XKCD earth temperarture;

spot wrote:
You could be right they remind me a bit of http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land they have same pompous, mindset except instead of amusingly, worryingly twisting the laws of man they twist the laws of physics.

At least they are harmless.

spot wrote:
To continue your analogy they are saying that there is no danger because water is not wet and you can breath water anyway and that there is no such thing as sharks, whats more if you disagree you're a Sharkozombie, It's clearly absurd. If the crowd are dumb enough to believe that then we are all doomed.

I don't think that's the problem these two are a distraction most I know people are aware that there is a problem the problem is what exactly do we do about it.

I don't have a car and do my shopping with my bike, not due to moral superiority just that in my current circumstance it makes financial sense, people are shocked when I tell them.

spot wrote:
This is dangerous because it sounds reasonable, its not clearly insane. However its based on wrong assumptions. I think if nothing is done to tackle global warming based on your stats wherever you got them from the poorest billion will have no reason to thank you far from it they will suffer the most.

spot wrote:
This is dangerous because it sounds reasonable, its not clearly insane. However its based on wrong assumptions. I think if nothing is done to tackle global warming based on your stats wherever you got them from the poorest billion will have no reason to thank you far from it they will suffer the most.

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.

jwoodward48 wrote:
That 2%? You just pulled it out of your ass. When we want to discuss temperatures, you want EXACT DIRECT MEASUREMENTS. When you want a number, you just think and POOF! The exact measurement!

spot wrote:
So your not disputing its real then? I quote from the piece your referring to;

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

Interesting and thanks for bringing that to our attention but I still agree with DKRTS;

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's always fun when people quote-mine, then link to what they quote-mined.

Also, are you seriously claiming that a 40% increase in food costs (which can be more than offset by many people by eating out less) is comparable to a 100% decrease in gasoline costs? Or that a bike costs more than a car? His actions have reduced his carbon footprint. Then you try to move the conversation to poverty, wile attempting to make some kind of comparison. You can't. He's spending less money to stop gw, while the poor are not spending anything.

Besides, if you're so concerned about the poor, we could just tax the multibillionaires. There. Problem solved. [selfmocking](Everybody come buy my all-solving 'tax the rich' reptile extract!)[/selfmocking]

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
So your not disputing its real then? I quote from the piece your referring to;

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

Interesting and thanks for bringing that to our attention but I still agree with DKRTS;

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.

If you don't follow the AGW cult you will be sacked by the BBC.

Why would any scientist ever ramble on about something that was not in the paper he was talking about?

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
So your not disputing its real then? I quote from the piece your referring to;

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

Interesting and thanks for bringing that to our attention but I still agree with DKRTS;

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.

If you don't follow the AGW cult you will be sacked by the BBC.

Why would any scientist ever ramble on about something that was not in the paper he was talking about?

So why does Andrew Neil still work for them? another false assertion from you,

On your second point, So the Prof Ranga Myneni does not know what he's talking about? why link his work as if he's an authority then?

Tim the plumber wrote:
I was making the point that increased CO2 makes the plants grow better.

DRKTS wrote:No, more CO2 makes SOME plants grow better,

DRKTS wrote:but if, and only if, the light, temperature and water is maintained at optimum levels.

DRKTS wrote:The trouble is that with increasing temperatures the soil moisture levels drop and the plants die or become stunted.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.

Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.

Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.

Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!

Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.

Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!

Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of individual molecules. Temperature is generally defined as a macroscopic property of an assembly of particles and is related to the average energy of those particles. In a drop of water at a uniform temperature, for example, the individual molecules have a wide range of energies and are constantly transferring energy from one to another.

How does this relate to the distinction between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases?

jwoodward48 wrote:
...have you ever taken a course on physics?

Molecules themselves do not have temperature. Temperature is a description of the overall energies of all molecules within a substance.

Edit: Sorry, was ninjaed. Referring to Into's post.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.

Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!

Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of individual molecules. Temperature is generally defined as a macroscopic property of an assembly of particles and is related to the average energy of those particles. In a drop of water at a uniform temperature, for example, the individual molecules have a wide range of energies and are constantly transferring energy from one to another.

How does this relate to the distinction between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases?

No, temperature CAN refer to an individual molecule. You are evading the question.

Is oxygen in the atmosphere a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Now I know that if you ever did take a course on physics, you either slept through it or it's been several decades since college. (Or maybe you only took an introductory course?)

jwoodward48 wrote:
By all means. In fact, I'll even write it now.

"I'm sorry, Into, for accusing you of not having had an extended scientific education due to your having said what I believed to be a falsehood. My disagreement was fine and nothing to apologize for, but the insult was not."

In fact, I'll write an apology that applies during what I believe to be the current situation (i.e., I am right).

"I'm sorry, Into. When I was wrong, you politely pointed out my mistakes, and I should have returned that favour. I was frustrated with your apparent lack of knowledge, but I should have done to you what I would have wanted to be done to myself. As someone who has made many mistakes, I know that the lack of a specific piece of knowledge is both nothing to shame someone for and not indicative of an overall lack of knowledge. I was angry at IB when he did this to me, but taking it out on you is inappropriate and worsens my relationship with the one skeptic here (not including semiskeptics or "actual skeptics" who think gw exists) who is polite and knowledgeable. I am working on becoming more polite online, and I hope that you accept my second apology for taking out my frustration with IB out on you."

(No, I did not write this just to spite you. I'm simply less nasty than you are. I also care about what Into thinks of me, and you happened to point out something rude that I had said.)

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.

Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!

Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of individual molecules. Temperature is generally defined as a macroscopic property of an assembly of particles and is related to the average energy of those particles. In a drop of water at a uniform temperature, for example, the individual molecules have a wide range of energies and are constantly transferring energy from one to another.

How does this relate to the distinction between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases?

No, temperature CAN refer to an individual molecule. You are evading the question.

Is oxygen in the atmosphere a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

I'm not evading the question; your question about single molecules simply doesn't make sense. The particles making up a substance have a distribution of energies, and it is this distribution that defines the temperature of the substance. This is true regardless of whether the particles are identical or not.

What does this have to do with your ridiculous assertion that oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Now I know that if you ever did take a course on physics, you either slept through it or it's been several decades since college. (Or maybe you only took an introductory course?)

The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a substance's molecules determines its temperature. Individual molecules do not have M-B distributions, and so do not have a correlating temperature.

jwoodward48 wrote:
By all means. In fact, I'll even write it now.

"I'm sorry, Into, for accusing you of not having had an extended scientific education due to your having said what I believed to be a falsehood. My disagreement was fine and nothing to apologize for, but the insult was not."

In fact, I'll write an apology that applies during what I believe to be the current situation (i.e., I am right).

"I'm sorry, Into. When I was wrong, you politely pointed out my mistakes, and I should have returned that favour. I was frustrated with your apparent lack of knowledge, but I should have done to you what I would have wanted to be done to myself. As someone who has made many mistakes, I know that the lack of a specific piece of knowledge is both nothing to shame someone for and not indicative of an overall lack of knowledge. I was angry at IB when he did this to me, but taking it out on you is inappropriate and worsens my relationship with the one skeptic here (not including semiskeptics or "actual skeptics" who think gw exists) who is polite and knowledgeable. I am working on becoming more polite online, and I hope that you accept my second apology for taking out my frustration with IB out on you."

(No, I did not write this just to spite you. I'm simply less nasty than you are. I also care about what Into thinks of me, and you happened to point out something rude that I had said.)

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
By all means. In fact, I'll even write it now.

"I'm sorry, Into, for accusing you of not having had an extended scientific education due to your having said what I believed to be a falsehood. My disagreement was fine and nothing to apologize for, but the insult was not."

In fact, I'll write an apology that applies during what I believe to be the current situation (i.e., I am right).

"I'm sorry, Into. When I was wrong, you politely pointed out my mistakes, and I should have returned that favour. I was frustrated with your apparent lack of knowledge, but I should have done to you what I would have wanted to be done to myself. As someone who has made many mistakes, I know that the lack of a specific piece of knowledge is both nothing to shame someone for and not indicative of an overall lack of knowledge. I was angry at IB when he did this to me, but taking it out on you is inappropriate and worsens my relationship with the one skeptic here (not including semiskeptics or "actual skeptics" who think gw exists) who is polite and knowledgeable. I am working on becoming more polite online, and I hope that you accept my second apology for taking out my frustration with IB out on you."

(No, I did not write this just to spite you. I'm simply less nasty than you are. I also care about what Into thinks of me, and you happened to point out something rude that I had said.)

IBdaMann's probably dug around and found some specialist paper talking about the effective temperatures of molecules in electronic devices or suchlike, and he doesn't realise that this is completely different to the usual definition of temperature in gases. It's sad, but funny, how desperate he is for his moment of glory.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Before anything else, calm down. (I can't read tone well, but you seem angry.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
First of all, what was wrong with my apology?

jwoodward48 wrote:
I was angry because of IB.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I was frustrated with your repeated assertions that went against basic physics.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I wrote one nasty post.

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB has wrote hundreds.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep your consistency. If I agreed with you, would you still do this after I wrote a few nasty posts to someone else?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Second, what are these questions that you've answered "again and again"?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind that I /complimented/ you on your patience, tried to find a good diplomatic term for your group, even noted the many ways that you had taught and convinced me things.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I think that I've made progress in understanding both the science and your position.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, note how IB's arguments contain only a dozen things. Total. For all posts. His posts haven't changed for years, or at least a cursory look through the archives seems to suggest that.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Third, if you're upset at the flame war between me and IB,

jwoodward48 wrote:
consider how our talks have had problems, but were overall much better.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Then note how my welcome to these forums was written by IB.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's in one of the lower-section threads, I'll post it later. IB is pretty much a jerk.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I have been a jerk back to him.
I won't deny that.

jwoodward48 wrote:
But he's pretty nasty to anyone who disagrees with him, even if it later turns out he was mistaken.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's been nice talking with you. I hope it doesn't end this way.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, my posts to you were unacceptable and violate even the most lenient philosophy of "tit for tat" - that is, they were unprovoked.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm sorry. I should not have written them.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm planning on waiting five minutes before posting in the future, because some of my posts make me sad. I'm not perfect, but I'm getting better. Please? Can we keep trying?