Are you scientifically literate?

[palerider]

Yes, the science behind it is solid,

No. The science behind it is not solid; ergo the fact that the predictions made by simulations do not match the observed data.

yes, light rays change wave length when passing through a denser medium, like glass, water vapor, or carbon dioxide.

Sorry, but they don't. Certain wavelengths are absorbed, but light in the 510nm wavelength can not be changed to light in the 570nm wavelength. Again, you have a very basic misunderstanding of the science and therefore have absolutely nothing to base your belief in AGW upon but your faith.

And no, there is no such thing as the CO2 spectrum. Sorry. the spectrum refers to wave length of light, not to any gas, greenhouse gas or otherwise.

And I am not saying that. Are you unable to grasp that CO2 only absorbs radiation in certain wavelengths? Again, failure to grasp the facts does not alter the facts.

And yes, the atmosphere of the Earth does trap heat.

Sorry, but it doesn't. If it did, then there would be a steadily rising temperature and cool periods would be impossible. If the atmosphere trapped heat, long before life ever came around, life would have been impossible on this planet. The fact is that the atmosphere is isothermal but do feel free to provide some credile material that suggests that it isn't.

http://www-paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap3.pdf

http://meteo04.chpc.utah.edu/class/1020/Lecture2_20100201.pdf

Further, yes, the air at the top of a greenhouse is likely to be warmer than that near the floor. Glass or not, warm air still rises.

Look up and learn the word saturation.

And that's just basic science, no politics involved.

What you have is a basic misunderstanding of the science and as a result, you are susceptible to politics which is what climate pseudoscience is all about.

Now, how does an internal combustion engine work?

That's the problem with the uneducated. They want to flit from one subject they don't understand to another subject without first gaining a firm grasp of the first. You don't benefit yourself by operating on faith where science is concerned. You invariably become a dupe.

 

[Gipper]

That's the problem with the uneducated. They want to flit from one subject they don't understand to another subject without first gaining a firm grasp of the first. You don't benefit yourself by operating on faith where science is concerned. You invariably become a dupe.

Yeah and this applies to libs in so many ways.

What we need to understand is Libs believe in AGW as a religious faith. Facts do not matter. While they mostly do not believe in God and see Him as a hoax, they do faithfully believe in AGW.

Its delusional, but then libs are generally delusional.

I give you credit Pale for destroying all comers on this thread. Your patience with ignorance is commendable.

 

[palerider]

I give you credit Pale for destroying all comers on this thread. Your patience with ignorance is commendable.

Unfortunately, as our educational system crumbles, more and more people of his sort are roaming about in the world. In my own work, new graduates are coming in with no real ability to think critically. They know what they have read and been told, but have no real ability to think through the relative merits and as such simply believe and are very often surprised to learn that thier professors (in far too many cases) really didn't have a clue. If one does not have the patience required to pierce ignorance, then the alternative is simply to turn the future over to ignorance.

 

[PLC1]

No. The science behind it is not solid; ergo the fact that the predictions made by simulations do not match the observed data.



Sorry, but they don't. Certain wavelengths are absorbed, but light in the 510nm wavelength can not be changed to light in the 570nm wavelength. Again, you have a very basic misunderstanding of the science and therefore have absolutely nothing to base your belief in AGW upon but your faith.



And I am not saying that. Are you unable to grasp that CO2 only absorbs radiation in certain wavelengths? Again, failure to grasp the facts does not alter the facts.



Sorry, but it doesn't. If it did, then there would be a steadily rising temperature and cool periods would be impossible. If the atmosphere trapped heat, long before life ever came around, life would have been impossible on this planet. The fact is that the atmosphere is isothermal but do feel free to provide some credile material that suggests that it isn't.

http://www-paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap3.pdf

http://meteo04.chpc.utah.edu/class/1020/Lecture2_20100201.pdf



Look up and learn the word saturation.



What you have is a basic misunderstanding of the science and as a result, you are susceptible to politics which is what climate pseudoscience is all about.





That's the problem with the uneducated. They want to flit from one subject they don't understand to another subject without first gaining a firm grasp of the first. You don't benefit yourself by operating on faith where science is concerned. You invariably become a dupe.

I didn't want to get started on yet another thread on global warming in the first place. There really is nothing left to say about the subject: Either you understand the scientific method and the evidence behind it, or you try to make it a political issue. There is nothing I can post that hasn't been posted over and over, so I tried to get this thread back on track.

Here is a simple explanation of the greenhouse effect. You can look at it or not. You can check out what Discover has to say about it, or not. Either way, it will become obvious before long that the pundits are wrong, while the scientists are right. Meanwhile, we'll continue to natter about it, I suppose.

Oh, but as to your most obvious misconception about the atmosphere not trapping heat, perhaps we could address that one:

Here is how it works

The atmosphere is an important part of what makes Earth livable. It blocks some of the Sun's dangerous rays from reaching Earth. It traps heat, making Earth a comfortable temperature. And the oxygen within our atmosphere is essential for life.

Here are some more basic facts about the atmosphere:

The atmosphere of Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

OK, so now tell us how you didn't really say that the atmosphere doesn't trap heat, or how the sources I've cited are biased or inaccurate in some way.

 

[palerider]

I didn't want to get started on yet another thread on global warming in the first place. There really is nothing left to say about the subject: Either you understand the scientific method and the evidence behind it, or you try to make it a political issue. There is nothing I can post that hasn't been posted over and over, so I tried to get this thread back on track.

If you believe in AGW, and that the pseudoscience behind it has anything to do with the scientific method, then again, you only expose the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

By the way, I have not been supporting my argument with politics. Another red herring dodge on your part.

Here is a simple explanation of the greenhouse effect. You can look at it or not. You can check out what Discover has to say about it, or not. Either way, it will become obvious before long that the pundits are wrong, while the scientists are right. Meanwhile, we'll continue to natter about it, I suppose.

Sorry but the BBC is about as liberal a rag as can be found on the other side of the pond and they blew their explanation within the first sentence. If course if they mean "simple" as in terms of those who really don't grasp the physics they are trying to describe and get it entirely wrong, then I suppose they got at least that part right. The earth's atmosphere does not trap heat. Energy is lost as quickly as it is absorbed.

Oh, but as to your most obvious misconception about the atmosphere not trapping heat, perhaps we could address that one:

Here is how it works

I suggest that you look up and learn the word isothermal. You may have noticed it in the actual scientific papers I provided as opposed to the drivel that passes in your world as credible information. An isothermal atmosphere does not trap heat. Energy is lost in our atmosphere at nearly the same rate as it is absorbed. If you are trying to have a scientific pissing contest with me, I suggest that you at least get a grasp of the basics. As it stands, you are trying to out piss a firehose with a capillary tube.

OK, so now tell us how you didn't really say that the atmosphere doesn't trap heat, or how the sources I've cited are biased or inaccurate in some way.

The BBC is obviously biased and wiki, sorry to say hardly counts as a source at all. The fact is that the atmosphere is isothermal. That is to say, the (mean) temperature remains nearly constant. That is because energy is lost at nearly the same rate as it is absorbed. If heat were trapped, then the earth would have been uninhabitable for a very long time.

Longwave radiation is absorbed and in turn emitted immediately. There is no trapping. Get a grip on the basics. You are embarassing yourself.

 

[The Scotsman]

Sorry but the BBC is about as liberal a rag as can be found on the other side of the pond ..........

........ the BBC is the organ of state and since the State religion here is global warming anybody or entity speaking out against global warming is declared a heretic. Since the state has declared Global warming to be science fact anybody not believing it must be out of their minds and therefore cast out into the ranks of the insane ...............

 

[palerider]

........ the BBC is the organ of state and since the State religion here is global warming anybody or entity speaking out against global warming is declared a heretic. Since the state has declared Global warming to be science fact anybody not believing it must be out of their minds and therefore cast out into the ranks of the insane ...............

What amazes me is that anyone.....anyone could say with any semblance of a straight face that the BBC is not biased. Blindness. Pure unadulterated worship. Nothing more. Nothing less and a complete loss of any simulacrum of credibility.

 

[Popeye]

What amazes me is that anyone.....anyone could say with any semblance of a straight face that the BBC is not biased. Blindness. Pure unadulterated worship. Nothing more. Nothing less and a complete loss of any simulacrum of credibility.

And you watch Faux News, right? They're not "biased"...no, not at all..

 

[PLC1]

I

Sorry but the BBC is about as liberal a rag as can be found on the other side of the pond and they blew their explanation within the first sentence. If course if they mean "simple" as in terms of those who really don't grasp the physics they are trying to describe and get it entirely wrong, then I suppose they got at least that part right. The earth's atmosphere does not trap heat. Energy is lost as quickly as it is absorbed.

Oh, so you aren't going to claim that you didn't say that the atmosphere doesn't trap heat. Good for you. You instead decided that the sources I cited are bogus, which, of course, means that they don't support your point of view.

Sure, the atmosphere gives up as much heat as it gets once it reaches stasis. What that stasis point is depends again on the density and composition of the atmosphere.

Did you think Denver was cooler than Pheonix because of liberal politics, or because of the elevation and therefore the density of the atmosphere?

I suggest that you look up and learn the word isothermal. You may have noticed it in the actual scientific papers I provided as opposed to the drivel that passes in your world as credible information. An isothermal atmosphere does not trap heat. Energy is lost in our atmosphere at nearly the same rate as it is absorbed.

Yes, once it reaches a balance. Of course it doesn't continue to absorb heat indefinitely.

The BBC is obviously biased and wiki, sorry to say hardly counts as a source at all. The fact is that the atmosphere is isothermal. That is to say, the (mean) temperature remains nearly constant. That is because energy is lost at nearly the same rate as it is absorbed. If heat were trapped, then the earth would have been uninhabitable for a very long time.

Longwave radiation is absorbed and in turn emitted immediately. There is no trapping. Get a grip on the basics. You are embarassing yourself.

If no heat were trapped by the atmosphere, the Earth would be frozen solid.

Yes, longwave radiation is emitted as fast as it is absorbed once stasis has been reached. Those are the basics.

Global warming is not religion, nor is it politics. No one "believes in" global warming. Some of us believe in the scientific method.

The only reason that AGW has become a political football is the proposal for cap and trade and pursuing a reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gasses. None of that is going to work, of course.

What is your explanation for the melting of glaciers?

Or, are you going to say that the pictures we've seen are in "liberal rags", as if this were somehow a liberal vs conservative issue?

 

[palerider]

And you watch Faux News, right? They're not "biased"...no, not at all..

Nope, I don't. But when I do, I know that I am watching biased reporting. I am a scientist. I don't take what anyone says at face value unless I know from my own research that what they are saying is true.

 

[palerider]

Oh, so you aren't going to claim that you didn't say that the atmosphere doesn't trap heat. Good for you. You instead decided that the sources I cited are bogus, which, of course, means that they don't support your point of view.

I am not going to "claim" that the earth's atmosphere doesn't trap heat. I am going to state flatly that the earth's atmosphere doesn't trap heat. Again, if it trapped heat, the temperature would have reached levels that would not support life a very long time ago.

Yes, once it reaches a balance. Of course it doesn't continue to absorb heat indefinitely.

So now you acknowledge that the atmosphere is isothermal and does not trap heat? I suggest that you look up the word trap. These words you need to learn are getting more and more basic.

If no heat were trapped by the atmosphere, the Earth would be frozen solid.

You keep saying that. Tell me, how much do you believe the mean temperature would drop if the earth had no atmosphere at all?

Yes, longwave radiation is emitted as fast as it is absorbed once stasis has been reached. Those are the basics.

Describe the mechanism of the statis you describe and how heat is "trapped" until such time as that stasis is reached. Then describe how the atmosphere knows that stasis has been reached and stops trapping heat.

Global warming is not religion, nor is it politics. No one "believes in" global warming. Some of us believe in the scientific method.

Global warming is both politics and religion and has nothing to do with the scientific method. When observed data don't match predictions, and yet you continue to believe, you have left the scientific method behind. Since you have made the claim, how about you provide some examples of evidence of anthropogenic global warming that strictly adhere to the scientific method.

The only reason that AGW has become a political football is the proposal for cap and trade and pursuing a reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gasses. None of that is going to work, of course.

The threat of AGW is nothing more than a political tool to be wielded in order to gain power. Sorry that you have been duped.

What is your explanation for the melting of glaciers?

Since they have melted back nearly 2,000 miles in the past 14,000 years, I have to wonder why you would be surprised that the overall melting trend continues. The earth is, after all, still in the process of exiting a deep ice age.

Or, are you going to say that the pictures we've seen are in "liberal rags", as if this were somehow a liberal vs conservative issue?

The fact that those liberal rags don't mention the fact that for the past 14,000 years the earth has been in an interglacial period and that the ice has melted back nearly 2,000 miles during that time with no help at all from man pretty much establishes that the photos and failure to fully disclose the truth of the matter are for political purposes.

Are you not disturbed that a mile thick blanket of ice no longer covers canada and the northern US? Why aren't you lamenting that almost all of the ice melted before we got out of the stone age?

 

[samsara15]

The question on the glaciers would appear to be whether or not glacial melting had stabilized before the industrial age began, and was now increasing due to the effects of heavy use of fossil fuels. Do you have any data or statistics to address that issue, Pale?

 

[palerider]

The question on the glaciers would appear to be whether or not glacial melting had stabilized before the industrial age began,

Prove that clacial melting has ever stabalized? We know from the paleo record that the temperature throughout earth's history has oscillated warm to cool during overall upward or downward trends. Such temperature variations within any overall trend rule out the possibility of any sort of "stabilization" of either the climate or freezing or melting....ever.

There is not the slightest bit of evidence that the general warming trend is in the least unusual and the medieval warm period, having been considerably warmer than present strongly suggests that there is not the slightest thing unusual about the overall warming trend we are experiencing now.

and was now increasing due to the effects of heavy use of fossil fuels. Do you have any data or statistics to address that issue, Pale?

The during the medieval warm period the trend to warm from cold was sharper than the present trend. Who was using fossil fuels at that time? Further, as one goes further back into the paleo record, one finds numerous examples of warming trends that were far sharper than anything we are experiencing. The priests of the church of AGW deliberatly look at a small snapshot in time for the purpose of eliciting a feeling of anxiety. If you view the larger picture, the present overall warming trend does not seem unusual in the least.

Further, I have provided evidence (that no one seems to want to comment on by the way) that increased atmospheric CO2 is not causing warming. Feel free to visit the "bullet to the head of the AGW hoax" thread if you like and feel free to explain how increased CO2 is causing warming without absorbing any additional outgoing longwave radiation.

 

[PLC1]

I am not going to "claim" that the earth's atmosphere doesn't trap heat. I am going to state flatly that the earth's atmosphere doesn't trap heat. Again, if it trapped heat, the temperature would have reached levels that would not support life a very long time ago.



So now you acknowledge that the atmosphere is isothermal and does not trap heat? I suggest that you look up the word trap. These words you need to learn are getting more and more basic.



You keep saying that. Tell me, how much do you believe the mean temperature would drop if the earth had no atmosphere at all?

According to this, it would be -18 degrees C:

Makes possible a mean temperature on Earth's surface of +15 °C instead of -18 °C as would be without atmosphere.

But, of course, that's just another liberal leftie rag, kind of like Discover Magazine, that refutes you point of view. Feel free to ignore it, too.

Describe the mechanism of the statis you describe and how heat is "trapped" until such time as that stasis is reached. Then describe how the atmosphere knows that stasis has been reached and stops trapping heat.

The warmer the atmosphere, the more heat escapes into space. The point at which temperature stabilizes depends on several things, among them, the composition of the atmosphere and the season of the year.

The leftie rags claim that the Earth tends to be cooler in winter, but, then I'm sure you know better.

Global warming is both politics and religion and has nothing to do with the scientific method. When observed data don't match predictions, and yet you continue to believe, you have left the scientific method behind. Since you have made the claim, how about you provide some examples of evidence of anthropogenic global warming that strictly adhere to the scientific method.

I've posted the science of GW so many times, I'm tired of it. You'd just say that the source was not credible anyway, so why bother?

The threat of AGW is nothing more than a political tool to be wielded in order to gain power. Sorry that you have been duped.

Real scientists aren't saying it is necessarily a "threat". That's part of the politics of the issue.

Since they have melted back nearly 2,000 miles in the past 14,000 years, I have to wonder why you would be surprised that the overall melting trend continues. The earth is, after all, still in the process of exiting a deep ice age.

Yes, a part of global warming is natural. The science is quite clear on that issue. The politics of the issue are never so clear.

Man made greenhouse gasses are accelerating the process, not the only cause. 100 years of the industrial age compared to 14,000 years of natural warming is quite a time difference, don't you think?

Are you not disturbed that a mile thick blanket of ice no longer covers canada and the northern US? Why aren't you lamenting that almost all of the ice melted before we got out of the stone age?

Oh, yes, I miss that mile thick sheet of ice very much. I'd like to get my spear and go hunting mammoth, wouldn't you?

Ice ages come and go. The difference now is that humans are accelerating the change. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is a threat, or that we're going to face global hardship, or even that we could reverse the process if we had the will to attempt to do so. It just means that we humans have put a lot of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere and warmed the planet just a bit. That warming, along with natural warming, is going to have an effect on local climates.

What we really ought to do is to quit arguing over what is obvious, and start researching what is more obscure, like just what kinds of changes we might be likely to see in a given area.

But, being political creatures, we won't. We'll be surprised by the changes that take place, and most likely will claim that no changes took place at all.

 

[The Scotsman]

When I was a kid in the 70's we had this kids news programme and I can remember hearing about scientists predictions of impending global disaster from these mutant killer bees coming out of South America and how we were all going to be stung to death and that essentially we were all doomed...............

Then, and I think this just after we had Ebola! According to the scientists Ebola was going to descend on the northern hemisphere buoyed on by genetic mutation and mass migration - some bozo from darkest Africa was going to get on a plane and infect us all. Images of blood oozing corpses were supposed to litter the streets and again we were all doomed..........

Then we had West Nile Virus which was supposed to be some variation on Ebola or something equally as nasty but again according to the scientists it was another case of corpses, death and general mayhem and we were all doomed................!

I tell you when I was in my mid-teens I was paranoid of winged critters, sneezes and anyone new that ventured into our street!

Then came the eighties and we all had mad cow disease or BSE or croitzfeld whositsname disease! According to the scientific wisdom of the day pretty much anyone that ate beef was going to have to be very careful, being infected by this virus would make you bang into things whilst walking sideways and dribbling profusely - eventually it would fry your brains. The scientists were predicting mass human vegetation over a twenty year period and that basically any schmuck that had eaten anything remotely beefy was basically doomed...........!

What else did we have had that the scientists and journalists have ramped out of all proportion? The ozone holes! We were all going to have our brains fried from cosmic rays because the ozone layer was disappearing and planetary doom was predicted. Remember SARs, swine Flu, bird flu and AH YES and the millennium bug. Remember the millennium bug! Again the scientists and pasty faced geeks convinced us that planes were going to fall from the sky, power stations would grind to a standstill and life on this planet would cease to exist, death and destruction, riots and maelstrom would engulf the whole of civilisation.........we were all doomed

And now global warming. Predictions by those self same scientists of global doom and destruction we're all bloody well doomed.............again!

Now forgive my cynicism but I'm bored with scientists predicting doom.