Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

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 (ocean temperatures are also rising, by the way). 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?

......

 

[palerider]

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?

I have told you. The fact that you didn't like the answer doesn't alter the fact that you have been told.

By the way, were you aware that ocean temperatures have been falling?

 

[palerider]

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

Do feel free to prove it. I can provide you with petitions signed by thousands of scientsts that state that they don't buy the hypothesis. I can provide you with past lead authors of the IPCC assessments stating that the claim of consensus is phony. What can you provide? Claims by the IPCC?

 

[orogenicman]

I have told you. The fact that you didn't like the answer doesn't alter the fact that you have been told.

Really? Where? I'm an old guy, so bear with me if I don't find it anywhere in any of your responses to my queries.

 

[palerider]

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.

You are over your head here and you just keep digging. Apparently you are a believer and don't have a clue as to what it is that you are supposed to be believing in.

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

Here is what wiki says. You guys like wiki don't you?

The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. They transfer this energy to other components of the atmosphere, and it is re-radiated in all directions, including back down towards the surface. This transfers energy to the surface and lower atmosphere, so the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism

Maybe you prefer NASA.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Experiments/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/GW_Movie3.php

CLIP: Greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation that is emitted by the surface of the earth.

Subsequently, they re-emit the energy as longwave radiation in all directions. About half of the re- emitted longwave radiation does escape into space, and contributes to the planet’s radiative equilibrium.
About half of the longwave radiation emitted by the gases is directed back toward the surface of the earth. As a result, a continual exchange of longwave radiation takes place between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere above it.

The longwave radiation contained in this exchange causes the warming effect known as the greenhouse effect.

How about the science museum of the National Academy of Science?

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/greenhouse01.jsp

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
2. Heat (infrared energy) radiates outward from the warmed surface of the Earth.
3. Some of the infrared energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which re-emit the energy in all directions.
4. Some of the infrared energy further warms the Earth.
5.Some of the infrared energy is emitted into space.

Maybe you prefer pictures. Note the right hand side of the graphic. See the 324 back radiation claimed to be absorbed by the surface. That is the same principle upon which the solar chicken cooker works on. Do you believe it actually works?

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.

[/quote]

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are being scamed. Here is what a lead author from the IPCC who is disgusted with the process has to say. He isn't the first and I am sure that he won't be the last. The UN is about politics, not science.

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/09/richard-tol-challenges-assertion-by.html

 

[palerider]

You didn't propose a question. You presented a statement apparently declaring that macroevolution is not a valid argument. The site presented many valid instances of macroevolution. So are you going to try to refute them, or are you going to skirt around this issue?

I wouldn't have said that I posed questions if I didn't. Why lie when it is so easy to disprove your statement?

Here are the questions I posed.

Accoding to the theory, a living cell spontaneously arose from non living substances. How did that first cell come into being with a developed and intact mechanism for metabolism, much less the terribly complex mechanisms for cell division which would have been required in order for the first cell to not go extinct very soon after its creation?

On top of that, there is no satisfactory explanation as to how these single cell organisms organised into multicellular organisms in which each cell has specific and critical function.

Do you have any answers? Do your priests have any answers? Thes are among the most basic questions one might ask. If there is no answer for them, or even a reasonable hypothesis, how do you believe the more complex questions can be answered?

 

[palerider]

The watchmaker argument is attributed to William Paley back in 1802, but actually can be traced back as far as Cicero and galen. Many scientists have addressed this non-issue, as well as the courts, Palerider. Do you really want me to go into a lengthy discussion on this, or will you concede that Behe was simply wrong?

What proof was presented that proved him wrong. You need not go into a long discussion. Simply list the proof. My bet is that there was no proof. Am I right or wrong?

 

[Gipper]

Game - Set - Match...

The winner is Palerider. Man did you kick ass here.

If only all foolish AGW believers could read your posts.

Congrats pale. Well done.

 

[orogenicman]

"The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. They transfer this energy to other components of the atmosphere, and it is re-radiated in all directions, including back down towards the surface. This transfers energy to the surface and lower atmosphere, so the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism."

How is this any different from my analogy to it acting as a filter? Filters absorb/block all but the light they are designed to transmit. Regardless, the fact is that CO2, and other GHGs like water and methane, blocks re-radiation of infrared light back into space. You can dance all you want to about this fact, but you cannot escape it.

 

[orogenicman]

"Sorry to burst your bubble but you are being scamed. Here is what a lead author from the IPCC who is disgusted with the process has to say. He isn't the first and I am sure that he won't be the last. The UN is about politics, not science."

Yeah, yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. Blah, blah, blah.

 

[palerider]

"How long do you believe any given CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere?"

100 years, give or take.

And again, the IPCC has duped you. Do you have any idea how many studies have dealt with that particular issue? Here is a chart listing the 37 most prominent. Actually, I should say 36 because one of them wasn't based on a study at all.

Of the 37 listed, 2 suggest more than 20 years. 6 suggest more than 10 years but less than 15. 30 suggest less than 10 years. The UN suggests 100 years. Upon what basis do you suppose they make that claim and why?

Face it guy, you have been duped. An international agency with an agenda has taken advantage of your trust. They have lied to you, fabricated science, and fabricated a scientific consensus. If I were you, I would be pissed. Why are you not pissed? Do you still believe that the residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is 100 years? If you are convinced that it is not, how does that alter your beliefs with regard to manmade CO2 and the amount of it that is in the atmosphere at any given time?

The CO2 we release primarily come from the combustion of fossil fuels. You didn't know this? Hmm.

No of course we didn't create either the carbon or the oxygen. What a silly notion. But the carbon cycle doesn't naturally release 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere via the combustion of fossil fuels which have been locked up deep within the Earth for tens to hundreds of millions of years, now does it?

Actually the natural carbon cycle has released far more than 6 billion tons of CO2. Our 6 billion tons is a fraction of 1 percent of the natural carbon cycle. Once more with emphasis.... MAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS NOT ENOUGH TO OVERCOME THE NATURAL DEVIATION FROM YEAR TO YEAR IN THE EARTH'S OWN NATURAL CO2 MAKING MACHINERY.

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

Considering that a CO2 molecule doesn't hang around for anything like the hundred years you thought, I think maybe you should take some time, do a bit of research and find out for yourself. I can account for much of it but it is clear by now that you won't accept anything I tell you anyway.

 

[orogenicman]

I wouldn't have said that I posed questions if I didn't. Why lie when it is so easy to disprove your statement?

So you are calling me a liar? I responsed to a statement you made (the very statement I quoted). As there was no question mark at the end of the statement, I had no reason to suppose it actually was a question. Now, if you have a problem with your grammar, take it up with your former English teachers.

Here are the questions I posed.

"Accoding to the theory, a living cell spontaneously arose from non living substances."

At the very least, this is a simplistic assessment of what the theory actually says. First of all, there is no reason it has to be spontaneous, though it certainly might have been. To be beside yourself in denial that it could be ignores the fact that many spontaneous reactions occur not only in inorganic and organic chemistry, but in biochemistry as well. This suggestion coming from an alleged biochemist is very strange indeed.

"How did that first cell come into being with a developed and intact mechanism for metabolism, much less the terribly complex mechanisms for cell division which would have been required in order for the first cell to not go extinct very soon after its creation?"

Well, the first thing, beside an energy factory, you need the ability to self-reproduce. And we have created proteins in the laboratory that do just that. Sytay tuned. More new research in this area is forthcoming. Next you need a protective membrane. And when you look around the planet, you see lots of possibilites. A really good one is simple clay, which is very abundant, and provides protection from the elements and any protocells that might generate predatory responses to other proto-cells. By the way, clay is a perfect host for many species that exist today. Then you need lots of time. And gee, they had about 2 billion years to perfect the method. So wqhy would it surprise you that we have yet to do so? What did you think? That God did it? How does that explain anything?

"On top of that, there is no satisfactory explanation as to how these single cell organisms organised into multicellular organisms in which each cell has specific and critical function.:

Sure there is. I'm sure that you being a bichemist, you have access to all the latest research. Enjoy.

Do you have any answers? Do your priests have any answers? Thes are among the most basic questions one might ask. If there is no answer for them, or even a reasonable hypothesis, how do you believe the more complex questions can be answered?

That you believe that scientists are on a par with priests tells me several possible things:

1) You likely aren't a biochemist and are lying;
2) You were a biochemnist and didn't do very well in the field, and so hold other scientists in contempt;
3) You're just another creationist who is anti-science and are defending your fundamentalist turf. Congraulations.

......

 

[orogenicman]

What proof was presented that proved him wrong. You need not go into a long discussion. Simply list the proof. My bet is that there was no proof. Am I right or wrong?

You are wrong, Palerider. That you claim to be a biochemist and yet have not heard the arguments is a bit disturbing to me. What school did you attend?

 

[orogenicman]

Game - Set - Match...

The winner is Palerider. Man did you kick ass here.

If only all foolish AGW believers could read your posts.

Congrats pale. Well done.

Oh look he has a cheering section. Isn't that quaint.

 

[Gipper]

Oh look he has a cheering section. Isn't that quaint.

Yes...and I will cheer on commonsense very day of the week and most assuredly when it bursts the harebrained bubble of DF liberals...

Almost nothing is as idiotic and dangerous as man caused global warming to the desires of freedom loving people everywhere...but I am certain you fail to understand this.