Evidence supporting AGW

[Crick]

"Permanent heat". I would have no problem explaining to a four year old why that doesn't work. But not you. Fuckin-A, are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

"Permanent heat". I would have no problem explaining to a four year old why that doesn't work. But not you. Fuckin-A, are you stupid.

You can convince a 4 year old that Santa exists....a 4 year old can be convinced of damned near anything...like a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

You keep saying I'm stupid but you aren't explaining why the temperatures are so high within the atmospheres of the gas giants where no greenhouse effect is possible if pressure doesn't explain it. If pressure can't be responsible for those temps...what is...and if pressure is responsible there, why is it not a consideration on venus?

You are the one looking stupid here because you can't explain...you have tripped over the reality of the physical laws and have no answer.

 

[SSDD]

Lets hear your explanation crick....science says that the high temperatures in the atmosphere of the gas giants are the result of pressure....You said" I wouldn't have thought someone could be this stupid if they tried. You still think that pressure generates energy forever. What the ever-living fuck is wrong with you?" If pressure isn't the cause of the temperature within the atmospheres of gas giants as science says....what is? And are those temperatures recent or have they been that way "forever"?

 

[mamooth]

Here is a bit of research for you. Jupiter...ever hear of it...biggest planet in the solar system...no greenhouse gasses.

Okay, mark down Jupiter as yet another topic you fail totally at.

Jupiter self-generates considerable amounts of heat because it is still contracting. It is not in a steady state; the contraction of the core increases pressure, which makes vast amounts of heat.

Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism is an astronomical process that occurs when the surface of a star or a planet cools. The cooling causes the pressure to drop and the star or planet shrinks as a result. This compression, in turn, heats up the core of the star/planet. This mechanism is evident on Jupiter and Saturn and on brown dwarfs whose central temperatures are not high enough to undergo nuclear fusion. It is estimated that Jupiter radiates more energy through this mechanism than it receives from the Sun, but Saturn might not.
---

Seriously, learn the basics before you blather.

You don't even pay lip service to conservation of energy. According to your idiot physics, I could hook up a heat-driven Sterling engine to my fire extinguisher casing, and use the heat generated by the gas under pressure to get free energy forever. Perpetual motion machines aren't possible, except in your kook world.

Let's keep hammering at those basics that you keep running from. If your kook theory is true, why isn't my fire extinguisher warmer than the background temp?

 

[SSDD]

You said "

Okay, mark down Jupiter as yet another topic you fail totally at.

Jupiter self-generates considerable amounts of heat because it is still contracting. It is not in a steady state; the contraction of the core increases pressure, which makes vast amounts of heat.

So pressure creates heat...and constant pressure results in constant heat...not at all what you were claiming before...and it seems that this pressure results in Jupiter radiating more pressure than it gets from the sun....the heat that pressure generates doesn't matter whether it is the result of gravity, or contracting...pressure results in heat and constant pressure results in constant heat

Seriously, learn the basics before you blather.

You think the pressure is intelligent and knows whether it is the result of contraction or of simple gravity....and is the contraction itself not the result of gravity? You think one sort of pressure results in heat while another sort doesn't? Maybe it is you who needs to get acquainted with the basics.

Perpetual motion machines aren't possible, except in your kook world.

And yet you believe that a constant input of 132 watts per square meter on venus can result in a constant output of more than 16,000 watts per square meter and the ideal gas laws are nonsense.

keep hammering at those basics that you keep running from. If your kook theory is true, why isn't my fire extinguisher warmer than the background temp?

My kook theory as you call it happens to be the result of physical laws and is predicted by exactly those physical laws...you on the other hand believe in magic....you believe pressure somehow knows its cause and results in heat sometimes and doesn't at other times...

 

[mamooth]

So pressure creates heat

No, no, no, no. You are the only one here saying such a crazy thing.

and constant pressure results in constant heat..

No, no, no, no. Jupiter does not have constant pressure. Jupiter has _increasing_ pressure, and that generates heat.

You think the pressure is intelligent and knows whether it is the result of contraction or of simple gravity....and is the contraction itself not the result of gravity? You think one sort of pressure results in heat while another sort doesn't? Maybe it is you who needs to get acquainted with the basics.

And yet you believe that a constant input of 132 watts per square meter on venus can result in a constant output of more than 16,000 watts per square meter and the ideal gas laws are nonsense.

I simply have no idea what insane thought processes drove you to write such nonsense. To attempt to replicate such thought processes is a path to insanity, so I won't try. I'm just going to point out that you're nuts.

My kook theory as you call it happens to be the result of physical laws and is predicted by exactly those physical laws...you on the other hand believe in magic....you believe pressure somehow knows its cause and results in heat sometimes and doesn't at other times...

You're running from the issue of the way your theory allows for perpetual motion machines. Conservation of energy, above the quantum level, may not be violated, ever. Your physics joyfully violates conservation of energy, hence your physics is clearly religious kookery.

 

[Old Rocks]

So. SSDD seems to have no concept of delta in physics. But then, he has no concept of anything science has found out in the last 2000 years.

 

[Crick]

Charles's law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when heated. A modern statement of Charles's law is:

When the pressure on a sample of a dry gas is held constant, the Kelvin temperature and the volume will be directly related. [1]

this directly proportional relationship can be written as:

or

where:

V is the volume of the gas
T is the temperature of the gas (measured in Kelvin).
k is a constant.
This law describes how a gas expands as the temperature increases; conversely, a decrease in temperature will lead to a decrease in volume. For comparing the same substance under two different sets of conditions, the law can be written as:

The equation shows that, as absolute temperature increases, the volume of the gas also increases in proportion. The law was named after scientist Jacques Charles, who formulated the original law in his unpublished work from the 1780s.
***********************************************************************************

So, when we compress a unit of gas, it's temperature increases. But ONLY when we compress it. Once we have arrived at a higher pressure and a higher temperature, it is just as it was before: a volume of gas like any volume of gas. If its surroundings are hotter, it will heat up. If its surroundings are colder, it will cool off. There is nothing left generating heat. If what you said was true, the universe would be constantly heating up. All gases are under SOME pressure. Under you concept, ALL gases would be generating SOME amount of heat. Where would all that energy come from?

You can neither create nor destroy energy. That's the conservation of energy. You claim to be looking for work to radiate energy from a cooler to a warmer surface. Why do you think it would require no work to keep something hot till the end of time?
**********************************************************************************
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to beconserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can beconverted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.
***********************************************************************************
First bit from Wikipedia's article on Charles' Law, second from Wikipedia's article on the Conservation of Energy.

 

[SSDD]

No, no, no, no. Jupiter does not have constant pressure. Jupiter has _increasing_ pressure, and that generates heat.

Interesting how you warmers throw around hypothesis as if it were proven fact...aside from that, you can only hypothesize contraction on jupiter and saturn....there is still neptune and uranus....no such effect can reasonably be applied to neptune and certainly not to uranus and yet, at the base of the troposphere on uranus...arguably the coldest planet in the solar system, with no greenhouse effect possible, the temperature is 330K...warmer than here on earth....this temperature is entirely due to pressure. It is interesting how you wackos so casually disregard the laws of physics in order to hold on to your failed hypothesis...

With regards to earth and the pressure effect here, maxwell said that a static column of gas would reach equilibrium which, I suppose is where you get the crazy idea that the ideal gas laws can't result in increased temperature on earth...maxwell also said that no such equilibrium was possible in an atmosphere because of the movement within the atmosphere....further it has been found experimentally that even a static column of air will be warmer at its base than at its top....

One other thing regarding the ideal gas laws PV=nRT...P and V must remain proportional to each other...so that an increase in P will result in a decrease in V or a decrease in P will result in an increase in V... If you want to increase either P or V without reducing the other, you will have to increase n, R or T.

The greenhouse hypothesis seeks to raise the value of T which must result in an equal increase in V in order to keep the equation balanced....the problem is that an increase in V results in a decrease in (n) which has to result in a reduction of the product of nRT.

If you believe the ideal gas laws (do you believe them or reject them) PV must be equal to nRT. ...and a failure of PV to equal nRT is exactly what happens if you try to hold P constant while increasing T and V by the same amount while reducing (n).

If you want to increase T due to the greenhouse effect, and accordingly increase V with the "extra" CO2, then the lower (n) must result in a lower V which, according to the gas laws must result in a lower T.

 

[Crick]

Why do you find it necessary to go to a planet millions of miles away to demonstrate what you claim to be a universal physical truth? Are you having a little trouble finding good examples in the world with which your readership is actually familiar?

This claim of yours, like all of your claims, is so stupid it begins to make me think you're a flaming troll. They are absolute horseshit and that's been clearly and indisputably demonstrated to you on repeated occasions. Since you refuse to even begin to reexamine your nonsense, I have to assume you only spout this shit to rile people up.

Go play with your shit in your own toilet on your own time. You're a waste of ours.

 

[jc456]

Why do you find it necessary to go to a planet millions of miles away to demonstrate what you claim to be a universal physical truth? Are you having a little trouble finding good examples in the world with which your readership is actually familiar?

This claim of yours, like all of your claims, is so stupid it begins to make me think you're a flaming troll. They are absolute horseshit and that's been clearly and indisputably demonstrated to you on repeated occasions. Since you refuse to even begin to reexamine your nonsense, I have to assume you only spout this shit to rile people up.

Go play with your shit in your own toilet on your own time. You're a waste of ours.

Seems like your chicken, so easily defeated. Can't even answer his question. Of course, you never answer any question since you have no answer. So again, where's that experimental proof of what happens with 120 PPM of CO2? Come on, put up those deflector rods and avoid it, by calling me an insult, cme on I know you have it in you, because I know you ain't got any proof. And that keeps us WiNniNg..

 

[SSDD]

Why do you find it necessary to go to a planet millions of miles away to demonstrate what you claim to be a universal physical truth? Are you having a little trouble finding good examples in the world with which your readership is actually familiar?

Because if one only considers earth...and is gullible enough, or willing to prostitute oneself for money, the greenhouse effect and AGW can sound, or be made to sound plausible...like convincing a 4 year old that Santa exists. By looking at other planets, especially planets where no greenhouse effect is possible, one can see that other things besides greenhouse gasses drive the temperature. The same physics are at work on those planets as on good old earth and if one considers the things that raise the temperature on those planets and grasps that they same things are at work here...then if one has any brains at all, one must see that when those heat sources are considered...there is no room for the 33 degrees claimed by climate science to be the greenhouse effect.

Or do you believe that a completely unique set of physics are at work here that are not at work on other planets...do you believe that pressure increases temperature everywhere but here and venus...do you really believe the ideal gas laws are nonsense and the equation doesn't have to be balanced? You believe all sorts of things that you have no evidence for so why not believe that the natural laws can bend to your beliefs as well?

 

[mamooth]

Interesting how you warmers throw around hypothesis as if it were proven fact...aside from that, you can only hypothesize contraction on jupiter and saturn....

Is there any science at all from the last century that you don't claim to be a conspiracy? Apparently not.

You're a fruit-loop religious death-cultist. Don't think we don't see through your genocidal plot. After all, you've made your genocidal nature clear with your previous death-worshipping posts. You plot here is to have modern science discarded, which will lead to the death of most of humanity.

So exactly what percentage of humanity has to die to fulfill your denier death-cult's agenda? And what happens at that point? Do you get raptured away, does your demon leader appear to usher in an age of darkness, does the mothership come down ... come on, give us the details.

 

[jc456]

Is there any science at all from the last century that you don't claim to be a conspiracy? Apparently not.

You're a fruit-loop religious death-cultist. Don't think we don't see through your genocidal plot. After all, you've made your genocidal nature clear with your previous death-worshipping posts. You plot here is to have modern science discarded, which will lead to the death of most of humanity.

So exactly what percentage of humanity has to die to fulfill your denier death-cult's agenda? And what happens at that point? Do you get raptured away, does your demon leader appear to usher in an age of darkness, does the mothership come down ... come on, give us the details.

hahahhaahhahahaahahhahaahaahahahaahha...........

 

[mamooth]

jc, alas, doesn't have the brains to be a death-cultist. The best he can manage is being a suckup toadie to the death cultists. Perhaps we should call him "Chester" from now on.

 

[jc456]

jc, alas, doesn't have the brains to be a death-cultist. The best he can manage is being a suckup toadie to the death cultists. Perhaps we should call him "Chester" from now on.

[]

That's Marshall Dillion to you. Now run away and play with your pots and pans. It is obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!!

BTW, sorry that I intimidate you!!!!!

Oh, one more thing, it is quite obvious that you have issues with cause and correlations.

 

[mamooth]

jc, you don't intimidate anyone. You make people roll their eyes, but obnoxious children have that effect.

Come on, you really didn't expect anyone here to believe you're not 13, did you? You're way too freakin' stupid to have been any sort of engineer. The only talent you've shown here is your ability to turn threads to shit. You enter a thread, it turns to shit. The correlation is perfect. You contribute nothing useful, and you turn threads to shit. Are you proud of yourself?

 

[jc456]

jc, you don't intimidate anyone. You make people roll their eyes, but obnoxious children have that effect.

Come on, you really didn't expect anyone here to believe you're not 13, did you? You're way too freakin' stupid to have been any sort of engineer. The only talent you've shown here is your ability to turn threads to shit. You enter a thread, it turns to shit. The correlation is perfect. You contribute nothing useful, and you turn threads to shit. Are you proud of yourself?

I certainly had no expectation about you or your peer group. Heck you believe humans can affect climate, then run around screaming the sky is falling and can't justify your belief or claim. So If I'm 13 then you're still in diapers. Perhaps take binky out of your mouth.

 

[Crick]

Because if one only considers earth...and is gullible enough, or willing to prostitute oneself for money, the greenhouse effect and AGW can sound, or be made to sound plausible...like convincing a 4 year old that Santa exists.

But the world's scientists are not 4-year olds. They are quite able to see any falsehoods that you or your sources could produce. But they don't. I don't. Your objections to the greenhouse effect are all based on your insane understanding of several aspects of science. Aspects that any reasonable person would have abandoned having been CLEARLY and SOUNDLY refuted by multiple textbooks ,authoritative references and irrefutable common experience.

I am quite certain that the reason you attempt to make your arguments using the atmospheres of distant planets is the ease with which that choice allows you to lie. The greenhouse effect works in exactly the same manner as it does here on every planet of the universe. Real astrophysicist and planetary scientists have not the slightest doubt that is the case and can demonstrate it to be so.

Greenhouse effect: Other planets -
-
Science Museum

ESA Science & Technology: Greenhouse effects... also on other planets

Venus & Mars

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/eschwiet/essays/greenhouse_ASTR555.pdf

Greenhouse Effect

Climate Change: Causes

NOVA Online/Cracking the Ice Age/Greenhouse - Green Planet

Which planets have the greenhouse effect?

The Greenhouse Effect at 150: The Planetary Perspective - Retort

What is the greenhouse effect? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Climates of terrestrial planets

and lots, lots more.

How do these explanations and the level of authority and expertise of their sources compare with yours?.

By looking at other planets, especially planets where no greenhouse effect is possible, one can see that other things besides greenhouse gasses drive the temperature.

No one ever said that the greenhouse effect was the only process that affected temperature. But on all planets with virtually ANY atmosphere, the results of the greenhouse effect may be seen. Your contention that it cannot is simply false.

The same physics are at work on those planets as on good old earth

That's absolutely correct. Now if only you understood how physics actually worked.

and if one considers the things that raise the temperature on those planets and grasps that they same things are at work here

Same physics everywhere.

...then if one has any brains at all, one must see that when those heat sources are considered...there is no room for the 33 degrees claimed by climate science to be the greenhouse effect.

And to what do you attribute the 33C? Let me guess. Air pressure.

Or do you believe that a completely unique set of physics are at work here that are not at work on other planets.

Not at all. I believe the same rules operate throughout our universe. I am just well aware how poorly you understand them.

..do you believe that pressure increases temperature everywhere but here and venus

I believe the ideal gas law operates everywhere. You don't believe it at all. You, instead, believe in magic.

...do you really believe the ideal gas laws are nonsense and the equation doesn't have to be balanced? You believe all sorts of things that you have no evidence for so why not believe that the natural laws can bend to your beliefs as well?

Your descriptions of how you think the universe operates are in complete violation of the ideal gas laws, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy, Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Your opinion on any scientific topic I can think of is simply complete shit. Complete.

 

[SSDD]

Is there any science at all from the last century that you don't claim to be a conspiracy? Apparently not.

Wh said conspiracy...I said that you people treat unproven, untested hypothesis as if it were observed measured fact...it isn't . If science is in fact treating unproven, untested, unmeasured hypothesis as fact, and selling it as fact, what would you call it?

So exactly what percentage of humanity has to die to fulfill your denier death-cult's agenda? And what happens at that point? Do you get raptured away, does your demon leader appear to usher in an age of darkness, does the mothership come down ... come on, give us the details.

Die from what? Climate change? Tell me hairball, what is the ideal temperature to support life on earth and when has that temperature ever held steady for any appreciable length of time? You really believe ice age temperatures as the earth is experiencing now are ideal?