Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 6:01 AM
338 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 336 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,063 Year: 25,669/21,208 Month: 1,296/2,338 Week: 53/364 Day: 4/49 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 376 of 398 (799781)
02-15-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by RAZD
02-12-2017 1:42 PM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
RAZD writes:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
... Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (infrared radiation) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ...

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link ... on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

I am very aware of all of this. However it makes many unwarranted assumptions.

Heres one: " The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ..."

He completely ignores the possibility that instead of radiating heat back to the surface, co2 could give its heat to other molecules and thereby heating the atmosphere to an even higher degree as you even saw. He didnt even stop to think that perhaps reflectinv some of its heat back is not powerful enough to cause the temperature of todays earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 1:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2017 1:59 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 380 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 8:48 AM foreveryoung has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 377 of 398 (799783)
02-15-2017 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 1:55 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
He completely ignores the possibility that instead of radiating heat back to the surface, co2 could give its heat to other molecules and thereby heating the atmosphere to an even higher degree as you even saw. He didnt even stop to think that perhaps reflectinv some of its heat back is not powerful enough to cause the temperature of todays earth.

He completely ignores the possibility that instead of radiating heat back to the surface, co2 could give its heat to other molecules and thereby heating the atmosphere to an even higher degree as you even saw.

Nobody has ignored any such thing.

Sounds like you are just wishing things to be true. I challenge you to show me the failure to properly account for heat transfer in the models which predict global warming.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 1:55 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 378 of 398 (799788)
02-15-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Theodoric
02-14-2017 12:49 PM


Solar installation cost and return
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 https://www.wholesalesolar.com/ -- it is "100% employee owned. Each of us has a personal stake in providing outstanding service to our customers. We thrive on your success!"

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2017 12:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 379 of 398 (799789)
02-15-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 1:38 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 1:38 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 380 of 398 (799790)
02-15-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 1:55 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
I am very aware of all of this. However it makes many unwarranted assumptions.

Heres one: " The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ..."

Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379.

He completely ignores the possibility that instead of radiating heat back to the surface, co2 could give its heat to other molecules and thereby heating the atmosphere to an even higher degree as you even saw. He didnt even stop to think that perhaps reflectinv some of its heat back is not powerful enough to cause the temperature of todays earth.

Perhaps because the evidence did not show that to be the case.

Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379.

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.

Let me quote from Message 333 reformatted slightly:

quote:
This article goes through ALL the purported causes of climate change to show which ones cause how much change.

http://www.bloomberg.com/...ics/2015-whats-warming-the-world

I know this is a bare link, but all I can do is take screenshots:





When you add them all together you get a very very very strong match between the model and the observed data, and the only element that significantly adds to the warming is the greenhouse gases. And it would have been worse if we had not banned aerosols.


Should be pretty self-explanatory because the explanation actually matches the actual data.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 1:55 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:24 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 382 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:35 AM RAZD has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 381 of 398 (799793)
02-15-2017 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by RAZD
02-15-2017 8:48 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
RAZD writes:

Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379.

What exactly has been shown to be substantially correct? Please be specific.

RAZD writes:

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.

The data shows nothing of the kind. I gave you my argument and the evidence for it. It explains the data much better than the fairytale you presented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 8:48 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 12:59 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 382 of 398 (799794)
02-15-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by RAZD
02-15-2017 8:48 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
Here is what your bloomberg article failed to look into as for reasons for warming since 1850:

" Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles (41.7%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (38.0%) and increased atmospheric water vapor (20.3%)."

Does co2 match the temperature record by 98%? No, it doesn't. Levels of high reflecting low level clouds, ocean cycles including ENSO, and levels of water vapor do.

See Dan Pangburns article here: provide sound reasoning why it is wrong.

http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/...e-changedrivers

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 8:48 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 12:26 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


Message 383 of 398 (799799)
02-15-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 11:18 PM


bump for forever
Again I ask.

You did not address what I asked.
Show me the information in the article that is wrong. The specific information. You are making blanket assertions but are not addressing the particular article I posted.
This should be simple. Quote part of the article and refute the point they are making.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 384 of 398 (799801)
02-15-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 9:35 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
See Dan Pangburns article here: provide sound reasoning why it is wrong.

http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/...e-changedrivers

quote:
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

Hmmm ... taken down because it is falsehoods? So I googled it

You should change your pet link to http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/

quote:
Licensed mechanical engineer, MSME, ASME Life member, first GW related paper was made public in 2008 at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html.

He is also listed as an Aerospace Engineer. Can you tell me what qualifies him to talk about climate science? It looks like his listings on Google Scholar amount to vanity press publications - in a magazine he is a member of, and which did not appear to have a single bonafide climate scientist. Curious. Do you know of any article in a peer reviewed climate science publication?

Also I tried to look him up on wikipedia but there was no article about him or that mentioned him. Doesn't sound like a credible source to me, sorry.

quote:
Approximately 98% of atmospheric molecules are non-ghg nitrogen and oxygen. They are substantially warmed by thermalization of the photonic energy absorbed by the ghg molecules.

In other words greenhouse gases account for warming the atmosphere and that energy is transferred to other molecules in the air, warming them in the process. It would be shocking if only some gases heated up.

Thanks that's all I need.

Here is what your bloomberg article failed to look into as for reasons for warming since 1850:

" Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles (41.7%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (38.0%) and increased atmospheric water vapor (20.3%)."

Does co2 match the temperature record by 98%? No, it doesn't. Levels of high reflecting low level clouds, ocean cycles including ENSO, and levels of water vapor do.

Nope. Increased water vapor is due to the atmosphere being warmer, not the other way around. He/You are looking at symptoms of warming and claiming they are causes.

Here is what your bloomberg article failed to look into as for reasons for warming since 1850:

It did look at sun temperature that includes the effects of sunspots ...

That dead flat yellow line is just about as zero a driver of climate change as one could find.

Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization

quote:
wiki: In physics, thermalisation (in American English thermalization) is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction. In general the natural tendency of a system is towards a state of equipartition of energy or uniform temperature, maximising the system's entropy.

The page "Reverse-thermalization" does not exist.


When someone tries to baffle you with scientific sounding nonsense, they are trying delude you. Again, water vapor is a symptom of climate change not a cause. Putting more water vapor in the air than it naturally carries does not warm it, it results in precipitation.

In addition no scientist I know would make the extrapolations see here:

quote:

Where the drop at the end is pure fantasy and not properly supported by the data. Note that several volcanoes are listed as data points. In contrast we have, from the Bloomberg article again:

That looks like zero or negative effect effect to me, rather than explaining the warming trend.

When ALL the natural causes are combined you get:

And the result is zero or negative effect, so ALL natural causes do not explain climate change.

Conversely when you combine the man-made components with the natural ones you get:

If Pangburn's "thermalized" and "reverse-thermallized" water vapor is not included in these graphs, then why do they match the data so well? Is it included in the natural causes (and hence is not important) or is it included in the man-made causes (in which case it is AGW) ... inquiring minds want to know.

Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that actually explains this data differently, then the information is un-refuted 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.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:35 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 2:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 388 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 5:29 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 385 of 398 (799802)
02-15-2017 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 9:24 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
What exactly has been shown to be substantially correct? Please be specific.

That global warming is caused by human activity. See the information in Message 333 that is repeated in Message 379 and referred to again in Message 380 and repeated again in Message 384.

Continuing to ignore rather than explain these graphs with your alternate reality does not make them go away nor benefit your alternate reality.

The data shows nothing of the kind. ...

An argument devoid of substance or explanation.

... I gave you my argument and the evidence for it. It explains the data much better than the fairytale you presented.

Except that it doesn't explain the graphs at all. See Message 384. It refutes your guy's quack alternate science.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:24 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 386 of 398 (800103)
02-20-2017 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by RAZD
02-15-2017 12:26 PM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
Delete

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 12:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by vimesey, posted 02-20-2017 4:22 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 387 of 398 (800108)
02-20-2017 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by foreveryoung
02-20-2017 2:51 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
If Dana Nuccitelli can get paid to blog about climate science while being in another branch of science, why can't dan do the same as a mechanical engineer?

He can, of course - but the difference is that if you're seeking to refute a scientific conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of scientists in the field, the bar is set higher than if you're simply reciting the established conclusion.

Dana is riding the coat-tails of the vast majority of scientists in the field - credibility is already established. You need to establish credibility for a minority view.

Unfair maybe, but you know that's how science works - and rightly so.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 2:51 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 388 of 398 (800110)
02-20-2017 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by RAZD
02-15-2017 12:26 PM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=dan+pangburn&m=1
RAZD writes:

He is also listed as an Aerospace Engineer. Can you tell me what qualifies him to talk about climate science?

Dana Nuccetelli blogs about climate and co2 over at the Guardian. He also works at Tetratech as an environmental scientist. What qualifies him to talk about climate science? Here is a link to his linked-in page listing his resume:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447

RAZD writes:

It looks like his listings on Google Scholar amount to vanity press publications - in a magazine he is a member of, and which did not appear to have a single bonafide climate scientist. Curious. Do you know of any article in a peer reviewed climate science publication?

.

So, he is not a professional climate scientist. The paper he is published in doesn't have any professional climate scientists in it. If Dana Nuccitelli can get paid to blog about climate science while being in another branch of science, why can't dan do the same as a mechanical engineer? I can go on google scholar and see all the articles in climate science publications. AGW is a flawed theory. Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming. Why would I post that stuff here? No pro AGW article I have ever seen even attempts to address any of the issues Dan brings up.

RAZD writes:

Also I tried to look him up on wikipedia but there was no article about him or that mentioned him. Doesn't sound like a credible source to me, sorry.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. A person or organisation can be right about 90% of the time and still be wrong on some things because what they are wrong about is foundational to the rest of their conclusions. Climate change is one of those things. The argument can be totally sound but still be false because the foundation has serious flaws in it.

Another point is that climate change is a controversial topic and so sources for both sides of an issue can be equally credible.

RAZD writes:

In other words greenhouse gases account for warming the atmosphere and that energy is transferred to other molecules in the air, warming them in the process. It would be shocking if only some gases heated up.

Thanks that's all I need.

That's all you need for what? You think he made your point for you? All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground. How does that make your case for co2 being the cause of a warmer atmosphere than would be without it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 12:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 9:23 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 396 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2017 3:11 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


Message 389 of 398 (800135)
02-20-2017 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 11:18 PM


The sweet sound of silence
I will take your lack of addressing the actual issues of the article as evidence that you have no argument to refute the article.

Thanks for playing.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:18 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 9:20 AM Theodoric has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 390 of 398 (800136)
02-20-2017 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Theodoric
02-20-2017 9:11 AM


Re: The sweet sound of silence
What issues? Does it deal with any of the issues my article brought up? No? Who cares then?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2017 9:11 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2017 9:29 AM foreveryoung has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017