Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[Saigon]

Here's the thing, if CO2 is a poor insulator, helps move heat to colder areas, then space is far colder than the poles. The heat would move out of the atmosphere. The planet should be cooling with that logic.

Either that, or your knowledge of climate change science simply is not strong enough to master the basic concept of what scientists are saying.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

CO2 does not retain heat nearly as much as water vapor or methane. That is science fact. I understand you have to keep pounding the CO2 thing, because you haven't figured out how to blame methane or water vapor on man.

C02 is highly conductive to the transfer of heat

it makes one of the worst insulators

if anything C02 would transfer heat to a colder location

thus shedding heat from the earth to space

Why don't you show us the results from experiments in the quantities found in the atmosphere? If you increase CO2 and it responds in the way you say, then we should be losing heat to space right? That makes things colder.

the quantities of C02 found in the atmosphere are minor compared to other known

elements in the atmosphere known to retain heat

thermodynamics says heat transfers from heat to cold

and only work (forcing) can change that

you should be able to look it up on a chart

to see the various elements in the atmosphere

and see the various insulative properties of the gases found on earth

Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
Argon (Ar) 0.934%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %
Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %
Helium (He) 0.000524 %
Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %
Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%
Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055 %

nitrogen for example is much more insulative and makes up much more

of the atmosphere

 

[saveliberty]

Here's the thing, if CO2 is a poor insulator, helps move heat to colder areas, then space is far colder than the poles. The heat would move out of the atmosphere. The planet should be cooling with that logic.

Either that, or your knowledge of climate change science simply is not strong enough to master the basic concept of what scientists are saying.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

Let's simplify it for you idiot.

Is CO2 a poor insulator? Yes or no.

Does CO2 move heat from a higher concentration of heat to a cooler one? Yes or no.

Does this heat transfer seek only a slightly cooler area or the coldest one?

Are the polar areas cooler or warmer than space?

 

[saveliberty]

C02 is highly conductive to the transfer of heat

it makes one of the worst insulators

if anything C02 would transfer heat to a colder location

thus shedding heat from the earth to space

Why don't you show us the results from experiments in the quantities found in the atmosphere? If you increase CO2 and it responds in the way you say, then we should be losing heat to space right? That makes things colder.

the quantities of C02 found in the atmosphere are minor compared to other known

elements in the atmosphere known to retain heat

thermodynamics says heat transfers from heat to cold

and only work (forcing) can change that

you should be able to look it up on a chart

to see the various elements in the atmosphere

and see the various insulative properties of the gases found on earth

Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
Argon (Ar) 0.934%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %
Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %
Helium (He) 0.000524 %
Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %
Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%
Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055 %

nitrogen for example is much more insulative and makes up much more

of the atmosphere

Well Jon, problem with your info is, you say CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. As a higher percentage, there should be less insulator qualities and more heat transfer. You said so.

 

[Saigon]

Save Liberty -

You didn't answer my question.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

Because they say you are wrong. Well...not so much wrong, as completely missing the point.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why don't you show us the results from experiments in the quantities found in the atmosphere? If you increase CO2 and it responds in the way you say, then we should be losing heat to space right? That makes things colder.

the quantities of C02 found in the atmosphere are minor compared to other known

elements in the atmosphere known to retain heat

thermodynamics says heat transfers from heat to cold

and only work (forcing) can change that

you should be able to look it up on a chart

to see the various elements in the atmosphere

and see the various insulative properties of the gases found on earth

Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
Argon (Ar) 0.934%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %
Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %
Helium (He) 0.000524 %
Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %
Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%
Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055 %

nitrogen for example is much more insulative and makes up much more

of the atmosphere

Well Jon, problem with your info is, you say CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. As a higher percentage, there should be less insulator qualities and more heat transfer. You said so.

the planet has not been warming for the last several years

Co2 is a product of heat

not the cause of it

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

The historical data in CO2 in the atmosphere was posted by another poster a few days ago.

If you ignored it then, you'll ignore it now.

No one, neither you or anyone else, has posted data giving the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the years that I requested. Because it does not exist. You are either ignorant to that fact or you are lying about it---which is it?

 

[bripat9643]

Save Liberty -

You didn't answer my question.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

Because they say you are wrong. Well...not so much wrong, as completely missing the point.

You mean the politicians in the leadership say that. The rank and file members are divided on the issue.

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

Let's try and stick with a little common sense here, eh?

There are charts going back as far as you want to go.

How reliable are CO2 measurements?

 

[Saigon]

You mean the politicians in the leadership say that. The rank and file members are divided on the issue.

Then let's see the proof.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

Let's try and stick with a little common sense here, eh?

There are charts going back as far as you want to go.

How reliable are CO2 measurements?

figures don't lie but liars figure. anyone can draw a chart. the spike at the far right is laughable. but look at the y axis, look at the scale. its drawn to confuse the ignorant. the growth is tiny even if the data is to be believed.

but the facts remain that water vapor and methane are much more prevalent than CO2 and have the same affects that you claim for a gas that makes up less that half of one percent of the atmosphere. Its bunk science put out by frauds who have an agenda to change human behavior to suit their liberal ideas of how humans should live.

If you choose to believe it and to worship its perveyors, fine. I do not.

 

[saveliberty]

Nice how we used an active volcano site for the last part too.

I also note ice core data versus direct measurement was less reliable the further back in time you go. Imagine that...

 

[saveliberty]

What scientist is going to use an active volcano in their chart? How misleading.

I also note ice core samples are less accurate the further back in time you go versus direct measurement. Great charts Saigon, thanks for the assistance in proving your conclusions as crap.

 

[Saigon]

the spike at the far right is laughable. but look at the y axis, look at the scale. its drawn to confuse the ignorant. the growth is tiny even if the data is to be believed

.

That's good to know - Stephen Hawking is going to shit when he hears how he got it wrong.

You should probably get onto the American Physical Society as well. For them to have been fooled by something a Walmart shelf-stacker found 'laughable' will be something they will want to get onto immediately.

 

[Saigon]

What scientist is going to use an active volcano in their chart? How misleading.

Someone who understood something about science....?

If you had researched this, you would know why it's located where it is.

 

[Redfish]

the spike at the far right is laughable. but look at the y axis, look at the scale. its drawn to confuse the ignorant. the growth is tiny even if the data is to be believed

.

That's good to know - Stephen Hawking is going to shit when he hears how he got it wrong.

You should probably get onto the American Physical Society as well. For them to have been fooled by something a Walmart shelf-stacker found 'laughable' will be something they will want to get onto immediately.

I am no Hawking, but I am sure that my education and experience surpasses yours. The one big difference seems to be that I am able to review data and draw my own conslusions not merely accept the pronouncements of so called experts who have a hidden agenda.

 

[Dubya]

Redfish -

The historical data in CO2 in the atmosphere was posted by another poster a few days ago.

If you ignored it then, you'll ignore it now.

No one, neither you or anyone else, has posted data giving the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the years that I requested. Because it does not exist. You are either ignorant to that fact or you are lying about it---which is it?

Accurate atmospheric CO2 levels exist as far back as ice core records exist, because the snow that makes ice sheets traps the atmosphere. There are also various other proxy measurements that aren't as accurate. Good samples of ancient atmospheres from Greenland and Antarctica match and measurements of atmospheric CO2 up to around 800,000 years, the extent of the ice core record, are considered accurate.

You made the statement that CO2 levels haven't changed and we all know you didn't get that statement from any scientific study or even a Denialista site. You just made it up and it proves you're a liar. You aren't going to be able to post a source of how you obtained that information, because you're the source.

 

[saveliberty]

What scientist is going to use an active volcano in their chart? How misleading.

Someone who understood something about science....?

If you had researched this, you would know why it's located where it is.

I know volcanoes outgas CO2 among other gases. That would make the concentrations of CO2 higher. You of course, had no clue.

 

[saveliberty]

Redfish -

The historical data in CO2 in the atmosphere was posted by another poster a few days ago.

If you ignored it then, you'll ignore it now.

No one, neither you or anyone else, has posted data giving the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the years that I requested. Because it does not exist. You are either ignorant to that fact or you are lying about it---which is it?

Accurate atmospheric CO2 levels exist as far back as ice core records exist, because the snow that makes ice sheets traps the atmosphere. There are also various other proxy measurements that aren't as accurate. Good samples of ancient atmospheres from Greenland and Antarctica match and measurements of atmospheric CO2 up to around 800,000 years, the extent of the ice core record, are considered accurate.

You made the statement that CO2 levels haven't changed and we all know you didn't get that statement from any scientific study or even a Denialista site. You just made it up and it proves you're a liar. You aren't going to be able to post a source of how you obtained that information, because you're the source.

So all you have to do is produce these records. Seems pretty simple, yet you just drone on without showing them to us. Wonder why?

How do you have accurate ice core samples when there have been periods of thawing and glacial drift?

 

[Dubya]

What scientist is going to use an active volcano in their chart? How misleading.

Someone who understood something about science....?

If you had researched this, you would know why it's located where it is.

I know volcanoes outgas CO2 among other gases. That would make the concentrations of CO2 higher. You of course, had no clue.

How many times have you been told the amount of CO2 from volcanos isn't significant? Volcanos are in balance with the amount of CO2 sequestered by the oceans, just like the amount of CO2 used by plants and put back by into the atmosphere by respiration of animals and decay are in balance. We all know man is the source of the extra CO2, because we are using carbon sinks as fuel.