Remember me
▼ Content

Global Warming Argument Simplified



Page 1 of 212>
Global Warming Argument Simplified03-12-2018 05:17
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
If the observations made by the IPCC are considered credible then the debate comes down to which argument a person supports.
90% of global warming heat content is found in the top 2,000 meters of our oceans. What people need to consider is this, can our oceans absorb 90% of the heat trapped in our atmosphere?
If they doubt this then they need to consider if our oceans are radiating heat into our atmosphere.
After this it gets complicated. This is because melting glaciers allows for tectonic plate rebound. And so far it has not been demonstrated how CO2 effects KE = 3/2kT. This does need to be made known. How does increased CO2 levels require more work to be performed to change temperature T in Kelvins? This is something basic but yet to be demonstrated.

I thought I'd add this for fun

Water is 1,000 times denser than atmospheric gases. Yet the ratio of heat absorption is 9:1. Does the velocity of current/air flow account for this discrepancy? Does cold water reflect heat?
Just some thoughts


Some background info:
Solar radiation is warming our oceans. What changed the frequencies w/m^2 being absorbed by our oceans?
This is all according to the IPCC. And this is since 1998.
Edited on 03-12-2018 06:11
03-12-2018 06:43
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Someone might want to find out how much global warming heat content was credited to our oceans warming before 1998. After 1998 it is accepted that our oceans absorbed solar radiation which accounts for the 90% of global warming heat content. I posted the link in a different thread citing the IPCC report and section B2 starting on page 12.
For those that wish to delete the current argument based on an IPCC report, that might be a starting point.
03-12-2018 10:57
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
This is the IPCC pdf where it says around page 12 that 90% of the global warming heat content is solar radiation warming our oceans. Is that even possible with the scenario that they created?

[url] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf[/url]
03-12-2018 12:20
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/92563/record-warm-waters-off-southern-california
03-12-2018 20:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
If the observations made by the IPCC are considered credible then the debate comes down to which argument a person supports.

I'll go with existing theories of science. The IPCC tends to deny science and mathematics.
James___ wrote:
90% of global warming heat content is found in the top 2,000 meters of our oceans. What people need to consider is this, can our oceans absorb 90% of the heat trapped in our atmosphere?

Heat is not a 'content'. You cannot 'trap' it. You cannot trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.
James___ wrote:
If they doubt this then they need to consider if our oceans are radiating heat into our atmosphere.

Ocean water radiates into space, just like the surface. If the ocean water is warmer than the air above it, it will heat the air. If the ocean water is cooler than the air above it, the air will heat the ocean. Both are heated by the Sun.
James___ wrote:
After this it gets complicated. This is because melting glaciers allows for tectonic plate rebound. And so far it has not been demonstrated how CO2 effects KE = 3/2kT. This does need to be made known. How does increased CO2 levels require more work to be performed to change temperature T in Kelvins? This is something basic but yet to be demonstrated.

Irrelevant factor. First, not all glaciers are melting. Some are advancing. Secondly, a glacier is not large enough to effect tectonic plates.
James___ wrote:
I thought I'd add this for fun

Water is 1,000 times denser than atmospheric gases. Yet the ratio of heat absorption is 9:1. Does the velocity of current/air flow account for this discrepancy? Does cold water reflect heat?

If and only if the thing heating ocean water is has more energy per square meter than the surface of the ocean water, will the ocean water be heated.
James___ wrote:
Some background info:
Solar radiation is warming our oceans. What changed the frequencies w/m^2 being absorbed by our oceans?

Nothing. Frequency is not measured in w/m^2.
James___ wrote:
This is all according to the IPCC. And this is since 1998.

Yeah, well...the IPCC denies theories of science.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2018 21:38
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.
03-12-2018 23:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment.

We already have had people that have examined the absorption frequencies of CO2, and how those frequencies, being infrared do warm the CO2.

For the Earth, that energy comes from the surface. It takes energy to emit light, and this cools the surface. All that is happening is the surface transfers some of it's energy to the atmosphere, just as if it happened by conduction. With CO2 it also happens by radiance.

Absorption does not warm the Earth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates.

Greenhouses do not trap heat. That is not possible. Greenhouses work by reducing heat, specifically the convective heat normally present in the open atmosphere.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content.
True. They use heaters, CO2 tanks, limit convective losses, add water sources, etc. Some of these are so successful, they are being studied for use in interplanetary travel. The all require continuous energy from outside to do this.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic.
Yup. They've been getting pretty good.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth,

It wouldn't. These greenhouses require continuous supplies from outside to function at all. Earth only has the Sun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space.
You can't trap heat. Even if you close all the vents in a greenhouse, it will still return to outside temperature once the Sun goes down, given time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants.

All you would do is built the same parlor trick so often seen on youtube and TV shows. A tank full of CO2 will be warmed when you shine infrared light into it. It completely fails to simulate the Earth. The light is artificially produced by consuming energy from a power supply.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.

It wouldn't be a valid simulation at all. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.

Heat is not a 'content' or something you can trap. Heat is the movement of thermal energy from once place to another. It's like current in a river. You can't 'trap' river current. You can only reduce it or increase it. If you dam the river completely, you can reduce it to zero, but you cannot 'trap' it.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2018 00:39
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I'm fully convinced that this is a huge fraud, just too many things that just don't quite fit. Kind of like looking at a jigsaw puzzle, where someone forced a few pieces into places they didn't quite fit. I'm more interested in finding those pieces. I have no doubt that the truth will come out eventually, and no one will doubt it's a non-issue. But, I'd like to see it exposed as an intentional fraud, and see some accountability, all the way up to the folks writing the grant checks. They were in a position of spending our tax dollars wisely, there was no reason to believe this needed government funding.

Think our next big debate, is going to be genetic engineering related. Been noticing the GMO labeling a lot, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of FDA approved GMO food items. Now, it's no secret that foods have been genetically altered for a long time, just not by splicing genes. Officially, GMO products aren't really a thing, yet. The labeling seems to be a scare tactic, maybe there are a ton of GMO products ready for the market, just waiting for the 'greenlight' (someone in office, who has a reasonable price). Basically, I was thinking about growing some vegetable in my backyard. Never really turns out well, but I get the itch to try occasionally. Probably do better with an indoor garden. I've got to be careful, and look for seeds that are good for this growing zone. Florida vegetables aren't the same as northern varieties, sometimes pretty obvious looking. A northern tomato wouldn't do well here. Pretty much every seed I looked at, said 'Non-GMO', which I thought odd. One, I'd expect them to be sterile, not produce seed, so people would keep buying them, limit competition for a while. Second, there just wasn't that many GMO products a couple years ago, and not well received.

Just sort of looks like there is going to be a huge GMO war soon, which sort of makes me kind of wonder what's really going on in the background. Usually, when we are getting setup for a big scare, something sneaky is going on, while we are fighting a non-issue.
04-12-2018 01:28
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm fully convinced that this is a huge fraud, just too many things that just don't quite fit. Kind of like looking at a jigsaw puzzle, where someone forced a few pieces into places they didn't quite fit. I'm more interested in finding those pieces. I have no doubt that the truth will come out eventually, and no one will doubt it's a non-issue. But, I'd like to see it exposed as an intentional fraud, and see some accountability, all the way up to the folks writing the grant checks. They were in a position of spending our tax dollars wisely, there was no reason to believe this needed government funding.

Think our next big debate, is going to be genetic engineering related. Been noticing the GMO labeling a lot, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of FDA approved GMO food items. Now, it's no secret that foods have been genetically altered for a long time, just not by splicing genes. Officially, GMO products aren't really a thing, yet. The labeling seems to be a scare tactic, maybe there are a ton of GMO products ready for the market, just waiting for the 'greenlight' (someone in office, who has a reasonable price). Basically, I was thinking about growing some vegetable in my backyard. Never really turns out well, but I get the itch to try occasionally. Probably do better with an indoor garden. I've got to be careful, and look for seeds that are good for this growing zone. Florida vegetables aren't the same as northern varieties, sometimes pretty obvious looking. A northern tomato wouldn't do well here. Pretty much every seed I looked at, said 'Non-GMO', which I thought odd. One, I'd expect them to be sterile, not produce seed, so people would keep buying them, limit competition for a while. Second, there just wasn't that many GMO products a couple years ago, and not well received.

Just sort of looks like there is going to be a huge GMO war soon, which sort of makes me kind of wonder what's really going on in the background. Usually, when we are getting setup for a big scare, something sneaky is going on, while we are fighting a non-issue.


I'd rather you didn't communicate with the lunatic asylum member who is growing worse with every posting.

Here is the spectrum of Sunlight:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg

The solid line is the calculated blackbody radiation of the Sun. Since the Sun is not a true blackbody the yellow area shows the actual Sunlight that arrives at the outer atmosphere of Earth. You can see that since the Sun isn't a pure blackbody that the radiation from temperature emissions is slipped from the high Ultraviolet into the visible spectrum. Therefore the Ultraviolet is lower than in a pure blackbody and the visible light is more than from the blackbody characterization.

Finally the red is what actually reaches the surface of the Earth. Some small part of this loss is due to reflection from the clouds that from space often look continuous but at cloud level are not. There is also absorption from the major atmospheric gases of O2 and N2. But the largest absorption is caused by the rather small amount of H2O in the atmosphere in its three different phases- vapor, liquid or solid. There is some tiny absorption from CO2 and here is a representation of the spectrum:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=hSkGvmSu&id=C6E1DC33FB268DF8C8856AC4863B85049661AE20&thid=OIP.hSkGvmSuyCcJZbD3o1XtxgHaEC&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fdaryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com%2f2014%2f05%2fco2absoq.gif&exph=217&expw=398&q=absorption+spectrum+of+co2&simid=608054457139266442&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

The upper two bands are very narrow and absorb all of the energy available in sunlight at around 200-250 ppm of CO2. The lowest band is in the lower infrared and the sunlight puts very little radiation into that band. Instead the other sunlight energies that are absorbed by the Earth are modified because the high energy sunlight is converted to far lower frequency light because it is heating the ground or water. So this energy is practically non-existent and that two is absorbed by very low levels of CO2.

So the levels of CO2 above approximately 250 ppm has no further effect on the temperature in the atmosphere.

Remember - what causes emissions is the temperature of a body. The Sun is extremely hot and so closely resembles a blackbody. The Earth is NOT hot with an average temperature about 588 degrees Kelvin. A body at this temperature even a total blackbody still has very low frequency emissions. And these are almost entire absorbed by H2O and transferred through various forms of circulation into the upper stratosphere where is can only escape through the process of emission. Remember that the upper atmosphere has a far greater surface area than the ground level Earth. This means that the temperature of the Earth is spread still thinner and hence the emitted energy is very low frequency. So low that it is undetectable at any distance and hence we have to use other forms of detection to discover planets on other starts.

This all has been known by what is now NASA starting circa 1905. There is nothing tricky about any of it. There is nothing that requires a PhD in chemistry to discover.

That the WEATHER has been used as a political tool should embarrass every single scientist on the Earth.
04-12-2018 03:19
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.



All they have to do is to heat 2 rooms to the same temperature but different levels of CO2. To either raise or lower the rooms temperatures will require work in Btu or KwH.
Scientists can insulate both rooms and test them to determine their rates of entropy.
With the link to solar radiation warming our oceans, why did that start in 1998? Before 1998 there was no mention of that. The heat in the oceans is why there wasn't a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013.
04-12-2018 06:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
I'd rather you didn't communicate with the lunatic asylum member who is growing worse with every posting.

I guess PMing is beyond your grasp, eh Wake?
Wake wrote:
Here is the spectrum of Sunlight:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Okay.
Wake wrote:
The solid line is the calculated blackbody radiation of the Sun.

No, it is the observed spectrum from space.
Wake wrote:
Since the Sun is not a true blackbody the yellow area shows the actual Sunlight that arrives at the outer atmosphere of Earth.

There is no such thing as an ideal blackbody in nature, Wake. All bodies are grey, including the Sun. Blackbody radiation has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption.
Wake wrote:
You can see that since the Sun isn't a pure blackbody that the radiation from temperature emissions is slipped from the high Ultraviolet into the visible spectrum.

Yup. The atmosphere absorbs UV light.
Wake wrote:
Therefore the Ultraviolet is lower than in a pure blackbody and the visible light is more than from the blackbody characterization.

The Sun is not an ideal blackbody. Blackbody radiance has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption.
Wake wrote:
Finally the red is what actually reaches the surface of the Earth.

The Sun appears yellow, not red, Wake. It only appears red at sunset and sunrise.
Wake wrote:
Some small part of this loss is due to reflection from the clouds that from space often look continuous but at cloud level are not. There is also absorption from the major atmospheric gases of O2 and N2. But the largest absorption is caused by the rather small amount of H2O in the atmosphere in its three different phases- vapor, liquid or solid. There is some tiny absorption from CO2 and here is a representation of the spectrum:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=hSkGvmSu&id=C6E1DC33FB268DF8C8856AC4863B85049661AE20&thid=OIP.hSkGvmSuyCcJZbD3o1XtxgHaEC&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fdaryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com%2f2014%2f05%2fco2absoq.gif&exph=217&expw=398&q=absorption+spectrum+of+co2&simid=608054457139266442&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

The upper two bands are very narrow and absorb all of the energy available in sunlight at around 200-250 ppm of CO2. The lowest band is in the lower infrared and the sunlight puts very little radiation into that band. Instead the other sunlight energies that are absorbed by the Earth are modified because the high energy sunlight is converted to far lower frequency light because it is heating the ground or water. So this energy is practically non-existent and that two is absorbed by very low levels of CO2.

So the levels of CO2 above approximately 250 ppm has no further effect on the temperature in the atmosphere.

Absorption of sunlight by gases in the atmosphere do help warm the Earth. Absorption of infrared light from the surface does not.
Wake wrote:
Remember - what causes emissions is the temperature of a body. The Sun is extremely hot and so closely resembles a blackbody.

Anything above absolute zero emits blackbody light, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The Earth is NOT hot with an average temperature about 588 degrees Kelvin. A body at this temperature even a total blackbody still has very low frequency emissions.

No difference except the frequencies. The Earth emits blackbody radiance just like the Sun does.
Wake wrote:
And these are almost entire absorbed by H2O

Nope. Most of the radiance of Earth is directly from the surface.
Wake wrote:
and transferred through various forms of circulation into the upper stratosphere where is can only escape through the process of emission.

Nope. Most of the radiance is directly from the surface. It's hotter and more dense. There is no 'magick point' where radiance to space begins to occur.
Wake wrote:
Remember that the upper atmosphere has a far greater surface area than the ground level Earth. This means that the temperature of the Earth is spread still thinner and hence the emitted energy is very low frequency.

Earth emits many frequencies to space. Temperatures vary widely over the Earth.
Wake wrote:
So low that it is undetectable at any distance and hence we have to use other forms of detection to discover planets on other starts.

Frequencies aren't the problem, Wake. Intensity is, especially when looking for something in the glare of a nearby star.
Wake wrote:
This all has been known by what is now NASA starting circa 1905.

NASA didn't exist in 1905. Neither did the FAA or the CAB.
Wake wrote:
There is nothing tricky about any of it. There is nothing that requires a PhD in chemistry to discover.

True.
Wake wrote:
That the WEATHER has been used as a political tool should embarrass every single scientist on the Earth.

Agreed.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2018 17:20
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
'Ideal', doesn't occur in nature, but I'm finding that a lot of Climate Science, uses these 'Ideal Models', as close enough for discussion/fact. Discussion and agreement, isn't fact, but is being sold as such. I work with electronics, hobby I've had most of my life. I use the computer to simulate circuits, saves a lot of math, guessing, smoldering experimentation (warming, at an alarming rate). The parts models, are generally 'Ideal', but silicon parts aren't, since there are many different version of the same basic part. Sometimes you can get a tweaked model from the manufacturer, to simulate specific parts, but still not perfect or 'Ideal', since outside conditions can effect operation. Big difference between what and how, something works on paper, and in discussions, and the real, physical world. I'm not sure if the scientist lost the distinction, being so focused on the theories and hypotheticals, or intentionally ignore it, but what they are generating, is garbage. Think all the papers they generate, copies printed to share, are killing the trees, that would be pulling most of that planet killing CO2 out of the atmosphere.
04-12-2018 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
'Ideal', doesn't occur in nature, but I'm finding that a lot of Climate Science, uses these 'Ideal Models', as close enough for discussion/fact. Discussion and agreement, isn't fact, but is being sold as such. I work with electronics, hobby I've had most of my life. I use the computer to simulate circuits, saves a lot of math, guessing, smoldering experimentation (warming, at an alarming rate). The parts models, are generally 'Ideal', but silicon parts aren't, since there are many different version of the same basic part. Sometimes you can get a tweaked model from the manufacturer, to simulate specific parts, but still not perfect or 'Ideal', since outside conditions can effect operation. Big difference between what and how, something works on paper, and in discussions, and the real, physical world. I'm not sure if the scientist lost the distinction, being so focused on the theories and hypotheticals, or intentionally ignore it, but what they are generating, is garbage. Think all the papers they generate, copies printed to share, are killing the trees, that would be pulling most of that planet killing CO2 out of the atmosphere.


Heh. Nice to turn their own argument against them.

Yeah, I've found the same thing. The circuit simulators like SPICE and others are too perfect. Actual components have a much wider tolerance than the simulators give you.

When you use a 1k resistor in the simulator it is a perfect 1k resistor. Actual 1k resistors may range anywhere from 800 to 1.2k! Silicon parts are just as wide (and even wider) in some of their tolerances.

At least the paper they use is from farmed trees.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2018 22:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.



All they have to do is to heat 2 rooms to the same temperature but different levels of CO2. To either raise or lower the rooms temperatures will require work in Btu or KwH.
Scientists can insulate both rooms and test them to determine their rates of entropy.
With the link to solar radiation warming our oceans, why did that start in 1998? Before 1998 there was no mention of that. The heat in the oceans is why there wasn't a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013.


Heat is not 'in' anything.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2018 23:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not 'in' anything.


Why must you make ignorant statement after ignorant statement?

Heat is energy and it is contained within the material substance of a body when dealing with matter. In open space energy is simply free energy.
05-12-2018 01:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.



All they have to do is to heat 2 rooms to the same temperature but different levels of CO2. To either raise or lower the rooms temperatures will require work in Btu or KwH.
Scientists can insulate both rooms and test them to determine their rates of entropy.
With the link to solar radiation warming our oceans, why did that start in 1998? Before 1998 there was no mention of that. The heat in the oceans is why there wasn't a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013.


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.
05-12-2018 01:55
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.



If you had any engineering experience you'd be saying otherwise. Air circulation would be expected. And for that matter the velocity that air moves past a heat exchanger would be the result of work being done. That'd be easy enough to demonstrate.
When air is heated or cooled by a heat exchanger it will move away from it.
RE: Q05-12-2018 02:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.



If you had any engineering experience you'd be saying otherwise. Air circulation would be expected. And for that matter the velocity that air moves past a heat exchanger would be the result of work being done. That'd be easy enough to demonstrate.
When air is heated or cooled by a heat exchanger it will move away from it.


I find you comment strange. I have 40 years as an engineer doing research and development work. One of the projects I designed and programmed won the chief chemist a Nobel Prize in chemistry he could not have done without the evidence from my project. I have communications boards on the Space Station. I've worked on the first real Heart/Lung machine and the follow-up developments are this very second keeping my brother alive in an operating theater.

The amount of heat absorption from CO2 is so low that you'd need two rooms that size of a Trade Towers and the eddy currents in the room would not allow the temperature to be constant throughout the room. Also you would need perfect insulation that does not exist.

You do not understand the scale of the numbers you are dealing with and are pretending that you do.
05-12-2018 03:04
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.
05-12-2018 03:22
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.



Yet scientists have measured the precession of Mercury to be 5600 arc seconds per century.
It's funny that neither you nor Wake think that a rate of flow past a heat exchanger can be measured in a way that could show how the composition of gases would matter. This is something that would be easy if a person opened a book and read it. But as you say Harvey, you won't waste your free time learning about something. I think Wake's the same way.
05-12-2018 16:52
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
And how many centuries have they been measuring Mercury...

What heat exchanger? My proposed experiment, was simply to build two greenhouses, side-by-side, trap so atmosphere in both, add a bunch of CO2 to one, let the sun do it's work, measure the results of both, compare. Cheap and simple, no need to add a bunch of extra equipment.
05-12-2018 20:19
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.



Yet scientists have measured the precession of Mercury to be 5600 arc seconds per century.
It's funny that neither you nor Wake think that a rate of flow past a heat exchanger can be measured in a way that could show how the composition of gases would matter. This is something that would be easy if a person opened a book and read it. But as you say Harvey, you won't waste your free time learning about something. I think Wake's the same way.


Let me try again - you would have to expose these rooms to sunlight since the question is whether there are any temperature changes with levels of CO2 above 250 ppm.

You better explain to us what you could hope to achieve and how you would do so. I have said that you do not understand scale of temperatures you're hoping to measure so you should present some numbers and not some sort of imaginary method of achieving some unknown.

In a room 50 meters in all three dimensions you would have 1.25 x 10^26 molecules in the room and only 50,000 molecules of CO2.

You don't have ANY idea of what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't have any idea what I'm talking about.
05-12-2018 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not 'in' anything.


Why must you make ignorant statement after ignorant statement?

Heat is energy and it is contained within the material substance of a body when dealing with matter. In open space energy is simply free energy.


Heat is not energy, Wake. It also has nothing to do with free energy.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.



All they have to do is to heat 2 rooms to the same temperature but different levels of CO2. To either raise or lower the rooms temperatures will require work in Btu or KwH.
Scientists can insulate both rooms and test them to determine their rates of entropy.
With the link to solar radiation warming our oceans, why did that start in 1998? Before 1998 there was no mention of that. The heat in the oceans is why there wasn't a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013.


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.


Nope. It simply wouldn't show anything except that CO2 can absorb certain frequencies of light. Big hairy deal. We already know that.

Absorption of surface infrared light does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.



If you had any engineering experience you'd be saying otherwise. Air circulation would be expected. And for that matter the velocity that air moves past a heat exchanger would be the result of work being done. That'd be easy enough to demonstrate.
When air is heated or cooled by a heat exchanger it will move away from it.


Irrelevant factor.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.



If you had any engineering experience you'd be saying otherwise. Air circulation would be expected. And for that matter the velocity that air moves past a heat exchanger would be the result of work being done. That'd be easy enough to demonstrate.
When air is heated or cooled by a heat exchanger it will move away from it.


I find you comment strange. I have 40 years as an engineer doing research and development work. One of the projects I designed and programmed won the chief chemist a Nobel Prize in chemistry he could not have done without the evidence from my project. I have communications boards on the Space Station. I've worked on the first real Heart/Lung machine and the follow-up developments are this very second keeping my brother alive in an operating theater.

I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
The amount of heat absorption from CO2 is so low that you'd need two rooms that size of a Trade Towers and the eddy currents in the room would not allow the temperature to be constant throughout the room. Also you would need perfect insulation that does not exist.
Irrelevant factors.
Wake wrote:
You do not understand the scale of the numbers you are dealing with and are pretending that you do.

It's not about scale, Wake.

You cannot warm the Earth by absorbing infrared light from the surface using any gas or any vapor.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 21:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.



Yet scientists have measured the precession of Mercury to be 5600 arc seconds per century.
It's funny that neither you nor Wake think that a rate of flow past a heat exchanger can be measured in a way that could show how the composition of gases would matter. This is something that would be easy if a person opened a book and read it. But as you say Harvey, you won't waste your free time learning about something. I think Wake's the same way.


More random crap and buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 21:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.



Yet scientists have measured the precession of Mercury to be 5600 arc seconds per century.
It's funny that neither you nor Wake think that a rate of flow past a heat exchanger can be measured in a way that could show how the composition of gases would matter. This is something that would be easy if a person opened a book and read it. But as you say Harvey, you won't waste your free time learning about something. I think Wake's the same way.


Let me try again - you would have to expose these rooms to sunlight since the question is whether there are any temperature changes with levels of CO2 above 250 ppm.

You better explain to us what you could hope to achieve and how you would do so. I have said that you do not understand scale of temperatures you're hoping to measure so you should present some numbers and not some sort of imaginary method of achieving some unknown.

In a room 50 meters in all three dimensions you would have 1.25 x 10^26 molecules in the room and only 50,000 molecules of CO2.

You don't have ANY idea of what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't have any idea what I'm talking about.


Neither of you have any idea what you're talking about.

James just spews random crap and you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 23:03
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Wake wrote:


Let me try again - you would have to expose these rooms to sunlight since the question is whether there are any temperature changes with levels of CO2 above 250 ppm.

You better explain to us what you could hope to achieve and how you would do so. I have said that you do not understand scale of temperatures you're hoping to measure so you should present some numbers and not some sort of imaginary method of achieving some unknown.

In a room 50 meters in all three dimensions you would have 1.25 x 10^26 molecules in the room and only 50,000 molecules of CO2.

You don't have ANY idea of what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't have any idea what I'm talking about.


It's a simple experiment proposal. If I was petitioning for funding (free money), I'd do the calculation, bill of materials, a generous list of cool and nifty instruments and gadgets, most would never come out of the box, least for this project... No reason to make it complicated, the temperature readings on the Dollar Store digital thermometers either match, or they don't. I wouldn't expect any detectable difference.
05-12-2018 23:53
CoolCucumber
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
This is a lot to read.
I sense two possibilities.
06-12-2018 03:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:


Let me try again - you would have to expose these rooms to sunlight since the question is whether there are any temperature changes with levels of CO2 above 250 ppm.

You better explain to us what you could hope to achieve and how you would do so. I have said that you do not understand scale of temperatures you're hoping to measure so you should present some numbers and not some sort of imaginary method of achieving some unknown.

In a room 50 meters in all three dimensions you would have 1.25 x 10^26 molecules in the room and only 50,000 molecules of CO2.

You don't have ANY idea of what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't have any idea what I'm talking about.


It's a simple experiment proposal. If I was petitioning for funding (free money), I'd do the calculation, bill of materials, a generous list of cool and nifty instruments and gadgets, most would never come out of the box, least for this project... No reason to make it complicated, the temperature readings on the Dollar Store digital thermometers either match, or they don't. I wouldn't expect any detectable difference.

There will be a difference. The experiment would simply show that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light, slightly heating it. We already know this.

But absorption of surface infrared does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 05:59
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
There is only so much energy entering the greenhouse, if CO2 doesn't absorb it, something else will. Shouldn't be significant difference, if any.
06-12-2018 07:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is only so much energy entering the greenhouse, if CO2 doesn't absorb it, something else will. Shouldn't be significant difference, if any.


No necessarily. Absorption of energy is dependent on the emissivity of the surface absorbing it. Otherwise, it's just reflected away.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 17:36
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.
06-12-2018 18:59
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.
06-12-2018 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.


There are many atoms and molecules that absorb some of the same frequencies of CO2. It's not about 'wasting' energy for absorption. Either the molecule is ready to accept a photon or it isn't. If it isn't the photon is reflected away or just passes right on by without being absorbed (transparency).

Molecules will only absorb frequencies. Each type of molecule or atom will absorb its own set of frequencies. This is what absorption spectroscopy is based on, and allows us to identify what chemicals are in something like a gas, vapor, or anything else that is semi-transparent.

Molecules and atoms will also emit along certain spectra when they emit light. The intensity of which spectra are emitting is determined by temperature. This gives rise to Wien's law (which spectra is emitting most), and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (the total sum of all spectra emitting).

Wake denies both of these laws.

Light doesn't go 'to waste'. It just simply is. It may interact with matter, it may not. Se la ve.

Yes, the sun shines on a particular part of Earth, providing a pulse of energy. The whole Earth, however, always has sunlight shining on it. The temperature of the whole Earth is determined by how intense this sunlight is and how well the Earth absorbs (and emits) total energy (the Stefan-Boltzmann law again).


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.


CO2 does have other colors it emits in other than infrared, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 21:44
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.


CO2 does have other colors it emits in other than infrared, Wake.


Redefinition fallacy. CO2 "is". Energy "is". Heat also "is".
And it is this perfect logic that allows us to understand there is no "Great Spirit" because there is only what "is". This is why accept logic because it is perfect in it's incarnation.

Peace and Love in the name of "is".
Edited on 06-12-2018 21:49
06-12-2018 23:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.


CO2 does have other colors it emits in other than infrared, Wake.


Redefinition fallacy. CO2 "is". Energy "is". Heat also "is".
And it is this perfect logic that allows us to understand there is no "Great Spirit" because there is only what "is". This is why accept logic because it is perfect in it's incarnation.

Peace and Love in the name of "is".


More random crap.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 23:33
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.


CO2 does have other colors it emits in other than infrared, Wake.


Redefinition fallacy. CO2 "is". Energy "is". Heat also "is".
And it is this perfect logic that allows us to understand there is no "Great Spirit" because there is only what "is". This is why accept logic because it is perfect in it's incarnation.

Peace and Love in the name of "is".


More random crap.


Inversion fallacy.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Global Warming Argument Simplified:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Argument for AGW6415-01-2018 23:52
CO2 is but one factor in the climate change argument1013-06-2017 05:23
Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith24818-10-2016 22:23
no one can refute this argument from deniers1307-02-2016 21:08
Both sides of the argument2425-02-2015 02:00
▲ 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