JackC 0
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteOn a hot summer day, do you turn the heater on and then put on a sweater?
No. I do not.
And if you are warm and getting warmer but not altogether sure why you're getting warmer, you also wouldn't put on a sweater, would you?
Just because it's complicated is not an excuse to do nothing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases when we know our emission rate (known) and increases in atmospheric concentrations (known) almost exactly match.
WE ARE PUTTING ON THE SWEATER, FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,073
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>There are huge holes - the models are not correct . . .
You weren't talking about "the models." You were talking about AGW. The theory behind _that_ is based on two things:
1) We are increasing CO2 concentrations.
2) Increasing CO2 concentrations increase retained heat.
That's it. Disprove either one of those, and you'll get a Nobel prize and will be able to win any argument about AGW.
>and the empirical data does not fit the theory. AGW proponents have used 27
>years of stronger warming (which is a very short period) when it suits them.
150 years, actually.
>The whole problem is that that you think some lab tests can underpin
>the climate change issue.
Well, as lab tests can detect cancer, prove Einstein's theory of special relativity, prove the NMR principle, determine how old something is and demonstrate Maxwell's equations, some people heed them. Primarily scientists. I can understand why Rush Limbaugh might not.
>I repeat - there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the
>climate variations we see through history.
?? Uh, right. No one said it was. It is certainly _part_ of the major climactic variations we see, but not the only cause.
You weren't talking about "the models." You were talking about AGW. The theory behind _that_ is based on two things:
1) We are increasing CO2 concentrations.
2) Increasing CO2 concentrations increase retained heat.
That's it. Disprove either one of those, and you'll get a Nobel prize and will be able to win any argument about AGW.
>and the empirical data does not fit the theory. AGW proponents have used 27
>years of stronger warming (which is a very short period) when it suits them.
150 years, actually.
>The whole problem is that that you think some lab tests can underpin
>the climate change issue.
Well, as lab tests can detect cancer, prove Einstein's theory of special relativity, prove the NMR principle, determine how old something is and demonstrate Maxwell's equations, some people heed them. Primarily scientists. I can understand why Rush Limbaugh might not.
>I repeat - there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the
>climate variations we see through history.
?? Uh, right. No one said it was. It is certainly _part_ of the major climactic variations we see, but not the only cause.
QuoteMore insulation means more heat gets trapped and unless something else affects the system, it gets hotter.
Yes. Insulation means that more solar heat is prevented from escaping. However, I note that insulation also prevents heat from getting in. That which does get in then has a harder time getting out.
It sounds as though you suggest that insulation is a one-way valve that lets the heat in and doesn't let it out. An interesting thought. But thermodynamics 101 would suggest otherwise.
Quote
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact
Okay.
QuoteAtmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising - fact
Okay.
QuoteThermodynamics works - fact
Yes. We know this.
So, then, tell me, how is it that CO2 knows to let infrared radiation in but not let it out?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Channman 2
> There are no "huge holes" in AGW theory. The theory is based on experiments you yourself can do. Denying fundamental physics make deniers look pretty silly.
I still think Global Warming is a Religion. Some people have to believe in something why not GW/Mother Earth.
But I have to admit I'm doing my small part in supporting the make believe doom we are facing by installing solar lights in my front yard, and risking the health of my family by putting light bulbs in my home that have Mercury in them. If Mother Earth ever finds out I'm using Light bulbs with Mercury she's going to get STEAMED.
I still think Global Warming is a Religion. Some people have to believe in something why not GW/Mother Earth.
But I have to admit I'm doing my small part in supporting the make believe doom we are facing by installing solar lights in my front yard, and risking the health of my family by putting light bulbs in my home that have Mercury in them. If Mother Earth ever finds out I'm using Light bulbs with Mercury she's going to get STEAMED.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteMore insulation means more heat gets trapped and unless something else affects the system, it gets hotter.
Yes. Insulation means that more solar heat is prevented from escaping. However, I note that insulation also prevents heat from getting in. That which does get in then has a harder time getting out.
It sounds as though you suggest that insulation is a one-way valve that lets the heat in and doesn't let it out. An interesting thought. But thermodynamics 101 would suggest otherwise.
Maybe you should take Thermo 101 and Heat Transfer 102 and you would understand your GROSS error in the above statement.
But it would be easier just to sit inside a closed unventilated greenhouse on a sunny day and see if all the heat that gets in can get out again. I suggest you sit inside for at least 12 hours to be sure of the results.
Read This and consider the effect of the temperature difference between the Earth and the Sun in the equations and compare with the CO2 absorbtion spectrum physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/isam/n2_co2_data.gif
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,106
Quote> There are no "huge holes" in AGW theory. The theory is based on experiments you yourself can do. Denying fundamental physics make deniers look pretty silly.
I still think Global Warming is a Religion. Some people have to believe in something why not GW/Mother Earth.
But I have to admit I'm doing my small part in supporting the make believe doom we are facing by installing solar lights in my front yard, and risking the health of my family by putting light bulbs in my home that have Mercury in them. If Mother Earth ever finds out I'm using Light bulbs with Mercury she's going to get STEAMED.
There's mercury in "old fashioned" fluorescent tubes too; you probably have had them for decades.
Mother Earth doesn't care about mercury (where do you think we get it from?)
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteAnd if you are warm and getting warmer but not altogether sure why you're getting warmer, you also wouldn't put on a sweater, would you?
Depends. I have been hot and sweaty and been handed a space blanket to keep me warm, or to delay cooling. Sure, this is counterintuitive, but one need only see someone pass out from sudden hypothermia after running a marathon to understand that, yes, it may work.
Dontcha hate it when I find examples like this.
I'll tell you, though. If it's warm, I won't be wearing a sweater. If its cold, I won't be going shirtless. Actually, I don't go shirtless ever because my body and skin color are an embarrassment.
You are saying that we are putting on a sweater. I am saying that I am far from convinced that I am wearing a sweater. Indeed, I am far from convinced that we are causing the earth to get any warmer.
Indeed - your situation presents an interesting thought - if I am warm and getting warmer but altogether not sure why, I don't think that taking affirmative steps to combat wht I suspect may be a reason is the most sensible option.
"I'm feeling warm right now. Gee - my fingers and toes are burning. I think I'll take off my jacket and cool down a bit." Such is a common event of a person moving into stage 2 hypothermia and "is not altogether sure why" he's getting warmer.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteIs the conclusion not blindingly obvious?
No, not really. How is thins causing global warming again?
It's only not blindingly obvious to those who wilfully keep their heads in the sand.
Then explain it, John.
Explain how CO2 CONTINUES to rise, yet the temps are DECREASING.
Conversely, you could continue squawking about "ZOMG CO2!!!!!111"
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteIs the conclusion not blindingly obvious?
No, not really. How is thins causing global warming again?
People can quite happily understand that you stay warmer wearing an extra jumper, or that your house stays warmer with loft insulation but cannot make the mental leap to something the size of a planet. They somehow think the laws of physics are different when the scale of things get beyond what they are used to.
And some people can't explain how you can put on the extra jumper and actually COOL OFF - why don't YOU give it a shot?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteAnd if you are warm and getting warmer but not altogether sure why you're getting warmer, you also wouldn't put on a sweater, would you?
Depends. I have been hot and sweaty and been handed a space blanket to keep me warm, or to delay cooling. Sure, this is counterintuitive, but one need only see someone pass out from sudden hypothermia after running a marathon to understand that, yes, it may work.
Dontcha hate it when I find examples like this.
.
Nope, because they're laywer type examples but not relevant to this case.
Have you discovered WHY CO2 lets in solar radiation but blocks Earth radiation yet? Go sit all day in an unventilated greenhouse and you'll get the idea.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteMaybe you should take Thermo 101 and Heat Transfer 102 and you would understand your GROSS error in the above statement.
So you are saying that it is not insulation? I can agree with that.
Hell, just sitting inside of a car on a sunny day can make things hot. I just cleaned my attic last weekend - hotness.
So, you and I agree, then, that the poster to whom I was replying might be mistaken in referring to greehouse gases as "insulation?"
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIs the conclusion not blindingly obvious?
No, not really. How is thins causing global warming again?
It's only not blindingly obvious to those who wilfully keep their heads in the sand.
Then explain it, John.
Explain how CO2 CONTINUES to rise, yet the temps are DECREASING.
Conversely, you could continue squawking about "ZOMG CO2!!!!!111"
Next winter will be cooler than this summer too - you do NOT have a point.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteMaybe you should take Thermo 101 and Heat Transfer 102 and you would understand your GROSS error in the above statement.
So you are saying that it is not insulation? I can agree with that.
Hell, just sitting inside of a car on a sunny day can make things hot. I just cleaned my attic last weekend - hotness.
So, you and I agree, then, that the poster to whom I was replying might be mistaken in referring to greehouse gases as "insulation?"
Depends how you define "insulation". Does glass insulate a greenhouse?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIs the conclusion not blindingly obvious?
No, not really. How is thins causing global warming again?
It's only not blindingly obvious to those who wilfully keep their heads in the sand.
Then explain it, John.
Explain how CO2 CONTINUES to rise, yet the temps are DECREASING.
Conversely, you could continue squawking about "ZOMG CO2!!!!!111"
Next winter will be cooler than this summer too - you do NOT have a point.
Of course I don't - after all, I don't agree with the consensus!!!
I can understand your reluctance to answer the question, though.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
So, Planck is the scietific basis for my "pot of water on the stove" example. A body can absorb energy to a certain point, at which an equilibrium is reached and energy radiance is matched by energy absorption.
It appears that you and others argue that CO2 increases this equilibrium temperature. Thus, the amount of radiative cooling is decreased or remains the same while the energy absorption either stays the same or increases, respectively.
This is my understanding of what the greenhouse gases are said to do, and that "insulation" is kind of a poor example.
I didn't say that it is insulation. Another poster did. I mentioned that if it was "insulation" then it would insulate both ways.
SO we, good doctor, are in agreement? Or is my understanding of heat-loss v. heat gain mistaken?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
It appears that you and others argue that CO2 increases this equilibrium temperature. Thus, the amount of radiative cooling is decreased or remains the same while the energy absorption either stays the same or increases, respectively.
This is my understanding of what the greenhouse gases are said to do, and that "insulation" is kind of a poor example.
I didn't say that it is insulation. Another poster did. I mentioned that if it was "insulation" then it would insulate both ways.
SO we, good doctor, are in agreement? Or is my understanding of heat-loss v. heat gain mistaken?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
>>So, then, tell me, how is it that CO2 knows to let infrared radiation in but not let it out?
Seriously?
Dude, you need to go pick up a basic physics book. Read the chapter on wavelength absorption spectrum. Also read up on black bodies and reflectivity. Kinda takes away from your entire credibility when you make statements that show a lack of understanding of even the most basic science concepts.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are warm and getting warmer but not altogether sure why you're getting warmer, you also wouldn't put on a sweater, would you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. I have been hot and sweaty and been handed a space blanket to keep me warm, or to delay cooling. Sure, this is counterintuitive, but one need only see someone pass out from sudden hypothermia after running a marathon to understand that, yes, it may work.
Dontcha hate it when I find examples like this.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, because they're laywer type examples but not relevant to this case.
This is "defense lawyer tactic" of ansking a direct question, getting a response that is directly relevant to the specific example you stated, then finding it to be irrlevant to the example because it is not the answer you wanted.
You asked me if I'd put on a sweater if I was getting warmer. I pointed to some examples when, yes, I would. And you find this irrelevant? I answered your damned question and provided my reasons for saying that there are times when I may not.
I understand that you may perhaps be ignorant of certain circumstances, such as the symptomological progression of hypothermia. Or why a person running a 104 body temperature may cover himself with a space blanket.
QuoteHave you discovered WHY CO2 lets in solar radiation but blocks Earth radiation yet?
Yes. I find it to do little with insulation and more to do with the IR absorptive properties of the stuff.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Channman 2
> Mother Earth doesn't care about mercury (where do you think we get it from?)
I knew that, I just wanted to see if you knew.
You didn't seem to make any points, hence my question about turning English into gibberish.
More insulation means more heat gets trapped and unless something else affects the system, it gets hotter. That is thermodynamics 101.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising - fact
Thermodynamics works - fact
Complications do not detract from these basic facts.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites