The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[westwall]

the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

sorry still lost. We know the sun warms the planet so how can it not do that??

OK. I'll take this one step at a time.

What warms the Earth?

It is your turn to answer .......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What warms the Earth?
..

sun, thickening greenhouse

 

[Dr Grump]

It's pretty clear. Water is warmed by UV radiation penetrating to a depth of 500 meters. Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water. Thus it is not capable of warming the water. Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

Do you seriously believe the crap you type. How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

 

[westwall]

What warms the Earth?
..

sun, thickening greenhouse

Sun yes. Greenhouse no. The Earth is not a closed system which is a requirement for a greenhouse to work. Why do I say the Earth is not a closed system? Because it loses mass every year. Thus it is not a closed system. If the Earth ONLY gained mass then it could be claimed to be a closed system. In other words it is a one way aggregate. However, it is not. Thus the greenhouse has no windows. Thus it isn't a greenhouse.

Earth Loses 50,000 Tonnes of Mass Every Year


Earth Loses 50,000 Tonnes of Mass Every Year

 

[westwall]

It's pretty clear. Water is warmed by UV radiation penetrating to a depth of 500 meters. Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water. Thus it is not capable of warming the water. Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

Do you seriously believe the crap you type. How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

I'm a geologist who fundamentally understands the functionality of this planet. You are an internet hack who is only capable of posting discredited propaganda. Come back when you can actually talk about science.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sun yes. Greenhouse no. r

so now you are changing subject and saying there is no greenhouse and so it cant be warming the planet?

 

[Dr Grump]

[


I'm a geologist who fundamentally understands the functionality of this planet. You are an internet hack who is only capable of posting discredited propaganda. Come back when you can actually talk about science.

A geologists isn't a climate scientist. Two different things. A heart surgeon and and orthopaedic surgeon are both surgeons. You want an orthopaedic surgeon to operate on your heart?

Everybody on this board are hacks. Nobody has any background in climate science. None. However, there are plenty of published articles by reputable climate scientists. That's who I get my info from....not some message board...

 

[westwall]

[


I'm a geologist who fundamentally understands the functionality of this planet. You are an internet hack who is only capable of posting discredited propaganda. Come back when you can actually talk about science.

A geologists isn't a climate scientist. Two different things. A heart surgeon and and orthopaedic surgeon are both surgeons. You want an orthopaedic surgeon to operate on your heart?

Everybody on this board are hacks. Nobody has any background in climate science. None. However, there are plenty of published articles by reputable climate scientists. That's who I get my info from....not some message board...

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class. A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes. A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist. Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Gelogy is an exact science. The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition. The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first. Our results are OBJECTIVE. Climatology is SUBJECTIVE. Learn the difference then get back to us.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there are plenty of published articles by reputable climate scientists. .

but why believe them when they are from a leftist university monoculture that does does not allow dissent, is dependent on leftist govt money , will use any excuse to centralize govt and take our freedoms, and made absurd predictions 20 years ago that were little more than lies?

 

[westwall]

What warms the Earth?
..

sun, thickening greenhouse

Sun yes. Greenhouse no. r

so now you are changing subject and saying there is no greenhouse??

I'm not changing the subject at all. You claim that AGW exists. You wanted a laymen to try and talk to you about it but I 'm a full fledged scientist and I am telling you that you can't have a greenhouse without intact glass panels. Feel free to show me how you can.

 

[Crick]

UV might penetrate 500 meters in pure water, but it most certainly will not do so in sea water. Typical sea water absorbs close to 80% of UV in the first 10 meters.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm not changing the subject at all. You claim that AGW exists. You wanted a laymen to try and talk to you about it but I 'm a full fledged scientist and I am telling you that you can't have a greenhouse without intact glass panels. Feel free to show me how you can.

1) you were talking about long wave not being able to warm oceans now you are talking about the greenhouse.

2) they have always said the greenhouse does not have perfectly sealed windows but that CO2 is sealing them better and better

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

UV might penetrate 500 meters in pure water, but it most certainly will not do so in sea water. Typical sea water absorbs close to 80% of UV in the first 10 meters.

and your point is???????????

 

[Dr Grump]

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class. A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes. A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist. Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Gelogy is an exact science. The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition. The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first. Our results are OBJECTIVE. Climatology is SUBJECTIVE. Learn the difference then get back to us.

And yet you're a geologist not a climate scientist.

Is the science settled?

 

[westwall]

UV might penetrate 500 meters in pure water, but it most certainly will not do so in sea water. Typical sea water absorbs close to 80% of UV in the first 10 meters.

Yes it does. Before you make an idiot out of yourself again I suggest you do a bit more research. It is called the disphotic zone and actually extends to a depth of 1000 meters.



Light Transmission in the Ocean - river, sea, depth, oceans, percentage, important, plants, source, marine

 

[westwall]

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class. A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes. A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist. Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Gelogy is an exact science. The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition. The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first. Our results are OBJECTIVE. Climatology is SUBJECTIVE. Learn the difference then get back to us.

And yet you're a geologist not a climate scientist.

Is the science settled?

Yes. That means your favorite PhD climatologist isn't nearly as well educated as am I. I can teach any class he can but he can't teach a single one of my graduate level classes. Hell i think they would be totally lost in a optical crystallography class which is only a third year class. It requires tons of math, and an ability to visualize in three dimensions however.. Most people find that tough.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class. A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes. A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist. Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Gelogy is an exact science. The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition. The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first. Our results are OBJECTIVE. Climatology is SUBJECTIVE. Learn the difference then get back to us.

And yet you're a geologist not a climate scientist.

Is the science settled?

Yes. That means your favorite PhD climatologist isn't nearly as well educated as am I. I can teach any class he can but he can't teach a single one of my graduate level classes. Hell i think they would be totally lost in a optical crystallography class which is only a third year class. It requires tons of math, and an ability to visualize in three dimensions however.. Most people find that tough.

hard to compare since most scientists are so bright at least in a limited way. I saw a show on climate guys sending up satellites to detect and measure different metals in ocean currents, They discovered that metals released from melting antarctic icebergs created ocean currents as they sunk into the ocean. Everybody involved was a genius I'd say

 

[westwall]

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class. A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes. A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist. Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Gelogy is an exact science. The difference between the two is like at a track meet or a ice dancing competition. The ice dancers (climatologists) blabber a lot, and come up with a story, and they argue amonst themselves till they figure out which dancer they like best.

Geology on the other hand is who gets to the finish line first. Our results are OBJECTIVE. Climatology is SUBJECTIVE. Learn the difference then get back to us.

And yet you're a geologist not a climate scientist.

Is the science settled?

Yes. That means your favorite PhD climatologist isn't nearly as well educated as am I. I can teach any class he can but he can't teach a single one of my graduate level classes. Hell i think they would be totally lost in a optical crystallography class which is only a third year class. It requires tons of math, and an ability to visualize in three dimensions however.. Most people find that tough.

hard to compare since most scientists are so bright at least in a limited way. I saw a show on climate guys sending up satellites to detect and measure different metals in ocean currents, They discovered that metals released from melting antarctic icebergs created ocean currents as they sunk into the ocean. Everybody involved was a genius I'd say

Not even close. Geologists have been talking about dissolved metals in the oceans, and how to extract them, for decades. There are billions of dollars of gold held in solution in the oceans, the problem is it costs more to recover it (with current technology) than it is worth. I have only ever interacted with one genius and that was Feynman. He and I used to go to dinner every couple of months and I was always amazed at how quickly he could grasp anything that was tossed at him.

I am very bright but a normal person, I still plod from A to B to C, I just do it quicker than most. But he would go from A to C to F. And do it faster than I could get to C.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Geologists have been talking about dissolved metals in the oceans,

talking about it is one thing, creating a satellite network to measure it from space and discover how it creates particular ocean currents is another.

Did you give up getting me another lay person argument against global warming??

 

[westwall]

Geologists have been talking about dissolved metals in the oceans,

talking about it is one thing, creating a satellite network to measure it from space and discover how it creates particular ocean currents is another.

Did you give up getting me another lay person argument against global warming??

Not at all. Ask me a question and I will happily answer you. And it has been done many times before. LANDSAT (ERTS) was the first satellite that was actively used for prospecting. I worked on the very first at Hughes Aircraft back in the very early 1970's.