess with success?

You mean my idiocy that you can't refute that proves conclusively that you have only anti science behind what you wish was true?

You've become the village idiot.

Your idiocy is irrefutable.

 

[PMZ]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

Not sure what provoked that misunderstanding. I'll assume it was the comments about the lamps used in some of these "proofs in a box"..

Of course CO2 absorbs IR in few narrow bands.. But not as well in the presence of moderate vapor as BriPat just pointed out.. AND in the atmosphere at 300ppm --- ONE of the three major absorbtion bands is already saturated. Another 1/2 overlaps water vapor. So the forcing function estimates are wildly high IN PRACTICE.. I don't doubt the theory part..

But back to the experimental lighting.. The only power of CO2 is to absorb IR. And to test temperature effects, the source OUGHT to be limited to the long wave bands that mimick the earth's surface. Because with a huge stage light --- it's NOT DESIGNED to produce IR illumination.. It's designed to provide VISIBLE bands. So just the normal HEATING effects of the metal around the bulb, variations in the spectrum of the individual bulbs, LIFETIME effects of those lamps is too much of confusion factor compared to the 1 deg the MythBuster's child scientist found.

Many NEWER theatrical lamps even FILTER the IR to produce a cooler beam. (my first wife had a degree in technical theatre arts)...

Too much out of band heating. Not enough calibration and control of the wavelengths that matter..

Here's a guy you need to teach your pseudoscience to.

http://www.youtube.com/course?list=ECFA75A0DDB89ACCD7

 

[SSDD]

I've got 10 pages of debate with SSDD.. We did not reach a mutual agreeable understanding. You should try it.. Rather than taking direction from the Clergy..

I would think it was more than 10 pages and I thought we mutually agreed that we would never agree till such time as post modern science has had its time and you realize that you were wrong at which time you would humbly apologize.

Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective.

Is this what you're accusing flacaltenn of using?

I suggest you narrow your research to a description of post modern science....

 

[SSDD]

So, now explain your concept. Or are you sticking with "do do head" because you have nothing?

Geez but you are stupid. You more or less describe the heat of compression and still can't apply it to the experiments above. In the two bottle experiment...think two bottles one containing a heavier gas than the other...contained...then heated. Which is going to have the higher temperature and why?

CO2 being more dense than air, when heated with that lamp will generate more pressure within the bottle thus causing the temperature to rise to a higher temperature than the bottle with air, which by the way also rose to a higher temperature than it would had the bottle not been capped..... which has nothing to do with CO2's radiative absorption properties which are insignificant.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you have some water vapor data? Do you have some actual numbers to back this up, or are you just supposin'?

Oh, and any explanation as to why CO2 is demonstrably accountable for some 80% of the variance in the temperature anomaly since 1960?

And, your opinion on the quality of an experiment doesn't really count for much.

No one has demonstrated that CO2 is accountable for 80% of the temperature variance since 1960.

I didn't make any claims about the magnitude of the effect water vapor has on temperature, so why would have need to provide any figures? I simply said it has an effect. Are you denying that it does?

My opinion doesn't count for much only among the flock of nutburgers that you identify with. Rational people have a different opinion.

You claim it is water vapor. You do know what you post, don't you? "it ignores the effects of water vapor." You brought it up. So, do you have some numbers to show it is all water vapor and not CO2? Or are you just supposin'?

I claim what is water vapor? I haven't claimed anything about whatever vapor other than the fact that their experiment doesn't account for it's affect. Every warmist cult magician acknowledges that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Any legitimate experiment would try to measure its effect instead of ignoring it.

I'll just ignore the rest of your post as the babbling of an obsessive compulsive idiot.