Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 286 of 942 (788931)
08-07-2016 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Dr Adequate
08-07-2016 11:40 PM


Baseless declarations. Prove that radiation leaves co2 almost immediately after absorbtion before the molecule makes contact with another molecule. Stop the stupid appeal to authority and show your work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2016 11:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-08-2016 2:39 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 290 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2016 4:53 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 287 of 942 (788932)
08-08-2016 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by foreveryoung
08-07-2016 11:40 PM


itrogen and oxygen do not release heat as quickly as greenhouse gases do. That would significantly slow down the release of heat to space.
But they dont capture it as easely as co2 does either.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:40 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 288 of 942 (788933)
08-08-2016 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by foreveryoung
08-07-2016 11:43 PM


Baseless declarations. Prove that radiation leaves co2 almost immediately after absorbtion before the molecule makes contact with another molecule.
Well, the molecule can indeed also pass on its energy by collision with another molecule. And again there is no tendency for this energy to be passed on upwards through the atmosphere in the direction that the absorbed IR was going.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:43 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 289 of 942 (788935)
08-08-2016 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by foreveryoung
08-07-2016 10:56 PM


What I posted was the holes and why the logic doesn't hold up
You refuted them by providing a model that explained how global warming could work. So your post does not refute AGW at all.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 10:56 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by xongsmith, posted 08-08-2016 3:44 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 295 by foreveryoung, posted 08-15-2016 11:50 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 942 (788936)
08-08-2016 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by foreveryoung
08-07-2016 11:43 PM


Prove that radiation leaves co2 almost immediately after absorbtion before the molecule makes contact with another molecule. Stop the stupid appeal to authority and show your work.
Again, there is no need to do that. Having absorbed CO2, then several things can happen. CO2 moves to upper atmosphere and releases heat, CO2 transfers energy to other molecules. CO2 releases heat in lower atmosphere.
Even when all three things happen, the amount of heat re-radiated into space is reduced by the absorption by CO2. Again, your rebuttal does not make any sense.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:43 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by foreveryoung, posted 08-15-2016 11:56 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 291 of 942 (788937)
08-08-2016 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by foreveryoung
08-07-2016 11:21 PM


If conduction only plays a small role and radiation is dominate, then the only molecules slowing the release of heat are greenhouse gases. If conduction dominates and all molecules play a role in the slowdown of heat release( including all molecules in the oceans), then a conduction dominated world would be vastly warmer than a radiation dominated world. That was your point.
I did not make any such point. For the purpose of this discussion, only convection and radiation are worth considering. The conductive effect is stable.
What possible effect would the increase from 400 ppm co2 to 800 ppm co2 be in such a world where co2 makes up less than .00000000001 percent of all molecules involved in the heat transfer train?
Your mathematics is wrong. 1) The heat transfer train for radiation is unaffected by gases that are essentially transparent to C02. Only the molecules which absorb the IR frequencies play any role in limiting radiation heat transfer process.
Your question is like asking why we care about a few ppb of lead dissolved in water. (Well it would be if you learned how to calculate percentages properly. Hint 1000ppm is about 0.1 percent. not that tiny BS number you cited.)
What you're failing to see is that the 255 K temperature of our earth is the result of conduction dominated heat transfer. Radiative transfer only plays a small role.
Your reasoning is incomplete.
Variations in the radiative transfer can possibly play a large role even if they contribute only a fraction of the overall atmospheric effect. After all, only a few degrees of average temperature change are required to cause problems here on earth.
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
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:21 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 292 of 942 (788938)
08-08-2016 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by foreveryoung
08-07-2016 11:40 PM


Greenhouse gases moderate wild temperature fluctuations.
Nonsense. You are making this up. Making the earth warmer tends to release more CO2 which would decreases the radiative effect and the conductive effect. There is no moderating effect.
Nitrogen and oxygen do not release heat as quickly as greenhouse gases do. That would significantly slow down the release of heat to space.
Not helpful. If CO2 re-emits the heat, it won't all go up to space. Accordingly, the absorption slows down the transfer to space. As far as conduction is concerned adding gasses, even greenhouse gases to the atmosphere decreases heat conduction to space.
Yes, a greenhouse gas free world would have nothing to slow down radiation leaving earths surface
Nope. Just saying that conduction dominates is not good enough. Cite the relative size of the effects. Even if conduction is 20 times the radiative heat transfer effect, variations in that 5 percent are meaningful.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:40 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 293 of 942 (788960)
08-08-2016 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by NoNukes
08-08-2016 4:50 AM


NoNukes notes that:
You refuted them by providing a model that explained how global warming could work. So your post does not refute AGW at all.
Indeed.
It is as if foreveryoung posits that bullets don't kill people and then provides evidence that they rip through the skin & proceed through the body's interior, seriously ripping everything apart on their way and then argues that they really don't cause harm.
*facepalm*

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2016 4:50 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 294 of 942 (788976)
08-08-2016 5:21 PM


The scary thing is that foreverclueless thinks he has made fantastic points and had amazing responses to the information that destroyed his world class arguments.
Now it is about time for petrophysics dude to post something inane and totally nonscientific.

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.

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 295 of 942 (789507)
08-15-2016 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by NoNukes
08-08-2016 4:50 AM


You refuted them by providing a model that explained how global warming could work. So your post does not refute AGW at all.
I'm not refuting global warming theory . I'm asking for someone to prove it is the reason temperatures are rising . So far, everyone has failed miserably. I did not provide any model. I poked holes in current global warming theory. If I incorrectly stated how it works, then show where. If that's the global warming hill you want to stand on and defend, then show how it supposedly works and I will poke holes in it. If you feel I haven't poked any holes , it's up to you to show no holes exist . Just declarations given as if they are facts won't cut it.
You refuted them by providing a model that explained how global warming could work. So your post does not refute AGW at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2016 4:50 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2016 12:21 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 296 of 942 (789508)
08-15-2016 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by NoNukes
08-08-2016 4:53 AM


Again, there is no need to do that. Having absorbed CO2, then several things can happen. CO2 moves to upper atmosphere and releases heat, CO2 transfers energy to other molecules. CO2 releases heat in lower atmosphere.
Even when all three things happen, the amount of heat re-radiated into space is reduced by the absorption by CO2. Again, your rebuttal does not make any sense.
You state as if it were indisputable fact that
"Even when all three things happen, the amount of heat re-radiated into space is reduced by the absorption by CO2".
Prove it. Make your case. Such and such are true and therefore this is true because blah blah blah. I will then break down the blah blah blah to see if it adds up.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2016 4:53 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2016 12:19 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 297 of 942 (789509)
08-16-2016 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by foreveryoung
08-15-2016 11:56 PM


You state as if it were indisputable fact that
"Even when all three things happen, the amount of heat re-radiated into space is reduced by the absorption by CO2".
It is not disputable. I notice that you don't make a single attempt to point out a hole in the argument.
CO2 is heavier than air and absorbs radiation. Surely absorbing and re-radiating heat, through multiple directions and more than one method in the lower part of the atmosphere is less efficient than transmission directly from earth to space.
But if you doubt that, at least speculate on a reason why not. Carry your end of the conversation.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by foreveryoung, posted 08-15-2016 11:56 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 298 of 942 (789510)
08-16-2016 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by foreveryoung
08-15-2016 11:50 PM


I poked holes in current global warming theory.
No, you didn't poke any such hole. You postulated something that would make what was described even more effective at retaining heat in the lower atmosphere. That is not a way to dispute anything.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by foreveryoung, posted 08-15-2016 11:50 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2016 7:01 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 299 of 942 (794653)
11-18-2016 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by NoNukes
08-16-2016 12:21 AM


You only think I strengthened your theory. That's because you did not understand what I said.
There is no need to imagine radiative forcing due to carbon dioxide when you have had almost 50 years of roughly 3% extra ultraviolet B radiation warming the ocean. The ultraviolet B radiation is roughly 1.5% of total irradiance from the sun.
The extra forcing due to so called back radiation from excess C dioxide is said to be 4 watts per square meter per sec. Compare that to 3% of 1.5% of total solar irradiance as an extra source of heat.
AGW falls on its face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2016 12:21 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2016 12:09 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 301 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2016 2:19 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 302 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2016 5:31 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2016 9:42 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 309 by Taq, posted 11-21-2016 5:28 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 300 of 942 (794659)
11-19-2016 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by foreveryoung
11-18-2016 7:01 PM


Is carbon dioxide really warming the planet?
Yes.
How much energy is absorbed by the earth from incident ultraviolet radiation that reached the earth because of ozone depletion of the last 50 years over the course of a day?
Let's say 'a lot'.
The extra forcing due to so called back radiation from excess C dioxide is said to be 4 watts per square meter per sec. Compare that to 3% of 1.5% of total solar irradiance as an extra source of heat.
AGW falls on its face.
Wait, how did the ozone get depleted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2016 7:01 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by foreveryoung, posted 11-19-2016 10:18 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024