Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
58 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,347 Year: 1,993/14,102 Month: 361/624 Week: 82/163 Day: 2/40 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 824 (766569)
08-19-2015 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
08-19-2015 9:38 AM


Re: Change
Al Gore predicted the polar caps would be gone by now.

No he didn't.

But I have a question that you might can clear up for me.

You're welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 9:38 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 10:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 10:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 824 (766574)
08-19-2015 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by ICANT
08-19-2015 10:14 AM


Re: Change
You did not answer my question. I did not ask what the conditions were in 2008.

I asked how NoNukes would explain the fact that in May of 2015 the polar ice was 5% larger than it was in 1979.

What does an article from 2008 have to do with the Polar ice in May of 2015?

The article is dated May 27th 2015. I really cannot bring myself to commend your research skills. Now how about you read it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 10:14 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 4:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 153 of 824 (766578)
08-19-2015 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by ICANT
08-19-2015 10:19 AM


Re: Change
Are you sure he did not make that prediction in his acceptance speech of his nobel prize in 2007?

Absolutely sure, because I have read it.

Again, I don't think much of your research skills.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 10:19 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 159 of 824 (766617)
08-19-2015 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by ICANT
08-19-2015 4:23 PM


Re: Change
There was 170,000 sq miles more polar ice this year than there was in 1979.

And since we have two data points about the area of sea ice, and if we refuse to look at all the others, then all our thermometers must be lying to us or something, I dunno, it's your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 4:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 5:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 168 of 824 (766650)
08-19-2015 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by ICANT
08-19-2015 5:02 PM


Re: Change
My argument is that there is 170,000 sq miles more polar ice in 2015 than there was in 1979 when it was first recorded.

So, do you agree that global warming is happening?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 5:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 173 of 824 (766667)
08-20-2015 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by foreveryoung
08-19-2015 11:39 PM


Ward is saying that waves only exist in matter and the matter must have bonds between them as we see in solids and liquids. There are no such bonds between molecules of gas and exist only fleetingly as gas molecules pass each other at great speeds. Therefore, according to Ward, it is erroneous to make calculations of energy assuming radiation exists as waves. Ward says radiation exists purely as frequency in free space and within gases and the only correct way to calculate its energy is through Plank's equation. This makes UV radiation much more energetic than infrared. As you pointed out however, for UV to take prominence over infrared in causing global warming, it must be shown that its flux ( quantity per square meter ) is at least close to that of infrared. I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ?

It sounds as though Ward has invented his own physics, ad hoc.

I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ?

But as NoNukes points out, the greenhouse effect is not about the IR that arrives but the IR that leaves. From WP: "The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed or reflected. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 26% is reflected back out to space by the atmosphere and clouds and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds. Most of the remaining energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by foreveryoung, posted 08-19-2015 11:39 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2015 1:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 824 (766672)
08-20-2015 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
08-20-2015 1:22 AM


Perhaps the accepted physics is erroneous?

Don't hold your breath.

Do you believe that radiation exists as waves in space? Do you believe waves don't need a medium to travel in?

Light does seem to travel in a vacuum, yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2015 1:22 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2015 2:07 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 824 (766677)
08-20-2015 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by foreveryoung
08-20-2015 2:07 AM


So you believe light exists between source and where it illuminates an object? Where is your evidence??

Light waves can interfere with each other between the source and the thing they're illuminating, which could hardly happen if they didn't exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2015 2:07 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 231 of 824 (769959)
09-27-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Coyote
09-26-2015 11:45 PM


Re: a need for morality and empathy
If that is your belief, your taxes should be 100%, if not more. That would be really great, right?

If you think food is good, you should spend 100% of your time eating, if not more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Coyote, posted 09-26-2015 11:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 233 of 824 (769962)
09-27-2015 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by petrophysics1
09-26-2015 5:14 PM


Re: A Geology Education
Foreveryoung,
Nothing like having the perspective of the last 600 million years in relation to climate as opposed to looking at the last 150 years with blinders on.

So using the Vostek ice core data no one here can show/prove a relationship between CO2 and the Earth's temperature.

The Earth's main greenhouse gas is water vapor responsible for 97% of the greenhouse gas effect (the EPA says 95%). But there is no easy way to tax water vapor.

That is not the case with CO2, as there are many ways this can be taxed. As Michael Faraday replied to a MP who asked what good is this knowledge, Mike responded "You may be able to figure out a way to tax it" or something along those lines.

This CO2, AGW thing is just a way to tax people..............so loved by the big government types.

Also I heard that paleontologists fake all the dinosaur bones to turn people away from Jesus.

But I didn't believe it, 'cos I'm not a paranoid loony.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by petrophysics1, posted 09-26-2015 5:14 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 238 of 824 (770592)
10-08-2015 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by foreveryoung
10-07-2015 4:13 AM


He explains why the Arhennius theory of the greenhouse effect is a fiction in that it confuses the cause with the effect where the actual cause is the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect and the actual effect is the IR absorption and emission of IR active greenhouse gases. The gravito-thermal greenhouse effect is described in detail in the peer-reviewed paper (the 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al). This paper gives the real reason for the 33C difference between an earth with no atmosphere and an earth with its present atmosphere as opposed to the one espoused as "common knowledge".

Look, foreveryoung, you've got to get yourself some more spidey-sense. Greatly to your credit, you have rejected some of the silly ideas you used to have. But you still don't know how to spot a silly idea a mile away.

I've been looking at this guy's stuff and he's a grade-A loony. I'll explain why at length and in detail if you like, but you might want to look it over again yourself and see if you can spot the signs.

One question to start you off. You mention a "peer-reviewed paper". Where is it?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by foreveryoung, posted 10-07-2015 4:13 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 242 of 824 (771301)
10-23-2015 10:49 PM


Snowball In Hell

In a remarkable turnabout, 59 percent of Republicans now say climate change is happening, up from 47 percent just six months ago ...

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 243 of 824 (775331)
12-31-2015 9:57 AM


Funny Weather We're Having
Article here.

2015 is the warmest year ever recorded. Thirteen of the top 14 warmest years on the books have happened this century. And here in the United States, it has been a hot, strange month. Many cities across the northeast smashed their Christmas and Christmas Eve temperature records not at midday, but at the stroke of midnight. For the hundred-plus years that New York temperatures have been recorded, the city has never been warmer than 63 degrees Fahrenheit on a December 24. Yet at 1 a.m. on Christmas Eve of this year, the thermometer measured 67 degrees.

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Omnivorous, posted 12-31-2015 5:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2016 10:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 258 of 824 (788805)
08-04-2016 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by foreveryoung
08-04-2016 9:47 PM


I take this to mean that man made additions of carbon dioxide warm the planet. Where is your proof?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by foreveryoung, posted 08-04-2016 9:47 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by foreveryoung, posted 08-04-2016 10:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 260 of 824 (788807)
08-05-2016 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by foreveryoung
08-04-2016 10:46 PM


And how does this constitute proof? Show your work.

That's a measurement, not a calculation. This is, measurably, how carbon dioxide behaves. Therefore, it scatter infrared and so is a greenhouse gas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by foreveryoung, posted 08-04-2016 10:46 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by foreveryoung, posted 08-05-2016 1:38 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021