|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Global warming - fact or conspiracy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2535 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I call bull on your article.
Although neither nitrogen or oxygen has an influence on the greenhouse effect, for some reason CO2 is assumed by environmentalists to influence the greenhouse effect so as to cause global warming. We are all waiting for an explanation of how CO2 differs from nitrogen and oxygen in its influence on the greenhouse effect. Until such explanation is forthcoming, it seems reasonable to suspect that the theorists are failing to differentiate between wholesome CO2 and poisonous CO1 (carbon monoxide) and other toxic gases that accompany CO2 in industrial pollution. Why are the global warming theorists singling out a wholesome gas that is necessary for life on earth as the culprit of the impending disasters they are predicting?
That last part is interesting. It's asking why we say a neccessary gas is bad for us. Well, you know what, oxygen can be bad for you too. Nitrogen also. Ever heard of "everything in moderation"? ANywho, specific heat capacities of these molecules. CO2 at 225 K = .763kJ/kgKH2O at STP = 2.020J·g-1·K-1 N2 at 225 K = 1.039kJ/kgK Problem is, is nitrogen levels and oxygen and water vapor levels are relatively stable. CO2 holds heat, and that's what's exceeding the natural cycle. anywho, I'm pretty certain that water has a higher specific heat (as I remember from my chemistry classes) All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I can accept that the greenhouse gases like co2, methane appear to be the culprit because they are the only gases increasing in the atmosphere.
If the sun is heating up then I'll agree its heating up these gases a bit too (dry heat) with water vapor the biggest culprit. I believe water vapor is the biggest culprit because with the suns decades of increased solar intensities more water vapor is being released to the atmosphere as the oceans warm (elnino). The increases in water vapor to the atmosphere canopy (to me) trumps the increases in Co2, methane, and industrial pollution). I however can not discount (dry heat from greenhouse gases)(and humidity) that is captured by the water canopy and some this radiated heat reflects back to the earth. The deserts get quite hot yet the desert gets quite cold in the evening. Without the water vapor canopy (humidity)(clouds) all your greenhouse gases (dry heat)do is move their captured heat to the upper atmosphere. * This article reference below says that methane hydrates are stable at 39 degrees under pressure. For one thing, methane hydrates -- which are ice-like cages made of water molecules surrounding individual methane molecules -- are only stable at the very low temperatures and high pressures present at the ocean floor. They look like ice, but they are not. They are stable at 4 degrees Celsius,” http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=05-17
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
JF writes: You'd think that rising ocean levels are a good thing because..... You do know what will happen to the incidence of malaria in the US (for a start) if sea levels rise? What will happen to Holland (as an example)? If the sea level rises people lose their homes. What were uou thinking when you wrote the above?
JF writes: A good reason for the earth to melt the polar caps to keep these massive methane hydrates contained, better to flood the coastlines than burn the planet bigtime The above sir, is an idotic statement. Is there any less approriate subject for flippery?
JF writes: In a desert with no clouds the nights are cold and the days hot. I suspect all gases without water vapor does nothing to promote global warming. ?????? Again an idiotic statement. CH4 acts as greenhouse gas on its own, as does CO2 independently of the prescence of H2O.
JF writes: Is the water canopy causing global warming because of the solar cycles presently heating up the waters of the earth. Except we are in a cold snap. Please re read and edit your text. I seem to be unable to make sense of some of it. e.g. Is oxygen nitrogen a greater contributor than Co2 to global warming
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2535 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Sure, for now the heat is getting caught in the atmosphere, but that heat is getting back to the surface.
As to the hydrates being stable at that temperature and pressure--increase the temperature of the water, then see what happens. Ever realize that the dessert has very little humidity? The air over the desert in dry, in terms of water, the best heat trap we have. Also, sand isn't that great at holding on to heat, so as soon as the sun is gone, and without that water, the desert gets cold--very cold. The only thing with that water vapor--we're seeing a greater increase in heat than if everything was following the cycle it has for the last millions of years. This takes into account increasd/decreased solar energy and levels of greenhouse gases. If you look at the charts for how much CO2 is in the air--it rises steadily at the start of the industrial revolution, and there's more than if it was from just natural causes. Day to day, nature puts out more than us, but we tip the scale in favor of adding to the global warming effect. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
rgb writes: The ice on greenland is more of a local ecological concern because it's not much to be concerned about globally. It seems a bit more dire than that--from today's L.A. Times...
Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Slip-Sliding AwayThe massive glaciers are deteriorating twice as fast as they were five years ago. If the ice thaws entirely, sea level would rise 21 feet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5948 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
I am wondering where you get your ideas about science.
It's called "history".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I am wondering where you get your ideas about science.
It's called "history".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2914 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
We are all waiting for an explanation of how CO2 differs from nitrogen and oxygen in its influence on the greenhouse effect. Well, no WE are not all waiting. You might be. The greenhouse effects of various gases has been well worked out. It is basic physical chemistry. From Wikopedia: Greenhouse effect - WikipediaThe wavelengths of light that a gas absorbs can be modelled with quantum mechanics based on molecular properties of the different gas molecules. It so happens that heteronuclear diatomic molecules and tri- (and more) atomic gases absorb at infrared wavelengths but homonuclear diatomic molecules do not absorb infrared light. This is why H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases but the major atmospheric constituents (N2 and O2) are not. The increases in water vapor to the atmosphere canopy (to me) trumps the increases in Co2, methane, and industrial pollution This and what followed is speculation and faulty reasoning on your part. How could water vapor "trump" CO2 when it is itself a greenhouse gas? I think it is clear by now that you are no atmospheric scientist so what you think is irrelevant and since the first quote I included here demonstrates that you have not even done the rudimentary research into the processes involved it is all so much hot air. You have done some selective quote mining but in many cases, as I have demonstrated, the gist of the articles you have quoted was completely missed by you. Your comments about carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are also patently ridiculous. Give it up. You are in over your head here until you go back and do some basic research. And read for understanding this time instead of looking for quotes that seem to support your preconceived idea of how the greenhouse effect works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5176 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
TC writes: Of course there is bias on both sides. There wouldn't be "both" sides if there weren't bias on both sides. This is simply not true. As Crash points out, there is no economic incentive for the investigative scientists to skew their findings one way or the other - and HUGE incentive for the pro-business side. Can't you wrap your brain around the possiblity that one side is actually doing research and presenting evidence, while another side is just grasping at straws trying to explain it away? It is the conservative deniers of climate change who are completely analogous to creationsists, because they are seeking to cherry-pick the evidence thy want to support their case - without doing any research of their own.
TC writes: Another motive (both sides of GW debate)is personal ego-driven scientific recognition. So you don’t trust the conclusions of scientists because they are all ”ego-driven’ and this casues them to lie and distort their findings?? As far as profit from books and movies, it doesn’t work that way in science. You have to PAY to publish your work in a good journal. You are f***ing clueless.
TC writes: There seems to be plenty of grant money going to GW folks. I guess this is not your definition of "profit". No it isn’t - not by a long shot - and your inference that it can be equated as such reveals your ignorance of how science works in this country. Trying to equate availability of grant funding to the profit motive in business enterprise is pure childishness. Even when funding opportunities are available, its highly competitive to access those funds, and even when you are successful, you are acquiring funds to HIRE PEOPLE and PAY EXPENSES for research - not to put in your own pocket. I should know, grant writing is part and parcel of my work, and its not easy. And I’ll tell you something else. If pure financial profit were a motive for becoming a scientist, WE WOULDN’T HAVE ANY, because scientists are all PAID SHIT compared to all the pork-bellied MBA’s running commerical enterprises.
TC writes: . you need to have a convincing case that humans are the cause. There is plenty of evidence that humans are the cause - conservatives just don’t want to face the facts so they don’t have to change anything they’re doing. There is so much evidence, it’s a simple matter of connecting the dots.
TC writes: Rather than belly-ache, have all the biased scientists from both sides hash it out. Bellyaching !? Apparently you don’t grasp the gravity of the situation. And here you go with your ”biased scientists from both sides’ bullshit again. There ARE no reputable scientists on the other side - they are all just pathetic shills for big business who could never get a real research position and opted to whore themselves out to private enterprise.
TC writes: 'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage Not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservatives - John Stewart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5948 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
nwr writes:
Scientists of their argued against: Then you are misreading history.-Evolution -Continental Drift -Cold Fusion (in this case, the others were right) and so on for just about every controversial hypothesis. The question is whether GW-caused-by-humans is significant or insignificant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Let's first review what you were responding to. That takes us back to my Message 63, where we see this exchange:
quote: There were a couple of additional exchanges between us. But it seems to have boiled down to your Message 85 being a response to the above. So let's look at your response:
Scientists of their argued against: -Evolution -Continental Drift -Cold Fusion (in this case, the others were right) and so on for just about every controversial hypothesis. None of these is an example of bias. They are all examples of the conservatism of the scientific community. This conservatism, in the traditional non-political sense, leads to a resistance to theory change. Stick with the existing established theory, until the evidence is so overwhelming that change is forced. Maybe you consider that bias. I don't.
The question is whether GW-caused-by-humans is significant or insignificant.
The question of the potential damage caused by the carbon dioxide we are dumping in the atmosphere was already being discussed in the 1960s, perhaps earlier. We see the same conservatism here. The scientific community, as a whole, was reluctant to jump onto this bandwagon, and delayed it 40 years. But by now, the evidence is so overwhelming, that they cannot deny it any longer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5176 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
There is NO controversy about whether global warming is caused by human activity. That contention is just as contrived as the so-called 'controversy' about evolutionary theory.
Here is an article expounding a journalist's viewpoint on the matter that all you doubters should read: A Perfect Storm Descends on the Nation's Capital - ABC News And another one that reveals the skeptics as the industry shills they truly are. Edited by EZscience, : Additional link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2914 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
There is NO controversy about whether global warming is caused by human activity. That contention is just as contrived as the so-called 'controversy' about evolutionary theory I think that is a bit strong. I agree that the scientific consensus is beginning to solidify around an anthropomorphic contribution to global warming. However the contrived nature of the evolutionary thoery "controversy" is so great that the global warming "controversy" pales in comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5176 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
I think it is just as contrived.
These so-called 'skeptics' like Richard Lindzen are trying to generate a public perception of scientific controversy where none exists so they can buy time for the oil interests (who pay them handsomely for their 'opinions') to keep on with 'business as usual' for as long as they possibly can. Just read the second link I posted. Or this one which has a lot of references and other links:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2914 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
I think it is just as contrived. These so-called 'skeptics' like Richard Lindzen are trying to generate a public perception of scientific controversy where none exists so they can buy time for the oil interests (who pay them handsomely for their 'opinions') to keep on with 'business as usual' for as long as they possibly can. May be, but so far at least I don't see anything approaching the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute financed by the energy companies. I think they are fight a rear guard battle. Even Bush admits that Global Warming is a fact, though he still wants to waffle on the causes. I actually think a bigger danger is that the energy companies will "flip" and jump on the alternative energy bandwagon in order to retain corporate control over the process.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024