Remember me
▼ Content

20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming



Page 1 of 212>
20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming21-09-2018 13:35
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.


Nathan-D
Edited on 21-09-2018 14:09
21-09-2018 16:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.


Yeah, seem OK to me.

I would add;

That the message from NASA et al that Greenland is losing ice mass is an obvious lie. That if you do some very basic maths on it you will see that it needs about 18 Mississippi months worth of out flow to break even on ice mass and another 7 to achieve the ice mass loss they claim. Having a look at the Mississippi on google earth and Greenland will make it utterly obvious that the out flow is at most half a Mississippi, I am being very generous at that, and that this is in high summer.

Thus the idea that the seas will rise is gone.
21-09-2018 16:53
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.




...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf
21-09-2018 17:10
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
James___ wrote:
...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


Given that the earth is 510 trillion square meters that works out to 0.035 watts/square meter. That it a relatively trivial number.
21-09-2018 18:44
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Jeffvw wrote:
James___ wrote:
...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


Given that the earth is 510 trillion square meters that works out to 0.035 watts/square meter. That it a relatively trivial number.



.. What you're not considering is that about 25% of the U.S. population lives between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Ma. So when you consider that's about 25% of the heat output of the U.S. is following the Gulf Stream north, that increases the amount of heat affecting the Arctic.
..I also believe that with the mesopause being as warm as -100° F. during the hottest part of the day helps to trap heat in the atmosphere by natural barriers. And according to physics if something is -100° F. then little heat is moving through that area. The tropopause is almost as bad. It's about -56° F. How is that heating the troposphere ? Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot. Thermodynamics really doesn't allow for it.
..Also there would be other factors but chances are that most likely the Greenhouse Effect is created by the Earth's magnetic field. Otherwise pressure/temperature would be related but as the diagram shows there is no relationship between elevation/pressure and temperature.
[url]https://goo.gl/images/bC6vmi [/url]

..But to stay on topic Jeff, if the amount of watts flowing from the U.S. and Europe up into the Arctic were considered it's w/m^2 goes up. And with me, I think that deep faults on the Arctic sea floor can release a lot of heat. It'd be a compound effect.
The amount of heat accumulated within the lowest 1.5 kilometres in the abyssal Greenland Sea would warm the atmosphere above Europe by 4 degrees centigrade.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

Edited on 21-09-2018 19:00
21-09-2018 22:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
James___ wrote:
...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


Given that the earth is 510 trillion square meters that works out to 0.035 watts/square meter. That it a relatively trivial number.



.. What you're not considering is that about 25% of the U.S. population lives between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Ma. So when you consider that's about 25% of the heat output of the U.S. is following the Gulf Stream north, that increases the amount of heat affecting the Arctic.

Argument from randU fallacy. Leaping to conclusion fallacy (non-sequitur). The Gulf Stream doesn't go to the Arctic.
James___ wrote:
..I also believe that with the mesopause being as warm as -100° F. during the hottest part of the day helps to trap heat in the atmosphere by natural barriers.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.
James___ wrote:
And according to physics if something is -100° F. then little heat is moving through that area.

Makes no difference to heat.
James___ wrote:
The tropopause is almost as bad. It's about -56° F. How is that heating the troposphere ?
Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot. Thermodynamics really doesn't allow for it.

It doesn't.
James___ wrote:
..Also there would be other factors but chances are that most likely the Greenhouse Effect is created by the Earth's magnetic field.

There is no 'greenhouse effect'. CO2, methane, and water are unaffected by Earth's magnetic field.
James___ wrote:
Otherwise pressure/temperature would be related but as the diagram shows there is no relationship between elevation/pressure and temperature.
[url]https://goo.gl/images/bC6vmi [/url]

They ARE related. The temperature inversions are caused by the Chapman cycle (for the stratosphere) and the solar wind (for the thermosphere). Temperature is not a total measure of energy either. Energy density does not see any inversion as you rise in altitude, until you get to the thermosphere and become exposed to the solar wind.
James___ wrote:
..But to stay on topic Jeff, if the amount of watts flowing from the U.S. and Europe up into the Arctic were considered it's w/m^2 goes up. And with me, I think that deep faults on the Arctic sea floor can release a lot of heat. It'd be a compound effect.
The amount of heat accumulated within the lowest 1.5 kilometres in the abyssal Greenland Sea would warm the atmosphere above Europe by 4 degrees centigrade.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm


Except that Greenland isn't melting.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2018 11:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
James___ wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.




...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


I worked it out once I think it was of the order of 1/1000th of the heat from the sun or possibly the additional heat energy of the additional CO2.

Surface are of earth x 320 (I think) W/m2 vs 17.7 TW
22-09-2018 13:24
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.






...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


I worked it out once I think it was of the order of 1/1000th of the heat from the sun or possibly the additional heat energy of the additional CO2.

Surface are of earth x 320 (I think) W/m2 vs 17.7 TW



...We don't need to consider the surface area of the Earth. Maybe you could explain how much heat passes through a layer of our atmosphere that always seem to be colder than -73.3° C. / -100° F to warm our atmosphere ?
22-09-2018 14:45
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.






...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


I worked it out once I think it was of the order of 1/1000th of the heat from the sun or possibly the additional heat energy of the additional CO2.

Surface are of earth x 320 (I think) W/m2 vs 17.7 TW



...We don't need to consider the surface area of the Earth. The Arctic has a surface area of 15,558,000 square kilometers. The Earth's surface area/2 is 250 million square kilometers, about 16/1. If heat flows from hot to cold (in the mesopause, -73° C. it flows from cold to hot, mesopause to mesosphere) then it's effect can be magnified, right ?
And 14.7° C./58.5° F. = 354.37° kelvin. And then we have 1 watt equaling about 1° kelvin. And since we know that 1° kelvin = 1° C. then we could be adding to natural climate change. This would suggest that the Arctic can be warmed by about 0.5° C.
..Then if the question was "are we influencing natural climate change", most likely we are. And please be mindful that I am acknowledging that natural climate change happens as well. This means that warming would still be happening even if we were cavemen.
..And with energy consumption, we could start breaking it down into northern/southern hemisphere because more energy is used north of the equator, then how winds and ocean currents can transport heat away from industrialized geographic locations. This would allow it to become more focus/concentrated or warmer in the direction that heat is transported away from an area that generates it.
Edited on 22-09-2018 14:58
22-09-2018 17:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Bit late to the party on this one, it doesn't seem to show anything original each one of the points made are discussed by people far better at me at the Sisyphean task of countering denialist counter science. I could not help but laugh at point 15

According to the Arrhenius equation for calculating how CO2 catches heat the warming on Mars should be larger than what it is. The Mars atmosphere is highly amenable to empirical testing of Arrhenius' equation because its climate-system contains no real significant feedback-mechanisms to complicate or modify the direct and immediate response of the CO2 in terms of the amount of radiative forcing that it is supposed to produce. When the Arrhenius equation is applied to the planet of Mars things go horribly wrong. There the observed global warming (according to NASA's revised Fact Sheet) is about 0.2°K (or 0.5 W/m2). The revised NASA data shows an effective temperature for Mars of 209.8°K (See NASA Mars Fact Sheet) and an average global surface temperature of ~210°K. This is interesting when one considers that Mars has a CO2 density approximately 27 times higher than on Earth at 165 kg/m2

they also helpfully link this;

Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.
22-09-2018 19:02
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


Nathan-D
Edited on 22-09-2018 19:15
22-09-2018 21:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


The CO2 is denser there then here?

I've detected something dense.

Read a book.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
22-09-2018 22:09
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


The CO2 is denser there then here?

I've detected something dense.

Read a book.

I think it is you who needs to read a book actually. Am I honestly debating with someone who doesn't know the difference between "than" and "then"?


Nathan-D
Edited on 22-09-2018 22:44
22-09-2018 23:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.




...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


I worked it out once I think it was of the order of 1/1000th of the heat from the sun or possibly the additional heat energy of the additional CO2.

Surface are of earth x 320 (I think) W/m2 vs 17.7 TW

You worked it out starting with random numbers. The result is a random number.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2018 23:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.






...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


I worked it out once I think it was of the order of 1/1000th of the heat from the sun or possibly the additional heat energy of the additional CO2.

Surface are of earth x 320 (I think) W/m2 vs 17.7 TW



...We don't need to consider the surface area of the Earth. The Arctic has a surface area of 15,558,000 square kilometers. The Earth's surface area/2 is 250 million square kilometers, about 16/1. If heat flows from hot to cold (in the mesopause, -73° C. it flows from cold to hot, mesopause to mesosphere) then it's effect can be magnified, right ?

Wrong. Heat never flows from cold to hot.
James___ wrote:
And 14.7° C./58.5° F. = 354.37° kelvin. And then we have 1 watt equaling about 1° kelvin. And since we know that 1° kelvin = 1° C. then we could be adding to natural climate change. This would suggest that the Arctic can be warmed by about 0.5° C.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are starting with random numbers, running them through a calculation to make them look official, and coming up with a random number.
James___ wrote:
..Then if the question was "are we influencing natural climate change", most likely we are.

Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
And please be mindful that I am acknowledging that natural climate change happens as well.

Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
This means that warming would still be happening even if we were cavemen.

Define 'global warming'.
James___ wrote:
..And with energy consumption, we could start breaking it down into northern/southern hemisphere because more energy is used north of the equator, then how winds and ocean currents can transport heat away from industrialized geographic locations. This would allow it to become more focus/concentrated or warmer in the direction that heat is transported away from an area that generates it.

Both water and air are fluids. Both distribute thermal energy around.

You are still failing to take into the radiance of all materials on Earth. You are still failing to take into account the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are still attempting to trap thermal energy. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2018 23:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


CO2 is incapable of warming a planet using that planet's surface infrared.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2018 23:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


The CO2 is denser there then here?

I've detected something dense.

Read a book.

I think it is you who needs to read a book actually. Am I honestly debating with someone who doesn't know the difference between "than" and "then"?


Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2018 00:12
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Into the Night wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


The CO2 is denser there then here?

I've detected something dense.

Read a book.

I think it is you who needs to read a book actually. Am I honestly debating with someone who doesn't know the difference between "than" and "then"?


Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.

I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Nathan-D
Edited on 23-09-2018 00:14
23-09-2018 15:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Below are 20 reasons as to why we should be skeptical of human-induced global warming.

Admittedly, I struggled after number 15.

https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

If you can think of any more obvious reasons name them here and I'll think about swapping them in.






...Well, if you look at the amount of terrawatts generated by coal, natural gas and oil, wouldn't be surprising to me if we're producing the heat most responsible for climate change. It seems that no one is considering how much heat can be generated from about 17.7 terrawatts.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf


I worked it out once I think it was of the order of 1/1000th of the heat from the sun or possibly the additional heat energy of the additional CO2.

Surface are of earth x 320 (I think) W/m2 vs 17.7 TW



...We don't need to consider the surface area of the Earth. Maybe you could explain how much heat passes through a layer of our atmosphere that always seem to be colder than -73.3° C. / -100° F to warm our atmosphere ?


The same way that if you have a hot oven you can feel the heat on your face if you look into it despite the air around your face been cool.

Radient heat, IR, will pass through air without stopping. It is only if there is dirt or water or something (like CO2?) in it that it will cause heating.
23-09-2018 15:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


The CO2 is denser there then here?

I've detected something dense.

Read a book.

I think it is you who needs to read a book actually. Am I honestly debating with someone who doesn't know the difference between "than" and "then"?


Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.

I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


He is an arse.

The good thing of this forum is that you can swear.
23-09-2018 17:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
One Punch Man wrote:
Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Well you are right about that at least, Is ITN insane and actually believes the crap he comes out with or just some uber-troll telling a joke that is beyond us mere mortals.

Whatever; My skills as a writer ain't great either. but I think you will find the CO2 on mars has same properties as the CO2 on earth.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-09-2018 18:48
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Well you are right about that at least, Is ITN insane and actually believes the crap he comes out with or just some uber-troll telling a joke that is beyond us mere mortals.

Whatever; My skills as a writer ain't great either. but I think you will find the CO2 on mars has same properties as the CO2 on earth.



...I think one thing that needs to be considered when it comes to Mars' atmosphere and ours is how the planet's magnetic fields affects things.
..An example of this is that Jupiter is a Gas Giant and has rings. Earth is a smaller rock type planet and has layers in it's atmosphere. Basically the same thing but on a different scale.
..I don't take itn seriously. IMHO he's a Native American that resents the world because progress couldn't be stopped. Have mixed opinions myself which from an environmental perspective we're trashing our planet. It's like kids to day will have to deal with the U.S. National Debt which is greater than it's GDP. Is that fair to them ? It isn't but then they will have better technology to keep them entertained so it might not be that bad.
23-09-2018 19:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Well you are right about that at least, Is ITN insane and actually believes the crap he comes out with or just some uber-troll telling a joke that is beyond us mere mortals.

Whatever; My skills as a writer ain't great either. but I think you will find the CO2 on mars has same properties as the CO2 on earth.



...I think one thing that needs to be considered when it comes to Mars' atmosphere and ours is how the planet's magnetic fields affects things.
..An example of this is that Jupiter is a Gas Giant and has rings. Earth is a smaller rock type planet and has layers in it's atmosphere. Basically the same thing but on a different scale.
..I don't take itn seriously. IMHO he's a Native American that resents the world because progress couldn't be stopped. Have mixed opinions myself which from an environmental perspective we're trashing our planet. It's like kids to day will have to deal with the U.S. National Debt which is greater than it's GDP. Is that fair to them ? It isn't but then they will have better technology to keep them entertained so it might not be that bad.


Yes Jupiter has rings, which are not the atmosphere.

Is ITN a Native American? I don't know that he gave any indication that he was A stereotype Native American would be sympathetic to environmental issues But judgeing someone on that seems very closed minded to me I would judge a person on other issues but that's just me. ITN could be a bot for all I know.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-09-2018 20:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
spot wrote:
Which tells you the surface pressure 6.36mb, FYI earths surface pressure is 1,013.25mb. Now I'm no chemist but I think that affects the calculations. I think he failed to factor in the fact that mars is further away from the sun as well.

What a yogurt.

Of course the atmosphere on Mars will make it colder but it still has CO2 in the atmosphere that is 27 times denser than on Earth. Mars' effective temperature (the temperature of the planet if it were only heated by solar irradiance alone) is 209.8K while its average temperature is 210K, making all that CO2 on Mars only have a warming of 0.2K. You got nothing. You just think you do.


The CO2 is denser there then here?

I've detected something dense.

Read a book.

I think it is you who needs to read a book actually. Am I honestly debating with someone who doesn't know the difference between "than" and "then"?


Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.

I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.

Mathematics and theories of science are not noise. Discarding them does not make them go away.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2018 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Well you are right about that at least, Is ITN insane and actually believes the crap he comes out with or just some uber-troll telling a joke that is beyond us mere mortals.

Still denying mathematics, the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, eh? You call them a crap religion, eh?
spot wrote:
Whatever; My skills as a writer ain't great either. but I think you will find the CO2 on mars has same properties as the CO2 on earth.

Yes it does. In neither case does CO2 cause a planet to warm from it's own emitted IR begin absorbed by CO2.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2018 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Well you are right about that at least, Is ITN insane and actually believes the crap he comes out with or just some uber-troll telling a joke that is beyond us mere mortals.

Whatever; My skills as a writer ain't great either. but I think you will find the CO2 on mars has same properties as the CO2 on earth.



...I think one thing that needs to be considered when it comes to Mars' atmosphere and ours is how the planet's magnetic fields affects things.
..An example of this is that Jupiter is a Gas Giant and has rings. Earth is a smaller rock type planet and has layers in it's atmosphere. Basically the same thing but on a different scale.
..I don't take itn seriously. IMHO he's a Native American that resents the world because progress couldn't be stopped. Have mixed opinions myself which from an environmental perspective we're trashing our planet. It's like kids to day will have to deal with the U.S. National Debt which is greater than it's GDP. Is that fair to them ? It isn't but then they will have better technology to keep them entertained so it might not be that bad.


Yes Jupiter has rings, which are not the atmosphere.

Is ITN a Native American? I don't know that he gave any indication that he was A stereotype Native American would be sympathetic to environmental issues But judgeing someone on that seems very closed minded to me I would judge a person on other issues but that's just me. ITN could be a bot for all I know.


I am native American. I was born in the United States. That makes me a native American.

I guess you failed the Turing test.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-09-2018 20:49
23-09-2018 21:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Into the Night wrote:

I am native American. I was born in the United States. That makes me a native American.

I guess you failed the Turing test.


Good for you I am African but I don't look or sound African having left as a baby.

However normally if someone says that they are Native American one expects that they are at least in part descended from the Pre-Colombian population.

But you have to be a pendant to start a pointless argument.

You don't interact with real people in the real world much do you?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-09-2018 21:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Into the Night wrote:

Still denying mathematics, the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, eh? You call them a crap religion, eh?


I think you think "Stefan-Bolzmann" and "Mathamatics" are an invocation. Like those idiots that think that mentioning the Magna Carter lets them drive untaxed vehicles the wrong way down the Motorway.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-09-2018 00:47
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Well you are right about that at least, Is ITN insane and actually believes the crap he comes out with or just some uber-troll telling a joke that is beyond us mere mortals.

Whatever; My skills as a writer ain't great either. but I think you will find the CO2 on mars has same properties as the CO2 on earth.



...I think one thing that needs to be considered when it comes to Mars' atmosphere and ours is how the planet's magnetic fields affects things.
..An example of this is that Jupiter is a Gas Giant and has rings. Earth is a smaller rock type planet and has layers in it's atmosphere. Basically the same thing but on a different scale.
..I don't take itn seriously. IMHO he's a Native American that resents the world because progress couldn't be stopped. Have mixed opinions myself which from an environmental perspective we're trashing our planet. It's like kids to day will have to deal with the U.S. National Debt which is greater than it's GDP. Is that fair to them ? It isn't but then they will have better technology to keep them entertained so it might not be that bad.


Yes Jupiter has rings, which are not the atmosphere.

Is ITN a Native American? I don't know that he gave any indication that he was A stereotype Native American would be sympathetic to environmental issues But judgeing someone on that seems very closed minded to me I would judge a person on other issues but that's just me. ITN could be a bot for all I know.


...Litesong said that he goes to meetings in southeastern Oregon to go stargazing. Doubt it's an astronomy club.

..The point I was making about Saturn's rings is that it's magnetic field could be responsible for them. We have the Van Allen belts which are also hot. There's no reason our atmosphere can't be influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. Once above the troposphere pressure has nothing to do with temperature.
24-09-2018 16:20
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
One Punch Man wrote:
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


{clap clap clap}

I think we all just need to choose to completely ignore ITN. At times he makes some actual sense, but then he spoils it but uttering complete nonsense and lies spread by the anti global warming nuts.

Its completely fine to argue against AGW - but when you wander outside by disputing simple science already proven, its time to ignore the ignorance. Were it up to me he would be banned from this site.
24-09-2018 18:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Gamul1 wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


{clap clap clap}

I think we all just need to choose to completely ignore ITN. At times he makes some actual sense, but then he spoils it but uttering complete nonsense and lies spread by the anti global warming nuts.

Its completely fine to argue against AGW - but when you wander outside by disputing simple science already proven, its time to ignore the ignorance. Were it up to me he would be banned from this site.


Yes, can i add that the nuts he is spreading is of his own invention.

There are lots of Skeptics of the dangers of AGW, I among them, there are some nuts who are simply mad deniers of science creationist trolls. ITN is the latter. Same as there are a few (more than the denier nuts) ecco nuts who base their entire thinking on some sort of religious Gaia thing.
24-09-2018 18:17
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, can i add that the nuts he is spreading is of his own invention.

There are lots of Skeptics of the dangers of AGW, I among them, there are some nuts who are simply mad deniers of science creationist trolls. ITN is the latter. Same as there are a few (more than the denier nuts) ecco nuts who base their entire thinking on some sort of religious Gaia thing.


Add me to the skeptic of AGW. If you saw the paper I posted a month or two ago I think I made my stand pretty clear that nature does just fine on her own with climate extremes and that the current period of relatively nice climate is only a small percentage of the time. We are usually either much much colder, or much much hotter.

Its not that I dont think humans CANT be influencing climate. But I dont think we have proven anything at all. And I despise how the talk solely revolves around climate change as if it has ALWAYS been this temperature and should ALWAYS be this temperature - naturally.

I think I could take the AGW discussion more seriously if there was some acknowledgement of the reality of history and how it may be playing a role today.
24-09-2018 20:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

I am native American. I was born in the United States. That makes me a native American.

I guess you failed the Turing test.


Good for you I am African but I don't look or sound African having left as a baby.

However normally if someone says that they are Native American one expects that they are at least in part descended from the Pre-Colombian population.

But you have to be a pendant to start a pointless argument.

You don't interact with real people in the real world much do you?


Trying to make a pointless argument?


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2018 20:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Still denying mathematics, the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, eh? You call them a crap religion, eh?


I think you think "Stefan-Bolzmann" and "Mathamatics" are an invocation. Like those idiots that think that mentioning the Magna Carter lets them drive untaxed vehicles the wrong way down the Motorway.


No, I think the Stefan-Boltzmann law is a theory of science. I think the mathematics you don't understand to be quite useful under the right circumstances.

You are still denying both.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2018 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Ah...another spelling and grammar cop. Useless.
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


Well you are right about that at least, Is ITN insane and actually believes the crap he comes out with or just some uber-troll telling a joke that is beyond us mere mortals.

Whatever; My skills as a writer ain't great either. but I think you will find the CO2 on mars has same properties as the CO2 on earth.



...I think one thing that needs to be considered when it comes to Mars' atmosphere and ours is how the planet's magnetic fields affects things.
..An example of this is that Jupiter is a Gas Giant and has rings. Earth is a smaller rock type planet and has layers in it's atmosphere. Basically the same thing but on a different scale.
..I don't take itn seriously. IMHO he's a Native American that resents the world because progress couldn't be stopped. Have mixed opinions myself which from an environmental perspective we're trashing our planet. It's like kids to day will have to deal with the U.S. National Debt which is greater than it's GDP. Is that fair to them ? It isn't but then they will have better technology to keep them entertained so it might not be that bad.


Yes Jupiter has rings, which are not the atmosphere.

Is ITN a Native American? I don't know that he gave any indication that he was A stereotype Native American would be sympathetic to environmental issues But judgeing someone on that seems very closed minded to me I would judge a person on other issues but that's just me. ITN could be a bot for all I know.


...Litesong said that he goes to meetings in southeastern Oregon to go stargazing. Doubt it's an astronomy club.

I believe he said he went alone to eastern Oregon. There is good star gazing there. His reasons are his own and make no difference here.
James___ wrote:
..The point I was making about Saturn's rings is that it's magnetic field could be responsible for them.
Nope. They are caused by a couple of moons of Saturn.
James___ wrote:
We have the Van Allen belts which are also hot.
They are not hot.
James___ wrote:
There's no reason our atmosphere can't be influenced by the Earth's magnetic field.
Except that it's not made of magnetic stuff.
James___ wrote:
Once above the troposphere pressure has nothing to do with temperature.
Yes it does. It also not the only factor.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2018 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Gamul1 wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


{clap clap clap}

I think we all just need to choose to completely ignore ITN. At times he makes some actual sense, but then he spoils it but uttering complete nonsense and lies spread by the anti global warming nuts.

Its completely fine to argue against AGW - but when you wander outside by disputing simple science already proven, its time to ignore the ignorance. Were it up to me he would be banned from this site.


Science has no proofs. No theory of science is ever proven.

It is the Church of Global Warming that denies science. They also deny mathematics. They deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law through the 'greenhouse effect' they continually describe. They deny mathematics by quoting data that doesn't exist.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2018 20:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
I haven't made a lot of comments on this forum, but from the threads I have followed, I have noticed that you never fail to pop-up, making a tedious nuisance of yourself with your noise. The only "useless" thing here are your comments.


{clap clap clap}

I think we all just need to choose to completely ignore ITN. At times he makes some actual sense, but then he spoils it but uttering complete nonsense and lies spread by the anti global warming nuts.

Its completely fine to argue against AGW - but when you wander outside by disputing simple science already proven, its time to ignore the ignorance. Were it up to me he would be banned from this site.


Yes, can i add that the nuts he is spreading is of his own invention.

There are lots of Skeptics of the dangers of AGW, I among them, there are some nuts who are simply mad deniers of science creationist trolls. ITN is the latter. Same as there are a few (more than the denier nuts) ecco nuts who base their entire thinking on some sort of religious Gaia thing.


The Theory of Creation is not science. There are no dangers to something you can't define.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2018 20:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Gamul1 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, can i add that the nuts he is spreading is of his own invention.

There are lots of Skeptics of the dangers of AGW, I among them, there are some nuts who are simply mad deniers of science creationist trolls. ITN is the latter. Same as there are a few (more than the denier nuts) ecco nuts who base their entire thinking on some sort of religious Gaia thing.


Add me to the skeptic of AGW. If you saw the paper I posted a month or two ago I think I made my stand pretty clear that nature does just fine on her own with climate extremes and that the current period of relatively nice climate is only a small percentage of the time. We are usually either much much colder, or much much hotter.

Its not that I dont think humans CANT be influencing climate. But I dont think we have proven anything at all. And I despise how the talk solely revolves around climate change as if it has ALWAYS been this temperature and should ALWAYS be this temperature - naturally.

I think I could take the AGW discussion more seriously if there was some acknowledgement of the reality of history and how it may be playing a role today.


The Church of Global Warming denies history too.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2018 01:19
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Gamul1 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, can i add that the nuts he is spreading is of his own invention.

There are lots of Skeptics of the dangers of AGW, I among them, there are some nuts who are simply mad deniers of science creationist trolls. ITN is the latter. Same as there are a few (more than the denier nuts) ecco nuts who base their entire thinking on some sort of religious Gaia thing.


Add me to the skeptic of AGW. If you saw the paper I posted a month or two ago I think I made my stand pretty clear that nature does just fine on her own with climate extremes and that the current period of relatively nice climate is only a small percentage of the time. We are usually either much much colder, or much much hotter.

Its not that I dont think humans CANT be influencing climate. But I dont think we have proven anything at all. And I despise how the talk solely revolves around climate change as if it has ALWAYS been this temperature and should ALWAYS be this temperature - naturally.

I think I could take the AGW discussion more seriously if there was some acknowledgement of the reality of history and how it may be playing a role today.



...This graph https://goo.gl/images/9J9Ti3 is over the last 400,000+ years and about all ice core research seems to agree with this. There are naturally warming cycles even on a hundreds of years scale, the Little Ice Age is one example. With me, I do think we are helping to warm the northern hemisphere.
..What people have trouble discussing is why is it warming ? If we don't know that then we can't know how much we're influencing it.
...The 6 countries listed https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/07/91-per-cent-of-global-electricity-used-by-just-20-countries.html consume about 60% of the world's energy and this doesn't even include the European Union. And energy when used is converted into heat.
...Still, most people who say we aren't affecting warming any probably don't care about the environment either. We are in the 21st Century yet all we seem to be able to say is we love watching videos online, etc. but to give some thought to the environment just can't be accepted.
25-09-2018 02:55
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
We've come out of The Little Ice Age and are warming is one example.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate 20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change27301-12-2018 20:09
Why I'm Skeptical3928-11-2018 00:11
This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming5608-10-2018 19:56
When (if at all) did human co2 emissions begin to affect the climate?915-05-2018 02:30
How Much Is Trly Human Caused?1629-03-2018 12:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact