|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
That means you have concluded that the scientist along with anyone else who do not believe in it is idiots. In other words as far as you are concerned there is only one possible conclusion. We have known since the 1800's that increasing CO2 will trap more heat. Arrhenius did the math back in 1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf It is an inescapable fact that the more CO2 you put in the atmosphere the more heat it will trap. If someone wants to deny more than 120 of solid science, that is up to them. However, you can't blame us for not respecting their choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It has been defined as such by the powers that be who depend on GW grants for their livelihood.
quote:Is CO2 a pollutant? This statement does not say that greenhouse gases will endanger public health and welfare. Just that they may."John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Wow. You really think that the growth rate of the Sun can't change in the next few billion years.
Well thought out, that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT, you are simply doing a poor job of reading. My statement says that right or wrong, scientist who believe accept AGW are not idiots.
It is completely silent about the characterization of anyone else. In fact the statement leaves open the possibility that AGW is not real. Besides that, the context was pretty clear. Scientist who believe in AGW do not do so because they have missed something ICANT and foreveryoung can easily find. ABE:
ICANT writes: If you had made that statement in the beginning my above rant would not have taken place. Because in it you leave room however so small for other conclusions. I just re-read my original message and I see that i did provide exactly the context your untruthful posts claims i omitted. If you want to make something more out of something i did not say after two explicit clarifications, my next response will be personal. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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 If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The sun's expansion over the last 50 years is negligible. It is not an explanation for the earth warming.
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 If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
It does not matter why the earth is getting hotter. If you believe earth is warming then you know that your ice sheet argument is bogus and cannot mean that the earth is not warming
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 If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Taq writes: Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? ICANT writes: It has been defined as such by the powers that be who depend on GW grants for their livelihood. And exactly how does your response answer Taq? You are saying that it is only a matter of biased definition and therefor it isn't actually? Do you know what a "greenhouse" gas would be? Please give your definition of one. And how does it not endangering public health or welfare make it any less of a greenhouse gas? You might try to focus a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
It has been defined as such by the powers that be who depend on GW grants for their livelihood. Bullshit. It was defined by scientists in the 1800's, for crying out loud. Fourier was the first to describe how greenhouse gases trap heat, and this was in 1824. Let me repeat that. 1824. That is when we discovered the greenhouse effect. There were no GW grants back then. Want to try that again? The physics behind the greenhouse effect are solid, and have been around for nearly 200 years. You can't simply close your eyes and wish it away. "The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896."Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 610 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
NoNukes. Can you give me a thermodynamic definition of the greenhouse effect? I'm asking you because you are the main one who has replied to me on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
Why would you have to ask this? If you don't know then you don't know enough to discuss climate science and I think you have been.
Thermodynamics says that if more heat flows into a system than flows out the temperature will rise. Easy and obvious, no? Carbon dioxide is more transparent to visible light frequencies than it is to infrared frequencies. Simple enough. So if energy flows in as visible light and is converted to IR more energy will be coming in than leaving. Visible light striking things is converted to IR. So what do you have to conclude?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 610 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I didn't ask you the question. Nevertheless, there is no coherent thermodynamic definition of the greenhouse effect. Manmade global warming is built on a shaky foundation. I am waiting for nonukes to answer this and I will see if his definition is anymore solid than the one floated around by the main purveyors of this joke they now call climate change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And you continue to show willful ignorance about the issue.
It does not matter whether global warming is man made or not, the fact (and it is a fact) is that we only have the technology and capability to partially address those components that are man made. Only the idiots and Carny Snake Oil Salesman talk about "Man Made Global Warming" because if anyone were honest, the causes would be irrelevant. What is important are two things, reducing those contributions where we can have influence (man made contributions) and preparing the tools, techniques, infrastructure, education and legal foundation to address and mitigate the most harmful effects.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 610 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I wasn't talking to you either. Willful ignorance?????!! Oh, the irony. Its amazing what people will delude themselves into believing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
foreveryoung writes:
Maybe you should define what you mean by a "coherent thermodynamic definition".
Nevertheless, there is no coherent thermodynamic definition of the greenhouse effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
And what is wrong with what I gave you as a definition? As well, which of the above facts to you disagree with?
The foundation is:1. CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas -- that is, it tends to trap heat in the form of IR radiation. 2. We humans have been releasing large amounts of CO2. Those are simple, clear facts. Do you disagree? And slightly, but only slightly, less simply the amounts of CO2 that we have been freeing are large enough to affect the heat balance of the earth in the direction of warming. This too is a fact. So there is man made global warming. How much precisely you can now argue about with good math. Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024