Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.
Westwall -
Please do not spam the thread with childish abuse. Either address the topic with relevant points, or leave the topic for others.
Yet more sock yapping I see. So tell me mr. "Finnish journalist" on American time.. Since when does correlation equal causation?
Bullshit. There is no proof whatsoever to back up that ridiculous assertion.
Really? Here are what real scientists are presenting.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
You keep posting that bit of religious dogma....I have read it, and read the information at its links...Where in all that do you believe there is proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming? To date, there doesn't exist even the smallest bit of actual (as oppsed to the output of computer models) proof that our CO2 has any effect at all on the global climate and now that the earth has gone 15 years with no warming in spite of increased atmospheric CO2 which climate science is at a loss to explain, the possibility that man made CO2 is driving the climate is even more remote than the bullshit hypothesis claimed in the beginnning.
That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.
Westwall -
Please do not spam the thread with childish abuse. Either address the topic with relevant points, or leave the topic for others.
Dumb fuck. Not a correlation equals causation issue. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been known since 1858. Stupes like you keeping repeating the rightwingnut mantra as if repeating lie often enough would make it a truth.
I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.
Let me see if I can simplify this for the mentally impaired geniuses... If you believe in the current theory of AGW, then you are also believing in perfect machines... Why don't you geniuses go and use these new concepts you are embracing to do something useful?
Why with a new CO2 infinite heat machine you could solve the energy problems overnight.. Go build one please... Yes you know how to harness this miraculous energy doubling effect known to exist in CO2, please make one.... What? You don't know how?
I'll help you.. First get a big glass tank we can put some CO2 in. Then place a mirror so the sun will reflect the light back through the tank. When it does it will heat the CO2. Then set up a 2nd mirror to reflect the same light back to the other mirror. The continuous light going back and forth through the CO2 gas will make it get hotter and hotter, you could place a tank of water in it and make steamtoturn a turbine or anything really...
Okay I gave you a start, now go!!
while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?
First, I haven't made any "strident" claims. I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over
were is the description of this mechanism that forbids emission of radiation, and under which circumstances does it take effect?
Dumb fuck. Not a correlation equals causation issue. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been known since 1858. Stupes like you keeping repeating the rightwingnut mantra as if repeating lie often enough would make it a truth.
Oh my, SSDD pretending to actually know something. Once again, the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well measured. And, from paleontology, we see several extinction periods which involved rapid changes in the GHG levels on earth.
One of the most pressing concerns for humans on Earth today is climate change, and what will happen in the future.
and you've gotten it wrong every time.
Again, the second law is a description of statistics, not a force of nature.
First, I haven't made any "strident" claims. I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over
and you've gotten it wrong every time.
Again, the second law is a description of statistics, not a force of nature.
Imagine I roll a 6-sided die a quadrillion times. I can write a "law of probability" stating that "1" will come up 1 out 6 times. But that "law" isn't forcing the die to do anything. It's just describing the statistical outcome.
In exactly the same way, the second law describes the statistics of systems, but doesn't force individual outcomes. Individual photons are quite free to carry energy from cold to hot. The second law doesn't constrain them in any way. The second law just points out that if you look at the entire system, the total sum of energy will have to flow from hot to cold.
Let us get some clarification. Putting statistics aside: Is it the mamooth contention that the 2d Law of Thermodynamics says that SOMETIMES energy naturally flows from the cooler object to the warmer object?
I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.
Let me see if I can simplify this for the mentally impaired geniuses... If you believe in the current theory of AGW, then you are also believing in perfect machines... Why don't you geniuses go and use these new concepts you are embracing to do something useful?
Why with a new CO2 infinite heat machine you could solve the energy problems overnight.. Go build one please... Yes you know how to harness this miraculous energy doubling effect known to exist in CO2, please make one.... What? You don't know how?
I'll help you.. First get a big glass tank we can put some CO2 in. Then place a mirror so the sun will reflect the light back through the tank. When it does it will heat the CO2. Then set up a 2nd mirror to reflect the same light back to the other mirror. The continuous light going back and forth through the CO2 gas will make it get hotter and hotter, you could place a tank of water in it and make steamtoturn a turbine or anything really...
Okay I gave you a start, now go!!
you should let people who can think do the commenting. are you really as clueless as the gibberish you write down?
while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?
the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no appreciable temperature differential.
I have to say, I am amazed that some posters are will trying to explain SSDD's mistake about back radiation to him, at least a week after I thought it became clear that he knew himself that his position was untenable.
On the one hand I admire the tenacity and patience some posters have - on the other hand I don't think debate offers much from the point neither side believe one point of view anymore!
I can't count how many posters from right across the spectrum of attitudes and politics have explained this point now, but it must be close to 10. Many of the explanations have been very, very good as well. I think the Science of Doom articles that both Ian and I posted were first-rate reading.
Maybe it's time for some new threads in the Environment section!
And yes, SSDD, I know you will continue to insist that you were right.
First, I haven't made any "strident" claims. I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over
and you've gotten it wrong every time.
Again, the second law is a description of statistics, not a force of nature.
Imagine I roll a 6-sided die a quadrillion times. I can write a "law of probability" stating that "1" will come up 1 out 6 times. But that "law" isn't forcing the die to do anything. It's just describing the statistical outcome.
In exactly the same way, the second law describes the statistics of systems, but doesn't force individual outcomes. Individual photons are quite free to carry energy from cold to hot. The second law doesn't constrain them in any way. The second law just points out that if you look at the entire system, the total sum of energy will have to flow from hot to cold.
That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.
Westwall -
Please do not spam the thread with childish abuse. Either address the topic with relevant points, or leave the topic for others.
Dumb fuck. Not a correlation equals causation issue. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been known since 1858. Stupes like you keeping repeating the rightwingnut mantra as if repeating lie often enough would make it a truth.
So has the fact that H2O vapor covers the exact same wavelength and absolutely dwarfs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere....which is real science fraud boy...
I have to say, I am amazed that some posters are will trying to explain SSDD's mistake about back radiation to him, at least a week after I thought it became clear that he knew himself that his position was untenable.
"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
—Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
And yes, SSDD, I know you will continue to insist that you were right.
WTF????? WTF kind of convoluted circle think is that???
The newly added "net" to the law still doesn't change anything. If the "net flow" is still to the cooler from the hotter, than the energy flowing back would be insignificant to any realized warming, especially once we take into consideration the loss of energy in the transfer....
Admiral, you are still ignorant...
Let us get some clarification. Putting statistics aside: Is it the mamooth contention that the 2d Law of Thermodynamics says that SOMETIMES energy naturally flows from the cooler object to the warmer object?
The second law is a statement made in absolute terms. There is no wiggle room there and anyone claiming any wiggle room whatsoever is claiming that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. If there were wiggle room there, I believe the law would have been written as such...but then it wouldn't be a law, would it?
I can't think of any natural laws that have wiggle room built in. Can you?
I have had it up to here with SSDD's unutterably stupid pronouncements on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!I repeat:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow....
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object....
The second law is a statement made in absolute terms. There is no wiggle room there and anyone claiming any wiggle room whatsoever is claiming that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. If there were wiggle room there, I believe the law would have been written as such...but then it wouldn't be a law, would it?
