- Banned
- #521
Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....
This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.
We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.
The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.
Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.
There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.
Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.
I bolded the part you pulled out of your butt socko...
First there is no "passive" body involved. Everything radiates some amount of energy. Absolute zero is the idealized temperature in which all entropy stops. Well so far we can't get to that temperature. So your "passive" claim is ignorant...
It seems like you were trying to describe equilibrium or black body radiation but doing so like an idiot who knows nothing of either one..
Now where in any of that nonsense did you state anything real or true? Not a single sentence was either fundamentally,or generally factual or correct to any degree.
You just wasted everyone's time and my patience...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]
Thanks, we needed another internet scientist... Moron..
What temperature do you think the earth would be without the sun? The fourth power of that, compared to the fourth power of 288K (present av temp) is the degree to which it's not passive. The estimates that I've seen of earth temp w/o sun range down to 15K or so.
I don't know if your math knowledge is as limited as your science knowledge but take my word for it that is extremely close to passive.
Not that it matters much. My example still holds true.
I hope that some day you'll explain to us why someone as ill equipped as you are feels entitled to be on an equal footing with some of the most accomplished scientists of our time.
It's bizarre.