Ice, again

[Abraham3]

For God's sake, this is ridiculous. The fact of the matter here is that there are different people coming to different results and conclusions. You have to admit that much, at the very least.

So when you choose to give credence only to those results and conclusions that support your own position, you are in fact cherry picking.

Yes, different people are coming to different results and conclusions. Out of every 100 actively researching climate scientists, 97 have come to the conclusion human activities are the primary cause of global warming. Two are undecided. ONE has come to the conclusion that humans activities are NOT the primary cause of global warming.

Yes, I will admit that. Now if you think taking the position of the 97% is cherry picking data, you will have just committed another absolutely infantile error of logic and reasoning.

 

[gnarlylove]

I wonder what fatal error Swim would point out....my guess is argumentum ad populum...just based on his past accusations--not that this fallacy fits because we know it doesn't. One thing we can be sure of, the skeptic isn't skeptical because of reason and evidence. No matter what's out there they will find a way to rationalize it. Just like I could rationalize doing just about anything (e.g. corporate theft) to support my drug habit. The rationalization isn't essential to the skeptic, it's merely a means to get their fix...the fix of being right. It's a debilitating necessity, really, and we all partake. I'm sure you know it all to well, Abraham, you prob. seen dumb rationalizations on here more than anyone. It's a tragedy and makes for some good laughs and even better replies.

 

[SwimExpert]

 

[IanC]

the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used).

I have to disagree with you there. There aren't any sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules. The photon is emitted from the first CO2 molecule at a slightly lower wavelength than at which the energy was absorbed. Some energy is lost in heating the molecule and exciting it to a higher valence level, therefore the photon emitted is at a lower wavelength and therefore not absorbed by other CO2 molecules due to their narrow absorption bands.

Im sorry that you dont understand the concept of quanta. the absorption bands of a substance are exactly the same as the emission bands. there is no energy loss in changes to quantum states.

 

[Politico]

For God's sake, this is ridiculous. The fact of the matter here is that there are different people coming to different results and conclusions. You have to admit that much, at the very least.

So when you choose to give credence only to those results and conclusions that support your own position, you are in fact cherry picking.

Yes, different people are coming to different results and conclusions. Out of every 100 actively researching climate scientists, 97 have come to the conclusion human activities are the primary cause of global warming. Two are undecided. ONE has come to the conclusion that humans activities are NOT the primary cause of global warming.

Yes, I will admit that. Now if you think taking the position of the 97% is cherry picking data, you will have just committed another absolutely infantile error of logic and reasoning.

Yeah and most of them intentionally ignore how the Us had 100 foot snowfalls in the late 1800s.

 

[SSDD]

the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used).

I have to disagree with you there. There aren't any sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules. The photon is emitted from the first CO2 molecule at a slightly lower wavelength than at which the energy was absorbed. Some energy is lost in heating the molecule and exciting it to a higher valence level, therefore the photon emitted is at a lower wavelength and therefore not absorbed by other CO2 molecules due to their narrow absorption bands.

Im sorry that you dont understand the concept of quanta. the absorption bands of a substance are exactly the same as the emission bands. there is no energy loss in changes to quantum states.

So you are either saying that the molecule doesn't heat up, or that heating it up doesn't cost any energy. Which one?

 

[Abraham3]

The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.

And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.

Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold. How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?

 

[Abraham3]

And as I recall, you stoutly reject quantum theory Mr Science-Sux-Don't-it-Dear.

 

[SSDD]

The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.

And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.

Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold. How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?

There is no "greenhouse" effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect and can, via incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on not only earth, but every planet in the solar system...the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here, and don't even come close when applied to the other planets in the solar system which have an atmosphere.

The problem with the atmospheric thermal effect, in so far as climate science goes is that it really doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weight of the various molecules...no gasses to demonize for political gain and profit.

 

[Abraham3]

There is no "greenhouse" effect.

Hmm...

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

I think this particular conversation is at an end.

 

[SSDD]

There is no "greenhouse" effect.

Hmm...

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

I think this particular conversation is at an end.

Nice of you to alter my quote....isn't that against the rules? I said that there is an atmospheric thermal effect that is larger than the so called greenhouse effect. Stupid and a liar. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Abraham3]

I did not alter your quote. That is your first sentence. Look for yourself.

The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.

And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.

Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold. How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?

There is no "greenhouse" effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect and can, via incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on not only earth, but every planet in the solar system...the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here, and don't even come close when applied to the other planets in the solar system which have an atmosphere.

The problem with the atmospheric thermal effect, in so far as climate science goes is that it really doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weight of the various molecules...no gasses to demonize for political gain and profit.

Asshole.

 

[SSDD]

I did not alter your quote. That is your first sentence. Look for yourself.

The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.

And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.

Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold. How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?

There is no "greenhouse" effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect and can, via incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on not only earth, but every planet in the solar system...the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here, and don't even come close when applied to the other planets in the solar system which have an atmosphere.

The problem with the atmospheric thermal effect, in so far as climate science goes is that it really doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weight of the various molecules...no gasses to demonize for political gain and profit.

Asshole.

So are you claiming that you represented the thought as I originally stated? Are your thoughts so small that they always come in one sentence bites? Never mind, the answer to that is a resounding yes. The fact remains that you are quite dishonest and blatantly so.

 

[IanC]

I have to disagree with you there. There aren't any sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules. The photon is emitted from the first CO2 molecule at a slightly lower wavelength than at which the energy was absorbed. Some energy is lost in heating the molecule and exciting it to a higher valence level, therefore the photon emitted is at a lower wavelength and therefore not absorbed by other CO2 molecules due to their narrow absorption bands.

Im sorry that you dont understand the concept of quanta. the absorption bands of a substance are exactly the same as the emission bands. there is no energy loss in changes to quantum states.

So you are either saying that the molecule doesn't heat up, or that heating it up doesn't cost any energy. Which one?

you are confused about the terms 'heat' and 'energy'. a single molecule does not have a temperature. it is only the interaction of a large cohort of molecules that brings meaning to the words heat and temperature.

 

[IanC]

The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.

And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.

Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold. How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?

if the world had an atmosphere without GHGs the surface would still be warmer than if there was no atmosphere at all.

the globe is an open system with energy coming in and then leaving. only the equilibriums at different places along the path change as the constituents change.

(please dont say nothing is in equilibrium. overall the stability of the system is amazing fine tuned)

I would suggest the blog Science of Doom (considered a warmist blog) for more information.

 

[IanC]

The average CO2 molecule is struck by a horde of photons between each emission.

And if you want to get back to basics, somewhere I heard that you can neither create nor destroy energy. Maybe that's just an old wive's tale but that would make me wonder how you believe incoming energy flux over billions of year will have no effect.

Recall that without our atmosphere and its greenhouse effects, the Earth would be uninhabitably cold. How does that warming take place if what you claim is true?

There is no "greenhouse" effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect and can, via incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on not only earth, but every planet in the solar system...the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here, and don't even come close when applied to the other planets in the solar system which have an atmosphere.

The problem with the atmospheric thermal effect, in so far as climate science goes is that it really doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weight of the various molecules...no gasses to demonize for political gain and profit.

the size and density of our atmosphere is a very large part of the thermal equilibrium. but it isnt changing (much). I still wish you would read the 'pot lid hypothesis' so we could explore the ramifications.

 

[SwimExpert]

There is no "greenhouse" effect.

Hmm...

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

I think this particular conversation is at an end.

Okay Abby, I have something to tell you. But first I want to make sure that I have your undivided attention. You might want to sit down first. Okay, now I need you to make sure that you listen closely. Are you listening? Closely? Come closer. You gotta really pay attention here. Let this one sink in, real deep like. Like global warming hiding deep, deep inside the oceans. Are you ready? I'm going to say this real slow so you don't miss anything.

FALLACY

OF

EQUIVOCATION.

 

[rdean]

A lot of that ice comes from snow. Snow comes from humidity. Humidity comes from warm water. The warmer the water, the more humidity, the more snow. See how that works?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...il-the-water-disappears-where-does-it-go.html

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We come from the land of the ice and snow....

 

[Abraham3]

I did not alter your quote. That is your first sentence. Look for yourself.

There is no "greenhouse" effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect and can, via incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on not only earth, but every planet in the solar system...the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here, and don't even come close when applied to the other planets in the solar system which have an atmosphere.

The problem with the atmospheric thermal effect, in so far as climate science goes is that it really doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weight of the various molecules...no gasses to demonize for political gain and profit.

Asshole.

So are you claiming that you represented the thought as I originally stated?

Yes.

Are your thoughts so small that they always come in one sentence bites?

Why do you even bother? I quoted you. The quote was accurate. I did not remove any intervening material. I did not remove any prefatory material. You are not the first person to have a quote extracted like this: see the sigs of Swimexpert and SSDD for examples. I haven't seen you complaining about their choices.

And besides, the rest of your statement supports your leading expression. "... so-called greenhouse effect" and "the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect don't even keep up with the temperature here". You've rejected the Greenhouse Effect. Stick to your guns or wimp, your call.

The fact remains that you are quite dishonest and blatantly so.

You are the one being dishonest here. It appears you lost your good judgement and expressed an opinion you didn't really want to express. Don't be ashamed. There are a number of people here who reject the Greenhouse Effect. And certainly no deniers have gotten on your case about it. Not even Swimexpert, who has said that he thinks the opinion you've expressed proves you lack any sort of an education. But he will not attack you. He will attack me. You've nothing to worry about. Don't worry, be happy!