Global warming is NOT a science

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2586
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by attofishpi » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:13 am

Serendipper wrote:But you have to understand that there are many other large variables at play, such as our position within the galactic arms which determines cosmic ray bombardment, the earths waning magnetic field strength of late, and ozone depletion which blocks UV rays that are 40x more energetic than IR for which co2 is responsible.

CO2 is the most insignificant of the lot, both because it's in such minute concentration and because it affects only low-energy IR light.

You think something is insignificant because it is of a minute concentration? The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3.
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:10 pm
attofishpi wrote:According to an EPA scientific study published after 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane had increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.
That sounds really scary, but co2 concentration is 0.04%.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[2] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

So if it has increased by 100%, then it used to be 0.02%. Whoop-de-doo!

Double it again to 0.08% and it's still nothing.
It is lunacy to think that just because something is so little in parts per million in the atmosphere that it plays an insignificant role!
As stated above it is widely accepted by scientists that levels of CO2 and methane are the main cause of the greenhouse effect, so even though there presence in the atmosphere is very small, any change in the parts per million is going the affect the climate.
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:10 pm
attofishpi wrote:Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.
Yup, and it's still insignificant.
Nup, extremely significant.

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
attofishpi wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am

How do you know anyone has made a case if you cannot personally verify it? You're being gullible.
Trusting in unbiased widely verfied scientific studies renderes me gullible does it?
How do you know the studies are verified if you haven't verified it? Yes, you're gullible.
Again, you expect me to do experiments of my own!!
How have you personally verified that CO2 and methane levels are not significant factors when it comes to the greenhouse effect?

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Serendipper » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:09 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:13 am
Serendipper wrote:But you have to understand that there are many other large variables at play, such as our position within the galactic arms which determines cosmic ray bombardment, the earths waning magnetic field strength of late, and ozone depletion which blocks UV rays that are 40x more energetic than IR for which co2 is responsible.

CO2 is the most insignificant of the lot, both because it's in such minute concentration and because it affects only low-energy IR light.

You think something is insignificant because it is of a minute concentration?
Not only because it's of a minute concentration, but also because the EM radiation it absorbs is 10x cooler than visible light.

In contrast, O2 is 500 times more abundant and absorbs EM radiation that is 48 times hotter than IR.

See for yourself https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/prima ... th-GG.html
The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3.
Methane and nitrous oxide have less effect than co2. Go look https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/prima ... th-GG.html

Mars has an atmosphere that is 96% co2 while the moon has no atmosphere at all. Which do you think is hotter?

Mean Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 59 519 15 288
Moon -9 451 -23 250
Mars -76 384 -60 213

Minimum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth -128 332 -89 184
Moon -233 227 -147 126
Mars -170 290 -112 161

Maximum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 136 596 58 331
Moon 212 672 100 373
Mars 17 477 -8 265

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surface ... ature.html

Mars is not even warmer than the moon :lol:

The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is 14X larger than earth, yet Earth is much warmer. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... s-is-cold/

So, the planet with the most co2 is the coldest of the 3 :lol:

CO2 warming theory is the. dumbest. eva!
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:10 pm
attofishpi wrote:According to an EPA scientific study published after 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane had increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.
That sounds really scary, but co2 concentration is 0.04%.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[2] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

So if it has increased by 100%, then it used to be 0.02%. Whoop-de-doo!

Double it again to 0.08% and it's still nothing.
It is lunacy to think that just because something is so little in parts per million in the atmosphere that it plays an insignificant role!
It is lunacy for you to make that ridiculous statement.

Nah, let's not look at water vapor, o2, the sun, cosmic rays, magnetic field,,, nope, let's look at the weakest, most minute, dumbest thing we can find and proclaim that is the culprit :lol:
As stated above it is widely accepted by scientists that levels of CO2 and methane are the main cause of the greenhouse effect
That's because they do not get research money if they do not tow the line.

If you were a researcher, would you rather have lots of money or a big fight on your hands that you cannot win? That's why so many "scientists" are on board.

Same thing in other areas of research: cancer, aids, sat fat demonization, etc. You only get funding if you already agree with the narrative they're pushing.
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:10 pm
attofishpi wrote:Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.
Yup, and it's still insignificant.
Yup, extremely insignificant.
FIFY
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
attofishpi wrote:
Trusting in unbiased widely verfied scientific studies renderes me gullible does it?
How do you know the studies are verified if you haven't verified it? Yes, you're gullible.
Again, you expect me to do experiments of my own!!
Reading is not an experiment. Well, maybe for you it is, but it shouldn't be. You should try it sometime.
How have you personally verified that CO2 and methane levels are not significant factors when it comes to the greenhouse effect?
Oh yes. I signed up on a physics board and hounded the piss outta them until I understood exactly how high-frequency light passed through co2 and how IR was absorbed, re-emitted, and exactly what that means. I poured over every wikipedia article and quora question on the matter. I scoured the internet reading both sides of the issue. I watched every youtube video out there on the topic. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to at least have an opinion.

And I know enough to not equate reading and studying with experimentation :lol:

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2586
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by attofishpi » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:34 am

Serendipper wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:09 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:13 am
The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3.
Methane and nitrous oxide have less effect than co2. Go look https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/prima ... th-GG.html
As stated above..duh.
Serendipper wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:09 pm
Mars has an atmosphere that is 96% co2 while the moon has no atmosphere at all. Which do you think is hotter?

Mean Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 59 519 15 288
Moon -9 451 -23 250
Mars -76 384 -60 213

Minimum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth -128 332 -89 184
Moon -233 227 -147 126
Mars -170 290 -112 161

Maximum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 136 596 58 331
Moon 212 672 100 373
Mars 17 477 -8 265

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surface ... ature.html

Mars is not even warmer than the moon :lol:

The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is 14X larger than earth, yet Earth is much warmer. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... s-is-cold/

So, the planet with the most co2 is the coldest of the 3 :lol:

CO2 warming theory is the. dumbest. eva!
Sure it is to dumb people that think comparing Mars and the Moon to Earth is intelligent!!

Why don't you just lol and giggle your stupid self to sleep without a care that the majority of experts on climate change agree that human activity IS the cause of climate change. (graph below)

Here...i'll be dumb too...have some Venus:-
Composition by volume 96.5% carbon dioxide
Surface temp. mean Celsius 462 °C

Your comparison to Mars and the Moon and mine with Venus is bollocks because you can't compare these celestial bodies to Earth where water vapour is not equal in quantity to that on Earth (and obviously Solar distance).
CO2 with water vapour IS the condition that causes the greenhouse effect.

I'll stick to the true experts opinion thank you - not some quack that thinks comparing Mars and the Moon to Earth and wants to feel comfortable with the status quo is ok.
Here is a graph detailing the scientists that have expertise on the subject and on what they agree on. I'll stick with the experts rather than a waste my time on attempting to convince someone that is obviously happy to make the Earth suck it all day and night:-
Attachments
ClimateChange-scientific opinion on human contribution.jpg
ClimateChange-scientific opinion on human contribution.jpg (37.59 KiB) Viewed 253 times

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Serendipper » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:00 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:34 am
Serendipper wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:09 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:13 am
The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3.
Methane and nitrous oxide have less effect than co2. Go look https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/prima ... th-GG.html
As stated above..duh.
If it is insignificant, then why did you state it?
Sure it is to dumb people that think comparing Mars and the Moon to Earth is intelligent!!
So I point out that of the 3, the body with the most co2 is the coldest and your best retort is it's stupid to make the comparison? :lol:
Why don't you just lol and giggle your stupid self to sleep
I might if you continue making me laugh with your nonsensical gullibility and dogmatism :lol:
Here...i'll be dumb too...have some Venus:-
Composition by volume 96.5% carbon dioxide
Surface temp. mean Celsius 462 °C
For starters, venus is too close to the sun to make a fair comparison, but more importantly, the Venusian atmosphere is under equivalent pressure of 3000ft under water on earth or about 1350 psi. PV=nRT says that is going to be quite hot. The immense pressure and sheer mass of the atmosphere is what holds the heat, which would be true regardless what the chemical composition were.
Your comparison to Mars and the Moon and mine with Venus is bollocks because you can't compare these celestial bodies to Earth where water vapour is not equal in quantity to that on Earth (and obviously Solar distance).
CO2 with water vapour IS the condition that causes the greenhouse effect.
So it's all water vapor and co2 is incidental which has nothing to do with it? I accept your concession.
I'll stick to the true experts opinion thank you - not some quack that thinks comparing Mars and the Moon to Earth and wants to feel comfortable with the status quo is ok.
Such a loyal bootlicker. Fine, go dogmatically stick to the "experts" and I'll keep laughing my stupid self silly at you.
Here is a graph detailing the scientists that have expertise on the subject and on what they agree on.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and is irrelevant.

At one time consensus was that leaches would suck the illness from a sick person. At one time it was ludicrous to believe that the washing of hands would reduce infections from surgery and Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed right into the insane asylum where he died at age 47 for disagreeing with the "experts" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

As I said, if climate scientists didn't agree, they would get no funding for research and they would be ostracized from the community. Your graph makes my point.

Many of our truths were once in disagreement with the experts, which sometimes resulted in death or imprisonment for anyone disagreeing, such as heliocentrism. Even Galileo was forced to recant.

But I'm sure you would have "stuck" to those experts too because that's what you do; obsequiousness and obedience has been bred into you like the canine you portray.
I'll stick with the experts rather than a waste my time on attempting to convince someone that is obviously happy to make the Earth suck it all day and night:-
You already said that. Fine, go stick like a turd.

It's perfectly clear to me as well as the gawkers that you've no understanding of the mechanisms underlying the science and you're simply parroting propaganda and proselytizing in peremptory perpetuity. So go stick.

Atla
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Atla » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:37 am

I haven't looked at global warming much, just some speculation. From what I gather so far, the most likely main driver of warming might be that human activity, the various released gases (plus maybe major changes in ecosystems etc.), have impacted natural cloud formation. There are slightly less clouds, and some clouds are shifting polewards and upwards. The problem seems to be with low-altitude clouds in particular. So more sunlight is reaching the surface, especially in the equatorial regions, causing the surface to heat up. This might also be why the oceans are heating up faster than expected.

Here's a graph about tropical cloud cover and global surface air temperature. The warming between 1985-2000 and the slowing down of warming between 2000-2010 both seem to correlate with it.

Image

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Serendipper » Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:54 pm

Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:37 am
I haven't looked at global warming much, just some speculation. From what I gather so far, the most likely main driver of warming might be that human activity, the various released gases (plus maybe major changes in ecosystems etc.), have impacted natural cloud formation. There are slightly less clouds, and some clouds are shifting polewards and upwards. The problem seems to be with low-altitude clouds in particular. So more sunlight is reaching the surface, especially in the equatorial regions, causing the surface to heat up. This might also be why the oceans are heating up faster than expected.

Here's a graph about tropical cloud cover and global surface air temperature. The warming between 1985-2000 and the slowing down of warming between 2000-2010 both seem to correlate with it.
Yes I can see cloud-cover making a sizable difference and it was clouds that caused me to dig into co2 because I was curious how a cloud of co2 could pass visible light but block IR since I could think of nothing in nature that blocks low frequencies, but passes highs: low sounds pass through walls, but highs are reflected; radio waves have a low frequency and can pass through earth, but light cannot; in electric circuits the only way to achieve a high-pass filter is with a capacitor that is a discontinuity in the circuit, so the idea that co2 would pass highs, but not lows made no sense to me.

Water is clear, like co2, but clouds of water vapor obviously block visible light, so why doesn't co2 perform the same as water vapor? Water clouds are even more tenacious at retaining IR than co2. Check out the graph here https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/prima ... th-GG.html One would think, if water vapor insulates IR better than co2, that cloudy days would be hotter than sunny days if the co2 theory were correct.

Glass passes visible light, but blocks IR, which is how greenhouses work, but glass actually does block some visible light and greenhouses are only hot because they're enclosed. If you place a thermometer 3 ft from a led light bulb that emits mostly visible light with very little heat (ie IR light), note the temp, then put a pane of glass between them and note the temp again, you'll see it's cooler if the glass is in place. So anything in the path of light will reduce the energy reaching the thermometer and nothing is 100% transparent.

So co2 and clouds do insulate the earth which helps stabilize/even-out the temps from day to night and globally, but first and foremost, they insulate the earth FROM the sun. No one stands in front of a heater with a coat on or they wouldn't be able to feel the heat because of the coat being in the way.

Obviously clouds cool the earth and I don't see why it matters what those clouds are composed of, but I don't understand the mechanisms governing cloud formation or distribution other than suspecting it has something to do with ocean currents and the jet stream. Ocean currents are a function of salinity, heat, and position of the continents. That's about all I know of it.

gaffo
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by gaffo » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:19 am

Noax wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:42 am
gaffo wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:43 am
BTW the oldest known asteriod (via verified evidence (satilite views)) hit was a "Biggen" - 50 mile wide? - hit South Africa 3.5 billion yrs ago - huge rock to still be seen today on surface.
How about Theia impact? That was about 80 times wider and maybe over a billion years older than Biggen, and you don't need a satellite (or even to take a road trip) to see the mark it left behind. This Theia hypothesis is not fully accepted, but I see nothing competing except a very young Earth rotating too quickly for stability.
Of course 80x the diameter puts it in a league beyond the classification of 'asteroid'. The largest known current asteroid is Ceres, less than a sixth the diameter of what Theia probably was.

I have a healthy respect for at least some life to survive nasty events, but I don't think any life could have survived that one. Life appeared after that event.
I'm not "on board" as to the origin of our Moon.

of the three theories in the mid 20th cent. only the capture one i'm willing to doubt.

I know the last 40 yrs the collision theory has gained over the "co-creation" theory.

I'm not willing to just follow the sheep here just yet.

for me co-creation and collision are both 50/50 for me.

others can pick their champions/poison on this - not my concern.

gaffo
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by gaffo » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:24 am

"IF" there was a Thiea - any life that might have started on Earth would have been obliterated.

as would the Earth itself .....for a time...........to re-coeless........with the newly made moon.

but not willing to take that event as gospel yet - view co-creation of moon with Earth (like Jovian/Saturnian/etc) as equally probable.

I welcome more evidence to support Thiea(sp) theory, but not willing to just except it because it is the current in vogue theory since the 1980's.

Atla
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Atla » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:36 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:37 am
Here's a graph about tropical cloud cover and global surface air temperature. The warming between 1985-2000 and the slowing down of warming between 2000-2010 both seem to correlate with it.

Image
Have to admit though, I did some more digging and there may be problems with the ISCCP data set. Other satellite data sets show different trends:

Image

Well, cloud dynamics isn't really my thing, hopefully the scientists will sort this one out.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests