# In summary...



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

1. climate change is a science, not a theory
2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
3.  the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
4.  the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
5.  CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change


----------



## The Great Goose (Sep 30, 2016)

Exactly. Ice cools things, not CO2.


----------



## oldsoul (Sep 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 1. climate change is a science, not a theory
> 2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
> 3.  the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
> 4.  the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
> 5.  CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change


This should get...interesting....


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2016)

The Great Goose said:


> Exactly. Ice cools things, not CO2.



Actually, CO2 does cool things. In it's solid form it is nicknamed "dry ice". But that's not really the point here. This entire "Climate Change" fiasco is a radical left-wing Socialist scheme to redistribute wealth. That's ALL it is, that's all it's EVER been. 

They LIE about the science, they LIE about the statistics and they LIE about the so-called "consensus among scientists".  They have an agenda to gain public support based on these LIES so they can implement government confiscation of wealth.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 30, 2016)

The Great Goose said:


> Exactly. Ice cools things, not CO2.



wrong------for picnics-----FROZEN  CO2 is indispensable.   It comes in handy blue plastic paks. --------good for fake smoke too


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

LOL 

So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Institute of Physics is the largest Scientific Society on this planet. And it and every other Scientific Society, as well as all the National Academies of Science and the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The amount of land at the poles is a factor in the ice ages, but more important factors are the GHGs in the atmosphere and the Milankovic Cycles. There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.

The two primary drivers of climate are the amount of energy the sun recieves from the sun, and the amount it retains. The latter is controlled by the Earth's albedo, and the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Land distribution, Milankovic Cycles, effect the distribution of the heat and cold on earth, but are not primary drivers.

CO2, being the primary GHG, not the strongest one, that is water vapor, but the primary one. CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. All the physicists state that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Ice cools things, not CO2.
> ...


Gee, Boss, you are as ignorant as the rest of these wingnuts. Just another fruitloop that understands zero science. Once again, 
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL
> 
> So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;
> 
> ...



thanks for the   brushup------for short----lots of details effect
the delicate balance of our little world


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL
> 
> So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;
> 
> ...


 *LIES! *

Most people aren't climatologists or scientists. So whenever they read this impressive propaganda, they have no way of understanding whether it is right or wrong and many will assume, since lots of big fancy words and terminology is used, this must be correct. Even those who might be skeptical will go online to research and here's another two.. three.. four sources who seem to agree with the original propaganda. Suddenly, they get the emotive feeling that anything other than believing this is going to be thought of as dumb and they don't want to be dumb.... even though they actually are. 

The Earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years. It has been MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler for extended periods of time. All-in-all, Mother Nature is a pretty resilient old gal. Man can do really careless shit... like dumping millions of gallons of oil into her oceans, killing off massive numbers of fish and wildlife and destroying wetlands... and within 10-20 years, old Mother Nature has cleaned up the mess and moved on. She's pretty busy because humans can be very careless. She's constantly cleaning up our messes and we should all strive to be more careful... but she also has to clean up messes we don't have a thing to do with. Like when a volcano erupts and pours millions of metric tons of sulfur and ash into the atmosphere... tens of thousands of times more damaging than anything man could ever manage on his own. 

IF humans converted EVERY smokestack industry in the world over from actually producing products to the goal of simply pumping out as much pollution as they could muster daily.... and they operated these plants 24/7/365 for 10,000 years, it would result in almost as much damaging pollution as the Mt. St. Helen eruption, which was relatively mild in terms of volcanic eruptions. That;s an example of how little man's effect is on the climate of Earth. Mother Nature would laugh this effort off in a couple of decades. 

The worst thing man has ever done to the environment is nuclear testing. Since the 1940s, we've unleashed untold amounts of radioactive fallout into our atmosphere. Now Ol' Lady Nature has a bit of a problem cleaning this stuff up because it has such a long half-life. And... it's seriously deadly to all forms of life. Still, the old broad keeps on working while we sleep and eventually, she cleans it all up. We really owe her a lot of credit for the amazing and miraculous work she does on our behalf.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Gee, Boss, you are as ignorant as the rest of these wingnuts. Just another fruitloop that understands zero science. Once again,
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Gee, Old Rocks... maybe you need to discuss this with my former professors who gave me a 4.0 GPA in my science curriculum in college? I think it would come as a surprise to them that I am ignorant. They seemed to think I was pretty fucking smart. 

I don't care about your propaganda links! As I said, there are thousands upon thousands of such links supporting your lies. It's a concerted effort on part of Socialists to confiscate wealth. They fully understand they have to dominate the internet with the lies and propaganda. That way, gullible little quislings such as yourself, who have no idea about science, can be led around by your nose ring.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



FYI: American Institute of Physics is an organization formed in 1931 by our first Socialist President as part of the New Deal. It's specific purpose is to address science as it pertains to society and humanity... in other words, it's a propaganda mill for Socialists. It has no other function than to brainwash you with propaganda regarding the need for more government solutions to address problems by exploiting science.

It has spawned numerous other organizations, all with prestigious sounding names, in order to churn out Socialist propaganda in the name of science. Socialists are smart... they know that a public can be more easily controlled if they believe the propaganda. This is not a new concept that just started a few years ago, it's been going on for generations. And to their credit, due to ill-informed quislings such as yourself, it works!


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.




BULL


You cannot disprove anything I've posted.  I can disprove what you post, like the laughable quote above...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...


*Kind of stupid, there, old boy. First, the physicists are the people that measure things like the absorption spectra of CO2. Now if you have more than a grade school education in science, you would understand what that means. 

As for your contention concerning the Mt. St. Helens eruption, you are totally full of shit. And, apparently, proud of it, or you would have researched that before sticking your foot into it. *

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> It has been MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler for extended periods of time.




Correct - it has been much warmer when there were two polar oceans, and much colder when there were two polar continents.




Boss said:


> The worst thing man has ever done to the environment is nuclear testing




While that's up there, the sheer dollars wasted on studying something completely not happening is worse.  The Global Warming FRAUD has wasted about $2 trillion dollars to date doing nothing but spreading factless fear and misdiagnosing real envio issues, like the fires in California.  The fires are not caused by warming, they are caused by humans taking too much fresh water from nature.  The solution is desalination of ocean water, but the FRAUD blocks that by misdiagnosis and stealing all the environmental funds the taxpayer allocates.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, Boss, you are as ignorant as the rest of these wingnuts. Just another fruitloop that understands zero science. Once again,
> ...


Fellow, you can claim to be Einstein, this is an anonymous board, so your claims are invalid. What you are judged by are your posts, and they demonstrate profound ignorance in the subject of science. John Tydall of England demonstrated how GHGs functioned in 1858, Svante Arrhenius gave us the first, and pretty accurate, estimates of what the effects of adding GHGs to the atmosphere would do.

Propaganda links? You are one stupid ass. Links to people actually doing research in the subject.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.
> ...


Look, LaDumbkopf, during the middle Ordovician the south pole was covered with land and there was no polar cap there. By the end of the Ordovician, there was extensive glaciation on Gondwana. During the middle Ordovician, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was much greater than at the end of the Ordovician. Source, "The great Extinctions, What causes them and How they shape life". Norman Macleod.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> during the middle Ordovician the south pole was covered with land and there was no polar cap there




BULL - show the video.




Old Rocks said:


> Source



LOL!!!

You never think, you just parrot, and parrot, and shout down those who destroy the bullshit you parrot.


----------



## oldsoul (Sep 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > during the middle Ordovician the south pole was covered with land and there was no polar cap there
> ...


Well said. Did you notice how old rocks has gotten more and more angry sounding in subsequent posts when his/her assertions and "sources" are refuted? First rule of radicals: when questioned, shout down your opponent.

As predicted, this IS getting...interesting.... and funny.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on land mass Greenland

What matters for Earth ice?  

Land near a Pole.

What does CO2 have to do with that?

NOTHING


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > during the middle Ordovician the south pole was covered with land and there was no polar cap there
> ...


Now LaDumbkopf, it is called a book. One of those ancient things made of paper.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Apparently you can't read very well because I never even mentioned volcanic CO2 emissions. But if you want to debate natural emissions of CO2, let's talk about the oceans and vegetation... they generate tons more natural CO2  than humans every day. In fact, oceans produce 16 times more than humans. Those evil capitalist *OCEANS!* 

CO2 is one of the most abundant compounds on Earth and indeed, the universe. While plants and oceans do emit a lot of it, they also absorb a lot of it. It's a natural process happening all the time. Man's contribution is minuscule in comparison. To the degree we are affecting a change in the Earth's natural warming or cooling cycle, it's inconsequential and totally doesn't justify this "sky is falling" nonsense of Warmers. Nature handles it... we're not going to melt all the ice! We couldn't do that if we WANTED to. 

Even this Al Gore nonsense about how we're going to see coastal flooding soon if we don't change our ways.... it's laughable! Far before we'd ever see any tangible rise in coastal ocean levels, the natural convection of the oceans would cease to function due to all the cooling from melting ice and everything in the ocean would die. We'd have much bigger problems than flooding coast lines. It's just ridiculous nonsense heaped on top of more ridiculous nonsense. 

Look it... If you don't want us to burn fossil fuels, develop some alternative cost-effective form of energy! Because, right now, that's how we fuel the industrialized world and I don't think most of us want to go back to living in caves.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
> 7% of Earth ice on land mass Greenland
> 
> What matters for Earth ice?
> ...


CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate 

Dana L. Royer, Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA, droyer@psu.edu 

Robert A. Berner, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA 

Isabel P. Montañez, Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA Neil J. Tabor, Department of Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA 

David J. Beerling, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK

ABSTRACT Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2 record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate δ18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore the possible influence of seawater pH on the δ18O record and find that a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, but are likely of secondorder importance on a multimillionyear timescale.

*Full text available at the link*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


*Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance. However, since we started burning fossil fuel, the oceans have been obsorbing more they have been emitting, much to the detriment of sea life.



National Geographic News, 


The researchers say the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming.

But in a second, related study, scientists say the sink effect is now changing ocean chemistry. The resulting change has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain. The impacts on marine life could be severe, scientists say.

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

As you can see, now the oceans are absorbing more than they are emitting.

*


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > 90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
> ...


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> As you can see, now the oceans are absorbing more than they are emitting.




Who cares?

CO2 doesn't do anything.  We could increase it 10 fold today and it still wouldn't warm anything...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2016)

A real scientist, not an anonymous internet troll


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance. However, since we started burning fossil fuel, the oceans have been obsorbing more they have been emitting, much to the detriment of sea life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance.*

No they don't. Some of what the oceans absorb reacts with limestone and calcium to help form coral reefs. Many varieties of algae thrive on carbon dioxide. So, much of what the oceans absorb is used. There are also thermal vents in the ocean releasing tons of pure carbon dioxide. 

Scientists don't know what actual effects extra carbon dioxide is having on sea life. Your linked article is full of SPECULATIONS.... Scientists _*think*_... _*may*_ cause... *might* be... could *possibly*... These are not established FACTS. They are OPINIONS! You simply read this stuff and ASSUME that "may cause" means it DOES cause. You read "scientists think" and you assume scientists have proven... that's just not the case. They don't KNOW! 

The point was not to argue what effect CO2 has or doesn't have on oceans... it was to illustrate there are many natural sources of carbon dioxide. And contrary to all your little propaganda pieces saying CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas... the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. 

The greenhouse effect is important. If we didn't have a greenhouse effect, you and I would not exist, nor would any carbon-based life form on this planet. It's essential to life... as is carbon dioxide. What do you think plants use to produce energy? 

Do you consider botanists to be scientists? I mean, if we're going to consider Bill Nye, we ought to consider the world's leading botanists, right? Well botanists say that up until about 200 years ago, the trees and plants were starving for CO2. They can tell this by the tree rings. Increased CO2 levels actually help plants and forests to grow and thrive. If you want to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plant a fucking tree!


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance. However, since we started burning fossil fuel, the oceans have been absorbing more they have been emitting, much to the detriment of sea life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see you flunked chemistry. CO2 does not react with limestone and calcium to form coral reefs.  Coral reefs are formed by coral polyps from the aragonite (the most common form of calcium carbonate found in the world's oceans).  The addition of dissolved CO2 to the ocean increases its acidity (lowers its pH) making it more difficult for polyps to force the precipitation of aragonite.



Boss said:


> Scientists don't know what actual effects extra carbon dioxide is having on sea life.



It is a widely studied issue.  There are thousands of studies on the topic.  We certainly don't know the effect that rising pH will have on every organism under the seas, but we know quite a bit.



Boss said:


> Your linked article is full of SPECULATIONS.... Scientists _*think*_... _*may*_ cause... *might* be... could *possibly*... These are not established FACTS. They are OPINIONS! You simply read this stuff and ASSUME that "may cause" means it DOES cause. You read "scientists think" and you assume scientists have proven... that's just not the case. They don't KNOW!



And another failure of science education.  Natural science ALWAYS deals in possibilities, in probabilities.  There ARE NO PROOFS in natural science. 



Boss said:


> The point was not to argue what effect CO2 has or doesn't have on oceans... it was to illustrate there are many natural sources of carbon dioxide. And contrary to all your little propaganda pieces saying CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas... the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor.



The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is increased carbon dioxide. 



Boss said:


> The greenhouse effect is important. If we didn't have a greenhouse effect, you and I would not exist, nor would any carbon-based life form on this planet. It's essential to life... as is carbon dioxide. What do you think plants use to produce energy?



Some form of life could exist without greenhouse warming.  They likely would not develop were there no atmosphere.  And plants do not produce energy till they die and rot.  The consume energy from the sun to create sugars from CO2 and water.



Boss said:


> Do you consider botanists to be scientists? I mean, if we're going to consider Bill Nye, we ought to consider the world's leading botanists, right? Well botanists say that up until about 200 years ago, the trees and plants were starving for CO2. They can tell this by the tree rings. Increased CO2 levels actually help plants and forests to grow and thrive. If you want to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plant a fucking tree!



Plant life was not "starving" for CO2.  CO2 has not been at current levels for well over a million years. Plant life was sufficient to allow homo sapiens and a hundred thousand other species to thrive during all that period.  I agree that planting a tree will help lower CO2.  The standard line from the IPCC is that CO2 has increased due to human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.

So, what point were you trying to make?


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> I see you flunked chemistry. CO2 does not react with limestone and calcium to form coral reefs. Coral reefs are formed by coral polyps from the aragonite (the most common form of calcium carbonate found in the world's oceans). The addition of dissolved CO2 to the ocean increases its acidity (lowers its pH) making it more difficult for polyps to force the precipitation of aragonite.



Actually, I did pretty good in chemistry. For instance, I know where calcium carbonate comes from and it wouldn't be possible without carbon dioxide. 



Crick said:


> It is a widely studied issue. There are thousands of studies on the topic. We certainly don't know the effect that rising pH will have on every organism under the seas, but we know quite a bit.



Oh, indeed! We send out billions of tax dollars every year for research scientists to study this and that... they conclude this _may_ cause that... that _may_ result in this... the sky _might_ be falling... the world _may_ be ending... we _think_ this _could_ happen, we _believe_ that _might_ be the cause... by the way, when is our next grant check coming? 



Crick said:


> And another failure of science education. Natural science ALWAYS deals in possibilities, in probabilities. There ARE NO PROOFS in natural science.



Well then you should stop running around proclaiming things as if they are known facts when they're not. You can't have this both ways... you can't run around saying science has proven this or that and then say science doesn't prove things. 



Crick said:


> The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is increased carbon dioxide.



Bullshit. The median global temps haven't increased in 18 years... why do you think they stopped calling it "global warming" and started using "climate change" instead? They are now beginning to think the Earth is in a cooling cycle. Sunspot activity is at a 8,000-year high. There is much more going on than man-made carbon dioxide, one of the most abundant compounds on the planet and in the universe. 



Crick said:


> Some form of life could exist without greenhouse warming. They likely would not develop were there no atmosphere. And plants do not produce energy till they die and rot. The consume energy from the sun to create sugars from CO2 and water.



Profound idiocy on display. No, life couldn't exist without the greenhouse effect. If it cannot develop it cannot exist, dummy. Plants produce energy all the time, it's called photosynthesis. How the hell do think plants grow? What are you, in the third grade? 



Crick said:


> Plant life was not "starving" for CO2. CO2 has not been at current levels for well over a million years. Plant life was sufficient to allow homo sapiens and a hundred thousand other species to thrive during all that period. I agree that planting a tree will help lower CO2. The standard line from the IPCC is that CO2 has increased due to human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.



Sorry, don't know what to tell ya... here's some studies on the subject:
Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past - Gerhart - 2010 - New Phytologist -  Wiley Online Library

Here's another interesting article: 
https://www.cfact.org/pdf/CO2-TheGasOfLife.pdf

The point is this... All of you Climate Change Warriors seem to think you know for certain what is a proper level of CO2 in our atmosphere. You don't know! All through earth's history the amount of CO2 has changed radically. Following the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM) about 10-13,000 years ago, the CO2 levels dropped to under 150 ppm. This actually threatened the evolution of plant life and thousands of species were lost. Botanists say, it wasn't until around the time of the Industrial Revolution that CO2 levels had began to rebound and provide abundant nutrition for plants again. 

Go to any commercial greenhouse in America and you will find elaborate systems to pump CO2 into the houses to encourage healthy growth. What you get from increased CO2 in the atmosphere is more robust plant life and forests. The benefits should be apparent in our need to be able to feed an ever-growing global population. If there is any kind of amplification of the greenhouse effect, it is inconsequential to the other things in nature which also effect global temps. Our planet has been much warmer and much cooler... and there was no industrialization around... in some cases, there weren't even humans around.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> I see you flunked chemistry. CO2 does not react with limestone and calcium to form coral reefs. Coral reefs are formed by coral polyps from the aragonite (the most common form of calcium carbonate found in the world's oceans). The addition of dissolved CO2 to the ocean increases its acidity (lowers its pH) making it more difficult for polyps to force the precipitation of aragonite.





Boss said:


> Actually, I did pretty good in chemistry. For instance, I know where calcium carbonate comes from and it wouldn't be possible without carbon dioxide.



CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate.  The ionic solution of aragonite which all CaCO3-fixing organisms make use of comes almost entirely from weathering on land and enters the oceans through rivers and streams.



Crick said:


> It is a widely studied issue. There are thousands of studies on the topic. We certainly don't know the effect that rising pH will have on every organism under the seas, but we know quite a bit.





Boss said:


> Oh, indeed! We send out billions of tax dollars every year for research scientists to study this and that... they conclude this _may_ cause that... that _may_ result in this... the sky _might_ be falling... the world _may_ be ending... we _think_ this _could_ happen, we _believe_ that _might_ be the cause... by the way, when is our next grant check coming?





Crick said:


> And another failure of science education. Natural science ALWAYS deals in possibilities, in probabilities. There ARE NO PROOFS in natural science.





Boss said:


> Well then you should stop running around proclaiming things as if they are known facts when they're not. You can't have this both ways... you can't run around saying science has proven this or that and then say science doesn't prove things.



Guess what Boss.  I don't.



Crick said:


> The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is increased carbon dioxide.





Boss said:


> Bullshit. The median global temps haven't increased in 18 years... why do you think they stopped calling it "global warming" and started using "climate change" instead? They are now beginning to think the Earth is in a cooling cycle. Sunspot activity is at a 8,000-year high. There is much more going on than man-made carbon dioxide, one of the most abundant compounds on the planet and in the universe.



Of course there are other things going on.  There always are.  That doesn't mean we aren't continuing to warm from human CO2 emissions.  And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch.  Here's what it's been doing:







From the annual numbers, global temperatures have risen approximately 0.2C over the last 18 years.  The 5-yr running average has risen about half that in the last 18.



Crick said:


> Some form of life could exist without greenhouse warming. They likely would not develop were there no atmosphere. And plants do not produce energy till they die and rot. The consume energy from the sun to create sugars from CO2 and water.





Boss said:


> Profound idiocy on display. No, life couldn't exist without the greenhouse effect. If it cannot develop it cannot exist, dummy.



Removing the greenhouse effect would drop the planet's temperature to -18C.  Do you think it completely impossible for life to develop at that temperature?  I don't.



Boss said:


> Plants produce energy all the time, it's called photosynthesis. How the hell do think plants grow? What are you, in the third grade?



I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering.  Photosynthesis is not a process that produces energy.  It is one that USES energy.  You know... sunlight?  How many green plants do you know that do well in the dark.



Crick said:


> Plant life was not "starving" for CO2. CO2 has not been at current levels for well over a million years. Plant life was sufficient to allow homo sapiens and a hundred thousand other species to thrive during all that period. I agree that planting a tree will help lower CO2. The standard line from the IPCC is that CO2 has increased due to human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.





Boss said:


> Sorry, don't know what to tell ya... here's some studies on the subject:
> Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past - Gerhart - 2010 - New Phytologist -  Wiley Online Library



I am certainly not arguing that CO2 wasn't lower in the past and that plants need CO2.  I am disagreeing with your term "starving".  There was more than enough time for the Earth's flora to adapt to the levels present here for the past several million years.  There was no shortage of plant species or individual plants.  Before humans arose virtually the entire planet's continents inside N and S 60 were covered in a solid forest/jungle. So what is it you mean when you say they were "starving" for CO2?



Boss said:


> The point is this... All of you Climate Change Warriors seem to think you know for certain what is a proper level of CO2 in our atmosphere. You don't know! All through earth's history the amount of CO2 has changed radically. Following the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM) about 10-13,000 years ago _[did you perhaps mean the "LAST glacial maximum, 18 - 20,0000 years ago?]_, the CO2 levels dropped to under 150 ppm. This actually threatened the evolution of plant life and thousands of species were lost. Botanists say, it wasn't until around the time of the Industrial Revolution that CO2 levels had began to rebound and provide abundant nutrition for plants again.



I have NEVER claimed to know what is a "proper" level of CO2 in our atmosphere.  Our warnings about the situation are not over absolute levels of CO2 or absolute temperatures they will produce.  They concern the RATE at which temperatures (and the indirect effects of sea level and ocean pH) are changing. 



Boss said:


> Go to any commercial greenhouse in America and you will find elaborate systems to pump CO2 into the houses to encourage healthy growth. What you get from increased CO2 in the atmosphere is more robust plant life and forests. The benefits should be apparent in our need to be able to feed an ever-growing global population. If there is any kind of amplification of the greenhouse effect, it is inconsequential to the other things in nature which also effect global temps. Our planet has been much warmer and much cooler... and there was no industrialization around... in some cases, there weren't even humans around.



I'm sorry, but it is NOT inconsequential.  The harm global warming is doing will vastly overwhelm any benefits from increased plant growth.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

From your linked study

*Summary*
During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; 18 000–20 000 yr ago) and previous glacial periods, atmospheric [CO2] dropped to 180–190 ppm, which is among the lowest concentrations that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) are more than twice those of the LGM and 45% higher than pre-industrial concentrations. Since CO2is the carbon source for photosynthesis, lower carbon availability during glacial periods likely had a major impact on plant productivity and evolution. From the studies highlighted here, it is clear that the influence of low [CO2] transcends several scales, ranging from physiological effects on individual plants to changes in ecosystem functioning, and may have even influenced the development of early human cultures (via the timing of agriculture). Through low-[CO2] studies, we have determined a baseline for plant response to minimal [CO2] that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Moreover, an increased understanding of plant responses to low [CO2] contributes to our knowledge of how natural global change factors in the past may continue to influence plant responses to future anthropogenic changes. Future work, however, should focus more on the evolutionary responses of plants to changing [CO2] in order to account for the potentially large effects of genetic change.

Prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were at 280 pm, over 50% higher than during the glacial maximums discussed in your article.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate.



Calcium carbonate REQUIRES carbon dioxide. 



Crick said:


> Guess what Boss. I don't.



Yes, you ALL do... you'll do it before you finish this post! 



Crick said:


> Of course there are other things going on. There always are. That doesn't mean we aren't continuing to warm from human CO2 emissions. And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch. Here's what it's been doing:



To what extent we are contributing to any warming it is minor. I linked the article reporting no increase in 18 years. That's why your activists stopped calling it "Global Warming" and started talking about "Climate Change" instead. Back in the 70s it was "the impending Ice Age!" It always seems to require the same government solutions of confiscating wealth and destroying capitalism. 



Crick said:


> I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering. Photosynthesis is not a process that produces energy. It is one that USES energy. You know... sunlight? How many green plants do you know that do well in the dark.



How can they USE energy if they don't PRODUCE it?  



Crick said:


> I am certainly not arguing that CO2 wasn't lower in the past and that plants need CO2. I am disagreeing with your term "starving".



I'm just repeating what botanists have said. CO2 levels finally reached a point at about the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to where plants again thrived. Prior to that, they were not getting enough CO2... aka: starving! 



Crick said:


> I have NEVER claimed to know what is a "proper" level of CO2 in our atmosphere. Our warnings about the situation are not over absolute levels of CO2 or absolute temperatures they will produce. They concern the RATE at which temperatures (and the indirect effects of sea level and ocean pH) are changing.



These things change all the time, with or without human activity. Your alarmist rhetoric presupposes we know the optimal CO2 rate and we've exceeded it. I submit you don't know this. Temperatures on the planet have been changing dramatically for eons. Long before humans ever were in the picture, we had great warming and cooling periods. There is nothing we can do about that. 



Crick said:


> I'm sorry, but it is NOT inconsequential. The harm global warming is doing will vastly overwhelm any benefits from increased plant growth.



See... I told you that you would do this before you finished the thread. There is no proven science to support this nonsense. It's a speculation.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate.





Boss said:


> Calcium carbonate REQUIRES carbon dioxide.



One problem dude.  Dissolving CO2 in water increases calcium carbonate's solubility.  Adding CO2 will not produce more CaCO3 - it will make certain that none of it comes out of solution.




Crick said:


> Guess what Boss. I don't._[state that science proves things]_





Boss said:


> Yes, you ALL do... you'll do it before you finish this post!



No, I won't.



Crick said:


> Of course there are other things going on. There always are. That doesn't mean we aren't continuing to warm from human CO2 emissions. And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch. Here's what it's been doing:





Boss said:


> To what extent we are contributing to any warming it is minor.



We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise.



Boss said:


> I linked the article reporting no increase in 18 years. That's why your activists stopped calling it "Global Warming" and started talking about "Climate Change" instead. Back in the 70s it was "the impending Ice Age!" It always seems to require the same government solutions of confiscating wealth and destroying capitalism.



Deniers stopped using these arguments years ago.  I still call global warming 'global warming'.  So does everyone else.  If folks are talking about climate change, they'll say 'climate change'.  There is no significance there and you look quite foolish bringing that dead horse to bear.  What is required to solve this issue is to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions.  The solutions to that include conservation and alternative energy sources.  If you want to see some wealth move around, just do nothing.  The cost of dealing with the consequences will be in the tens of trillions of dollars at least.



Crick said:


> I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering. Photosynthesis is not a process that produces energy. It is one that USES energy. You know... sunlight? How many green plants do you know that do well in the dark.





Boss said:


> How can they USE energy if they don't PRODUCE it?



Are you really this dense?

From Wikipedia's article on Photosynthesis

*Photosynthesis* is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy into chemical energy that can later be released to fuel the organisms' activities (energy transformation). This chemical energy is stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars, which are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water – hence the name _photosynthesis_, from the Greek φῶς, _phōs_, "light", and σύνθεσις, _synthesis_, "putting together".[1][2][3] In most cases, oxygen is also released as a waste product. Most plants, most algae, and cyanobacteria perform photosynthesis; such organisms are called photoautotrophs. Photosynthesis is largely responsible for producing and maintaining the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere, and supplies all of the organic compounds and most of the energy necessary for life on Earth.[4]

Although photosynthesis is performed differently by different species, the process always begins when energy from light is absorbed by proteins called reaction centres that contain green chlorophyll pigments. In plants, these proteins are held inside organelles called chloroplasts, which are most abundant in leaf cells, while in bacteria they are embedded in the plasma membrane. In these light-dependent reactions, some energy is used to stripelectrons from suitable substances, such as water, producing oxygen gas. The hydrogen freed by the splitting of water is used in the creation of two further compounds that act as an immediate energy storage means: reducednicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the "energy currency" of cells.

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, long-term energy storage in the form of sugars is produced by a subsequent sequence of light-independent reactions called the Calvin cycle; some bacteria use different mechanisms, such as the reverse Krebs cycle, to achieve the same end. In the Calvin cycle, atmospheric carbon dioxide is incorporated into already existing organic carbon compounds, such as ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP).[5] Using the ATP and NADPH produced by the light-dependent reactions, the resulting compounds are then reduced and removed to form further carbohydrates, such as glucose.

The first photosynthetic organisms probably evolved early in the evolutionary history of life and most likely used reducing agents such as hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide, rather than water, as sources of electrons.[6]Cyanobacteria appeared later; the excess oxygen they produced contributed directly to the oxygenation of the Earth,[7] which rendered the evolution of complex life possible. Today, the average rate of energy capture by photosynthesis globally is approximately 130 terawatts,[8][9][10] which is about three times the current power consumption of human civilization.[11] Photosynthetic organisms also convert around 100–115 thousand million metric

If you don't understand the basic difference between exothermic and endothermic reactions, I suggest you need a basic science course before entering this conversation again.



Crick said:


> I am certainly not arguing that CO2 wasn't lower in the past and that plants need CO2. I am disagreeing with your term "starving".





Boss said:


> I'm just repeating what botanists have said. CO2 levels finally reached a point at about the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to where plants again thrived. Prior to that, they were not getting enough CO2... aka: starving!



The word appears twice in your linked article.  Once when scientists put plants in a sealed chamber and artificially lowered CO2 levels and again in a discussion of the specific atmospheric CO2 levels presents during glaciation periods: _"As a whole, these studies support the notion that trees were potentially carbon-starved during low-[CO2] periods because of glacial ci values that are, for the most part, unprecedented in modern vegetation."  _They do NOT state that plants were "starved" of CO2 during interglacial periods prior to the Industrial Revolution.



Crick said:


> I have NEVER claimed to know what is a "proper" level of CO2 in our atmosphere. Our warnings about the situation are not over absolute levels of CO2 or absolute temperatures they will produce. They concern the RATE at which temperatures (and the indirect effects of sea level and ocean pH) are changing.





Boss said:


> These things change all the time, with or without human activity.



Uh... yeah....




Homosapiens appeared as a species at the halfway point in this graph.  The current levels of CO2 have grossly exceeded anything that's occurred since that point in time.




Boss said:


> Your alarmist rhetoric presupposes we know the optimal CO2 rate and we've exceeded it.



Then you haven't been listening.  What we're alarmed about is the change in level - the rate at which temperatures are increasing, at which sea levels are rising and ocean pH is dropping.  Such changes have all happened before in the past, and much larger ones as well.  But they took hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions of years, to take place.  If such were the case today we would have no issue with any of it.



Boss said:


> I submit you don't know this.



Good for you.  That's probably why we've said no such thing.



Boss said:


> Temperatures on the planet have been changing dramatically for eons. Long before humans ever were in the picture, we had great warming and cooling periods. There is nothing we can do about that.



The current change is being caused by human activities so, quite obviously, it has never happened before and we CAN do something about it.  And try to see the sense of concerning yourself with conditions over the last 200,000 years - conditions since the appearance of homo sapiens - rather than the entire history of the planet.  Earth was a ball of molten rock at one point.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't care if it were to become one once again.



Crick said:


> I'm sorry, but it is NOT inconsequential. The harm global warming is doing will vastly overwhelm any benefits from increased plant growth.





Boss said:


> See... I told you that you would do this before you finished the thread. There is no proven science to support this nonsense. It's a speculation.



You're the only one to use the word "proven" here.  Science does lots of speculation.  But speculations are not presented as conclusions.  Science takes a hypothesis, based on known principles and intended to explain an observation and tests it by experimentation, by testing predictions and, in general, by attempting to falsify it.  If it survives all that, it becomes a theory.  If lots of scientists accept it - as has happened with the theory of anthropogenic global warming - it becomes a widely accepted theory.

 When you say that all those "may"s and "might"s make science all speculation, the only thing shown is that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method.  I suggest you educate yourself.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2016)

Boss said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate.
> ...


LOL  Boss, you are a funny one. CO2 levels were above 180 ppm for the times you stated. And 13,000 years ago, there were rhinoceri and many other large mammals in North America. Most of which were plant eaters. To sustain that level of large animals, there had to be a lot of plant life. During that period, the Younger Dryas occurred, a very rapid change in climate. A drop of at least 5 C going in, in a decade to a century, and then a thousand years later, an increase of the same magnitude. During those periods of rapid change, about 45 of the 54 species of large mammals became extinct or extirpated in North America. Most of these mammals had existed there for the whole of the cycles of the present ice age. There had never been a change that rapid in the prior cycles. 

We are looking at a change potentially that large this century. And certainly that large or larger by 2200.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> No, I won't.


Yes, you did... you continue to do it... 



Crick said:


> We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise.



No, we don't. We have some studies which SUGGEST otherwise. See what you are doing here? 



Crick said:


> Are you really this dense?



I asked you how plants can use energy if they can't produce energy? You gave me the wiki page on photosynthesis, which I am very well familiar with. It's the process of plants producing energy from sunlight and CO2. That energy is used for the plant to sustain and carry on the process of living, as all life forms do. 



Crick said:


> The word appears twice in your linked article. Once when scientists put plants in a sealed chamber and artificially lowered CO2 levels and again in a discussion of the specific atmospheric CO2 levels presents during glaciation periods: _"As a whole, these *studies support the notion that trees were potentially carbon-starved during low-[CO2] periods* because of glacial ci values that are, for the most part, unprecedented in modern vegetation." _They do NOT state that plants were "starved" of CO2 during interglacial periods prior to the Industrial Revolution.



It's precisely what it says. 



Crick said:


> Then you haven't been listening. What we're alarmed about is the change in level - the rate at which temperatures are increasing, at which sea levels are rising and ocean pH is dropping. Such changes have all happened before in the past, and much larger ones as well. But they took hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions of years, to take place. If such were the case today we would have no issue with any of it.



Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong  somewhere. In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more  government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there? 



Crick said:


> The current change is being caused by human activities so, quite obviously, it has never happened before and we CAN do something about it. And try to see the sense of concerning yourself with conditions over the last 200,000 years - conditions since the appearance of homo sapiens - rather than the entire history of the planet. Earth was a ball of molten rock at one point. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care if it were to become one once again.



No, we really can't do anything about it. The primary thing man does to create CO2 is burn fossil fuels... we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels. The next thing we do to create CO2 is breathe... not gonna stop breathing. The next thing we do to create CO2 is make concrete... we're not going to stop making concrete.  Even if we curtail some of these things it's going to mean people starve and die as a result. But let's say we do manage to keep from producing some CO2... one major natural disaster like an underwater earthquake hitting a thermal vent and it wipes out all our conservation efforts for 10 years in a matter of hours. We can't control Mother Nature... we can't even control hurricanes, floods, droughts or blizzards. 



Crick said:


> You're the only one to use the word "proven" here. Science does lots of speculation. But speculations are not presented as conclusions.



Yet I see you presenting conclusions here left and right. 
_*"We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise"* ~YOU (circa a few seconds ago)
_


Crick said:


> When you say that all those "may"s and "might"s make science all speculation, the only thing shown is that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method. I suggest you educate yourself.



I'm educated buddy! I keep having to explain how science works to you... you keep on appealing to popularity and thinking because a bunch of scientists THINK something it must apparently be true.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL Boss, you are a funny one. CO2 levels were above 180 ppm for the times you stated. And 13,000 years ago, there were rhinoceri and many other large mammals in North America. Most of which were plant eaters. To sustain that level of large animals, there had to be a lot of plant life. During that period, the Younger Dryas occurred, a very rapid change in climate. A drop of at least 5 C going in, in a decade to a century, and then a thousand years later, an increase of the same magnitude. During those periods of rapid change, about 45 of the 54 species of large mammals became extinct or extirpated in North America. Most of these mammals had existed there for the whole of the cycles of the present ice age. There had never been a change that rapid in the prior cycles.
> 
> We are looking at a change potentially that large this century. And certainly that large or larger by 2200.



I've just repeated what botanists say about plants and CO2 levels. I never claimed plants were almost extinct or anything like that. I'm happy for you to point out the dramatic shifts in global temperature many years before man was burning fossil fuels and had industrialization. That should be evidence the planet knows how to ultimately survive regardless of what happens.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 2, 2016)

Boss

Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong somewhere. In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there? 

.............................................................................................................................................

No, what I see is extreme ignorance on your part. There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling. 
*
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.





Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…
*
And by 1981, the leading atmospheric physicist of that time, Dr. James Hansen, made this prediction;

*Publication Abstracts*
*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

The whole article is linked to at that site. And it did miss the opening of the Northwest Passage. The paper predicted that opening toward the end of the 21st century, and it opened for the first time in 2007.


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise.





Boss said:


> No, we don't. We have some studies which SUGGEST otherwise. See what you are doing here?



So, you reject all science?  That IS what you're saying.  We have thousands of studies which show that the planet has been warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse warming from increasing levels of CO2 is the primary cause.  These studies do not "suggest" that is what's happening.  Those are their conclusions.  Your comments here show an abysmal comprehension of basic science and the scientific method. 



Boss said:


> I asked you how plants can use energy if they can't produce energy? You gave me the wiki page on photosynthesis, which I am very well familiar with. It's the process of plants producing energy from sunlight and CO2. That energy is used for the plant to sustain and carry on the process of living, as all life forms do.



Photosynthesis REQUIRES the energy input of sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugars.  Without sunlight, it does not take place.  Plants do not CREATE energy.  You can consider it a conversion process if you like: solar energy into chemical energy, but they are producing food, not energy.  Again, you comments indicate some educational shortcomings on this general topic



Crick said:


> The word appears twice in your linked article. Once when scientists put plants in a sealed chamber and artificially lowered CO2 levels and again in a discussion of the specific atmospheric CO2 levels presents during glaciation periods: _"As a whole, these *studies support the notion that trees were potentially carbon-starved during low-[CO2] periods* because of glacial ci values that are, for the most part, unprecedented in modern vegetation." _They do NOT state that plants were "starved" of CO2 during interglacial periods prior to the Industrial Revolution.





Boss said:


> It's precisely what it says.



Which is not what you said it says.  CO2 levels got to those "starvation" points at the height of glaciation, not just prior to the Industrial Revolution.  The Industrial Revolution did not - as you suggest - save the plant kingdom.



Crick said:


> Then you haven't been listening. What we're alarmed about is the change in level - the rate at which temperatures are increasing, at which sea levels are rising and ocean pH is dropping. Such changes have all happened before in the past, and much larger ones as well. But they took hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions of years, to take place. If such were the case today we would have no issue with any of it.





Boss said:


> Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong  somewhere.



Ahh... Marxists.  Global warming is a communist plot.  I see I have been wasting my time here.



Boss said:


> In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more  government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there?



Yes.  Your ignorance.



Crick said:


> The current change is being caused by human activities so, quite obviously, it has never happened before and we CAN do something about it. And try to see the sense of concerning yourself with conditions over the last 200,000 years - conditions since the appearance of homo sapiens - rather than the entire history of the planet. Earth was a ball of molten rock at one point. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care if it were to become one once again.





Boss said:


> No, we really can't do anything about it. The primary thing man does to create CO2 is burn fossil fuels... we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels.



I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the process is already underway.  Not as fast as we ought to be switching, but underway.



Boss said:


> The next thing we do to create CO2 is breathe... not gonna stop breathing.



No CO2 is added to the atmosphere by our breathing or that of any other animal.  Respiration is a CYCLE between plants and animals. 



Boss said:


> The next thing we do to create CO2 is make concrete... we're not going to stop making concrete.



The largest producers of CO2 are the combustion of fossil fuels to make energy and power our motor vehicles.  The former are being addressed by alternative energy sources (wind, thermal solar, solar PV, hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, OTEC, etc); the latter with electric and, eventually, fuel cell automobiles.  As you note, that is followed by the manufacture of concrete.  The centralization of that source makes it amenable to efforts at sequestration, but little has happened on that front as of yet.



Boss said:


> Even if we curtail some of these things



No if.  We are curtailing these things.



Boss said:


> it's going to mean people starve and die as a result.



No, they are not.  We are taking these actions to PREVENT people from starving and dying. 



Boss said:


> But let's say we do manage to keep from producing some CO2... one major natural disaster like an underwater earthquake hitting a thermal vent and it wipes out all our conservation efforts for 10 years in a matter of hours.



If you think that's the case I'm surprised you didn't claim volcanoes overwhelmed all human CO2 production.



Boss said:


> We can't control Mother Nature... we can't even control hurricanes, floods, droughts or blizzards.



Over the long term we have clearly shown that we can affect the "natural" conditions on the Earth. 



Crick said:


> You're the only one to use the word "proven" here. Science does lots of speculation. But speculations are not presented as conclusions.





Boss said:


> Yet I see you presenting conclusions here left and right.
> _*"We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise"* ~YOU (circa a few seconds ago)_





Crick said:


> When you say that all those "may"s and "might"s make science all speculation, the only thing shown is that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method. I suggest you educate yourself.





Boss said:


> I'm educated buddy!



You've not shown it here.



Boss said:


> I keep having to explain how science works to you...



You have explained nothing to me.  You have clearly announced your ignorance on chemistry, energy and the scientific method.



Boss said:


> you keep on appealing to popularity and thinking because a bunch of scientists THINK something it must apparently be true.



I will let your comments speak for themselves.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss
> 
> Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong somewhere. In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there?
> 
> ...



*There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling...A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total).*

Oh, so it was *just like* the _"97% of scientists consensus"_ lie being promoted today about AGW? 

I was around in the 70s, I remember how it was promoted... man was churning out all this smog and pollution and it threatened to block out the sun and bring on the next ice age if we didn't ACT! Man was driving down global temps and Government needed to step in! That's how we got the EPA. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

This article exposes the FRAUD of the "97 percent consensus" claims. It's actually more like 0.3%


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Photosynthesis REQUIRES the energy input of sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugars. Without sunlight, it does not take place. Plants do not CREATE energy. You can consider it a conversion process if you like: solar energy into chemical energy, but they are producing food, not energy. Again, you comments indicate some educational shortcomings on this general topic



This is now  becoming a semantics argument. "Food" is energy!  YES... plants *create* energy (food) from sunlight and CO2. Now this does not mean the laws of conservation are broken... energy can't be created or destroyed... but plants convert energy just like all living things convert energy. And that is what we're talking about. 



Crick said:


> Which is not what you said it says. CO2 levels got to those "starvation" points at the height of glaciation, not just prior to the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution did not - as you suggest - save the plant kingdom.



I didn't say it saved the plant kingdom. I'm growing tired of having to correct your twisting and pretzeling of things I say into straw men you can torch. I said that botanists say, up until about 200 years ago, plants were starving for CO2. I'm not a botanist, I don't study plants, I deffer to their expertise. I'm merely repeating what I've read. If you have some argument you should take that up with them. 



Crick said:


> I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the process is already underway. Not as fast as we ought to be switching, but underway.



Not really. I doubt we've reduced our usage of fossil fuels by more than a few percent. Certain efforts, such as Ethanol, actually use more fossil fuel than they save. It will be many, many years before we see man eliminate his need for fossil fuels. It's not going to happen in our lifetime. 



Crick said:


> No, they are not. We are taking these actions to PREVENT people from starving and dying.



But that's not the effect of implementing government mandates and restrictions on production. 



Crick said:


> So, you reject all science? That IS what you're saying. We have thousands of studies which show that the planet has been warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse warming from increasing levels of CO2 is the primary cause. These studies do not "suggest" that is what's happening. Those are their *conclusions.*



So here, you try to talk from both sides of your mouth. You have not shown me where science has concluded anything. When I challenge you, I'm told science can't conclude things... then you return promptly to explaining to me how science has concluded!  And so it goes... over and over... rinse and repeat!


----------



## IanC (Oct 2, 2016)

Rational people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

That is what I hate about climate science alarmism. The conclusions publicized are typically exaggerated towards worst case scenarios that are given undue certainty.


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch




LOL!!!

That chart is 99% surface ground, 1% ocean (flat line).  

The "warming" on surface ground, the only series showing any warming in the raw data, is all about the urban heat sink effect.  In short, as land goes from grass and trees to Tokyo, it warms 10 degrees on the surface.  That is all the real "warming" the "warmers" have - all of it...


Scientists: Urban heat, pollution wreak havoc with precipitation

"Cities also generate and trap tremendous amounts of heat and are on average 1 to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped areas."



As an urban area grows, it warms and moves up the 1-10 degree scale.  Nashville TN was 1 100 years ago, more like 4 now.  If you are just measuring from the surface of growing urban areas disproportionately in the northern hemisphere and you are dishonest as hell and editing out rural areas that remain undeveloped, you get the warmers' "Surface Ground" temp series...  Once again, CO2 isn't doing jack.


----------



## IanC (Oct 2, 2016)

For a change I can agree with LaDexter.

The UHI effect has been folded into the surface station record.

GISS in 2012 (the last time they made UHI adjustments available) showed zero change for total UHI.

BEST has gone even further and declared UHI a cooling influence worthy of ADDING to recent temps.

What Orwellian doublespeak!


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 2, 2016)

The actual UHI adjustment "correction" for the entire Surface Ground is 0.05 F, laughably small.  Raise it to 1+ and you wipe out the warming in organic Surface Ground and then all raw data shows NO WARMING at all...


----------



## IanC (Oct 2, 2016)

Phil Jones' original UHI paper claimed 0.005C/ decade. It also spawned a fraud investigation. In the 2000's he 7pdated it and got 0.05C/decade. Still pathetically small. And as I said GISS and BEST weren't even that high.

An example to show the difficulty of adjusting for local changes in conditions.

Temperatures were enclosed in Stevenson Screens that were painted white. Often they were only painted every 5-10 years. As the paint decayed the temperature readings went up. After fresh paint the temp would drop. Homogenization techniques could not capture the gradual increase but they could recognize the abrupt cooling which was adjusted for.


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 2, 2016)

Despite the warming of the surface of growing urban areas, the planet is not warming, the oceans are actually dropping, and the atmospheric and ocean temps still show no statistically significant change... despite the raw data in both showing minuscule COOLING.


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2016)

For the umpteenth time, let's see data that shown ocean temperatures are dropping, the atmosphere shows no statistically significant warming and raw data that shows them to be cooling.


----------



## boedicca (Oct 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 1. climate change is a science, not a theory
> 2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
> 3.  the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
> 4.  the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
> 5.  CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change




You forgot about that flaming ball in the sky and its impact on the climate.


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 2, 2016)

No ocean warming

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds the 18+ year 'pause' of global warming is not due to missing heat hiding in the deep oceans


Highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed no warming before being FUDGED in 2005...

Hiding the Hiatus: Global Warming on Pause


"The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months, from October 1996 to June 2015."


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2016)

"Highly correlated satellite and balloon data"

You have to be the most One-Trick-Pony that's ever existed.


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 3, 2016)

When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both return highly correlated data, you have to be a completely corrupt taxpayer funded leech to claim that either series needs to be "corrected" with UNCORRELATED "corrections" no less, but that is what your heroes did to preserve their $20 billion per year taxpayer funding....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> You have to be the most One-Trick-Pony that's ever existed.



Project much?  All you have is incessant claims of evidence that doesn't exist...at least he has actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data...and it tells a much more truthful story than anything you have been able to produce.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both return highly correlated data, you have to be a completely corrupt taxpayer funded leech to claim that either series needs to be "corrected" with UNCORRELATED "corrections" no less, but that is what your heroes did to preserve their $20 billion per year taxpayer funding....



That's the part I have difficulty understanding about these dunderheads who believe this Warming nonsense. There are literally thousands of people who are making good livings on the government funding of research concerning AGW.  It is totally NOT in their best interest to find any evidence to suggest man-made global warming isn't happening. To do that would be to cut their own livelihoods. What moron would ever do that? 

So what we continue to get are all these "studies" which conclude the narrative. No government-funded researcher in their right minds are going to ever publicly admit there is inconsequential effects on the climate from man's activities. They will prop up the lie with all kinds of gross speculations and conjecture, manipulate data and even make it up on the fly if they need to. Whatever it takes to keep the government grants coming. 

What I wish these supporting morons would realize is, this is billions and billions of dollars being poured into this thing... that's money we could be using to feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for the sick and needy... etc. Instead, it's going to "researchers" who live in $200k homes and "advocates" who fly around in private jets to preach the gospel of AGW. Not one single penny that has been spent on this boondoggle has changed ANY aspect of the climate. It never will!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss
> ...


OK, Boss, find me a single Scientific Society that claims that AGW is a fraud, and is not happening. How about one National Academy of Science? Even of Outer Slobovia. How about a major University? You cannot because they do not exist. Not here, not in any nation. 

Meanwhile, almost every Scientific Society in the world has a strongly worded statement that says AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Every National Academy of Science makes that statement. Almost every major University states the same. And what, Boss, do you have spreading false statements concerning the science involved? An obese junkie on the AM radio, a fake British Lord.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Photosynthesis REQUIRES the energy input of sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugars. Without sunlight, it does not take place. Plants do not CREATE energy. You can consider it a conversion process if you like: solar energy into chemical energy, but they are producing food, not energy. Again, you comments indicate some educational shortcomings on this general topic
> ...


Boss, you are playing free and loose with words. Crick stated that science does not prove anything. And he was correct. But you can make conclusions when science points out that the evidence shows this is the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Conclude and prove are words with a very different meaning. You really need to retake your literature and english classes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both return highly correlated data, you have to be a completely corrupt taxpayer funded leech to claim that either series needs to be "corrected" with UNCORRELATED "corrections" no less, but that is what your heroes did to preserve their $20 billion per year taxpayer funding....
> ...


So, what you are stating is that the vast majority of scientists, worldwide, are in on a conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists from every nation and culture. 

Boss, have you been fitted for your little tin hat yet?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL
> 
> So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;
> 
> ...


so where is the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is increasing the global temperature in that link.  Can you post up the snippet that explains that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch
> ...


Now LaDumbkopf, this is Dr. Roy Spencer's graph, from satellite data. Looks like major increase to me since the data started.

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2016: +0.44 deg. C «  Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL
> 
> So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;
> 
> ...


*There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.*

you have evidence to make this statement?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

boedicca said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > 1. climate change is a science, not a theory
> ...


And you forgot to check whether we have been receiving less or more energy from the sun in the last couple of decades. The answer is less. So, why don't you actually do a bit of research before proving yourself an ignorant ass?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


and you can't post up what the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2 is.  Can you?  So you have absolutely no evidence to say anything got warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both return highly correlated data, you have to be a completely corrupt taxpayer funded leech to claim that either series needs to be "corrected" with UNCORRELATED "corrections" no less, but that is what your heroes did to preserve their $20 billion per year taxpayer funding....
> ...


they can't produce evidence to how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and what the temperature variance is when it is added to the atmosphere.  The sun is at a minimum so we know the energy coming in is down.  there is no way to be warmer.  There is absolutely no evidence to show it has.  Fudged charts and graphs, continue to be posted to exacerbate the lie.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


sometimes I just have to laugh at statements like this.  Science doesn't validate?  REally?


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Boss, find me a single Scientific Society that claims that AGW is a fraud, and is not happening. How about one National Academy of Science? Even of Outer Slobovia. How about a major University? You cannot because they do not exist. Not here, not in any nation.
> 
> Meanwhile, almost every Scientific Society in the world has a strongly worded statement that says AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Every National Academy of Science makes that statement. Almost every major University states the same. And what, Boss, do you have spreading false statements concerning the science involved? An obese junkie on the AM radio, a fake British Lord.



This is really easy.... the globe IS warming. We are in a warming cycle just as we are sometimes in a cooling cycle and the globe is cooling. This happens all the time and has been happening since the planet stabilized about 3 billion years ago. It has nothing to do with man. 

Again... Man has done some really devastating things to the environment. We've dumped toxins in rivers and lakes... we've unleashed massive amounts of radiation through nuclear testing... we've spilled untold amounts of raw crude oil in the oceans... poured billions and trillions of metric tons of pollution into the air... Yet, the planet has this amazing ability to recover. 

Not only that, but there have been cataclysmic natural disasters that dwarf anything man could ever muster. Huge volcanic eruptions that changed weather patterns and climate for decades sometimes. Things on a scale man couldn't duplicate in 100k years if they were trying. Yet... again... the planet has this amazing ability to recover. 

It's not some dainty little delicate system that is effected by every little thing we do and is threatened by our activity. The whole thing isn't going to suddenly collapse because we didn't stop burning fossil fuels. Now, I don't have any problem with us exploring alternatives to fossil fuels... I think that's a great thing to do and mankind will ultimately benefit as well as our planet, if we come up with something to efficiently replace fossil fuels. But it's not some huge emergency crisis that we have to do right now or face imminent destruction of the planet. That is alarmist rhetoric and nothing more. 

This entire "Global Warming" thing is the latest attempt of Marxist Socialists to destroy Capitalism. They've been churning out this kind of fear-mongering nonsense for YEARS! You're just the latest gullible little idiot to buy into it. The sky is not falling, Chicken Little!


----------



## boedicca (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



Which is why the earth is cooling, bub.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...








16.1 Glacial Periods in Earth’s History | Physical Geology

Cambrian Period






*No continental glaciation during the Cambrian
*





Distribution of landmasses, mountainous regions, shallow seas, and deep ocean basins during the …
_Adapted from C.R. Scotese, The University of Texas at Arlington_
*Again, mid-Silurian, no continental ice sheets.*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


seriously?  this is what you got eh?  excuse, spppffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttttttttt


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Boss, find me a single Scientific Society that claims that AGW is a fraud, and is not happening. How about one National Academy of Science? Even of Outer Slobovia. How about a major University? You cannot because they do not exist. Not here, not in any nation.
> ...


Stupid beyond belief for someone supposedly college educated. John Tyndall of England demonstrated that there were GHGs in the atmosphere in 1858. Svante Arrhenius calculated the effects of CO2 in 1896. 

As for your strawman, no credible scientist has stated that we are going to destroy the planet. What is being stated, and you damned well know it, is that we are making it a lot less livable for us and the other life that exists on this planet. As far as your Marxist twaddle goes, fuck you, you stupid ignorant rightwingnut.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

boedicca said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Now why don't you take that up with Boss. LOL


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


did tyndall record any temperature variances for those experiments for the supposed GHGs?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Well now, silly little ass, you have the world's biggest library right at your fingertips. Someone less stupid and lazy would look up who Tyndall was, and what he did.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, what you are stating is that the vast majority of scientists, worldwide, are in on a conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists from every nation and culture.
> 
> Boss, have you been fitted for your little tin hat yet?



No... I am saying the vast majority of scientists are not saying man is causing cataclysmic global warming. Also, I am saying that_ "ad populum"_ arguments are fallacious arguments that conclude a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. That's not how Science has ever worked. 

Have you designed your funny little Pope hat for your faith-based religious belief yet?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


well now, see what someone without any evidence does when challenged?  Why don't you, mr rocks,  just post up one of those tyndall recorded tests.  Cause he never recorded temperatures.  that's why you won't.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


yes and they admitted it.  email gate.  all you need to know.  funny how you continue to ignore email gate.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Stupid beyond belief for someone supposedly college educated. John Tyndall of England demonstrated that there were GHGs in the atmosphere in 1858....



OH Noooz!1!! The Terrible Greenhouse Gases is a gonna kill us to death!!1!! 

The #1, most abundant and prevalent Greenhouse "gas" is *water vapor!* 

Look dummy... if not for the greenhouse effect, no life would exist on this planet! We would be like Mars! It is the greenhouse effect that stabilizes our climate and helps regulate a temperature range conducive to the process of life. Without it, we'd see night time temperatures drop to over 100 degrees below zero and parts of our planet would reach temperatures of 300+ degrees during the day. Water on our planet would simply evaporate away into space if there wasn't some mechanism (the greenhouse effect) to keep it contained.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid beyond belief for someone supposedly college educated. John Tyndall of England demonstrated that there were GHGs in the atmosphere in 1858....
> ...


Why yes, the most abundant and prevalent GHG is water vapor. And it's residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 days. While that of CO2 is centuries. So, in times of rapidly declining CO2, like the end of the Ordivician, there were continental glaciations near the equator. Even though there was still the same amount of water on this planet. 

And, yes, without the Greenhouse effect of CO2, the oceans would be frozen almost to the equator. That has actually happened in the past, see Snowball Earth. What we are facing today, is a very rapid increase in GHG's due to the burning of fossil fuels. The last time the CO2 level was at 300 ppm, the sea levels were 20 feet higher than today. That was 120,000 years ago during the Eemian. Now we are over 400 ppm, and rising rapidly. No, the sea level rise will not be instant, but by the end of this century it is likely that our seaport infrastructure will not be usable due to a 3 foot plus rise in sea level. And we are already seeing the effect of the 'stuck' weather systems due to the loss of Arctic Ice.

As the atmosphere and ocean warm, we will and are seeing more precipitation events. Thing like one storm flooding 80,000 homes Louisiana. One can go to the sites of Swiss Re and Munich Re concerning the increase in extreme weather events. GHGs have a very strong effect on the climate and weather. And we are the source of the very rapid increase in GHGs in the atmosphere at this time.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


*the most abundant and prevalent GHG is water vapor. And it's residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 days. While that of CO2 is centuries.*

So if the sun were to explode or extinguish, life on earth can be maintained for centuries cause CO2 hangs around that long? Oh my the nonsense that you post.

CO2 does not create heat never has.  how warm is 120PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much warmth does it add to the surface?  got those numbers somewhere?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Well, jc, I can very well see you believing that. LOL


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> [
> Why yes, the most abundant and prevalent GHG is water vapor. And it's residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 days. While that of CO2 is centuries. So, in times of rapidly declining CO2, like the end of the Ordivician, there were continental glaciations near the equator. Even though there was still the same amount of water on this planet..



One word for you rocks....BULLSHIT.  You know perfectly well that the residence time for CO2 is nothing like that and study after study has stated as much...






Here are 37 studies...31 of them find the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere to be less than 10 years...notice that the IPCC has pegged the bullshit meter at 100 years and you are claiming multiple centuries....


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Why yes, the most abundant and prevalent GHG is water vapor. And it's residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 days. While that of CO2 is centuries. So, in times of rapidly declining CO2, like the end of the Ordivician, there were continental glaciations near the equator. Even though there was still the same amount of water on this planet.
> 
> And, yes, without the Greenhouse effect of CO2, the oceans would be frozen almost to the equator. That has actually happened in the past, see Snowball Earth. *What we are facing today, is a very rapid increase in GHG's due to the burning of fossil fuels.*



*False.* We are facing an approximate increase of 1 degree average over the past century. There is no evidence to PROVE man's burning fossil fuels has anything to do with that, it's all based on theories and speculations. The CO2 levels have been MUCH higher, long before man was ever industrialized. What the CO2 actually does in our atmosphere, is provide an "insulating" quality, trapping both heat and cold. This has resulted in a very slight increase in median temperatures over the past century and is nothing to be alarmed about. 

Mother nature doesn't compile annual statistical data and make adjustments. So sometimes the averages over a year, a decade or even a century, might be higher or lower than the previous period. Mother Nature also doesn't consult Liberals to determine if she has "too much" or "not enough" of any particular element in her atmosphere at any given time. 



> The last time the CO2 level was at 300 ppm, the sea levels were 20 feet higher than today. That was 120,000 years ago during the Eemian. Now we are over 400 ppm, and rising rapidly. No, the sea level rise will not be instant, but by the end of this century it is likely that our seaport infrastructure will not be usable due to a 3 foot plus rise in sea level. And we are already seeing the effect of the 'stuck' weather systems due to the loss of Arctic Ice.



We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized. 

Now let me explain something to you with this nonsense about rising sea levels.... If enough ice melts at our northern pole to generate enough water to raise the sea level one single foot, it will have such a dramatic cooling effect on the ocean's natural convection that most sea life would become endangered and we would have MUCH bigger problems than flooded coast lines. What we know is happening, is at the southern pole, sea ice is growing. This is offsetting what is happening in the Arctic. 

The dramatic weather systems you call "stuck" are largely the result of El Niño and  La Niña phenomenon that are completely natural and have been happening for all of Earth's existence as a stable planet. 



> As the atmosphere and ocean warm, we will and are seeing more precipitation events. Thing like one storm flooding 80,000 homes Louisiana. One can go to the sites of Swiss Re and Munich Re concerning the increase in extreme weather events. GHGs have a very strong effect on the climate and weather.* And we are the source of the very rapid increase in GHGs in the atmosphere at this time.*



There is just no proof of this. It's a *THEORY*.  You are taking perfectly normal catastrophic events that happen all the time throughout the history of the world, and trying to make some correlation with man's activities based on a speculative theory that can't be proven.


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> We are facing an approximate increase of 1 degree average over the past century




No we aren't.

That's why to show a "sea level rise" your side cherry picks three island chains on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, because THERE IS NO SEA LEVEL RISE, as 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of ice every year.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> No, what I see is extreme ignorance on your part. There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling.
> 
> .



Of course there was rocks....the fact that climate science feels the need to try and make its past mistakes disappear is just one of many reasons that they have no credibility.

There were hundreds of studies between the 60's and 80's that predicted a cooling trend....and that was in an atmosphere that was not publish or perish as is the feeling today...

For Example:

NOAA, 1974



> In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire. … *Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.* … *Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes*. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. … [T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … *Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent*. … *Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an “ice age.”*


*

*
Full text of "Understanding climatic change"    (this from the National Academy of Sciences)



> A striking feature of the instrumental record is the behavior of temperature worldwide. As shown by Mitchell (1970), the average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880's until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter (see Figure A. 6,Appendix A). Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere's (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. In that period the polar and subtropical arid regions experienced the greatest cooling. The cause of this variation
> is not known, although clearly this trend cannot continue indefinitely.
> 
> There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus with regard to either the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We are facing an approximate increase of 1 degree average over the past century
> ...



 I think you've confused my comment with that of a liberal Warmer. It had nothing to do with sea ice. Our median global temperature is up 1 degree over the past 100 years according to all the data we have. There is no proof this is the result of anything man is doing, excess CO2 or GHGs, or anything else. While there might be some melting of ice shelves in the Arctic, there is growing ice shelves in the Antarctic. The median sea level is not rising and if it ever rose more than a foot, the natural convection system of the ocean would cease to function and we'd have bigger problems than coastal flooding.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*Here is some figures from Princeton University;
*
http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/TauL1b.pdf

*From Yale;
*
Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Yale Climate Connections

Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.

It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.

Residence Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere






Fig. 9a: Decay of a small pulse of CO2 added to today's atmosphere, based on analytic approximation to the Bern carbon cycle model 
(Joos F et al., An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanc and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake, Tellus, 48B, 397-417, 1996; Shine et al., Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases, Clim. Change, 68, 281-302, 2005, see equation given in figure).

In this approximation of the carbon cycle,



about 1/3 of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere after 100 years, and

1/5 after 1000 years.




The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss;

We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
*Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2*
August 2016:     402.25 ppm
August 2015:     398.93 ppm 
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

*Seems you are completely wrong. Took about 20 seconds on google. Perhaps were you not so lazy you wouldn't embarrass yourself so regularly.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss;

Now let me explain something to you with this nonsense about rising sea levels.... If enough ice melts at our northern pole to generate enough water to raise the sea level one single foot, it will have such a dramatic cooling effect on the ocean's natural convection that most sea life would become endangered and we would have MUCH bigger problems than flooded coast lines. What we know is happening, is at the southern pole, sea ice is growing. This is offsetting what is happening in the Arctic.
...................................................................................................................................................................................

Damn, now this is funny. It is the ice from Greenland, alpine glaciers, and the Antarctic Ice Cap that is raising the sea levels. And just that from the Greenland cap would raise sea level by 20 feet. Not only that, but if the West Antarctic Ice Shelf comes ungrounded, that would raise sea level by 20 feet. And that ice sheet is very unstable. And the sea ice around Antarctica is actually below normal for this time of year right now.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss;
> 
> We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized.
> ...........................................................................................................................................................................
> ...



Sorry, but you are presenting data at ONE place on the planet. That's not a GLOBAL average. 

Try again!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss;

The dramatic weather systems you call "stuck" are largely the result of El Niño and La Niña phenomenon that are completely natural and have been happening for all of Earth's existence as a stable planet.
..............................................................................................................................................................................
Not at all. Here is Dr. Jennifer Francis, of Rutgers University. A long lecture, but if you really have a college education, you should be used to that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn, now this is funny. It is the ice from Greenland, alpine glaciers, and the Antarctic Ice Cap that is raising the sea levels. And just that from the Greenland cap would raise sea level by 20 feet. Not only that, but if the West Antarctic Ice Shelf comes ungrounded, that would raise sea level by 20 feet. And that ice sheet is very unstable. And the sea ice around Antarctica is actually below normal for this time of year right now.



Nonsense. You DO understand that all that melting ice results in cold water being introduced into the oceans... that's what is going to raise the sea levels... and IF that were to happen to the extent you suggest, the natural process of ocean convection would stop working. This is the currents of the oceans... it is essential to virtually ALL sea life. Whenever the convection stops due to all the new cold water being introduced, the problem is NOT going to be coastal flooding. It will be the mass extinction of sea life happening all over the world.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss;
> ...


The news comes as one important atmospheric measuring station at Cape Grim in Australia is poised on the verge of 400ppm for the first time. Sitting in a region with stable CO2 concentrations, once that happens, it will never get a reading below 400ppm.






https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/11/worlds-carbon-dioxide-concentration-teetering-on-the-point-of-no-return

Now Boss, really, you could try to find this kind of information yourself.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Not at all. Here is Dr. Jennifer Francis, of Rutgers University. A long lecture, but if you really have a college education, you should be used to that.



And how much government money did Dr. Francis receive last year to conduct her research? You are listening to people who have a VESTED INTEREST in keeping the balloon in the air. Of COURSE she is going to present a case... Of COURSE she is going to tell you that MORE MONEY is needed! That's how she makes her living and continues to do what she does. She is a shill and you're a dupe.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



AGAIN.... You are pointing to ONE reporting station and trying to support your false claim that GLOBAL average CO2 is over 400 ppm. There are places where it's MUCH lower.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, now this is funny. It is the ice from Greenland, alpine glaciers, and the Antarctic Ice Cap that is raising the sea levels. And just that from the Greenland cap would raise sea level by 20 feet. Not only that, but if the West Antarctic Ice Shelf comes ungrounded, that would raise sea level by 20 feet. And that ice sheet is very unstable. And the sea ice around Antarctica is actually below normal for this time of year right now.
> ...


*A bit exaggerated, but not that bad of an analysis.*

Study: Melting Greenland ice sheet is rapidly slowing the Gulf Stream

The Northern Hemisphere winter of 2014-15 was the warmest on record globally, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But if you look closely at global temperature maps, it becomes clear that one area of the North Atlantic conspicuously bucked the trend, as it has during many years since 1970.

That region was, in fact, the coldest it has been since the dawn of instrument records, at up to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit colder than average. According to a new study, this cold pool may be an indicator of a dramatic slowdown in the Gulf Stream, which transports vast amounts of heat north from the equator to the pole, passing off the East Coast of the U.S. and into the North Atlantic.

If true, this is vindication for those who think global warming is likely to trigger so-called "tipping points" in the climate system, which, once set into motion, cannot be stopped. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had judged that there is up to a 10% likelihood of a Gulf Stream shutdown before year 2100, though many climate scientists estimate this likelihood is even higher.

"Evidence is mounting that the long-feared circulation decline is already well underway," "Evidence is mounting that the long-feared circulation decline is already well underway," says co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, in a blog post for _RealClimate_.
The slowdown in this current, the study finds, is unprecedented in hundreds to perhaps as long as 1,000 years, and is most likely related to another tipping point, which is the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The influx of freshwater from the ice sheet is one of the main sources of freshwater inflow into the North Atlantic Ocean.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Thank you for supporting my argument which refutes your alarmist silliness about rising coastal waters.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


*The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide globally averaged over marine surface sites.* The Global Monitoring Division of NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades at a globally distributed network of air sampling sites _[Conway, 1994]_. A global average is constructed by first fitting a smoothed curve as a function of time to each site, and then the smoothed value for each site is plotted as a function of latitude for 48 equal time steps per year. A global average is calculated from the latitude plot at each time step _[Masarie, 1995]_. Go here *for more details on how global means are calculated.*

*Recent Global CO2
July 2016:     401.72 ppm
July 2015:     398.13 ppm
*
*http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global*

*See, Boss, I don't flap yap with zero to back me up. I have followed the increase in CO2 and CH4 for a lot of years.*http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/global_means.html


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> See, Boss, I don't flap yap with zero to back me up. I have followed the increase in CO2 and CH4 for a lot of years.



No, you flap that yap a lot. You've not backed up anything as best I can tell. And what fucking difference does the magic number 400 ppm make anyway? Mother Nature isn't keeping tabs on your arbitrary numbers. It could be that 400 ppm over the course of a billion years is perfectly "normal" for our planet?  You don't KNOW this... none of you do... you ASSUME to know a lot of stuff that you don't know. 

Maybe we're supposed to be warmer? Maybe there's not supposed to be a lot of sea ice? Maybe the coastal sea levels should be higher? Maybe arid deserts are supposed to be lush with vegetation? Maybe your whole entire idea of what is "ideal" is a bunch of self-aggrandizing, self-important nonsense? You have no PROOF you are right, you just want to bully people into believing you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2016)

LOL Well, I can see why you vote for a loser like Trump. You are incapable of admitting that there are things you don't know, and when you make stupid statements, you double down on them. LOL 

Well, you are in good company with Silly Billy, jc, and Ladumbkopf. Your chosen peer group. LOL


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL Well, I can see why you vote for a loser like Trump. You are incapable of admitting that there are things you don't know, and when you make stupid statements, you double down on them. LOL
> 
> Well, you are in good company with Silly Billy, jc, and Ladumbkopf. Your chosen peer group. LOL



That's right pinhead... throw out your little smarmy condescending insult and run away... that's what you libtards do best.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 4, 2016)

Now dear little cocksuck, you have shown that you don't do minimal research before you post garbage. Why should I not be condescending towards you? After all, I am not an academic, just an old millwright that knows the basics of doing research. You want respect, earn it. Thus far, you have not. You are like one of those college educated managers that thinks a degree in business management makes him an expert in maintenance, yet does not know the difference between a volt and an amp. That does not even know how to convert metric to english measurement. And, yes, the people in maintenance can get away with telling such people to fuck off. Because a good maintenance person, millwright, electrician, or automation, is harder to come by than some asshole with a management degree.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sorry rocks...there are still 36 studies...not driven by the AGW agenda finding that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is closer to 10 years....but thanks for confirming that you will believe anything so long as it fits well with your politics.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss;
> ...



Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 4, 2016)

If that is the case, SSDD, then why are we at 400+ ppm? After all, if the residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 years, then the CO2 from the fossil fuels would mostly be gone by now. The fact is, your sites refer to the cycling of individual CO2 molecules, not the totality of the CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > See, Boss, I don't flap yap with zero to back me up. I have followed the increase in CO2 and CH4 for a lot of years.
> ...



Over the course of a billion years...a number considerably higher than 1000ppm seems to be normal...



Boss said:


> Maybe we're supposed to be warmer? Maybe there's not supposed to be a lot of sea ice? Maybe the coastal sea levels should be higher? Maybe arid deserts are supposed to be lush with vegetation? Maybe your whole entire idea of what is "ideal" is a bunch of self-aggrandizing, self-important nonsense? You have no PROOF you are right, you just want to bully people into believing you are.



Again...looking at the temperature history of the earth,  it is clear that the normal temperature of planet earth is considerably warmer than this cold period we find ourselves in....and it would seem that on planet earth, ice is the anomaly...not the norm.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> If that is the case, SSDD, then why are we at 400+ ppm? After all, if the residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 years, then the CO2 from the fossil fuels would mostly be gone by now. The fact is, your sites refer to the cycling of individual CO2 molecules, not the totality of the CO2 in the atmosphere.



Poor old rocks....an increase in atmospheric CO2 inevitably follows an increase in temperature....and the earth has its own CO2 making machinery?...any idea how much is coming out of vents in the ocean floor?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

there is more CO2 in the air than there was before. much of the increase is from burning fossil fuels etc. some of it is natural, as is expected in a warming world.

you cannot compare past levels of CO2/temperature to today because the increase in CO2 is not due (totally) to natural equilibriums.

artificially high CO2 levels do not mean that we will have the same temps as in the past for the same concentration. while CO2 is both a symptom and a cause, we do not know what the proportions are. I certainly believe CO2 has a warming influence but I think IPCC consensus science has wildly exaggerated it. the effect of CO2 is swamped by the water cycle, whose effects are uncertain.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> there is more CO2 in the air than there was before. much of the increase is from burning fossil fuels etc. some of it is natural, as is expected in a warming world.
> 
> you cannot compare past levels of CO2/temperature to today because the increase in CO2 is not due (totally) to natural equilibriums.
> 
> artificially high CO2 levels do not mean that we will have the same temps as in the past for the same concentration. while CO2 is both a symptom and a cause, we do not know what the proportions are. I certainly believe CO2 has a warming influence but I think IPCC consensus science has wildly exaggerated it. the effect of CO2 is swamped by the water cycle, whose effects are uncertain.



So now you are claiming that Xppm of manmade CO2 is somehow different from Xppm of natural CO2?...is that because manmade CO2 has some magical properties ?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Now dear little cocksuck, you have shown that you don't do minimal research before you post garbage. Why should I not be condescending towards you? After all, I am not an academic, just an old millwright that knows the basics of doing research. You want respect, earn it. Thus far, you have not. You are like one of those college educated managers that thinks a degree in business management makes him an expert in maintenance, yet does not know the difference between a volt and an amp. That does not even know how to convert metric to english measurement. And, yes, the people in maintenance can get away with telling such people to fuck off. Because a good maintenance person, millwright, electrician, or automation, is harder to come by than some asshole with a management degree.


wow, what a paragraph, it says absolutely nothing toward the OP.  So why don't you actually answer what was asked? Supply the stations for the readings.  Boss told you that wasn't global. You have no comeback data to say you do.  Why not?  Isn't that how a debate functions?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates?  You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you?  If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now dear little cocksuck, you have shown that you don't do minimal research before you post garbage. Why should I not be condescending towards you? After all, I am not an academic, just an old millwright that knows the basics of doing research. You want respect, earn it. Thus far, you have not. You are like one of those college educated managers that thinks a degree in business management makes him an expert in maintenance, yet does not know the difference between a volt and an amp. That does not even know how to convert metric to english measurement. And, yes, the people in maintenance can get away with telling such people to fuck off. Because a good maintenance person, millwright, electrician, or automation, is harder to come by than some asshole with a management degree.
> ...



No answer...you know rocks...gets his panties in a wad when his dogma is questioned and he has no ready bit of dogma with which to fire back....


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > there is more CO2 in the air than there was before. much of the increase is from burning fossil fuels etc. some of it is natural, as is expected in a warming world.
> ...




You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.



Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?



IanC said:


> And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.



So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2?  Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost?  Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



When time and distance = zero...how is it different?  Energy is energy.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

I still remember the awe I had as a young teenager when I read about actual proof of time dilation from near light speeds. 

Cosmic rays pepper the atmosphere with ultra high speed protons and alpha particles. They then collide with a molecule and send a spray of newly formed particles and radiation usually only seen in particle accelerators. One type has a very short lifespan and shouldn't survive long enough to make it to the surface even at near light speeds. But they do. And the only explanation is time dilation due to relativistic speed. Amazing! 

We live in the world of matter and even light has a speed limit. We can only guess at the world of light speed but we can observe and measure light in our reference frame. The observations and measurements don't match up with SSDD's peculiar version of physics.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Conduction is not the same as radiation*.

Why not?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

An experiment to show photons don't react to other photons except in the presence of matter.

Magnets will typically polarize a beam of light. A vacuum tube was set up with an emitter at on end and a detector at the other. If the magnet is close to either the emitter OR the detector then the light becomes polarized. If the magnet is placed in between, away from emitter or detector, then nothing happens. The light does not polarize.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

doesn't the magnet contain matter?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Mediated by matter. 

I don't feel comfortable trying to explain because I don't really understand it. Try googling 'phonons'.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> doesn't the magnet contain matter?




Yes it does but it isn't in the path of the light beam.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I did google it and they are considered the same here:

Thermal Energy Transfer: Conduction, Convection, Radiation | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper


"All things are made up of molecules
When things get heated, they absorb heat energy
With more energy, molecules are able to move faster
When molecules move faster, the temperature rises
*What is Thermal Energy???*

Thermal Energy is energy resulting from the motion of particles
It is a form of *kinetic energy* and is transferred as *heat*
*Thermal Energy Transfer *can occur by three methods:
*Conduction*
*Convection*
*Radiation*


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.
> ...




I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM.  right?  just admit it.  It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part?  how many parts?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I suggest you google phonons, and you come back with Homework Helper!!!! hahahaha. 




> *Definition*
> A phonon is a quantum mechanical description of an elementary vibrational motion in which a lattice of atoms or molecules uniformly oscillates at a single frequency.[2] In classical mechanics this designates a normal mode of vibration. Normal modes are important because any arbitrary lattice vibration can be considered to be a superposition of these _elementary_ vibration modes (cf. Fourier analysis). While normal modes are wave-like phenomena in classical mechanics, phonons have particle-like properties too, in a way related to the wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics.  Phonon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



obviously we are working on different levels of complexity.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


do you know how much the oceans have warmed?  The temps differ around the globe.  they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot.  so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You're a fucking retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> I
> 
> We live in the world of matter and even light has a speed limit. We can only guess at the world of light speed but we can observe and measure light in our reference frame. The observations and measurements don't match up with SSDD's peculiar version of physics.



No ian...every observation ever made matches up with what I think re:  the second law...what you think, on the other hand remains unobserved, untestable, and unmeasurable...and only exists within the realm of mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?



It doesn't matter since CO2 can't cause warming beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so I'm not understanding your point here and the relationship between radiation and conduction.  I see no difference mentioned in the wiki phonon definition.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.
> 
> grow a brain.



you know as well as I do that a great deal of natural CO2 is indistinguishable from man made...even from the isotopes resulting from burning petroleum....but you are perfectly willing to lie and mislead if you believe it will convince someone to join you on the magical mystery CO2 bus.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He is grasping....it is clear that he never really considered the fact that since time and distance to a photon = zero...there is really no difference between radiation and conduction...energy moving via radiation doesn't need to "know" in which direction the cooler region is any more than energy moving along a heated bar of steel needs to know which direction is the cooler region...

At this point, he is just denying and reaching for straws...perhaps he is smart enough that it just might be dawning upon him that he has been wrong all along....and maybe he will give up his belief in the mythical magical properties of CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I really don't care why you asked me why the oceans warmed.  I'm an individual and as such don't need to play your games.  you think you're this smart goody too shoe climate dude and you're just a hack that believes CO2 warms something and you have absolutely no evidence to support that. tricks won't work here bubba.  I know the oceans warm due to the sun and that's it.  temperatures vary around the globe currents carry warm water.  and on and on.  have fun with your game, but I don't play.  by the way, you still haven't actually stated why conduction and radiation are different.  anytime though if you think you have something in another toy box.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




hahahahaha. okay

from your link-


> Radiation *does not require a medium *to transfer energy



from wiki conduction-


> *Thermal conduction*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Thermal conduction* is the transfer of heat (internal energy) by microscopic collisions of particles and movement of electrons within a body. The microscopically colliding objects, that include molecules, atoms, and electrons, transfer disorganized microscopic kinetic and potential energy, jointly known as internal energy. Conduction takes place in all phases of matter, such as solids, liquids, gases and plasmas. The rate at which energy is conducted as heat between two bodies is a function of the temperature difference (temperature gradient) between the two bodies and the properties of the conductive medium through which the heat is transferred. Thermal conduction was originally called diffusion.
> ...



radiation does not need a medium. conduction does.

does this clear anything up for you? are you actually trying to understand any of this?

edit- the money quote is lost in the quote function-

*In conduction, the heat flow is within and through the body itself*. In contrast, in heat transfer by thermal radiation, the transfer is often between bodies, which may be separated spatially. Also possible is transfer of heat by a combination of conduction and thermal radiation. In convection, internal energy is carried between bodies by a moving material carrier. In solids, conduction is mediated by the combination of vibrations and collisions of molecules, of propagation and collisions of phonons, and of diffusion and collisions offree electrons. In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of molecules during their random motion. Photons in this context do not collide with one another, and so heat transport by electromagnetic radiation is conceptually distinct from heat conduction by microscopic diffusion and collisions of material particles and phonons. But the distinction is often not easily observed, unless the material is semi-transparent.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> radiation does not need a medium. conduction does.
> 
> does this clear anything up for you? are you actually trying to understand any of this?



And what force causes energy conducting through a material to migrate towards cooler regions...and what force prevents it form trying to move back towards the warmer region?....what might that force be...and does it only work inside matter...or is it at work everywhere?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




the temperature of the oceans is important because CO2 comes out of solution and is released when seawater warms. a warming ocean adds to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

my statements are typically curt and idea dense, with the basic idea implied by context. I am sorry that you cannot keep up.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




read the article on phonons.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That article doesn't even begin to answer the questions I just asked...I am not going to go off and look for something that isn't there.  The fact is, Ian, that you talk a lot of talk...pretending that you know what the hell is going on with energy transfer but you are just full of $hit.  I believe that you believe what you say...such is the depth of the lies that you have told yourself.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > read the article on phonons.
> ...



my lies? hahahahaha. 

coming from someone who espouses smart photons, that is rich. or have you switched over to smart emitters yet?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Funny that you have now joined the likes of rocks...thinking that elements of nature must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of nature....sad ian...very sad and testament to how far you have fallen in your worship of the magic.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


As little as three years and as long as 24 years was the range.. It certainly was not "Centuries"  Even Goldirocks post shows he hasn't a clue and their residency time was just 10 years..


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2016)

He presents a study from Yale with data and links.  You rattle off some numbers and accuse him of believing "anything".

God are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 5, 2016)

And I presented 36 studies that say a decade or less...so which do you believe?....why the one that supports your religious beliefs of course....talk about stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Well again, why do I care how much CO2 comes out of the ocean.  again, CO2 doesn't warm anything.  So, yeah CO2 is released from oceans when the water is warm.  yep.  Still unclear why you think conduction and radiation are different, you swam around that buoy and came up with this idiotic ocean warms thingy for some reason to try and make a point.  That point is CO2 is released from warm oceans. Congrats you wrote an actual fact. Now, explain why conduction and radiation are different.


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> He presents a study from Yale with data




FUDGE is not data.  Your side NEVER releases the RAW DATA before it is FUDGED.


----------



## IanC (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Did you even read my post pointing out the differences between radiation and conduction? I even used a quote from your link.

I think you guys get off on asking the same question over and over again. And then pretend it hasn't been answered multiple times, in multiple ways.

Go for it. Sand box rules for sand box intellects. Suits you to a 'T'.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2016)

Imagine our atmosphere is a 10,000 seat stadium. The number of seats in the stadium which represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given point in time is.... *4*.  
*FOUR! *

Now you can think this is a serious problem and you can point to all sorts of doom and gloom predictions but the fact remains, the Earth has survived much higher CO2 levels and much warmer temperatures. In fact, a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is very beneficial to plant life. 

Plants, as much as you people apparently hate them and want them to starve to death, do something very beneficial for people... they provide a thing called *Oxygen*. This is something humans, and many other life forms need to live. 

Of course, maybe *life* doesn't matter to you? We know it doesn't matter when it's still in the womb because most of you who are parroting this nonsense are okay with killing it. And you don't seem to comprehend that your proposed anti-capitalist policies and restrictions on energy will cause the deaths of millions in third world countries who desperately need any energy they can find. 

As is the case with most Socialists... Life simply takes a back seat to totalitarian rule over people. Like Hillary Clinton, you don't really care how many dead bodies you leave in your wake, it's all about power and control. If people die as a result of your policies, that's just too bad.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


they both transfer energy, so why are they different?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Well jc, they really don't make physics books for people with 80 IQ's. So you are out of luck. As for your other 'points', they are about as valid as your saying that I never showed global increase in CO2, when one of the graphs was clearly labeled Global. You can't seem to read, and totally have no grasp of what a graph represents.

The oceans have warmed, the land temps are up, the cryosphere is melting, and the CO2 level is above 400 ppm worldwide.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 5, 2016)

Boss said:


> Imagine our atmosphere is a 10,000 seat stadium. The number of seats in the stadium which represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given point in time is.... *4*.
> *FOUR! *
> 
> Now you can think this is a serious problem and you can point to all sorts of doom and gloom predictions but the fact remains, the Earth has survived much higher CO2 levels and much warmer temperatures. In fact, a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is very beneficial to plant life.
> ...


Well, well, here we go again. Another really stupid ass that is so proud of their ignorance. You weigh many tens of thousand of grams. How could it be that one gram of anything could hurt you? So just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cyanide. 

As far as the rest of your very stupid rant goes, I am sure that you check under your bed every night for commies. 

As far as energy for very poor nations, where the hell are the people in those nations going to get the infrastructure for coal or natural gas? They can put in small solar and wind generators, with a storage battery owned by the whole village or town, and have energy for light and computers tomorrow, at a price that is a fraction of the cost of coal and natural gas. Not only that, they own and control the source of their power, instead of some corporation. But you really don't like the idea of an individual being independent of the corporations, do you. You want us all to be under the thumbs of 'Bosses'. Well, fuck you buddy, the world is moving in a different direction, and you can piss into the wind all you want. You no longer count.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> How could it be that one gram of anything could hurt you? So just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cyanide.



Strawman because CO2 is not a poison. 



Old Rocks said:


> As far as the rest of your very stupid rant goes, I am sure that you check under your bed every night for commies.



No,  I don't need to... I know where they are and I am well-armed. 



Old Rocks said:


> As far as energy for very poor nations, where the hell are the people in those nations going to get the infrastructure for coal or natural gas? They can put in small solar and wind generators, with a storage battery owned by the whole village or town...



Where the hell are they getting the infrastructure (and capital) for THAT? And no... dimwit, they certainly can't do solar/wind cheaper than oil/natural gas... if that were possible, we'd all be doing it. This is just more of your typical pie-in-the-sky nonsense because you don't really give two shits about these people. This is ALL about your control and power over "evil" capitalism. 



Old Rocks said:


> Well, fuck you buddy, the world is moving in a different direction, and you can piss into the wind all you want. You no longer count.



Well no, jerkoff, the world isn't moving in a different direction. Who the fuck do you think you are? You don't get to decide all on your own what direction we move in. You may WISH that... but you don't. 

This "global warming" ...oops, "climate change" crap is the latest import from Socialists in Europe who's ass your head is firmly up. For whatever reason, you simply reject individual liberty for the false promise of socialist utopia. You had rather believe in failed losers who are jealous of capitalism and freedom than to embrace you own personal liberty and defend it. They snicker at you behind your back and they have a "pet name" for you... *Useful Idiot!*


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

Boss said:


> Strawman because CO2 is not a poison.



Rocks is always dragging out that old cyanide comparison as if it were valid...every time, it gets shot down and it is pointed out to him that CO2 is not poison...but it is all he has, so he continues to use it...old, tired, and feeble as it is.


----------



## Crick (Oct 6, 2016)

poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
www.dictionary.com

*Carbon dioxide* (CO2) is a *toxic* gas at high concentration, as well as an *asphyxiant* gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs only at high concentrations. The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined in the table.
Exposure limits
(% in air) -  -  -  -  -  -Health Effects
2-3 -  -  -  -  - Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath
3 -  -  -  -  -   Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest
3-5 -  -  -  -  - Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5 -  -  -  -  -   Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse
7.5 -  -  -  -  - Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears
8-15 -  -  -  - Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen
10 -  -  -  -  - Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes
15 -  -  -  -  - Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable
25+ -  -  -  -  - Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 6, 2016)

crick is a toxic gas

dangerous exposure levels


read 2-3 of his posts - possible shock at the level of dishonesty and fraud
read 5-10 of his posts - long term depression possible at how stupid his FRAUD is
read more than 10 - stroke possible that some actually take him seriously


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

When rocks drags out his cyanide bullshit...he fails to mention that CO2 actually becomes toxic like cyanide when it reaches the range of about 60,000ppm...so either he is stupid and just doesn't know...or a damned bald faced liar who knows exactly how deceptive he is being...

How about you crick...stupid or deliberately deceptive?..which is it...or both?


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> *Carbon dioxide* (CO2) is a *toxic* gas at high concentration, as well as an *asphyxiant* gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs only at high concentrations. The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined in the table.
> ...



Okay... time for your math lesson. Let's take the lowest figure in your scale for CO2 to have ANY sort of physical impact on humans... 2%. This translates to 20,000 ppm.  At 400 ppm, I think we're safe. Even OSHA regulations allow human exposure to as much as 6,000 ppm.

Also, when we compare the amount of CO2 man produces through burning of fossil fuels with natural sources of CO2, we find that nature produces about 97% to man's 3%. Of course, in fairness,  that 97% does include man's natural emissions from breathing as well as other mammals. We can also look at other much more toxic gases, such as methane and carbon monoxide... Again, we find that those far outweigh the relatively small amount of CO2 produced by man's burning of fossil fuels. Cattle alone produce about 1,000% more methane than man produces CO2 through industrialization, and methane is far more dangerous. 

But you are really stretching it to consider CO2 toxic. Indeed, anything is toxic to humans in pure concentration, even oxygen.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




JC- I have been trying to figure out a simple scenario to show you the difference between radiation and conduction that even your childish intellect can understand. Here goes...

It's a Lego Land war. One army surrounds the other with a moat between them. 'Winning' is when one side has less Lego blocks than the other. So far the army inside the moat is losing big time and they have most of the Lego blocks. Because they are behind the moat the only way to get rid of the blocks is to throw them over. Because they have so many it is easy to find one to throw. The army on the outside cannot easily find a block but when they do, they throw it back.

As time goes on it becomes harder for the insiders to find a block because so many have already been thrown. The outsiders find them easier for the same reason. After a while they are both sending the same amount over the moat as the other side. Equilibrium. A draw.

If there was no moat then the insiders can build logs of legos and push them out, a much more efficient way of moving the legos. The logs go out until the outside army has enough handholds to slow and stop the logs progress. Equilibrium. A draw.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



sorry Ian, doesn't work for you.thermal energy is thermal energy. both armies still have the same energy.


----------



## Crick (Oct 6, 2016)

One uses EM radiation, one doesn't.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




The armies are mass. The legos are energy. The inside mass originally had more energy but fighting the war left them both with the same amount. Radiation with small amounts constantly being exchanged in both directions. Conduction moving large amounts only in the direction of the greater manpower.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


well dude, as I've been stating, radiation does not get emitted back at the surface.  so I can't agree with your analogy at all.I'd prefer just seeing an experiment that actually shows the radiation both directions.  got that?


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Me and others have shown you results of measured downward radiation. I have even shown you pictures of the installations and equipment because I know written words are not your strong suit. You ignore it and continue to chant your soothing mantra ' show me the experiment ', no matter how often you are answered. Foolishly, I keep expecting you to finally wake up but you never do.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


what you posted is not evidence of radiation coming in from CO2 or from anywhere accept the sun.  so no, you haven't.


----------



## Crick (Oct 6, 2016)

Those measurements were made AT NIGHT.  No sun.  All darkie-poo.  Get it?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Those measurements were made AT NIGHT.  No sun.  All darkie-poo.  Get it?


and I have no idea what they were reading, but it wasn't radiation from the sky.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> Me and others have shown you results of measured downward radiation. I have even shown you pictures of the installations and equipment because I know written words are not your strong suit. You ignore it and continue to chant your soothing mantra ' show me the experiment ', no matter how often you are answered. Foolishly, I keep expecting you to finally wake up but you never do.



No you haven't ian...you have shown measurements taken with instruments cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....That being the case, you are looking at energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an instrument at ambient temperature next to the cooled one pointed to the same point in the atmosphere and you will not be measuring the so called back radiation...all you have is evidence that climate science idiots are easily fooled by their own instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Those measurements were made AT NIGHT.  No sun.  All darkie-poo.  Get it?



With a cooled instrument...it was only measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...not back radiation....it is called being fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Those measurements were made AT NIGHT.  No sun.  All darkie-poo.  Get it?
> ...



It was in all likelihood from the atmosphere...the instruments were cooled to a temperature of about -80 degrees...so what they were measuring was energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument....just what the second law of thermodynamics predicts...set a non cooled instrument right next to the cooled one, pointed at the same place in the atmosphere and you won't get the so called back radiation because energy won't move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer instrument. ...the idiots who thought they were measuring back radiation were just being fooled by their own instruments....not surprising for a soft science whose practitioners take very few hard science courses in college.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Well I'm sure they measured something for sure, what it was they have no idea.  clear night could have been from the moon.  how do you, I or they say what it was they measured.  it's a random reading with no point of origin.

The fact they had to cool the probe, only means they knew already the answer with it at ambient temps.  It's why they cooled it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Well I'm sure they measured something for sure, what it was they have no idea.  clear night could have been from the moon.  how do you, I or they say what it was they measured.  it's a random reading with no point of origin.



No they don't...they have been fooled by their instruments...  The frequency of the radiation would give them a pretty good indication of where the radiation came from...radiation at 15 microns probably came from CO2...but the only way to get the measurement is to cool the instrument to a temperature colder than the CO2 in the atmosphere...otherwise the energy won't move towards the instrument.



jc456 said:


> The fact they had to cool the probe, only means they knew already the answer with it at ambient temps.  It's why they cooled it.



the funny thing is that they then tell themselves that they must cool the instrument in order to overcome interference...what a hoot...they don't need cool instruments in order to measure incoming radiation from the sun...certainly no interference there but they claim that they need to filter out interference to measure back radiation when according to them the amount of back radiation is twice the amount of energy coming from the sun....if what they said were true, they would have to cool their instruments to take measurements of incoming radiation from the sun in order to filter out the interference form all the back radiation.


----------



## Crick (Oct 10, 2016)

If I cover your camera lens with a wash of photoluminescent material, do you think it might affect your photos?

And this: "_but the only way to get the measurement is to cool the instrument to a temperature colder than the CO2 in the atmosphere...otherwise the energy won't move towards the instrument_." simply marks you as an ignorant fool.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> If I cover your camera lens with a wash of photoluminescent material, do you think it might affect your photos?




It wouldn't cause energy to move from cool to warm...no matter how much you wish it would.  And are you claiming that CO2 is photoluminescent?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> If I cover your camera lens with a wash of photoluminescent material, do you think it might affect your photos?
> 
> And this: "_but the only way to get the measurement is to cool the instrument to a temperature colder than the CO2 in the atmosphere...otherwise the energy won't move towards the instrument_." simply marks you as an ignorant fool.


so dude, did they have to cool the probe or not to take the reading?


----------



## IanC (Oct 11, 2016)

There are dozens of types of instruments that measure IR, using dozens of methods. Some use cooling to remove contamination from other heat sources, some don't.

It is ridiculous to claim that IR radiation simply disappears if it would land on something warmer than the emitter.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> There are dozens of types of instruments that measure IR, using dozens of methods. Some use cooling to remove contamination from other heat sources, some don't.
> 
> It is ridiculous to claim that IR radiation simply disappears if it would land on something warmer than the emitter.


so the answer is yes. thanks.


----------



## IanC (Oct 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There are dozens of types of instruments that measure IR, using dozens of methods. Some use cooling to remove contamination from other heat sources, some don't.
> ...



No, the answer is sometimes. Cooling is sometimes used to get rid of contamination from other heat sources, not to magically turn on radiation that is already there, cooling or no cooling.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> There are dozens of types of instruments that measure IR, using dozens of methods. Some use cooling to remove contamination from other heat sources, some don't.
> 
> It is ridiculous to claim that IR radiation simply disappears if it would land on something warmer than the emitter.



No one is claiming that it simply disappears Ian..that is you fabricating a weak argument to rail against...it is a logical fallacy and you know it...but you do it anyway...why?....What is being said is that it simply doesn't go towards warmer regions at all...and those instruments you describe that aren't being cooled aren't measuring anything other than the temperature change of an internal thermocouple....again...it is called being fooled by one's instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The only ones that measure specific radiation bands are cooled Ian...you should know this...but perhaps you don't...all the others are simply measuring temperature changes of an internal thermocouple...there is no back radiation and it has never been measured at ambient temperature.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> E]
> The only ones that measure specific radiation bands are cooled Ian...you should know this...but perhaps you don't...all the others are simply measuring temperature changes of an internal thermocouple...there is no back radiation and it has never been measured at ambient temperature.



That's totally wrong. Anyone can buy consumer-grade FLIR cameras, uncooled, that show clear images. They're thousand-dollar range items, but they're available. Clouds, open sky, and tree branches will all be easily distinguishable.  

That is, capitalism and the free market have proven you wrong. Those uncooled cameras clearly measure a wide range of IR radiaton in a very detailed fashion.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > E]
> ...


you have photos of back radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > E]
> ...



Poor hairball...FLIR cameras are cooled as well...guess you never held one in your hand...and those pieces of crap that call themselves FLIR that aren't cooled, are once again, just measuring the temperature changes within a sensor that is analogous to a thermopile.  Not surprised that someone like you would be fooled by instrumentation...and again, I pointed out that instruments that measure specific frequencies must be cooled...those that aren't have no idea what they are measuring...it has been shown that they will readily measure the changing temperature of globules of rising warm air...and infrared thermometers which roy spencer loves to point into the sky and claim back radiation are specifically engineered (according to the manufacturers) to not be influenced by frequencies radiated by greenhouse gasses...again...experts being fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Just another warming wacko who is completely fooled by instrumentation...

You expect idiots like crick and the hairball and rocks to be fooled, but I am a bit surprised that someone like Ian has been so easily fooled...but then, he is just looking for something to validate his faith...and anything will do I guess.


----------



## IanC (Oct 14, 2016)

instruments are designed to be sensitive for the thing they are measuring, using known physical characteristics of the materials used. they are also typically powered by outside sources to enhance the signal. 

the radiation coming downwards from the atmosphere is present at all times, and can be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> instruments are designed to be sensitive for the thing they are measuring, using known physical characteristics of the materials used. they are also typically powered by outside sources to enhance the signal.
> 
> the radiation coming downwards from the atmosphere is present at all times, and can be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively.



Sorry Ian...but radiation can only be measured coming down from the atmosphere by instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere...or in the rare event of a temperature inversion...like it or not...that is how it is and if you believe otherwise, then you have been fooled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > instruments are designed to be sensitive for the thing they are measuring, using known physical characteristics of the materials used. they are also typically powered by outside sources to enhance the signal.
> ...



*but radiation can only be measured coming down from the atmosphere by instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere*

Those smart photons, only traveling upward, until the instrument is cooled enough that it is safe for them to travel downward.

They're sneaky.

I have a question for you, at the moment that the instrument is cooled below the magic temperature, why isn't it melted when every single molecule in the sky decides to emit at it at the exact same instant?

Shouldn't it instantly get hit with enough energy to cause fusion?
Or at least destroy it like the Death Star just opened fire?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There are dozens of types of instruments that measure IR, using dozens of methods. Some use cooling to remove contamination from other heat sources, some don't.
> ...



*No one is claiming that it simply disappears Ian..that is you fabricating a weak argument to rail against...it is a logical fallacy and you know it...but you do it anyway...why?....What is being said is that it simply doesn't go towards warmer regions at all...
*
Interesting!!!

So when they cool a receiver to measure cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), how does the radiation know that the receiver is safe to move towards, when it's under all this hotter atmosphere?

Do smart photons have some sort of x-ray thermometer? Can they measure the temperature of everything in the universe AND stuff on planet surfaces AND stuff at the bottom of the ocean?

Maybe the cores of stars and planets?

Is there anything these photons don't know?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Those smart photons, only traveling upward, until the instrument is cooled enough that it is safe for them to travel downward.



It is what it is....you apparently believe that energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics....I think that the laws of physics tell us how energy behaves...  Let me know when you get an actual measurement of back radiation at ambient temperature......without being fooled by the instrumentation.



JoeB131 said:


> I have a question for you, at the moment that the instrument is cooled below the magic temperature, why isn't it melted when every single molecule in the sky decides to emit at it at the exact same instant?



Because as we know, poor child, that only 1 in a billion molecules in the atmosphere actually emits any radiation at all....the overwhelmingly vast majority of energy movement in the atmosphere is moving by convection..


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2016)

When obeying what you believe to be the laws of thermodynamics requires that they make observations that violate special relativity, that they make decisions based on those observations including predictions of future behavior and then that they control themselves with exquisitely fine detail - yes, YOUR fantasy requires very capable photons.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
> ...


Of course, if we kept up the exchange long enough, Boss, like any other 'Conservative' would resort to lying, or demonstrating his vast ignorance. Since we started burning fossil fuels, the CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. The highest level we saw from natural sources in the last million years or more was 300 ppm in the Eemian. And that addition of 20 ppm at that time resulted in sea levels about 20 feet higher than today. The sea level for our descendants is going to be far higher than that. In fact, we have not seen GHG levels as high as they are today for over 4 million years. And the world was a far different place then than today. The rate at which we are changing the climate will not give either the natural biosphere a chance to adjust, nor the agriculture we all depend on.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Those measurements were made AT NIGHT.  No sun.  All darkie-poo.  Get it?
> ...


No matter how many times you lead this stupid horse to the water you cannot force him to drink. The willfully ignorant will remain so, no matter how good the teacher. Smart photons. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 15, 2016)

I keep waiting for our Phd geologist to chime in on the smart photons. Surely he is going to support his peer group?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Says the ignorant horse. You thirsty?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I keep waiting for our Phd geologist to chime in on the smart photons. Surely he is going to support his peer group?


Evidence. That information you haven't got. I know, you and others provided it.  I say no, you say I ignore it, I say no, and on and on every time, everyday. The fact is you don't have it and the wash rinse repeat doesn't work. Please please prove us wrong post that evidence.


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2016)

Please stop lying.  Please stop choosing the side of abject ignorance.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Please stop lying.  Please stop choosing the side of abject ignorance.


Are you looking in a mirror while you type?  As I pointed out typical warmer wash rinse and repeat.


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2016)

JC- why don't you present your explanation on how the solar energy enters the earth system, circulates, and leaves again?

Perhaps we are not as far apart as we seem.


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Why would the earth look the same under naturally high CO2 as it does now under unnaturally high CO2 caused by fossil fuel use?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> JC- why don't you present your explanation on how the solar energy enters the earth system, circulates, and leaves again?
> 
> Perhaps we are not as far apart as we seem.


My position is and has always been CO2 does not warm the planet. Water vapor holds heat, but it does not reheat the planet it holds temperatures steady. Nothing more, nothing less. Heat is also moved by the natural circulation of the planet, Gravity also plays a part at the upper atmosphere. My challenge still exists, post one experiment that shows CO2 warms anything. Five years now and still zip.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Those smart photons, only traveling upward, until the instrument is cooled enough that it is safe for them to travel downward.
> ...


*
you apparently believe that energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics..*

Your confused misunderstanding of thermodynamics requires photons with not only intelligence, but omniscience.


*Because as we know, poor child, that only 1 in a billion molecules in the atmosphere actually emits any radiation at all....*

Imagine the free energy source we could build!!!
Merely cool our "free energy receiver" below the temperature of the atmosphere and every billionth molecule in sight, not to mention every other warmer molecule across the galaxy, would be forced to emit a photon at the receiver. It would immediately see a spike in temperature which could be used to boil some liquid to drive a turbine. Cool it down quickly, another immediate spike in temperature would occur.
Much better than burning pesky fossil fuels.
Right?


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > JC- why don't you present your explanation on how the solar energy enters the earth system, circulates, and leaves again?
> ...




Okay, CO2 does not warm the planet. I can agree with that, depending on the definition of the verb 'to 'warm'. Does CO2 warm the atmosphere by intercepting certain bands of IR that react specifically to CO2? Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present. It enters at the surface but does not all come out at the TOA. Where did the energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?

I'm not trying to trick you. I just want to know how you mentally deal with this conundrum.


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > JC- why don't you present your explanation on how the solar energy enters the earth system, circulates, and leaves again?
> ...




Water vapour holds temperature steady. Really? It cools the ocean when it evaporates and releases latent energy when it condenses higher up in the atmosphere. Seems like that is the opposite of keeping things steady. Have I misunderstood you somehow?


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > JC- why don't you present your explanation on how the solar energy enters the earth system, circulates, and leaves again?
> ...




Gravity plays a part in the upper atmosphere...

Could you expand on that? Why is it more important higher up than close to the surface?

Don't get me wrong, I think massive amounts of energy are stored by air being suspended in the gravity field.


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

Yes, stored.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Why aren't the plants absorbing CO2? Isn't CO2 absorbed by the oceans? Doesn't CO2 mix in the atmosphere?  Is CO2 absorbed with IR, warmer than the surrounding temperature or at that temperature?


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2016)

Why aren't you answering Ian's question?  Is it because you don't have one?


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



jc - try to focus.

the surface is warmed by the Sun and re-radiates the energy as IR radiation. part of that IR radiation is in a band that is only absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. IF there was no CO2 then that energy would freely escape to space at the speed of light. are you following so far, or do you need an even simpler description?

the amount CO2 specific energy that enters the atmosphere at the surface is much greater than the amount of CO2 specific energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere. obviously that energy cannot just disappear. where did it go?

I have already explained where I think it goes. the CO2 molecule that gets excited by absorbing a photon then gives up that energy to the total pool of atmospheric energy via molecular collisions. because total energy is composed of both potential energy and kinetic energy, which are freely exchanged in collisions, the energy absorbed by CO2 will in part be converted to kinetic energy (also known as temperature).

where do you think the energy goes? the first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed. so where does it go?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why aren't you answering Ian's question?  Is it because you don't have one?


did you say something?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


CO2 does not increase temperatures.  dude it is the test I've been asking you for.  So you still can't prove it.  BTW, water vapor and clouds keep heat from escaping.  CO2 is plant food.  That's it.  I'll take the experiment that shows it transmitting added heat to the temperature of the earth any day.  post it up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*CO2 does not increase temperatures*

Right, because it absorbs IR and never releases it.
Until the CO2 escapes the atmosphere, right?

*BTW, water vapor and clouds keep heat from escaping.*

Does the water vapor keep the heat forever?
Or is it allowed to emit IR?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


why wouldn't a plant absorb the CO2, like I said plant food.

Water vapor evaporates.

Hey Todd, just post up the emitted photon from a CO2 molecule toward earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
why wouldn't a plant absorb the CO2, like I said plant food.*

Plants LOVE to absorb CO2. But we're talking about heat right now.
*
Water vapor evaporates.*

Nope. It already did.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The heat you mentioned here ->>>>>*BTW, water vapor and clouds keep heat from escaping.*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well clouds release water and that does help the plant grow.  but I was asking what heat from CO2 that you mentioned.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
well clouds release water and that does help the plant grow.*

That is awesome! But we're talking about heat here.
*
but I was asking what heat from CO2 that you mentioned
*
It comes from the same place as the heat kept from escaping by water vapor.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


heat is all over the world, works best when the suns rays are in your region.  Add CO2 and water and damn, plants love to grow. You haven't answered what heat from CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*heat is all over the world, works best when the suns rays are in your region.  Add CO2 and water and damn, plants love to grow.*

That is awesome! But we're talking about heat here.

*You haven't answered what heat from CO2*

From the Earth's surface. Have you forgotten what we're discussing on this thread?

Does the water vapor keep heat forever?
Or is it allowed to emit IR?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yes we are.  I stated that plants eat CO2. you asked what about the heat.  I asked what heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, I noticed you were avoiding questions about heat.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I agree you are.  thanks. Yep wash rinse and repeat with you.  I always feel cleaner.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*BTW, water vapor and clouds keep heat from escaping.
*
Does the water vapor keep the heat forever?
Or is it allowed to emit IR? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no, clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> Okay, CO2 does not warm the planet. I can agree with that, depending on the definition of the verb 'to 'warm'. Does CO2 warm the atmosphere by intercepting certain bands of IR that react specifically to CO2? Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present. It enters at the surface but does not all come out at the TOA. Where did the energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?



the energy escapes to space either way...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't come back to the ground...that being the case, the energy absorbed by CO2 which is not transferred by convection (most energy exchanges) is moved along to space by the more rapid means of radiation...it is all moving out into space....not slowing down as evidenced by the lack of a hot spot...it is amazing that you still believe energy is slowing down even when it is clear that there is not hot spot...the inevitable fingerprint of energy movement as you believe it to be happening.



IanC said:


> I'm not trying to trick you. I just want to know how you mentally deal with this conundrum.



Of course you are trying to trick him...you are willing to try and trick anyone so that you don't have to be wrong all by yourself...as if getting someone else to ride the crazy train with you makes it anything other than a crazy train.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Water vapor can absorb IR.
Is it allowed to emit IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, CO2 does not warm the planet. I can agree with that, depending on the definition of the verb 'to 'warm'. Does CO2 warm the atmosphere by intercepting certain bands of IR that react specifically to CO2? Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present. It enters at the surface but does not all come out at the TOA. Where did the energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?
> ...


*
energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't come back to the ground...*

Smart photons iz smart!!
*
...it is amazing that you still believe energy is slowing down*

Right. Moist air doesn't slow heat loss to space. DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I stated no, water vapor will condense to form liquid water.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Water vapor never emits IR? That's an interesting claim.

Any backup?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why? does water vapor not turn into clouds?  Clouds emit, yes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Water vapor absorbs, but never emits?
Water vapor condenses into clouds and can finally emit?


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2016)

How would it condense into water unless it lost heat?  Wouldn't it do that by emitting IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> How would it condense into water unless it lost heat?  Wouldn't it do that by emitting IR?



Stop....using....logic....


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2016)

Sorry... ; - )


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, CO2 does not warm the planet. I can agree with that, depending on the definition of the verb 'to 'warm'. Does CO2 warm the atmosphere by intercepting certain bands of IR that react specifically to CO2? Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present. It enters at the surface but does not all come out at the TOA. Where did the energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?
> ...




I am having a hard time trying to follow your contortions. 

CO2 specific IR enters the atmosphere at the surface, and only a small fraction comes out at the top. Where does the remaining energy go?

Please respond to this specific question.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And precisely how much CO2 specific IR radiates from the surface?....no idea...right....you are simply assuming a number that supports what you believe...radiation plays the smallest part of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere ian...if the atmosphere had no radiative gasses, the planet would be warmer as convection would be the only means of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*if the atmosphere had no radiative gasses, the planet would be warmer as convection would be the only means of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere.*

Which is why desert areas are warmer at night than humid areas. DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


It is like talking to a 4 year old and it never ends with you.  I suppose you think such comments sound good in your head and make you seem smart...deserts lack water vapor, which, unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, actually absorbs and retains heat....Water vapor doesn't hasten the movement of IR to the upper atmosphere because it absorbs and retains the heat...it is just that sort of stupidity that keeps me from paying much attention to what you write...one liners composed with the intellect of a 4 year old just aren't that interesting.


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




No reply to my specific question I see.

The amount total radiation coming off various surface components has been thoroughly measured for a wide range of temperatures. The CO2 specific band is also well identified. The amount radiated at the surface is much larger than the amount finally released at the top of the atmosphere.

My question to you was 'What happened to the missing energy?'. You refuse to give your opinion on this.

Without water going through phase changes in the atmosphere there would be much less convection and conduction would be the major player in atmospheric energy transport. Without GHGs in the atmosphere the surface would shed heat by direct radiation to space and we would be much colder. 

Did you catch that? Without GHGs the surface would radiate directly to space! Both the atmosphere and surface would be colder. Much colder.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
deserts lack water vapor*

Isn't water a radiative gas?
*
unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, actually absorbs and retains heat.*

Right. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can't absorb and retain heat....because smart photons talked them out of it?

*Water vapor doesn't hasten the movement of IR to the upper atmosphere because it absorbs and retains the heat..*

CO2 doesn't hasten the movement of IR to the upper atmosphere because it absorbs and emits IR.
In all directions. Even back toward the warmer surface, because photons don't measure the temperature of their targets.
*
It is like talking to a 4 year old and it never ends with you*.

I agree, and like a 4 year old....you're very stubborn.
But we'll keep trying.....you can't stay stupid forever.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> No reply to my specific question I see.
> 
> The amount total radiation coming off various surface components has been thoroughly measured for a wide range of temperatures. The CO2 specific band is also well identified. The amount radiated at the surface is much larger than the amount finally released at the top of the atmosphere.
> 
> My question to you was 'What happened to the missing energy?'. You refuse to give your opinion on this.



It isn't missing Ian...it is exiting at the top of the atmosphere exactly where it should be....if one is looking for CO2 specific band at the top of the atmosphere, one is likely to find less than is emitting from the surface...every time a CO2 molecule absorbs and then emits a theoretical photon, that theoretical photon would be at a slightly lower frequency than when it was absorbed and therefore no longer to be found within the CO2 specific band.  Surprised that you would be unaware of that ian...or are you aware, but perfectly willing to ignore the fact because it f@cks with what you believe.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> deserts lack water vapor*
> 
> Isn't water a radiative gas?



and off we go into the land of 4 year old questions



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can't absorb and retain heat....because smart photons talked them out of it?



CO2 has no mechanism with which to hold heat in the atmosphere...any energy absorbed is immediately emitted...so no...they can't...water vapor is the only gas known that can absorb and retain energy in the open atmosphere...if you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be...you might know that...perhaps you should ask yourself why you don't.


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No reply to my specific question I see.
> ...




????? now you are saying that resonant frequencies change? a CO2 molecule can only absorb certain bands of radiation. once excited, it can only re-emit the same frequency photon. at least for the three main vibrational modes which probably account for 99.99% of normal interactions. atoms and molecules can only make quantum leaps between allowed states. otherwise electrons would radiate their energy away and fall into the nucleus and the universe as we know it would not exist.

some electron leaps in atoms can be large enough that they return to groundstate in two or more partial jumps down, giving off a photon every time. the combined energy of the partial jumps equals the original leap. there is no loss of energy when swapping orbital or vibrational states. no conversion to lower frequency photons unless it is in multiple photons.


you still have not accounted for the  missing energy. the total amount of IR leaving the TOA is less than the total amount of IR being emitted by the surface. this is different than my original question on CO2 specific IR only. you keep saying absorption/emission does not equal warming. so where did the energy go?


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...




water vapour absorbs and emits and collides with other atmospheric molecules in the same fashion as CO2. the retained energy is in phase change, latent heat. absorbed at the surface, released during condensation and precipitation.



> ...if you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be...you might know that...perhaps you should ask yourself why you don't.



your words, and they apply to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


*
and off we go into the land of 4 year old questions*

And 4 year olds not answering.
*
CO2 has no mechanism with which to hold heat in the atmosphere*

Ummm...electrons in higher orbits and increased kinetic energy. DERP!

*...any energy absorbed is immediately emitted...*

Yeah, back radiation keeps us warmer as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No reply to my specific question I see.
> ...



*every time a CO2 molecule absorbs and then emits a theoretical photon, that theoretical photon would be at a slightly lower frequency than when it was absorbed*

Does your stupidity burn?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> ????? now you are saying that resonant frequencies change? a CO2 molecule can only absorb certain bands of radiation. once excited, it can only re-emit the same frequency photon.



So you are claiming that zero energy is used in moving up to a more excited state and emitting a photon?   Sorry Ian...simply not true.  Energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule has two possible paths....either it can be passed on as kinetic energy by a collision with  another molecule such as O2 or N2...or it can be emitted as a theoretical photon at a slightly lower frequency...this is not arcane and obscure knowledge ian....and if you are looking for CO2 specific radiation frequencies at the top of the atmosphere, you are only going to see that energy which has not been absorbed and re emitted along the way.



IanC said:


> you still have not accounted for the  missing energy. the total amount of IR leaving the TOA is less than the total amount of IR being emitted by the surface. this is different than my original question on CO2 specific IR only. you keep saying absorption/emission does not equal warming. so where did the energy go?



Since there is no tropospheric hot spot, where do you think it is going...it certainly isn't doing what you think it is doing because the requisite fingerprint is simply not there.


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

atomic and molecular gas spectra are measured in two ways.

first way, you can shine broad spectrum light through the gas and find out which frequencies are absorbed.

second way, you can heat the gas and see which frequencies are emitted.

the two ways are exact opposites of each other. the absorbed frequencies in one method are exactly the same as the emitted frequencies in the other.








SSDD is simply wrong in stating that CO2 emits lower and lower energy frequencies


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

the tropospheric hotspot is formed by clouds condensing and releasing energy higher up in the atmosphere. this is obviously happening

consensus science states that a warming atmosphere/warming surface causes more evaporation as a feedback to cause even more warming. their models predict an obvious increase in the hotspot. that obvious increase is not happening at the rate predicted. the models are wrong again.

CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. CO2 can become excited by molecular collisions. if the time between collisions is longer than the average time for excitation>emission then a photon is likely to be emitted. the Stratosphere is thin enough that when a CO2 molecule is excited by collision (or absorbing a photon) that it will both emit a photon and that photon will escape to space without being reabsorbed (if it is travelling in a direction that leads to space). the increase of CO2 levels in the stratosphere leads to a prediction that the stratosphere will cool because of more radiation being produced and then lost to space. measurements have found that the stratosphere is indeed cooling. models are probably right in this prediction.


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2016)

Just keep in mind that model predict a tropospheric hotspot for ANY form of warming; not just greenhouse.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Just keep in mind that model predict a tropospheric hotspot for ANY form of warming; not just greenhouse.




good point!

does the lack of tropospheric hotspot warming suggest that the current methodology for determining global temperatures and trends is somehow exaggerating the results? adding phantom warming that isnt really there, otherwise the troposphere would have warmed more?


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

No.  I think it suggests that satellite drift has the greatest effect at the equator.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> No.  I think it suggests that satellite drift has the greatest effect at the equator.




to each, his own.

I think the Iris Effect has the greatest effect at the equator.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

Perhaps, though your contention that it shouldn't matter who an idea comes from would have to be called for on any theory of Lindzen's.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Perhaps, though your contention that it shouldn't matter who an idea comes from would have to be called for on any theory of Lindzen's.




dipping into Old Rock's bag of tricks now? Lindzen was ahead of his time, the Iris Effect being incorporated into climate models now, albeit under a different name. at the turn of the millenium the climate science elite could shout down anyone they wanted, and disrupt the publishing of even established scientists.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

The Iris Effect may well turn out to be real and significant, but Lindzen...
Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to _PNAS_.[53]The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]

I suspect his mind is not as sharp as it once was.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Iris Effect may well turn out to be real and significant, but Lindzen...
> Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia
> Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to _PNAS_.[53]The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]
> 
> I suspect his mind is not as sharp as it once was.




There have been many climate science papers that have published with grotesque errors in them. Mann08 tried to make a non tree ring reconstruction but to do so he used the Tiljander cores upsidedown. Did the climate science community demand that he fix it? No. Has it been fixed ? No. Is it still being referenced and incorporated into other studies? Yes. Eg Marcott.


----------



## IanC (Oct 22, 2016)

for those who dont know what the Iris Effect is.... Basically it functions because sunshine heats the water, causing evaporation, leading to clouds, which then reflect the sunshine, decreasing the surface warming.

this effect doesn't necessarily even affect the amount of evaporation or clouds. just the timing is enough. if the clouds form at 11AM instead of noon the amount of light reaching the surface is reduced.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present..



No ian...if CO2 weren't there, the energy would have to use the much slower conveyance mechanism of convection to get to the upper atmosphere...CO2 allows it to move on much more quickly...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Just keep in mind that model predict a tropospheric hotspot for ANY form of warming; not just greenhouse.
> ...



The lack of a tropospheric hot spot is a predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself....and again..how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get in real science before it is scrapped and the search begins for a better explanation for observations?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present..
> ...



*No ian...if CO2 weren't there, the energy would have to use the much slower conveyance mechanism of convection to get to the upper atmosphere*

IF CO2 didn't intercept the IR, the energy would already have escaped into space. DERP!


----------



## IanC (Oct 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present..
> ...




Wow! This points out a huge gap in your understanding. A huge mistake.

Right now, with GHGs, there is an Atmospheric Window centered on 10 microns. That radiation escapes directly to space, from any outward angle from the surface.

If CO2 was not present in the atmosphere then then CO2 band centered on 15 microns would be added to the Atmospheric Window. All the CO2 specific surface radiation would simply fly away to space. 

Do I really have to drag out the graph of satellite measured longwave radiation leaving the planet? The amount of 10 micron radiation matches the Planck Curve for roughly 285K, the temperature of the surface. The amount of 15 micron radiation matches a temperature of roughly 200K, minus 70C, very cold and high up in the atmosphere where CO2 radiation canfinally escape without being reabsorbed because the air is so thin.

A planet with no atmosphere radiates solar input as fast as it receives it.

A planet with a non GHG atmosphere stores some solar energy in the air, which returns a portion back to the surface causing (indirectly) a warmer surface average temperature.

A planet with a GHG atmosphere stores the same amount of solar energy PLUS a portion of the outward surface radiation, which leads to a warmer atmosphere, which in turn leads to more returned energy to the surface, which results in an even warmer average surface temperature.


----------



## IanC (Oct 23, 2016)

There are a great many pathways for energy to escape from the planet. Radiation, conduction, convection. Each with a different efficiency depending on local or global conditions.

GHGs lessen the efficiency of radiation making alternate pathways more usable in a relative way. Increasing GHGs pushes energy to seek the alternative pathways. There must be some increased warming of the surface, otherwise the energy would ALREADY be using those pathways.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2016)

I suppose that might be true ian..in a fantasy universe where there actually existed such a thing as a greenhouse effect...got to hand it to you...you sure know how your imagined effects work.  Unfortunately, there is no greenhouse effect...there is a gravitothermal atmospheric effects but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of...only how much it weighs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I suppose that might be true ian..in a fantasy universe where there actually existed such a thing as a greenhouse effect...got to hand it to you...you sure know how your imagined effects work.  Unfortunately, there is no greenhouse effect...there is a gravitothermal atmospheric effects but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of...only how much it weighs.



Even your "smart" photons think you're an idiot.


----------



## IanC (Oct 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I suppose that might be true ian..in a fantasy universe where there actually existed such a thing as a greenhouse effect...got to hand it to you...you sure know how your imagined effects work.  Unfortunately, there is no greenhouse effect...there is a gravitothermal atmospheric effects but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of...only how much it weighs.




The gravity field is how much of the energy is stored in the atmosphere.

In non GHG atmospheres, energy is transferred by conduction. This energy makes the molecules move faster, which in turn raises the height of the atmosphere. Potential energy that would be released if the molecules lost kinetic speed (temperature).

GHG atmospheres also receive conduction energy from the surface. But they also receive radiation energy absorbed by GHGs. This extra energy is also stored as kinetic and potential energy. The atmosphere's molecules move faster (increased temperature), and rise to a higher altitude (stored potential energy).

All objects radiate according to their temperature (and emissivity). The atmosphere is no different. It's radiation is emitted in all directions so some returns to the surface, changing the rate of heat loss, which changes the equilibrium temperature of 'input energy minus output energy'


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2016)

The Great Goose said:


> Exactly. Ice cools things, not CO2.


But we do use CO2 to cool things, it is called dry ice. Dry Ice is pure CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> All objects radiate according to their temperature (and emissivity).



In a vacuum...sure..



IanC said:


> The atmosphere is no different.



Sure its different...the atmosphere is not a vacuum.



IanC said:


> It's radiation is emitted in all directions so some returns to the surface, changing the rate of heat loss, which changes the equilibrium temperature of 'input energy minus output energy'



So you keep saying..and yet, it can't be measured without instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > All objects radiate according to their temperature (and emissivity).
> ...



*In a vacuum...sure..*

No Stefan-Boltzmann exception for "in an atmosphere".

*So you keep saying..and yet, it can't be measured without instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere.*

Ah, the old switch to turn emissions on and off.
Still can't explain why background radiation from the Big Bang avoids our much warmer atmosphere, but suddenly decides to transit that warm atmosphere to hit a cooler instrument on the surface.

If you ever find a real source that says, "All matter above 0K emits unless..........", you should post it.

Otherwise it's clear you're just talking out of your ass.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No Stefan-Boltzmann exception for "in an atmosphere".



Sure there is...not that I would ever expect you to see it...






   This equation represents a radiator, which is not an ideal radiator (as denoted by _e)  It is radiating into a vacuum...as evidenced by the fact that there is no background noted.  The radiator is simply radiating into nothing._
_





   This equation represents a radiator (also not an ideal radiator) radiating into something other than a vacuum...as evidenced by the notation of a background...which, then alters P according to the difference between the temperature of the radiator, and the temperature of the background.  

I don't expect you to get it..or to acknowledge your error...but there is what is whether you agree with it or not._



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ah, the old switch to turn emissions on and off.



The fact remains that radiation can't be measured coming from the atmosphere without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...except in rare instances of temperature inversion....cool the instrument and there is the radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...you may not believe it, but it really doesn't matter what you believe...and it doesn't matter what story you make up in an effort to either explain it, or disregard it...but it is a fact and it says something about the hypothetical movement of energy from cool to warm...that being, it doesn't happen.


----------



## IanC (Oct 24, 2016)

I am no expert on Infrared thermometers and I don't plan on being one anytime soon.

That said, I can easily think of many designs to make one. Einstein won his Nobel for the photoelectric effect, how a beam of light can produce an electric current in certain materials.

You simply find a compound that reacts specifically to the type of radiation that you are trying to measure. The incident IR causes a current that is proportional to the amount received, hence the temperature via S-B equation.

Shielding the detector could be done by either cooling the instrument or surrounding the detector with a material that has low emissivity at the examined frequency. Or both. The idea is to stop the wanted signal from being swamped by local unwanted interference. The signal is always there, the problem is teasing it out of the background noise.

SSDD has some bizarre notion that individual atomic scale events are controlled by a macroscopic general description, temperature. He has no mechanism for this, and in fact it goes against other Physics Laws such as entropy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No Stefan-Boltzmann exception for "in an atmosphere".
> ...



*This equation represents a radiator, which is not an ideal radiator*

A less than ideal radiator is still a radiator. Even in an atmosphere. Even surrounded by warmer matter.

*The fact remains that radiation can't be measured coming from the atmosphere without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...*

And the fact that you aren't measuring it is not proof that it doesn't exist.

*...but it is a fact and it says something about the hypothetical movement of energy from cool to warm...that being, it doesn't happen.*

Magic photons, we know. LOL!

You never explained the mechanism, when 2 identical objects one warmer than the other, reach the identical temperature.
Your fantasy says the emitter suddenly stops. You never explained how it measures the temperature of the cooler object, since the cooler object can't emit in order to broadcast its temperature.

So how does this magic happen?


----------



## IanC (Oct 24, 2016)

The folly of temperature in SSDD'S world.

Does the planet have an average temperature? Maybe, but is it a useful piece of information?

If you had a cubic centimeter of air at the theoretical global temperature of 15C would the range of individual molecular speeds be greater or less than the range of measured temperature stations from the Arctic through the equator to the Antarctic? The air molecules by far have greater variability and range.

When SSDD says a photon cannot move from lower to higher temperatures, what does that mean? 

If two planets were circling each other and one was 1C warmer than the other then SSDD says the cooler planet cannot send even one photon toward the warmer one. Ridiculous or not? Why?

As you look at smaller and smaller objects does his 'theory' become more reasonable? Some people here think so. Where is the cutoff? 

Does one molecule have an 'average' speed? Compared to what? The cubic centimeter of air, the planet, the galaxy, the universe? Is there some sort of tag that allows one molecule to recognize the 'temperature' of a different molecule? 

It is easy to understand the flow of heat by statistical calculations of large cohorts of particles but it is impossible to determine by looking at any one individual interaction between two molecules.

SSDD is full of shit


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD has some bizarre notion that individual atomic scale events are controlled by a macroscopic general description, temperature. He has no mechanism for this, and in fact it goes against other Physics Laws such as entropy.



And since you have absolutely zero evidence to the contrary...it sounds like you are just persecuting me because I don't hold your religious beliefs...I don't need a mechanism for observation of energy movement any more than I need a mechanism for gravity...to suggest that I do is just plain stupid and very dishonest...observation is what it is and when every observation ever made supports one's position, why on earth would I jump on your fantasy band wagon?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD is full of shit



So you say...and still every observation ever made supports my position....you, I am afraid, are the one who is full of shit...but you have your beliefs...you stick to them and ride that crazy train right to the bitter end.


----------



## IanC (Oct 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD has some bizarre notion that individual atomic scale events are controlled by a macroscopic general description, temperature. He has no mechanism for this, and in fact it goes against other Physics Laws such as entropy.
> ...




I am persecuting you because your belief in magic photons are in contradiction of other physical laws, especially entropy. You believe in a definition of the second law of thermodynamics that was written before the atomic scale world was explored. In fact it was the known deficiencies that caused Planck to invent his constant, little h, that set a limit as to how small distance could be divided. Which led to the evolvement of Quantum Mechanics. Your system is old and flawed and unable to explain the inconsistencies. Mine retains the correct portions of your version, corrects the flaws, and explains what is happening.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> I am persecuting you because your belief in magic photons are in contradiction of other physical laws, especially entropy. You believe in a definition of the second law of thermodynamics that was written before the atomic scale world was explored. In fact it was the known deficiencies that caused Planck to invent his constant, little h, that set a limit as to how small distance could be divided. Which led to the evolvement of Quantum Mechanics. Your system is old and flawed and unable to explain the inconsistencies. Mine retains the correct portions of your version, corrects the flaws, and explains what is happening.



Actually, ian, it is you wackos who made up the whole "magic" photons stupidity, as if anything in nature must be intelligent, or magic in order to obey the laws of physics.  Specifically, the whole thing is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ridicule where ridicule, or mockery is substituted for actual evidence in an argument.  The fact is that every observation ever made shows energy moving only from warm to cool...and every observation ever made shows that it is a one way gross energy movement.  There are no observations of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, nor are there any observations of net energy movement.  

And If the physics of energy movement are KNOWN to be different from that described by that quaint old second law of thermodynamics, why then, has the law not been rewritten to reflect this new reality?  I can tell you why...it is because the new reality isn't...it is nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...that's it..and that's all you have so rather than simply address that fact, you engage in various logical fallacies in an effort to divert attention away from your lack of observed, measured, empirical evidence to support your belief and actively engage in an effort to disparage me.  

By definition, persecution is to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity,or sexual orientation....in this case, it is because I don't hold the same religious belief as you....and you have admitted it.  How does it feel to be that sort of person Ian?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am persecuting you because your belief in magic photons are in contradiction of other physical laws, especially entropy. You believe in a definition of the second law of thermodynamics that was written before the atomic scale world was explored. In fact it was the known deficiencies that caused Planck to invent his constant, little h, that set a limit as to how small distance could be divided. Which led to the evolvement of Quantum Mechanics. Your system is old and flawed and unable to explain the inconsistencies. Mine retains the correct portions of your version, corrects the flaws, and explains what is happening.
> ...



*Actually, ian, it is you wackos who made up the whole "magic" photons stupidity, as if anything in nature must be intelligent, or magic in order to obey the laws of physics.*

Wrong. Your silly claim requires intelligence on the part of emitters or photons.
Real physics says all matter above 0K emits all the time in all directions.

Still waiting for the explanation of how an object emits, stops emitting and starts again just because a warmer object approached and then left the area near that object.
Or how photons from the Big Bang won't enter our warmer atmosphere until, magically, they detect a cooler instrument set up to measure them. Suddenly, intelligently, after traveling for billions of years, unable to travel towards the Earth's surface, they "know" they can. And they predicted this cooler target, when they were deciding to be emitted. Crazy!
*
And If the physics of energy movement are KNOWN to be different from that described by that quaint old second law of thermodynamics, why then, has the law not been rewritten to reflect this new reality?*

Because the actual physics, as opposed to your confused version, does not differ from the 2nd Law or from Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2016)

"Global warming" continues to be the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the human race. Been saying it for 2 decades and the most and more it gets scrutinized, the more and more comes to light. The level of fraud is astonishing s0ns...............when you need the research to have the desired outcome, just need some cash..........

Like THIS  >>>>

Global Warming Scam Exposed | Zero Hedge


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> "Global warming" continues to be the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the human race. Been saying it for 2 decades and the most and more it gets scrutinized, the more and more comes to light. The level of fraud is astonishing s0ns...............when you need the research to have the desired outcome, just need some cash..........
> 
> Like THIS  >>>>
> 
> Global Warming Scam Exposed | Zero Hedge



You don't have to get the science wrong.....to see the hoax.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am persecuting you because your belief in magic photons are in contradiction of other physical laws, especially entropy. You believe in a definition of the second law of thermodynamics that was written before the atomic scale world was explored. In fact it was the known deficiencies that caused Planck to invent his constant, little h, that set a limit as to how small distance could be divided. Which led to the evolvement of Quantum Mechanics. Your system is old and flawed and unable to explain the inconsistencies. Mine retains the correct portions of your version, corrects the flaws, and explains what is happening.
> ...




Hahahaha.

'persecute' was your word, I just went along with it. Nice Hillary Clinton pivot to avoid addressing the issues. Again.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> The folly of temperature in SSDD'S world.
> 
> Does the planet have an average temperature? Maybe, but is it a useful piece of information?
> 
> ...




In my comment I asked what the cutoff was. In past wanderings through the literature I stumbled upon an estimate that said the relationship of the second law of thermodynamics starts breaking down in the range of about one picogram of mass, one nanosecond of time. I have no intention of defending that statement but only put it forth to give an estimate of where macroscopic Laws such as the SLoT no longer hold true.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> In my comment I asked what the cutoff was. In past wanderings through the literature I stumbled upon an estimate that said the relationship of the second law of thermodynamics starts breaking down in the range of about one picogram of mass, one nanosecond of time. I have no intention of defending that statement but only put it forth to give an estimate of where macroscopic Laws such as the SLoT no longer hold true.



So you stumbled upon an estimate somewhere...whoopee...lets change all the physical laws then.  Let me know when they actually observe and measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm....or let me know when they actually measure energy spontaneously flowing in both directions...till then, I will stick with every observation ever made and reject your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha.
> 
> 'persecute' was your word, I just went along with it.



Wonder why?  The word as a very specific meaning...had you accused me of persecuting you, I would have asked exactly how you came to such a conclusion, since I know that I am not guilty...you on the other hand "went along"..obviously because you know that it was a correct choice of words...and you know perfectly well that your whole magic photons, and smart photons malarky is nothing more than a logical fallacy constructed to deflect from the fact that there is nothing magic, or intelligent about anything following the laws of nature, and since you can't point to any actual observation of your claims of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, you attempt to divert from the fact with a particularly low logical fallacy.

Not that it actually bothers me....I don't like you enough for anything you say to bother me, so you lack that power.  I just thought i would mention it to highlight the fact that  you are becoming...or perhaps have become one of those people who will crawl through any foul sewer in an effort to defend your dogma.  Congratulations.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > In my comment I asked what the cutoff was. In past wanderings through the literature I stumbled upon an estimate that said the relationship of the second law of thermodynamics starts breaking down in the range of about one picogram of mass, one nanosecond of time. I have no intention of defending that statement but only put it forth to give an estimate of where macroscopic Laws such as the SLoT no longer hold true.
> ...




I pointed out to those of us who actually believe in physics that there is a fuzzy boundary where the rules of the macroscopic world break down and the quantum world takes over. At an almost unbelievably tiny scale. This comment was not for you as you have already declared Quantum mechanics to be bogus.


----------



## xyz (Oct 25, 2016)

The earth is slowly cooling because of the fans and bellows set up in the middle of the Earth by aliens.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> I pointed out to those of us who actually believe in physics that there is a fuzzy boundary where the rules of the macroscopic world break down and the quantum world takes over. At an almost unbelievably tiny scale. This comment was not for you as you have already declared Quantum mechanics to be bogus.



There is nothing fuzzy at all about actual observation, and measurement...when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to support your beliefs, let me know...till then, they are based upon nothing more that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

xyz said:


> The earth is slowly cooling because of the fans and bellows set up in the middle of the Earth by aliens.


I thought it was warming because the aliens needed a warmer world to colonize..  of course aliens smart enough to have reached here and decided to colonize wouldn't try to alter the at climate with a non existent greenhouse effect.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha.
> ...




More bullshit insults. I couldn't be bothered to defend myself because my past words and ideas have already done that.

Where does the extra energy come from to allow the surface to radiate 400w when the solar insulation is less than half of that?


----------



## xyz (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> xyz said:
> 
> 
> > The earth is slowly cooling because of the fans and bellows set up in the middle of the Earth by aliens.
> ...


they're lizards.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The gravitothermal effect...want me to write it in crayons for you?


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I pointed out to those of us who actually believe in physics that there is a fuzzy boundary where the rules of the macroscopic world break down and the quantum world takes over. At an almost unbelievably tiny scale. This comment was not for you as you have already declared Quantum mechanics to be bogus.
> ...




nothing fuzzy at all about actual observation and measurement? Now you are declaring the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be a hoax as well?


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




I think you need to expand your explanation a little bit further than to just write down two words that mean nothing to the vast majority of people. I read your link about this on the other thread. Really??? a call to disprove why a perpetual motion machine cannot be made to extract energy from the atmosphere? thats your explanation?


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Everyone who has taken high school physics knows about the double slit experiment. Light appears to go right through the solid middle . The same applies to electrons but the slits have to be closer together.

If you surreptitiously try to measure the photons or electrons before they reach the slits then nothing gets through. The act of measurement 'puts them to the test' and their probability function as a wave condenses into a particle. 

All measured and observed thousands of times by neophyte physicists around the world.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


except for back radiation.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs. somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the instruments are faulty in some way, or that the radiation from the atmosphere blinks off and on via some magical Maxwell's Daemon that tests the temperature everywhere in the universe and makes decisions on whether molecules are allowed to emit or not


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


no back radiation has not been measured.  that's incorrect.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




says who? SSDD?

what do YOU think is being measured by hand held IRTs?

do you really think the photographs I posted of institutions built to study downwelling atmospheric radiations are bogus, and their published data is fabricated?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why? Does it not exist? Or does it exist but can't be measured?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


 it isn't back radiation no evidence to prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface isn't back radiation?
Then what is it?


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




In your mind, is 'backradiation' somehow different than plain radiation? 

Did you read SSDD's link to the IRT manufacturer's statement on how they use radiation in the same bands as the Atmospheric Window? Do you agree that they can measure the ambient temp when pointed sideways? How much do you have to tilt the IR gun until the radiation blinks out?

Do you actually understand how anything works or is the world just an unexplained mystery to you? 

Are incandescent, florescent and LED bulbs just sources of light to you or do you see them as totally different mechanisms . Why are their efficiencies so different? Which one is really not like the others? Are you ever curious enough to find things out just because? Does it ever bother you when you notice that you don't seem to grasp the idea behind stuff? Ever marvel at the Golden Ratio popping up in nature, or the amazing usefulness of the square root of negative one, even though it doesn't actually exist?

jc, we may both be humans but I think we live in different worlds.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> In your mind, is 'backradiation' somehow different than plain radiation?



By definition ian, back radiation is radiation that has left a radiator, being reflected back to, and being absorbed by the radiator, further warming the radiator which in turn then radiates more energy.....a loop upon which a perpetual energy machine may be manufactured...

It doesn't happen...EVER....no observation of it ever happening spontaneously....no measurement of it ever happening spontaneously.  Back radiation is a fantasy which only exists in flawed mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Again, when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten so as to support your beliefs...let me know...till that time, they support my position.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> 
> back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.



No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> 
> says who? SSDD?
> ...



What is being measured by an IRT is a temperature change of an internal thermopile, which is then interpreted by a mathematical model....  if you believe it is measuring anything else, then you are being fooled by instrumentation...and being fooled by instrumentation...and flawed models is rampant in climate science..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > In your mind, is 'backradiation' somehow different than plain radiation?
> ...


*
radiation that has left a radiator, being reflected back to, and being absorbed by the radiator, further warming the radiator*

Not "further warming" simply slower cooling.
*
no observation of it ever happening spontaneously....no measurement of it ever happening spontaneously.*





Observed and measured here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...*

Love your on-off switch for your "smart photons".
DERP.


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing. 

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans. 

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts. 

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output. 



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject.  And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




What a dolt you are.

I tried to get you to understand how the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy, and why the atmosphere radiates (part of which is in the direction of the surface), and your retort is the radiation can't penetrate past the skin of the oceans. 

Why do I bother?

Fine. Go wallow in your ignorance.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


well I wallow in the observed factual.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




What observed factual are you talking about?

Are you now denying the observed measurements of the emissivity of water? Done by uncooled instruments of the same basic design as documented in SSDD'S link ?

Water absorbs and emits various bands of IR at an emissivity of 0.95-0.99. a perfect blackbody is defined as 1.00 but is only theoretical.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so, what I posted was that if one believes in back radiation, which I don't, but if one does, then that IR cannot be absorbed by the oceans or water period.  I never stated that water can't absorb sun's input radiation.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




No, what you're saying is that you are too fucking stupid to understand even the most basic of concepts. 

Hahahaha, I told you water has an emissivity of .95 and over for the IR emitted both by the surface and the atmosphere. Documented, observed, empirical. You then said water cannot absorb the vary same radiation that we were talking about. And then made a crazy accusation that someone said you didn't believe water absorbed sunlight radiation. Hahahaha, boy are you ever confused. How do you function in reality? I certainly hope someone takes care of you. 

Perhaps you just don't understand the term emissivity. It pertains to what kind of radiation can be absorbed or emitted by a substance. The emission exactly equals absorption, obviously.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


water cannot absorb LWIR.  the reradiated IR.  It can't you have zero observed evidence of it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

"The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the *solar* radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. *It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase *[predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases]* in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans.*" (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface *cooling* of the oceans. _N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans
> 
> "The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the *solar* radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. *It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase *[predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases]* in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans.*" (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface *cooling* of the oceans. _N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."_



*It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase *_[predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases]_* in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans.*_"_


Is this guy lying? He says the atmosphere is sending IR downward.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans
> ...


dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it, however, since he, Ian, stays there I state.... I've read........... so here is what i've read.  So Ian says his back radiation will do x.  well here's someone saying he's full of shit.  so?  I don't believe in back radiation, you know this.

In other words, what Ian believes happens doesn't happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
dude, I clearly stated in a previous post that I don't agree with it,*

Why are you posting something from someone who disagrees so fundamentally with you?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


to prove him wrong on his thinking. again, you have to read that post.  I qualified it. it has to do with how he gets his 200watts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Your own source proves you wrong on your thinking.
Sure you want to go there?


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans
> 
> "The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the *solar* radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. *It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase *[predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases]* in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans.*" (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface *cooling* of the oceans. _N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures."_




Beer's Law?  when have I ever said IR was transmitted through water? sunlight doesnt warm a rock by travelling through it, it is absorbed at the surface and conduction does the rest. sunlight does warm water by both warming the surface and penetrating to a deeper depth. So what? IR is absorbed at the surface, and that energy would help warm the skin of the water IF the air is warmer than the water, OR it will balance out some of the surface radiation loss which lowers the rate of cooling if the air is cooler than the water. either way the atmospheric downward radiation adds a warming influence, although actual warming or cooling depends on the surface energy input minus energy output, IN TOTAL.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

thank god (or whatever created the universe and its rules) that water transmits some sunlight. if it didnt then a larger portion of the sunlight's energy would go into evaporation at the skin. more evaporation, more clouds, less sunlight hitting the surface. any transcient conditions that caused ice to form would likely lead to more ice, until the Earth was an icecube.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Hahahaha, of course he wants to go there. He is a firm believer in "an enemy of my enemy is a friend". Of course jc doesn't understand what the guy said, but it sounded like it was disagreeing with me. Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans
> ...


dude, the skin is cooler than the water underneath it.  The atmosphere right above the skin is also cool.  wow.


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I agree that the skin of the water is cooler than the water directly below it. Because of a known mechanism, evaporation. 

Explain what you mean by the atmosphere is cooler. Cooler than what? By what mechanism?

Explain the relevance of your statement to the overall movement of energy through the system because I am not understanding your point, if there is one.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


well your original post requested us to explain where the extra energy comes from.  you claim if I read your posts accurately, that you believe back radiation from the atmosphere supplies this energy.

If that is your answer, then how can that happen if LWIR can't warm the water.  Water is 70% of earth's surface temperature.  If your supposed back radiation is your driver, it's impossible since it can't warm the water.


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Water can be warmed by IR. It absorbs the IR bands that we are talking about, as shown by the emissivity graphs. You rightfully said IR is not transmitted to depth in water like SW sunshine is. So what?

If the atmosphere is warmer than the water , eg there is more radiation coming down than going up, then the atmosphere is warming the water. The usual case is that the water is warmer than the air, so the air is being warmed.

But even in the usual case of the water warming the air, the downward radiation is balancing out some of the energy loss from the water. 165w from the Sun reaches the surface, the surface loses 400w, the atmosphere returns 235w. The inputs are 165+235 which equals 400. We can certainly argue over the exact numbers, I don't think they will ever be known exactly. But the surface cannot maintain its present temperature (400w = 15C) without receiving energy back from the atmosphere.

You and SSDD have convinced yourselves that the surface is only radiating 165w and the atmosphere is radiating 0w (a perfect vacuum containing no radiation, absolute zero). That does not match reality.


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2016)

The atmosphere is only there, held aloft in the gravity field because of stored solar energy that is constantly being swapped between kinetic and potential energies. This energy must in turn produce blackbody radiation via molecular collisions. The idea that it can magically stop radiating, stop molecular collisions, stop being held aloft in the gravity field, simply by changing the surface temperature is absurd. Especially at a moment's notice.

Like Toddsterpatriot said, "epicycles on top of epicycles on top of epicycles".


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2016)

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here?  If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.


----------



## IanC (Nov 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here?  If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.




I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here?  If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.
> ...


just remember back radiation is nonsense.  Just don't forget that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*just remember back radiation is nonsense*

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws.  D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position.  but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.


----------



## IanC (Nov 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Your misunderstanding on just about every topic is truly epic. Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


there you go!


----------



## Darkwind (Nov 4, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 1. climate change is a science, not a theory
> 2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
> 3.  the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
> 4.  the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
> 5.  CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change


The oceans provide more direct impact upon climate than any other factor outside the Sun.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2016)

Darkwind said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > 1. climate change is a science, not a theory
> ...


they also hold excess heat.  Ask the IPCC.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws.*

We're not talking about cold, we're talking about photons.

*When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold*

Photons flow from cold to hot, hot to cold, and same to same, as long as the matter is above 0K, it
emits, no tiny thermometer or crystal ball needed.


----------



## IanC (Nov 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Fire up your stereo, listen to the first side of Sticky Fingers. Then measure the temperature of the top of your amp. Toss a towel from your linen closet on top of the amp. Listen to the second side, and then take the temperature again.

Voilà! A cool object has made a hot object hotter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That can't be true, heat doesn't flow from cold to hot.


----------



## IanC (Nov 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Hahahaha. There's a trick to it. But I won't tell.


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2016)

Ian holds his hands up, arms spread, his thumb and forefingers forming circles on each hand.  He then spins around, hiding his hands, says the magic word and then, with a bold "Ta-DAAAAaaa", brings them back out with the two rings now joined!


----------



## IanC (Nov 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ian holds his hands up, arms spread, his thumb and forefingers forming circles on each hand.  He then spins around, hiding his hands, says the magic word and then, with a bold "Ta-DAAAAaaa", brings them back out with the two rings now joined!




Hey now! Cut me some slack, that trick is a hit with the toddler crowd.


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2016)

; - )

The comment concerned your audience's sense of perspicuity


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Of course you won't...you are all about fooling whoever you can to join you on the AGW crazy train...


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2016)

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.




Says the man who doesn't believe gravity plays a big part in determining the temperature of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.


There is nothing whatsoever unique about my understanding of the S-B law according to at least 2 top shelf physicists...Ian, and apparently you, have a very odd "interpretation" of the law...Ian now believes that the first equation describes a two dimensional object that somehow radiates in 3 dimensions, and both of you believe that adding the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant will somehow make two way radiation happen in reality.  You are both badly mistaken in your interpretations...I suppose that is because neither of you can simply read the equation and understand what it is saying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.
> ...



You never did explain your dimmer switch theory.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Dimmer switches and magical smart photons. (Deep sigh)

And he considers us ignorant because we believe matter radiates according to temperature, and that heat flow is the net difference between two objects. Ockham would spin in his grave.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


no, heat flow is from warm to cold.  you should read up.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Fuck, you're stupid. Objects radiate according to their temperature. 

If two objects are the same temperature they still radiate but there is no net radiation exchange. They give as much as they receive. But there is still radiation. Only dumb fucks like you and SSDD believe the radiation magically stops altogether. That is why everyone laughs at you guys.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> Fuck, you're stupid. Objects radiate according to their temperature.



You should read up ian...objects radiate according to their temperature only if they are in a vacuum...or happen to be in an environment that is at absolute zero...which wouldn't last long with an object radiating at above 0 degrees K now would it?  

Objects in the real world radiate according to the temperature of their surroundings...like it or not...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck, you're stupid. Objects radiate according to their temperature.
> ...




*Objects in the real world radiate according to the temperature of their surroundings...like it or not...*

Right, because they have a magic dimmer switch.
And they can tell the temperature of nearby objects which, according to you, don't radiate.

Explain away the impossibility of measuring the temperature of an object which does not radiate.

Or run away. Again.


----------

