The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[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??

Not at all. Ask me a question and I will happily answer you.

what is best lay person argument against AGW not in my OP

 

[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.

what is best lay person argument against AGW not in my OP

The best one is that the Earth isn't a greenhouse. Period end of theory. If mass can escape to space there is ZERO possibility that the Earth can operate like a greenhouse. That is called a scientific fact.

 

[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??

Not at all. Ask me a question and I will happily answer you.

what is best lay person argument against AGW not in my OP

The best one is that the Earth isn't a greenhouse. Period end of theory. If mass can escape to space there is ZERO possibility that the Earth can operate like a greenhouse. That is called a scientific fact.

as I said its not perfect greenhouse but co2 is making it better and better

 

[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.

what is best lay person argument against AGW not in my OP

The best one is that the Earth isn't a greenhouse. Period end of theory. If mass can escape to space there is ZERO possibility that the Earth can operate like a greenhouse. That is called a scientific fact.

as I said its not perfect greenhouse but co2 is making it better and better

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. CO2 only works, and can only work if the greenhouse is intact. The Earth has never been a greenhouse, and can never BE a greenhouse. That's the whole point.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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??

You are conflating downward Ultra-Violet radiation (UV) and up-welling Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR).

The Sun can warm but AGW requires the up-welling radiation to be slowed or returned to the earth. UV radiation has the ability to drive deep into matter where LWIR can not. LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of most matter and thus has no ability to warm anything. Thus AGW, relying on LWIR to heat things up fails..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

all agree. and????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Earth has never been a greenhouse, and can never BE a greenhouse. .

please tell us why you think that

 

[westwall]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

and agree. and????????

If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

and agree. and????????

If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?

why do you say there is no greenhouse?

 

[westwall]

The Earth has never been a greenhouse, and can never BE a greenhouse. .

please tell us why you think that

I don't "think" that. I KNOW that. A greenhouse works because it is a sealed system. The atmosphere inside is controlled. The heat inside is controlled. Nothing is allowed to mix with the outside. If the Earth were a greenhouse the only transmission would be one way. Mass could enter but nothing could leave. Thus the greenhouse theory would be in play.
It's all about energy. If energy can only go one way, eventually the temperature gets too high. We don't have a one way system. Tens of thousands of tons of mass get ejected to space every year. All of that mass takes heat with it, and it also shows that energy can freely leave.

Thus there is no greenhouse. And never will be.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

and agree. and????????

If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?

why do you say there is no greenhouse?

A true green house requires an impermeable barrier, ie; glass windows which do not allow free travel of heat and air mass. The earth is an open system where air and heat are allowed to travel without restriction.

Earth is not a greenhouse and it is a poor description of the energy slowing process in our atmosphere.

 

[ding]

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?

If I understand his point it is that it does not cause warming it retains heat. Two different things. It can't heat up the ocean.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

and agree. and????????

If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?

why do you say there is no greenhouse?

A true green house requires an impermeable barrier, ie; glass windows which do not allow free travel of heat and air mass. The earth is an open system where air and heat are allowed to travel without restriction.

Earth is not a greenhouse and it is a poor description of the energy slowing process in our atmosphere.

show me scientists who say there is no greenhouse? Both side agree there is one.

 

[Crick]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

and agree. and????????

If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?

why do you say there is no greenhouse?

A true green house requires an impermeable barrier, ie; glass windows which do not allow free travel of heat and air mass. The earth is an open system where air and heat are allowed to travel without restriction.

Earth is not a greenhouse and it is a poor description of the energy slowing process in our atmosphere.

Really? Air can leave the planet and arrives from space? Does heat conduct to the vacuum?

The greenhouse effect does not require an impermeable barrier. It requires that greenhouse gases slow the transmission of IR to space. Slow, not stop.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The greenhouse effect does not require an impermeable barrier. It requires that greenhouse gases slow the transmission of IR to space. Slow. Not stop.

correct I'm afraid!!

 

[ding]

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.

what is best lay person argument against AGW not in my OP

The best one is that the Earth isn't a greenhouse. Period end of theory. If mass can escape to space there is ZERO possibility that the Earth can operate like a greenhouse. That is called a scientific fact.

as I said its not perfect greenhouse but co2 is making it better and better

That's not accurate. There is a logarithmic relationship between the radiative forcing of CO2 and associated temperature. The biggest effect is at low CO2 concentrations and diminishes as CO2 levels increase.

 

[mamooth]

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.

According to Westwall's hilariously stupid physics there, sunlight is incapable of warming a rock, since it can't penetrate into the rock more than a few microns.

Yep, that's the caliber of "science" from the denier side, stuff that fails so badly, even a first-grader would laugh at how dumb it is.

 

[mamooth]

Sun yes. Greenhouse no. The Earth is not a closed system which is a requirement for a greenhouse to work.

Another hilarious blunder.

"Greenhouse" is sort of a scientific metaphor, and is not meant to mean that earth is a closed system like a sealed greenhouse.

Therefore, declaring victory because you've shown earth isn't like a glass greenhouse is pretty damn stupid, and demonstrates the speaker is utterly clueless about the science involved.

 

[mamooth]

A geologist can teach ANY climatology class.

That's especially hilarious because Westwall couldn't pass a middle school science class these days.

A climatologist can teach undergrad geology, but would be totally out of his depth in graduate level classes.

Well, duh. It's amusing that Westwall here thinks that means something. The normal people note that nobody can teach out of their specialty at a graduate level. Geologists would be utterly helpless if they tried to teach advanced climate physics.

A geologist is orders of magnitude more versed in actual science than any climatologist.

Westwall, through his own total ineptness at all science, proves that to be false.

Those are called facts. Climatology is called an "inexact science". Geology 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.

Meanwhile, outside of Westwall's delusional world, the climatologists are all graduates of the hard sciences that Westwall says are so perfect. Thus, by his own definition Westwall says the climatologists are all brilliant.

Westwall is so clueless, he actually thinks climatologists come from undergraduate programs of "climatology" similar to rocks-for-jocks type undergraduate geology programs. Out in the real world, there are no such programs. Climate scientists come from hard science backgrounds. Given Westwall says hard scientists are brilliant, he's just defined climate scientists as brilliant

Most climate scientists come from a physics background, and have doctorates and postdoc training. Those guys make everyone look like simpletons, not just the geologists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Like I said before, if you smash all of the windows out of a greenhouse it's no longer a greenhouse. .

and agree. and????????

If you have no greenhouse, how can you have a greenhouse effect?

why do you say there is no greenhouse?

A true green house requires an impermeable barrier, ie; glass windows which do not allow free travel of heat and air mass. The earth is an open system where air and heat are allowed to travel without restriction.

Earth is not a greenhouse and it is a poor description of the energy slowing process in our atmosphere.

show me scientists who say there is no greenhouse? Both side agree there is one.

Ask any atmospherics physics student. This is not only a poor description but antiscience to boot..