Remember me
▼ Content

Neil Degrasse Tyson video


Neil Degrasse Tyson video01-07-2017 17:18
James_
★★☆☆☆
(305)
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-says-this-is-his.html#.WVfKRYgrLIU
01-07-2017 17:26
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
James_ wrote:
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-says-this-is-his.html#.WVfKRYgrLIU


And what do you think of this?


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.
02-07-2017 14:25
Glitch
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
"When you have people who don't know much about science, standing in denial of it and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," warns Tyson. [1:00]

I would also argue that when you have people who attempt to use bad pseudo-science in order to push a political ideology, that is a recipe for discrediting science as a whole. Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable if we had an educated populace instead of an indoctrinated one.
Edited on 02-07-2017 14:28
02-07-2017 18:33
James_
★★☆☆☆
(305)
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-says-this-is-his.html#.WVfKRYgrLIU


And what do you think of this?


For the most part I agree with him. One problem the IPCC has shown is when one group of scientists say that Global Warming has paused while a dominant group says that is wrong. Then the spokesman states that they need to make a show of certainty and absurdness is when I agree with Glitch. They need to follow where the science leads and if there is no consensus then they need to understand why many scientists are in disagreement.
02-07-2017 20:49
still learning
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.
02-07-2017 23:32
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


As is the argument that because its a small percentage of the whole the effects will obviously be negligible, pharmacists would laugh at that supposition, its only by learning how the system works you can comment.


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.
03-07-2017 00:36
Glitch
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Then you clearly are not paying attention. Even NASA is blaming humans for all Climate Change. Then you have Ilissa Ocko, PhD, Climate Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), claiming that "We are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer..." and flat out stating that the "science is settled."

Whenever someone claims that "science is settled" you know without a doubt that it has become a religion for them and it is no longer about science. Science is never settled, it is always asking questions and challenging preconceptions.

Currently atmospheric CO2 is 407 ppmv, or 0.0407% of the total atmosphere. According to the EPA the total human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is ~36 billion metric tonnes. The total weight of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is just over 18 TRILLION metric tonnes. That would put the human contribution at ~0.2% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, or ~0.0000814% = 0.0407% x ~0.2% of the total atmosphere.

We are destroying our economy and spending billions in a vain attempt to reduce 0.00008% of the atmosphere. Talk about pure hubris and abject stupidity. Clearly this is not about Climate Change. Climate Change is just the vehicle being used to push the Marxist ideology to redistribute wealth to destroy the economies of the industrialized nations.

Sources:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/03/23/how-do-we-know-that-humans-are-causing-climate-change-these-nine-lines-of-evidence/
Edited on 03-07-2017 00:47
03-07-2017 01:01
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
Glitch wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Then you clearly are not paying attention. Even NASA is blaming humans for all Climate Change. Then you have Ilissa Ocko, PhD, Climate Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), claiming that "We are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer..." and flat out stating that the "science is settled."

Whenever someone claims that "science is settled" you know without a doubt that it has become a religion for them and it is no longer about science. Science is never settled, it is always asking questions and challenging preconceptions.

Currently atmospheric CO2 is 407 ppmv, or 0.0407% of the total atmosphere. According to the EPA the total human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is ~36 billion metric tonnes. The total weight of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is just over 18 TRILLION metric tonnes. That would put the human contribution at ~0.2% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, or ~0.0000814% = 0.0407% x ~0.2% of the total atmosphere.

We are destroying our economy and spending billions in a vain attempt to reduce 0.00008% of the atmosphere. Talk about pure hubris and abject stupidity. Clearly this is not about Climate Change. Climate Change is just the vehicle being used to push the Marxist ideology to redistribute wealth to destroy the economies of the industrialized nations.

Sources:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/03/23/how-do-we-know-that-humans-are-causing-climate-change-these-nine-lines-of-evidence/


He is clearly paying more attention then you because his numbers are right and yours are not.


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.
03-07-2017 03:33
still learning
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Glitch wrote:
....Currently atmospheric CO2 is 407 ppmv, or 0.0407% of the total atmosphere. According to the EPA the total human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is ~36 billion metric tonnes. The total weight of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is just over 18 TRILLION metric tonnes. That would put the human contribution at ~0.2% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, or ~0.0000814% = 0.0407% x ~0.2% of the total atmosphere.....


I didn't find your numbers in the site you linked to, nor in my own searching around.

The numbers that I come up with:
The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.15 x 10^15 metric tons.(can provide allink, if desired)

Figuring the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 400 ppmv, (5.15 x 10^15 tonne) x (400 x 10^-6) x (44/29) = 3.13 x 10^12 tonne or 3.13 trilllion metric tons. (The 44/29 is the molecular weight ratios of carbon dioxide and approximately average air)

The increase ascribed to humans is about 115/400 of 3.13 x 10^12 or 0.90 x 10^12 tonne, or 900 billion tonne.

That "~36 billion metric tonnes" looks like it might be the global annual anthropogenic CO2 output.
03-07-2017 03:43
litesong
★★★★☆
(1159)
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote: That would put the human contribution at ~0.2% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere...

The [b]increase
ascribed to humans is ~.... 900 billion tonne.
That "~36 billion metric tonnes" looks like it might be the global annual anthropogenic CO2 output.

Its good you point out that Glitch, glitched.
03-07-2017 16:45
James_
★★☆☆☆
(305)
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


From what I understand it's that CO2 is accelerating climate change. While CO2 is 0.04% by volume meaning that man is responsible for about 0.01% which when factored might make Glitch right. There is something that might need to be considered. It is possible that CO2 has an exponential effect on our environment. To date I would say that not enough research has been done to say the specific warming or cooling effect CO2 has on our atmosphere. And as I've mentioned before, an increase of 10% increases the frequency of ice ages. Instead of every 100,000 years like we have now it becomes every 40,000 years. That change isn't understood.
This is where I tend to think ozone plays a role in that because an increase in CO2 allows for an increase in ozone at the same time. So even if CO2 warms our atmosphere the relationship it has with ozone might allow for a greater cooling effect. At the moment we don't know.
03-07-2017 17:30
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
James_ wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


From what I understand it's that CO2 is accelerating climate change. While CO2 is 0.04% by volume meaning that man is responsible for about 0.01% which when factored might make Glitch right. There is something that might need to be considered. It is possible that CO2 has an exponential effect on our environment. To date I would say that not enough research has been done to say the specific warming or cooling effect CO2 has on our atmosphere. And as I've mentioned before, an increase of 10% increases the frequency of ice ages. Instead of every 100,000 years like we have now it becomes every 40,000 years. That change isn't understood.
This is where I tend to think ozone plays a role in that because an increase in CO2 allows for an increase in ozone at the same time. So even if CO2 warms our atmosphere the relationship it has with ozone might allow for a greater cooling effect. At the moment we don't know.


You know you are right their is a lot we don't know, but there is allot we do know, from my rather sketchy knowledge of the subject I believe you made some errors and unsupportable suppositions. But tell me; how much additional research exactly do we need before we start doing something about pollution?


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.
03-07-2017 18:54
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(514)
We should curb pollution at all cost. CO2 however is not pollution.


Fartsong wrote: Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!
03-07-2017 19:26
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Glitch wrote:
"When you have people who don't know much about science, standing in denial of it and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," warns Tyson. [1:00]

I would also argue that when you have people who attempt to use bad pseudo-science in order to push a political ideology, that is a recipe for discrediting science as a whole. Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable if we had an educated populace instead of an indoctrinated one.


What is far more of a problem is that people who know nothing whatsoever about science are those that have invented and are using the term "denier". In fact, most of the people "denying" are scientists.
03-07-2017 19:40
James_
★★☆☆☆
(305)
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


From what I understand it's that CO2 is accelerating climate change. While CO2 is 0.04% by volume meaning that man is responsible for about 0.01% which when factored might make Glitch right. There is something that might need to be considered. It is possible that CO2 has an exponential effect on our environment. To date I would say that not enough research has been done to say the specific warming or cooling effect CO2 has on our atmosphere. And as I've mentioned before, an increase of 10% increases the frequency of ice ages. Instead of every 100,000 years like we have now it becomes every 40,000 years. That change isn't understood.
This is where I tend to think ozone plays a role in that because an increase in CO2 allows for an increase in ozone at the same time. So even if CO2 warms our atmosphere the relationship it has with ozone might allow for a greater cooling effect. At the moment we don't know.


You know you are right their is a lot we don't know, but there is allot we do know, from my rather sketchy knowledge of the subject I believe you made some errors and unsupportable suppositions. But tell me; how much additional research exactly do we need before we start doing something about pollution?


Spot,
As far as pollution goes, reducing fluorocarbons and waste heat should receive consideration. Fluorocarbons have a lot to do with smog and general quality of the air we breathe. With waste heat, it helps to increase the effects of solar radiation as far as warming our planet goes.
I have ried raising interest in Kentucky (I live there) in reducing waste heat from coal fired power plants. Heat is probably the #1 issue why more hasn't been done to lower emissions. The experiment that I've been pursuing in Atmospheric Chemistry comes from a process I thought might help to reduce emissions from coal fired power plants.

As far as the research goes I'd say my experiment (I did post on Neil deGrasse Tyson's facebook page aout my experiment an how a change in atmospheric temperature might be calculated differently to show atmospheric gases storing heat at night), thermal conductivity of atmospheric gases (their ability to absorb and transport heat), heat from hydrothermal vents, deep faults and under water volcanoes and the specific ability of ozone to reduce heat and CO2's role in our atmosphere. With CO2 if it can be shown to support or increase the quantity of Champan cycles occurring in the stratosphere then how does that play into CO2's warming potential ?
And if possible can F-gases (fluorine) and chlorine-bromide levels be lowered in our atmosphere ? F-gases should probably be #1 on that list. Needless to say I think ground water depletion and loss of green space also helps to warm our planet. Plants absorb solar radiation and water is believed to lessen the amount of refracted light that stays in our atmosphere. There are some other things to consider but with those I think we'd have a good idea of what we might need to be discussing as far as protecting our environment goes.
Edited on 03-07-2017 19:42
03-07-2017 20:35
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Glitch wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Then you clearly are not paying attention. Even NASA is blaming humans for all Climate Change. Then you have Ilissa Ocko, PhD, Climate Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), claiming that "We are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer..." and flat out stating that the "science is settled."

Whenever someone claims that "science is settled" you know without a doubt that it has become a religion for them and it is no longer about science. Science is never settled, it is always asking questions and challenging preconceptions.

Currently atmospheric CO2 is 407 ppmv, or 0.0407% of the total atmosphere. According to the EPA the total human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is ~36 billion metric tonnes. The total weight of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is just over 18 TRILLION metric tonnes. That would put the human contribution at ~0.2% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, or ~0.0000814% = 0.0407% x ~0.2% of the total atmosphere.

We are destroying our economy and spending billions in a vain attempt to reduce 0.00008% of the atmosphere. Talk about pure hubris and abject stupidity. Clearly this is not about Climate Change. Climate Change is just the vehicle being used to push the Marxist ideology to redistribute wealth to destroy the economies of the industrialized nations.

Sources:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/03/23/how-do-we-know-that-humans-are-causing-climate-change-these-nine-lines-of-evidence/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

"Total atmospheric mass is 5.1480×10^18 kg"

= 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes
x 0.0004 = ~ 2.059 x 10^9 tonnes CO2

Of this man has contributed ~ 0.25% or ~ 515 billion tonnes over 131 years or about 4 billion tonnes per year.

That sounds like a lot but CO2 despite some theories is quite short lived in the air due to photosynthesis. So you have a constant rotation of CO2 though the air. CO2 in very well mixed in the troposphere via the processes of conduction and convection. Very little of the heat that makes it to the ground moves away from the Earth via radiation.

By using faulty or outright phony scaling of terms they show a connection between CO2 growth and atmospheric heating.

Actually the urban growth curve from the entire growth around the globe makes an almost identical match.

So is it CO2 growth that is causing increased heating or urban growth?

The fact is that MOST of the ground temperature measuring sites are in urban areas. In these areas we have the Urban Heat Island Effect in which the massive growth of cities has substantially heated the surrounding areas without the surrounding Urban areas showing the same heating.

NASA is well aware of this as is NOAA. So what is going on?

NOAA's curves released to the public appear in this manner:

(NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

But if you look you will see the largest heating in that chart between 1979 and present where we have heated according to the chart some 0.8 C. (the "expert" predictions were over 10 C.)

But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

(Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.)

As you can see - the AVERAGE heating during these same years is ZERO.

So NASA and NOAA provided faulty science quite purposely when they had the information that showed that their "heating" was nothing more than Urban Heat Island Effect.
04-07-2017 17:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?


It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference.

The graphs you are showing is propaganda put out by NASA.

Satellites can only see light. They are not thermometers. That light is a combination of what is reflected from Earth plus the Planck radiance coming from Earth as a substance. It is not possible to separate the two.

The system does not eliminate time as a statistical factor. Time is significant.

The system does not have enough points of measurement to statistically determine temperature to a useful accuracy. Temperature gradient is significant and must be incorporated into the calculation of the margin of error.

Picking over which graph means what is really just a waste of time.

The first question that must be asked is:

What is the definition of 'global warming' without using a circular argument?
or
What is the definition of 'climate change' without using a circular argument?

'Greenhouse effect' is not a definition for either, since it itself is based on the definition of the either of the first two phrases: That component X is responsible for 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

Listing disaster scenarios is not an answer. It is a redirection.


The Parrot Killer
04-07-2017 18:06
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(514)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?


It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference.

This is interesting...

Not satellite knowledgeable so forgive me. Are you saying they only measure the difference in temp between each orbit? If so that would be wildly inaccurate simply due to air movement. It would take 1000 years to get an accurate trend.


Fartsong wrote: Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!
04-07-2017 18:49
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?
It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference.


In short you are a moron. If you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about I suggest you just shut up. I've about had it with you idiots shooting your mouths off from a position of absolute ignorance.
04-07-2017 19:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?


It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference.

This is interesting...

Not satellite knowledgeable so forgive me. Are you saying they only measure the difference in temp between each orbit? If so that would be wildly inaccurate simply due to air movement. It would take 1000 years to get an accurate trend.


They actually don't measure temperature at all.

They measure light.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is:

radiance = SB constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

Using algebra, it is possible to rearrange this equation to calculate a temperature if you know the radiance given off by a substance and its emissivity (the inverse of albedo).

Emissivity is a measured value. It is done by comparing a radiance of a surface from an accurately measured temperature, and comparing that to either ideal reference point (the ideal black body and the ideal white body, neither of which exist in nature).

In other words, to get an idea of emissivity, you MUST know the temperature of the surface to begin with.

We do not know the emissivity of Earth. We do not know the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. Thus the satellite cannot determine the absolute temperature. They were initially calibrated against a 30% gray card (the assumed albedo of Earth). We do not know the drift that has occurred since then.

The satellite system measure changes in radiance as it passes. This essentially creates a moving spot (rather large and fuzzy) of the radiance at a particular time. In the time it takes to orbit, it can get an idea of the differences in radiance coming from various parts of Earth.

You are correct. The atmosphere is constantly on the move. Weather moves. Temperatures change constantly. This is the time component that is significant anytime you try to average temperatures. It must be eliminated to calculate any average (the thermometers must be read simultaneously).

The other significant factor is location. It's influence must be eliminated. Thermometers must be uniformly space around the Earth as well. Concentrating them as we do in cities introduces bias.

Correcting for 'city factor' or any other factor is not allowed. That creates a math error in statistics known as preselection. You don't know how much to 'correct' for, since that number comes out of the statistical analysis that was never properly run. You MUST use the raw data, independent of any aspect of that data (such as location grouping and time). Correcting for things like heat island effects is not allowed.

Any statistical analysis must also be able to calculate the margin of error. This calculation does not come from the population of thermometers, but from the possible temperature gradient per given distance...say a mile. Temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F have been observed in a single mile.

Here, in Seattle, just yesterday, a gradient of 2 deg F per mile was observed. We're a pretty benign weather pattern here too. I have seen steeper gradients here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-07-2017 19:07
04-07-2017 19:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?
It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference.


In short you are a moron. If you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about I suggest you just shut up. I've about had it with you idiots shooting your mouths off from a position of absolute ignorance.


Go get someone to help you with your anger before you hurt someone.


The Parrot Killer
04-07-2017 19:45
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?


It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference.

This is interesting...

Not satellite knowledgeable so forgive me. Are you saying they only measure the difference in temp between each orbit? If so that would be wildly inaccurate simply due to air movement. It would take 1000 years to get an accurate trend.


They actually don't measure temperature at all.

They measure light.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is:

radiance = SB constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

Using algebra, it is possible to rearrange this equation to calculate a temperature if you know the radiance given off by a substance and its emissivity (the inverse of albedo).

Emissivity is a measured value. It is done by comparing a radiance of a surface from an accurately measured temperature, and comparing that to either ideal reference point (the ideal black body and the ideal white body, neither of which exist in nature).

In other words, to get an idea of emissivity, you MUST know the temperature of the surface to begin with.

We do not know the emissivity of Earth. We do not know the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. Thus the satellite cannot determine the absolute temperature. They were initially calibrated against a 30% gray card (the assumed albedo of Earth). We do not know the drift that has occurred since then.

The satellite system measure changes in radiance as it passes. This essentially creates a moving spot (rather large and fuzzy) of the radiance at a particular time. In the time it takes to orbit, it can get an idea of the differences in radiance coming from various parts of Earth.

You are correct. The atmosphere is constantly on the move. Weather moves. Temperatures change constantly. This is the time component that is significant anytime you try to average temperatures. It must be eliminated to calculate any average (the thermometers must be read simultaneously).

The other significant factor is location. It's influence must be eliminated. Thermometers must be uniformly space around the Earth as well. Concentrating them as we do in cities introduces bias.

Correcting for 'city factor' or any other factor is not allowed. That creates a math error in statistics known as preselection. You don't know how much to 'correct' for, since that number comes out of the statistical analysis that was never properly run. You MUST use the raw data, independent of any aspect of that data (such as location grouping and time). Correcting for things like heat island effects is not allowed.

Any statistical analysis must also be able to calculate the margin of error. This calculation does not come from the population of thermometers, but from the possible temperature gradient per given distance...say a mile. Temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F have been observed in a single mile.

Here, in Seattle, just yesterday, a gradient of 2 deg F per mile was observed. We're a pretty benign weather pattern here too. I have seen steeper gradients here.


"We don't know the emissivity if the Earth"

http://faculty.poly.edu/~rlevicky/Handout6.pdf

"Correcting for 'city factor' or any other factor is not allowed. That creates a math error in statistics known as preselection. You don't know how much to 'correct' for, since that number comes out of the statistical analysis that was never properly run. You MUST use the raw data, independent of any aspect of that data (such as location grouping and time). Correcting for things like heat island effects is not allowed."

You cannot understand what is being said so you simply invent your own meanings for things. Not a surprise.

"Any statistical analysis must also be able to calculate the margin of error."

You then go on the prove that you don't even KNOW what a margin of error is.

"It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference."

You don't even know how the camera in your Iphone works do you?

I suggest you get a grade school education before going any further.
04-07-2017 20:04
litesong
★★★★☆
(1159)
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.

On top of that, almost 99% of the atmosphere is NOT GHGs. Therefore, AGW denier liar whiners, who state that man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing CO2 GHG effect is only 0.00008%, can't figure that man-made CO2 GHG effect has elevated total CO2 GHG effect by 1+ percent, already.... with much more increase to come. We ain't even talkin' about other man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs yet & their positive feedbacks. Of course, AGW denier liar whiners never mention increasing phase change infra-red energy absorbing water vapor as a positive feedback to increasing man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs.
12-07-2017 18:40
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.
12-07-2017 18:43
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
But NASA has Earth satellites in orbit specifically to measure global temperatures and what do they show?


It is not possible to measure the global temperature with a satellite or even a satellite system. These satellites can only show relative temperatures of different areas at short time intervals (orbital periods) difference.

This is interesting...

Not satellite knowledgeable so forgive me. Are you saying they only measure the difference in temp between each orbit? If so that would be wildly inaccurate simply due to air movement. It would take 1000 years to get an accurate trend.


Thermal radiation is electromagnetic waves - radio waves if you like - that show the amount of energy leaving the earth.

Whereas in the troposphere energy motion is almost entirely by conduction and convection, when this heat arrives at the stratosphere it can only exit via radiation and so this is totally measurable.
12-07-2017 18:47
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


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.
12-07-2017 18:50
litesong
★★★★☆
(1159)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:... a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.

Its good to see "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up", even when corrected, still believes in its incorrect mathematics & "sigh-ants".
Edited on 12-07-2017 18:51
12-07-2017 19:04
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?
12-07-2017 19:18
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't

What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.


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.
12-07-2017 19:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't
Actually a well reasoned argument.
spot wrote:
What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

Science isn't credentials.
spot wrote:
None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.

Meteorology is a communist plot???

Are you trying to say 'climate' is a science???


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 21:24
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't

What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.


A moron by his own words identified.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
15-07-2017 21:58
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't

What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.


A moron by his own words identified.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


I might also note: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

There is a significance that I doubt you understand to this paper: It shows the pressure in the troposphere at which point that conduction and convention are overcome by radiation.

I doubt with your idea that you can think too, you understand what this implies but then it's all a communist plot and nothing to do with science that you couldn't understand right?
15-07-2017 22:43
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't

What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.


A moron by his own words identified.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


I might also note: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

There is a significance that I doubt you understand to this paper: It shows the pressure in the troposphere at which point that conduction and convention are overcome by radiation.

I doubt with your idea that you can think too, you understand what this implies but then it's all a communist plot and nothing to do with science that you couldn't understand right?


Its the sort of bat droppings Into the night is into. The atmosphere is not a literal greenhouse, gosh.

Significant.


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.
15-07-2017 22:51
Wake
★★★★☆
(1437)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't

What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.


A moron by his own words identified.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


I might also note: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

There is a significance that I doubt you understand to this paper: It shows the pressure in the troposphere at which point that conduction and convention are overcome by radiation.

I doubt with your idea that you can think too, you understand what this implies but then it's all a communist plot and nothing to do with science that you couldn't understand right?


Its the sort of bat droppings Into the night is into. The atmosphere is not a literal greenhouse, gosh.

Significant.


Am I surprised that not only can't you understand the paper - you couldn't even read it.
16-07-2017 18:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(2898)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't

What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.


A moron by his own words identified.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


I might also note: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

There is a significance that I doubt you understand to this paper: It shows the pressure in the troposphere at which point that conduction and convention are overcome by radiation.

I doubt with your idea that you can think too, you understand what this implies but then it's all a communist plot and nothing to do with science that you couldn't understand right?


Its the sort of bat droppings Into the night is into. The atmosphere is not a literal greenhouse, gosh.

Significant.


Then why do you call it the 'greenhouse effect'?

Greenhouses work by reducing heat, specifically convective heat.

The atmosphere doesn't do that.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2017 20:59
spot
★★★☆☆
(845)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Glitch wrote:
...Such as blaming 0.00008% of the atmosphere that all humanity contributes as being the SOLE cause for all Climate Change. The absurdity of it would be laughable....


That would be absurd. But I don't recall anybody claiming that.

The claim that I'm aware of is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 285 parts per million by volume to about 400 ppm is responsible for a small amount of global warming and that a continued increase will eventually be troublesome. About 285 to 400 ppm so far, 115 parts per million total so far, or 0.0115% of the total atmosphere. That 0.00008% is off by a factor of over 100.


Wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space"

The increase of 285 ppm to 400 ppm is ~.0003% to .0004% or an immeasurably small amount to an immeasurably small amount as far as normal science is concerned.

So yes they are blaming the entire global warming on a 0.0001% change in the atmosphere.


Dumbest argument ever, a small amount of something has no effect, so that 400mg of ibuprofen can't possibly affect 70,000,000mg me?


Now you're comparing CO2 to Ibuprofen? Why does that not surprise me?


Despite the fact you go on about how your qualified and nobody is qualified to question your pronouncements your argument is not a scientific argument. You are appealing to common sense saying that because its such a small amount it can't possibly have an effect, I am using an analogy that shows using common sense that that is not always true. and it isen't

What qualifications do you have in Atmospheric science?

None I bet so we are both at least equally qualified to offer our view on it, In fact I believe I understand that branch of science far more then you because despite the fact I have no formal training you seem to have a blind spot about it and have convinced yourself its all a communist plot and believe things that are demonstrably untrue.


A moron by his own words identified.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


I might also note: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

There is a significance that I doubt you understand to this paper: It shows the pressure in the troposphere at which point that conduction and convention are overcome by radiation.

I doubt with your idea that you can think too, you understand what this implies but then it's all a communist plot and nothing to do with science that you couldn't understand right?


Its the sort of bat droppings Into the night is into. The atmosphere is not a literal greenhouse, gosh.

Significant.


Then why do you call it the 'greenhouse effect'?

Greenhouses work by reducing heat, specifically convective heat.

The atmosphere doesn't do that.


To confuse stupid people for a joke.


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.




Join the debate Neil Degrasse Tyson video:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Video: Hitler Finds Out Climate Change is Real418-07-2017 15:32
I made this video on Climate Change to try and educate kids to help spread awareness about this serious t2512-11-2015 22:15
VERY Good video009-11-2012 08:10
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


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