|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I take this to mean that man made additions of carbon dioxide warm the planet. Where is your proof ... for the evidence see Message 303 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You do realize the oceans emit carbon dioxide when they warm.... Among other sources of CO2 ... Do you know where that CO2 in the oceans came from?
....the warmer, the more co2 emittance. You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans. and why are the oceans warming? Hint: it rhymes with mobile warning ...
Show me your math on how greenhouse gases slow this release down beyond preindustrial levels. ... Curiously the math is built into the models that show the effect of the various elements to global warming.
... You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. ... You see a smooth curve rise of CO2 caused temperature from the mathematical model that fits well the the jagged curve of actual measurement of temperature (with daily and seasonal variations). That smooth rise curve is the result of the maths.
... You have to take nitrogen and oxygen into account and convection and conduction into account as well. In particular, show how radiative processes involving co2 slow the long wave radiation release into space beyond what nitrogen and oxygen and conduction and convection already do. As noted in the article they took those and more factors into consideration, and the only causes that showed matches to the actual temperature pattern were the greenhouse gasses.
No one, has proven that greenhouse gases warm the earth beyond what they warm at very low preindustrial concentrations. Wishful thinking and hubristic claims don't cut it. You have not proven co2 warms the atmosphere much less ozone in the lower atmosphere. These graphs demonstrate that the only match between cause and effect is the greenhouse gasses model rising curve to the actual temperature overall pattern. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Nice
quote: Pretty hard to argue with eh? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is an uncanny resemblance to Trump in that image. You mean where the feathers swoop out over the cloaca? by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
quote: This is global climate change folks. It ain't pretty, and it ain't going away. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
First:
quote: And then:
quote: The evidence shows global climate change is occurring. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Faith,
The problem with this topic as always is that the science just isn't clear enough to prove anything. ... Let me copy Message 303 here for you, the information there is fairly straightforward. Clicking on the link provided provides you with the activated screen for each of these graphs and their overlay for the final total of the data.
quote: Should be pretty self-explanatory. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Some of that released radiation makes it into space, and the rest of it ends up getting reflected back down to Earth when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor -- the car windows. And the more heat is "reflected" (actually absorbed and re-emitted in random directions), the more heat is retained within the atmosphere ("trapped"), and the more heat is re-emitted back towards the earth and the ocean where it is absorbed again.
Not all of it is reflected back down to earth. Some of it is absorbed again by nitrogen and oxygen via conduction. IOW, carbon dioxide molecules hit other molecules in the air before any radiation is emitted from them. Nobody said other molecules were not affected, but now you are talking about the energy of the molecules being transferred not by absorption but by impact, transferring increased energy in other particles (like billiard balls), and which they can now emit in random directions as heat. This increased energy also causes storms to have more energy. This results in more damage from intense storms, like hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes and the like.
You want more examples? Oh please do. Let's see what you've learned from sites spreading denial, delusions and disinformation. Meanwhile you have not explained the correlations of heat with man-made\released greenhouse gases seen in Message 333 from the article What's Really Warming The World? ... care to give it a try? Anything that doesn't explain those trends by something other than global warming is a red-herring to reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I know n2 and o2 don't absorb infrared. But they certainly absorb through conduction and there are vastly more of them than co2, therefore it's disingenuous to say co2 traps heat when trying to make a case for AGW because n2 and o2 hold onto heat for a much longer time. So you are just explaining how the increased energy in CO2 molecules from absorption of infrared is transferred to other molecules and heating them up ... resulting in a net warmer atmosphere. The more (Man-made\released) CO2 molecules in the air, the more such absorptions and transfers occur and the warmer the atmosphere gets. Thanks. Please note that this does not say anything about increased global warming not being directly associated with increase CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity, it just details one of the many ways that energy\heat is captured in the atmosphere, and how some is transferred to the oceans and land. Arguing about the details of how global climate change is occurring is not arguing that it is not occurring. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I did no such thing. How is it warmer? No added energy here. ... So you are going to deny something that children and animals know by observing that the air cools after the sun sets and warms in the morning when the sun rises. How does that warming happen without energy being added? This basic information has been known for so long it is hard to find on the internet, like proving that 1+1=2.
quote: That's 1859 when CO2 was identified as a "greenhouse" gas. 1859. Or are you going to say that heat is not energy?
... Co2 is part of the atmosphere. Transferring energy from one molecule in the atmosphere to another warms nothing up. Co2 is said to trap heat. No its not the molecule trapping the heat ; nitrogen and oxygen are trapping the heat until they transfer the heat back to co2 higher in the atmosphere. Actually, higher levels of co2 higher in the atmosphere acts to cool the atmosphere. And you said that N2 and O2 got their increased energy from CO2 collisions - which is how energy is transfered in gases.
Again false. No new energy added. ... And denial is not an argument .
... Each additional molecule of co2 acts to cool high in the atmosphere. The temperature of all molecules at each level in the atmosphere are exactly the same. Obviously, all molecules share their energy with each other. What you are saying is the co2 molecules emit radiation and are reabsorbed by other co2 molecules without effect to the rest of the atmosphere when the data doesn't support that. Which curiously does not explain the observations made of global climate change as shown in the article What's Really Warming The World?. The point is, it does not matter what you say, what you claim and how often you do it -- if you cannot explain the evidence in that article for anthropogenic global climate change then your argument is irrelevant to reality. Explain the evidence. Then we'll talk about your little claims. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You didn't understand anything I said. How you came to those conclusions about what I said is beyond me. You must be doing that on purpose. I will take each erroneous idea of yours and correct it piece by piece when I have time. Irrelevant. You still have not explained the observations made of global climate change as shown in the article What's Really Warming The World?. The point is, it does not matter what you say, what you claim, and how often you do it -- if you cannot explain the evidence in that article for anthropogenic global climate change then your argument is irrelevant to reality. Explain the evidence. Then we'll talk about your claims. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
2. Use renewables intelligently - Solar panels are great in California, Florida, or Arizona. Solar panels in North Dakota? Dumb. So be smart about how you utilize renewables. Don't just implement them for the sake of implementing them. My solar panels generate more electricity than I use, so the excess goes towards reducing my carbon footprint from gasoline. I live in Rhode Island. The initial installation cost is irrelevant in the long run, because they are virtually maintenance free so operating costs are virtually nil. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A thought occurred to me the other day: If your solar panels are installed on the roof, what happens when your shingles need to be replaced? First, I had my roof inspected first to ensure this would not be a problem in the near future. Second, the panels that cover the roof area actually protect the shingles under them, extending their life, so I could re-shingle around them if the rest of the roof needs it. Third, removing them and reinstalling them is labor, not materials, and I expect that roofing companies will either acquire the skills or have a contractor on hand, because so many people around here have them. Fourth, I may not be here ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Installation cost is relevant if your electricity costs are low. Installation for me would be about $25k, I use about $1300/year in electricity. Financially it is a stupid move for me. Well you live in "Walkerstan," so no state rebates, but you could still be eligible for the federal tax credit (until Trump and gang do away with it). I paid no taxes last year with most of the tax credit left for this year and the next. Without the grants and tax rebates my installation cost was $13k and I use about $750/year, so I am about half your costs in both cases. The way I look at it, the $13k is an investment with a return of $750/year tax free. That is a return of 5.7% on investment. It is difficult to find a guaranteed investment with a 5.7% return in the stock, bond, mutual fund market these days. I also oversized my installation so that I can take my gas water heater and gas boiler off line and replace them with an electric water heater (hot water is hot enough for my radiant floor heat), keeping my gas water heater as backup in case of power outage. This will reduce my gas bill by $800/year, so then I will get a $1,550/year tax free return, or 11.9% ... a rather stunning return that is guaranteed every year. This also reduces my carbon footprint substantially. Tax on dividends is ~10% per year so the tax free return would mean that 5.7% is worth 6.3% after taxes for a comparable stock investment, and the 11.9% is worth 13.1% after taxes. In your case, looking at it as an investment, you would get $1,300/year tax free return on $25k investment, or 5.2%, and after taxes would be worth 5.7% return on investment. The question for you is whether or not you have current investments that are doing worse than this, and can you switch them at little cost (ie -- ira early withdrawal penalty, broker fees, etc). Another option is to do it yourself to reduce installation cost, and then you can also do it piece-meal, adding to the array periodically. I run my sump pump on an entirely isolated system that I installed. It has two panels with voltage regulators that put out 12vdc for the whole day (peak output of the panels is 21vdc, and the regulators cut that back to 12, but then I also still get 12vdc on cloudy days). Each one charges a deep cycle marine battery and they run a marine bilge pump. Because of high water table here this pump cycles every 5 minutes in the rainy period. Everything bought on-line. If you can wire a car battery you can do it. My next installation will be large enough to power the fridge during a power outage through an inverter, and I am thinking of using a 24 vdc system that can also pump the hot water through my floor heat piping. My roof panels have no battery backup and no way to directly use them when the grid goes down (RI regulation requires it to shut down to protect line workers). Check out Unbound Solar — Solar Products & DIY Advice by Our Experts -- it is "100% employee owned. Each of us has a personal stake in providing outstanding service to our customers. We thrive on your success!" Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In your scenario, the more co2 is added, the more the infrared is held up before being released. This scenario is the only way for global warming alarmism to work. The problem though.....is it the correct scenario? And the objective empirical evidence says yes. Again I direct you to the article What's Really Warming The World?. You can see the graphs in Message 333 as well. Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.
My scenario is a warmer atmosphere than yours initially with low co2. Higher amounts of co2 do not warm the atmosphere in my scenario. They appreciably warm the atmosphere in your scenario. Your "scenario: is a fantasy that is contradicted by data. See the Bloomburg article. Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.
You havent proven your scenario is reality and i havent proven my scenario is reality. Therefore, you cannot say the atmosphere would be warmer today under my scenario. What we can say is that the atmosphere would be much colder today if co2 were the only thing keeping radiation from automatically exiting into space. There just isnt enough co2 to hold the heat in long enough to maintain our current temperature. Denying the evidence that global warming is man-made via greenhouse gases (including CO2) does not make it go away. See the Bloomburg article. Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity. Until you deal with the evidence clearly presented in the Bloomburg article your arguments are irrelevant. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024