Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

The Earth is not an closed system, but the fact remains that CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane and water vapor causes heat build up in the atmosphere.

Take a look at what you just said and now think about what you just said. You claim that the atmosphere causes heat to build up in the atmosphere. I suggest to you that if we had no atmosphere, or less atmosphere, the daytime temperatures would be much hotter. Look at the moon for instance. It recieves just about the same amount of solar energy as the earth and it has no atmosphere. What is its daytime temperature compared to the daytime temperature of the earth?

The evidence suggests that the atmosphere keeps us cooler during the day and slows the escape of absorbed energy from the earth enough that we don't freeze overnight.

 

[palerider]

So you are saying that the scientists who do support the notion of global warming (and that would be the bulk of the world's scientists) are all wrong, but you somehow manged to get it right? The Nobel committee, no doubt, is waiting to hear from you.

Most scientists accept climate change. Only a small cadre accept that man is to blame. The fact is that most scientists don't accept the hypothesis of manmade climate change. Feel free to prove otherwise.

As to the nobel comittee, they gave algore a peace prize for his global warming work and also gave one to yasser arafat. The nobel comittee is oficially a joke.

 

[palerider]

What part of global warming defies the laws of physics? Do be specific. So you are also saying that global warming is a UN conspiracy? What was it that PCL said about being gullible?

AGW, as described by climate science suggests that CO2 absorbs radiation and re-radiates it back to the earth, further warming the earth. Sorry guy, but the second law of thermodynamics says that can't happen. Energy doesn't flow from cool to warm, it only flows from warm to cold. Entrophy you know.

Tell me, do you believe this device, based on the energy exchange described between CO2 and the earth would actually work? If you believe the principles described vary in any substantial way from the warming mechanism descibed to CO2, point them out.

As to the UN? Are you suggesting that they are beyond reproach? Are you suggesting that they haven't fraudulently manufactured science in order to push a pre existing agenda of redistributing wealth? After all the scandal that the UN has generated, anyone who accepts them as an honorable organization is the one who is being gullible.

 

[palerider]

"Again, your broad brush exposes you as a shallow thinker ruled by emotion."

Wasn't it you who complained about ad hominem attacks?

Learn what an ad hominem attack is. One engages in an ad hominem when one attacks one's opponent in lieu of any actual argument. I may goad my opponent along with making and substantiating my points, but never in lieu of.

 

[palerider]

"Macro evolution is unable to answer even the most basic questions and has never been observed."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Which of the questions I proposed do you believe are answered on that site. Be specific.

 

[palerider]

I could ask you the same question. If life didn't arise from non living substances, and there is indirect evidence that it did, where did it come from, palerider?

What indirect "evidence"? Show me.

Is "God did it" a valid scientific answer? You realize, of course, that the watchmaker analogy was refuted over 80 years ago. Right?

Refuted by what proof?

 

[palerider]

So, what do you think happens to that 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases we emit every year? Does it magically disappear?

I asked you a question earlier, and then I asked it again and you apparently are dodging it. Why? Let me ask again. How long do you believe any given CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere?

Where did the gasses come from in the first place? Do you beleive we created the carbon or the oxygen?

There is no connection between ocean acidification and the amount of acidic gases we emit every year?

Ocean acidification is not manmade global warming. Aside from that, refer to your 3 semesters of chemistry and learn that the ocean is alkaline, not acidic. The ocean may becoming less alkaline, but less alkaline does not mean acidic. Hell ocean water hasn't even approached neutrality, much less acidity. More diversionary misrepresentation by your side of the argument.

No connection between deforestsation and changing climate patterns?

Local wether patterns, perhaps. Global patterns, lets see the proof.

No connection between deforestation and soil depletion?

Are you trying to make a connection between soil depeltion and your claimed "barrier" effect of CO2? Typical of the believers, when you find that you can't prove your point, you start hurling all manner of BS against the wall in hopes that something might stick.

No connection between global warming and the decrease in species diversification?

Jumping on the next bandwagon early aren't you? When AGW fails, that is the next "crisis" in line. More BS.

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-persistence-of-species

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4974/...ency-and-flawed-writing-in-extinction-section

You really should try to sort out fact from fancy rather than jumping on every eco bandwagon that comes along.

No connection between global warming and the feedback effects we see that are currently happening, such as methane release from arctic tundra?

Are you suggesting that methane release from the tundra is a new thing; something that didn't happen before man came along?

Even if global warming is not caused by human agents, is it not still a huge concern, not only for those who live in coastal communities, but for the world at large?

Is it? Are earthquakes a concern for people who live on faults? What do we do about it? Are tornadoes a concern for people who live in tornado alley? What do we do about it? Are floods a concern for people who live in flood plains? What do we do about it? Are fires a concern for people who live in areas where fire is part of the ecology? What do we do about it? We go along for the ride, that is what we do as we are powerless to do anyting else.

As to warming, show me some hard evidence that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for human habitation and you might generate some concern. Personally, I think some warming would improve our lot. Longer growing seasons, less expense to stay warm in winter. We all know that winter is a far more dangerous time than summer and the list could go on and on. Show me that the present climate is optimum.

Even if we can't do anything about it, doesn't it behoove us to stop wasting our time arguming about it and try to mitigate what is surely a coming disaster of global proportions?

Again, your claim of a disaster of global proportions is no more and no less than hysterical hand wringing based on nothing. Once again, prove that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for human habitation.

 

[palerider]

Rejecting theories is not enough. If you reject a scientific theory, particularly one that is well established in the scientific community, then you must present an alternative that at a minimum explains what the current theory already explains.

AGW is well established within the climate science community, it is pretty uniformly rejected within the hard physical science community. Physics, chemistry, geology, astrophysics, etc.

Even better, your alternative should explain more facts and do it better than the current theories do. Got anything like that?

Try looking at paleo history. We see the same sorts of climate cycles in the past that we see now. We see more dramatic changes than the present. If you look at the past with an honest eye, the present simply isn't scary. Here is a graph showing the earth's temperature history. Look closely and tell me honestly, in what direction do you believe the overall temperature will be moving with or without us?

Creationists reject evolution for a myrid of reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that they are scientifically illiterate. But their only alternative seems to be "God did it". And of course, that doesn't explain anything.

The you explain how life arose from non living materials. In your attempts you will find that your explanation is even less plausible than "God did it".

 

[Gipper]

Those are some great posts Pale. Very clear concise and sensible.

But, the religion of global warming has many faithful adherents. Some apparently visit this site regularly.

Their faith is strong and uncompromising. No amount of scientific proof will change their minds. They believe and that's it...well their Marxist leaders (Untied Nations) and leftist media tells them daily that their faith is real. So, that is good enough for them to believe in a LIE.

 

[steveox]

AGW is well established within the climate science community, it is pretty uniformly rejected within the hard physical science community. Physics, chemistry, geology, astrophysics, etc.



Try looking at paleo history. We see the same sorts of climate cycles in the past that we see now. We see more dramatic changes than the present. If you look at the past with an honest eye, the present simply isn't scary. Here is a graph showing the earth's temperature history. Look closely and tell me honestly, in what direction do you believe the overall temperature will be moving with or without us?

The you explain how life arose from non living materials. In your attempts you will find that your explanation is even less plausible than "God did it".

This is the reason you vote out the Democrats.

 

[Gipper]

Tell me, do you believe this device, based on the energy exchange described between CO2 and the earth would actually work? If you believe the principles described vary in any substantial way from the warming mechanism descibed to CO2, point them out.

Where can I buy that magic oven???

 

[steveox]

Where can I buy that magic oven???

you should buy a black & decker hydrator

 

[orogenicman]

Take a look at what you just said and now think about what you just said. You claim that the atmosphere causes heat to build up in the atmosphere. I suggest to you that if we had no atmosphere, or less atmosphere, the daytime temperatures would be much hotter. Look at the moon for instance. It recieves just about the same amount of solar energy as the earth and it has no atmosphere. What is its daytime temperature compared to the daytime temperature of the earth?

The evidence suggests that the atmosphere keeps us cooler during the day and slows the escape of absorbed energy from the earth enough that we don't freeze overnight.

The fact that the Earth has an atmosphere isn't what keeps it cool. It's the composition of the atmosphere that matters, and the fact that, unlike the moon, the Earth has a rather vast global ocean that acts as a heat sink, since it has a rather high heat capacity. CO2 is known to raise the heat capacity of atmospheric air. You still haven't answered my question as to what is causing the heat to build up in all those CO2 experiments if not CO2?

 

[orogenicman]

Most scientists accept climate change. Only a small cadre accept that man is to blame. The fact is that most scientists don't accept the hypothesis of manmade climate change. Feel free to prove otherwise.

As to the nobel comittee, they gave algore a peace prize for his global warming work and also gave one to yasser arafat. The nobel comittee is oficially a joke.

No, actually, you got that one wrong as well. You're on a roll.

 

[orogenicman]

"AGW, as described by climate science suggests that CO2 absorbs radiation and re-radiates it back to the earth, further warming the earth."

No, what the theory says is that much like what water vapor does, CO2 acts as a filter to prevent infrared radiation from being re-radiated back into space, much like a red filter rejects all but red light from passing through the glass. It acts as a polarizing infrared blocking filter. And so the infrared radiation gets in but is trapped near the surface, warming the atmosphere.

As for the Un being beyond reproach, no I don't think that is the case. The fact is that they are investigating and moving on Global warming because;

1) The world's scientists and many governments have asked them to, and;
2) Because it has global ramifications, obviously.