"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[konradv]

there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t. guy.

CO2 Science

this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".

and:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:

The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science

Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.

the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion.
it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.

If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere? Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat. You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.

 

[washamericom]

there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t. guy.

CO2 Science

this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".

and:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:

The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science

Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.

the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion.
it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.

If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere? Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat. You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.

co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. there is no greenhouse (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
as i said the physics professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

if this were in court, the burden of proof would fall on the proponents, the part of the scientific community that have failed miserably in their endeavor to proof. even if they hadn't falsified records and deceive the publik, and made and touted that movie filled with junk science, it still would be impossible to prove with the technology we have available today.
think of it this way, if "incontinent truth" was made today the "facts" presented would be different, and there is a reason for that.

thanks for playing... there'll be some lovely parting gifts at the store.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The cycle has shifted, has it? Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?

In fair disclosure I need to say that I don't take Troofers, Birfers or Waaarmers seriously. Those who cling to their absurd, cult-like fantasies are not rational. I view morons spouting on about anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels exactly the same as I do the guy who was spouting off on a brown dwarf causing the poles to shift.

They can be amusing to mock, but I'll never take them seriously.

We know they trap energy so,

No, you don't "know" that." Your cult leaders have told that they do and you have uncritically accepted it.

A green house works on the principle of convection, a physical barrier causes certain wave lengths to be trapped inside.

Our atmosphere doesn't work that way at all. A green house modulates convection by mixing outside air into the trapped system.

Earth sits in the complete vacuum of space, there is no outside air to modulate convection.

Instead, temperature is modulated by two primary means, absorption in liquids - primarily the oceans, and the modulation of radiation through the troposphere.

The substance which accounts for 98% of this is - NO, not CO2, water vapor. Carbon dioxide in fact contributes about 0.02% of modulus. This is ALL CO2, man made and natural.

You see, the science ISN'T there, never has been. Virtually everything sold to a gullible public and a power hungry government is based on computer models.

Now, maybe these models are really good, and the facts support them.

Uh, well - not quite. In fact, the Mann models have a 100% failure rate - you read that right - they have not correctly predicted anything - ever.

The bad news for you is that your cult is discredited. I don't view you as an opponent to be debated with, I view you as a loon to be mocked, no different than those screaming of brown dwarfs or Jews setting shape charges in the WTC.

 

[konradv]

there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t. guy.

CO2 Science

this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".

and:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:

The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science

Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.

the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion.
it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.

If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere? Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat. You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.

co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. there is no greenhouse (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
as i said the physic professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

What happens when those "multipliers" no longer offset the effect of CO2? You have to realize there ARE natural cycles and what you're calling a lack of effect of CO2 is in reality those other factors having an influence. What happens when they reverse? You're analysis treats those factors as if they only serve to depress the effects of CO2, when they actually would work to reinforce it, when the cycles reverse.

 

[konradv]

The cycle has shifted, has it? Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?

In fair disclosure I need to say that I don't take Troofers, Birfers or Waaarmers seriously. Those who cling to their absurd, cult-like fantasies are not rational. I view morons spouting on about anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels exactly the same as I do the guy who was spouting off on a brown dwarf causing the poles to shift.

They can be amusing to mock, but I'll never take them seriously.

We know they trap energy so,

No, you don't "know" that." Your cult leaders have told that they do and you have uncritically accepted it.
A green house works on the principle of convection, a physical barrier causes certain wave lengths to be trapped inside.

Our atmosphere doesn't work that way at all. A green house modulates convection by mixing outside air into the trapped system.

Earth sits in the complete vacuum of space, there is no outside air to modulate convection.

Instead, temperature is modulated by two primary means, absorption in liquids - primarily the oceans, and the modulation of radiation through the troposphere.

The substance which accounts for 98% of this is - NO, not CO2, water vapor. Carbon dioxide in fact contributes about 0.02% of modulus. This is ALL CO2, man made and natural.

You see, the science ISN'T there, never has been. Virtually everything sold to a gullible public and a power hungry government is based on computer models.

Now, maybe these models are really good, and the facts support them.

Uh, well - not quite. In fact, the Mann models have a 100% failure rate - you read that right - they have not correctly predicted anything - ever.

The bad news for you is that your cult is discredited. I don't view you as an opponent to be debated with, I view you as a loon to be mocked, no different than those screaming of brown dwarfs or Jews setting shape charges in the WTC.

You're the one that's in a cult. One that apparently has you believing that long-standing scientific knowledge is bunk. I'm going by the science and I KNOW that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, because I can prove it in a spectrophotometer. It's actually a VERY TRIVIAL experiment and easy to do. Any wonder I have trouble believing anything a denier says, when simple, basic truths are swept under the rug as if they didn't exist?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're the one that's in a cult.

ROFL

Of course, the infidels who eschew the holy truth are blind and in a cult of disbelief..

One that apparently has you believing that long-standing scientific knowledge is bunk.

Your religion defies scientific knowledge.

There is nothing scientific about Mann or Jones.

I'm going by the science and I KNOW that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, because I can prove it in a spectrophotometer.

And?

I already pointed out that CO2 accounts for .02% of the modulation of radiation.

For extra credit (though it may get you ex-communicated) explain why the lack of uniform global temperatures (it's warmer in the tropics than at the poles) dispels the myth of actual convection.

How do you think that makes your silly little cult true?

 

[Big Fitz]

Oops! This thread has devolved into Chicken Little Noodledom. Time to break out the lolcats to illustrate the new stupidity this thread has found.

 

[washamericom]

If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere? Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat. You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.

co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. there is no greenhouse (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
as i said the physic professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

What happens when those "multipliers" no longer offset the effect of CO2? You have to realize there ARE natural cycles and what you're calling a lack of effect of CO2 is in reality those other factors having an influence. What happens when they reverse? You're analysis treats those factors as if they only serve to depress the effects of CO2, when they actually would work to reinforce it, when the cycles reverse.

okay.. you win, i guess i'll try the mocking thing for awhile. so... did you read the book or see the movie yet?

 

[konradv]

You're the one that's in a cult.

ROFL

Of course, the infidels who eschew the holy truth are blind and in a cult of disbelief..

One that apparently has you believing that long-standing scientific knowledge is bunk.

Your religion defies scientific knowledge.

There is nothing scientific about Mann or Jones.

I'm going by the science and I KNOW that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, because I can prove it in a spectrophotometer.

And?

I already pointed out that CO2 accounts for .02% of the modulation of radiation.

For extra credit (though it may get you ex-communicated) explain why the lack of uniform global temperatures (it's warmer in the tropics than at the poles) dispels the myth of actual convection.

How do you think that makes your silly little cult true?

So it's a relgion now? That's the fall back position of the truly desperate!!! You have no scientific basis for what you're saying except to regurgitate what you've heard. You can save your question, since you never satisfactorily answered mine. What happens if CO2 keeps going up and absorbs more and more radiation? Where would that energy go, since only 50% is likely to be re-emitted into space? Logically the other half would have to go towards warming the earth.

 

[konradv]

co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. there is no greenhouse (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
as i said the physic professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

What happens when those "multipliers" no longer offset the effect of CO2? You have to realize there ARE natural cycles and what you're calling a lack of effect of CO2 is in reality those other factors having an influence. What happens when they reverse? You're analysis treats those factors as if they only serve to depress the effects of CO2, when they actually would work to reinforce it, when the cycles reverse.

okay.. you win, i guess i'll try the mocking thing for awhile. so... did you read the book or see the movie yet?

Pretty much all you've got, since neither science nor logic are in your corner. The denier side is all political with just enough science thrown in to confuse rather than elucidate.

 

[Big Fitz]

Konradv... can't win in the environmental forum, so he drags is whacko cult faith into other threads to 'win' there.

Come on now... scream 'Victory is Mine' like a good little Stewie.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So it's a relgion now?

It's never been anything other than a religion.

You have no scientific basis for what you're saying except to regurgitate what you've heard.

Irony - it's what makes you loons fun to mock.

You can save your question,

Couldn't find a verse to respond, huh?

What happens if CO2 keeps going up and absorbs more and more radiation?

What happens if the watermelon keeps growing and becomes bigger than the sun?

Your question reveals the utter lack of comprehension you have of the subject.

Say, which absorbs more infrared energy, water vapor or CO2 based on PPM? Check that spectrograph...

ROFL

If warmists could pass even third grade science, they would be forced to reject their silly religion.

 

[Big Fitz]

If it gets cold: Global warming
If it gets hot: Global warming
If it rains: Global warming
If it is dry: Global warming

But in all cases... it's Man's Fault!

 

[Uncensored2008]

okay.. you win, i guess i'll try the mocking thing for awhile. so... did you read the book or see the movie yet?

It's the only reasonable course.

You'll no more get a reasoned or rational discussion out of this guy on his religion than you will from eots on the facts of 9/11.

This is his faith, reason and facts will not penetrate.

 

[washamericom]

What happens if the watermelon keeps growing and becomes bigger than the sun?


i'm pretty sure that it would effect the gravitational manmade (because man planted the watermellon seed and watered it) cause to retrograde, upsetting the delicate balance of the moon's orbit and send it careening into the earth.... thereby causing...... wait for it... real global warming !
more new things to worry about...thanks alot man, now i have that hanging over my head (so to speak)

 

[Toro]

So, if I'm reading this right, Ayn Rand believed or didn't believe in global warming.

Whodathunk?

 

[washamericom]

So, if I'm reading this right, Ayn Rand believed or didn't believe in global warming.

Whodathunk?

yes, it's true

 

[MaggieMae]

Because it isn't junk science.

You didn't type that with a straight face.

AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.

Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.

WERE melting.

The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.

Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.

Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.

Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.

How, exactly? How have you paid more in taxes? Nobody's forcing you to go green.

Good grief, you people are soooooo gullible.

 

[MaggieMae]

Quote: Originally Posted by MaggieMae
The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! It wasn't until early in the 20th Century that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.



let's have a quick look at the bulls supper. you speak in sweeping generalities and without accurate substance, then you admonish others for not seeing the liberal light. did you read the book? there is a parallel between the government in the novel and the type of overreaching government we have today, only we'll have none of it.
with respect to global warming and cap and trade, they are stepping stones to a "centralized world government" (ad hoc). let me ask you this, why would, by your own admission, gore need to embellish the facts to sell his theory ?. why is so much wrong about the movie. why has it spiraled into scandal. why did he let the animated polar bear die, yet he saved the frog.
the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere is a created myth, it would be like finding the average # in the new york phonebook, or the average colour. the very name greenhouse effect is a misnomer, it implies that there is a solid barrier between us and space. the average temp of 95 or so % of the earth's mass is 1000 degrees centegrade, and carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring and much needed gas is less than a third of 1 percent of the "air". the prediction models are weak.
there is no evidence that "global warming" is caused by man, and when asked, of a real scientist, a physics professor at MIT, what is the cause of global warming?? he said "the sun"....
so it all ties together magpie, scientific theory, new world order, sweeping generalities and wrongs facts, like the ones above posted by you, i think, ... and i apologise if i'm wrong.
your consensus is wrong, and lincoln really was the first republican, but not in the early 1900's. other than that mrs lincoln, how did you like the play.

Another one who takes gigantic leaps from one subject to another. I may have missed the actual timeframe for the separation of political parties, so sue me. As for global warming, I trust my facts and you trust yours. So it's a standoff. Only time will tell who is right.

 

[MaggieMae]

no offense maggie but you don't leave for yourself much wiggle room in that dept.

Where have I not backed up what I say? This thread is loaded with links I posted. You can call it bullshit if you want, but I can prove what the bull ate for dinner anyway.

Samson has a personal vendetta against me. I stripped him of his bragging rights one day.

No he has a vendetta against anyone that thinks critically, doesn't believe in propaganda, and tries to learn the truth.

Sure... Whatevah...