| 16-10-2020 23:03 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
keepit wrote:
IBD, Don't forget, the density of co2 is increasing.
You probably should've said "saturation". It's density does change but in this forum, that would be more a matter of ionization possibly on the elemental level.
When the carbon and oxygen atoms become positively ionized, this could theoretically decrease the density of CO2. If you consider "heat" lightning in clouds, that's an electrical charge (flow of electrons).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti90xMR51dc |
| 17-10-2020 00:49 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD, Don't forget, the density of co2 is increasing.
You probably should've said "saturation".
Saturation has nothing to do with it. Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
It's density does change but in this forum, that would be more a matter of ionization possibly on the elemental level. Buzzword fallacy. Ionization has nothing to do with that conversation.
James___ wrote:
When the carbon and oxygen atoms become positively ionized, this could theoretically decrease the density of CO2. Ionization does not change density nor pressure nor humidify nor temperature nor concentration.
James___ wrote:
If you consider "heat" lightning in clouds, that's an electrical charge (flow of electrons).
Electrical charge is not the flow of electrons. A volt is not an ampere. Buzzword fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 17-10-2020 00:49 |
| 17-10-2020 03:16 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
Electrical charge is not the flow of electrons. A volt is not an ampere. Buzzword fallacy.
Parrot buzzword fallacy? |
| 17-10-2020 08:44 |
Spongy Iris ★★★★☆
(1643) |
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
The bot who shall not be named keeps parroting how you can't decrease entropy of a system.
The law which the bot is citing is not applicable to the debate.
It is pointed out CO2 increases the density of the atmosphere. This shows that the bot's parroted line is not applicable.
The bot deflects, in a feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory, by saying:
density is not entropy;
no gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.
The bot has doubled down, now making 2 statements which are not applicable to the debate.
In a separate debate, which is applicable to this argument, I asked this bot if it understood what happens when you inflate a bicycle tire. Then it started talking about aliens.
The bot will probably now try to break up my text to deny each point in another feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory.
Spong, the "parrot killer" is the parrot. The parrot's purpose is to not consider why existence "is". The parrot's purpose is only to that we exist because we "are". Why does corn grow in Iowa? Because it does.
Can we change how corn grows in Iowa? No we can't. Just ask GasGuzzler. Iowa grows the same corn it always has.
Prayer meeting will be at 09:00 hours Monday morning. Attendance is not mandatory because you will be there.
This is why I call it a bot. It doesn't even have enough free will to form its own positions on an anonymous internet forum. It is a slave to Denial.
It's greatest exercise of freedom is playing silly word games. But otherwise a slave.
It's an infestation here. |
| 17-10-2020 09:06 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.
Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.
PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)
Well I'm no physics genius, like all the bots in here, but I think increased density would lead to more convection and/or conduction, which could increase heat, right? I haven't heard anybody here say CO2 is generating radiation (except for that annoying bot who keeps accusing everybody else of saying it). |
|
| 17-10-2020 09:32 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Bot can't explain how Adding CO2 to atmosphere wouldn't increase density of atmosphere.
Bot answers CO2 is part of atmosphere, which is not applicable to the question.
Bot is saying the existing CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase density, to deflect from the question about Adding CO2.
How would you measure atmospheric density, of the entire planet, for any given moment in time? Not everything in the atmosphere, stays in the atmosphere. The composition of the atmosphere, isn't consistent global, all the time. CO2 is variable, plants use quite a bit, when available. CO2 is about 0.04%. Water vapor is 0.0 - 4.0%, just needs to rain, to change the density. It's not all gasses and vapors either. There is also dust, and other particulates (ash, from California wildfires). CO2 is a trace gas, and man made contributions are still very small, compared to the total. Extremely insignificant, in the grand scheme of things. Plants are growing a little more consistently, maybe...
1) There is no dispute among scientists that CO2 in atmosphere has increased substantially.
2) There is no dispute among scientists that ice at the north pole has decreased substantially.
There may be some dispute if 1 causes 2...
Water vapor and CO2 are both an extremely small % of the atmosphere.
But there's enough water vapor to cause very extreme storms, as you must witness every year in FL. And it does not appear clouds would be able to form without CO2 and from water alone.
The CO2 % in a can of soda is not much higher a % than in the atmosphere. But it makes a huge difference. Just try chugging a can of soda like it's water.
Ozone in the atmosphere is an even smaller % than CO2, but probably nobody here would dispute it's significance in blocking UV-C radiation... |
| 17-10-2020 09:42 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
duncan61 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.
Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.
PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)
Air includes CO2, James.
Um, it's still hotter in Australia. I guess in America, the only thing worth talking about is the weather.
The September I just lived through was 2.C cooler than the average for Perth.How can it be 22 on Monday 29 on Tuesday and back to 22 on Wednesday
I'll have to get back to you on this. This has to do with the southern oscillation and the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. If it takes me a week or 2 to get back at you, don't be surprised.
Not to be an a$$hole when that is what I am, the western 1/3rd of Australia is WA. Is the 2º C. have anything to do with the north? Thermodynamics says hot goes to cold.
Did the Southern Ocean cool for some reason? These guys up here know about none of this. They might not be aware that the Arctic and not the Antarctic had a hole in it's ozone layer. Because of Australia burning there was an SSW event above Antarctica.
Edited on 17-10-2020 09:50 |
| 17-10-2020 21:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.
Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.
PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)
Well I'm no physics genius,
Obviously.
Spongy Iris wrote:
like all the bots in here,
No bots here. You failed the Turing test.
Spongy Iris wrote:
but I think increased density would lead to more convection and/or conduction, which could increase heat, right?
Heat has no temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I haven't heard anybody here say CO2 is generating radiation (except for that annoying bot who keeps accusing everybody else of saying it).
You have said it. You are trying to increase temperature (which requires energy) using a magick gas. You can't create energy out of nothing.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 17-10-2020 22:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Bot can't explain how Adding CO2 to atmosphere wouldn't increase density of atmosphere.
Bot answers CO2 is part of atmosphere, which is not applicable to the question.
Bot is saying the existing CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase density, to deflect from the question about Adding CO2.
How would you measure atmospheric density, of the entire planet, for any given moment in time? Not everything in the atmosphere, stays in the atmosphere. The composition of the atmosphere, isn't consistent global, all the time. CO2 is variable, plants use quite a bit, when available. CO2 is about 0.04%. Water vapor is 0.0 - 4.0%, just needs to rain, to change the density. It's not all gasses and vapors either. There is also dust, and other particulates (ash, from California wildfires). CO2 is a trace gas, and man made contributions are still very small, compared to the total. Extremely insignificant, in the grand scheme of things. Plants are growing a little more consistently, maybe...
1) There is no dispute among scientists that CO2 in atmosphere has increased substantially.
You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Bigotry. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. Math error.
Spongy Iris wrote:
2) There is no dispute among scientists that ice at the north pole has decreased substantially.
You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Bigotry. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice in the Arctic, in the Antarctic, or in the world. Math error.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There may be some dispute if 1 causes 2...
Random numbers do not cause random numbers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Water vapor and CO2 are both an extremely small % of the atmosphere.
Both values are unknown. Math error. It is not possible to measure the global values of either.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But there's enough water vapor to cause very extreme storms, as you must witness every year in FL. And it does not appear clouds would be able to form without CO2 and from water alone.
Condensation of water does not require CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The CO2 % in a can of soda is not much higher a % than in the atmosphere. But it makes a huge difference.
Irrelevant. Strawman fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Just try chugging a can of soda like it's water.
Followed by a large burp. CO2 does not raise the temperature of the soda.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Ozone in the atmosphere is an even smaller % than CO2, but probably nobody here would dispute it's significance in blocking UV-C radiation...
UV-C destroys ozone, converting it to oxygen, blocking all UV-C. UV-B creates ozone from oxygen, blocking most of the UV-B. See the Chapman cycle.
The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 is unknown. It cannot be measured. Math error.
You like to quote a lot of random numbers you make up out of your head (or someone at NASA's head) as data. This is called the argument from randU fallacy. Made up numbers are not data.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 17-10-2020 22:07 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.
Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.
PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)
Air includes CO2, James.
Um, it's still hotter in Australia. I guess in America, the only thing worth talking about is the weather.
The September I just lived through was 2.C cooler than the average for Perth.How can it be 22 on Monday 29 on Tuesday and back to 22 on Wednesday
I'll have to get back to you on this. This has to do with the southern oscillation and the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. If it takes me a week or 2 to get back at you, don't be surprised.
Not to be an a$$hole when that is what I am, the western 1/3rd of Australia is WA. Is the 2º C. have anything to do with the north? Thermodynamics says hot goes to cold.
Did the Southern Ocean cool for some reason? These guys up here know about none of this. They might not be aware that the Arctic and not the Antarctic had a hole in it's ozone layer. Because of Australia burning there was an SSW event above Antarctica.
Both poles naturally develop a 'hole' in the ozone layer during their winter. There is no sun to generate ozone in that region at that time, and ozone is unstable. It decomposes naturally to oxygen over time.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-10-2020 03:59 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer. |
| 18-10-2020 04:39 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
I am so in to this debate I ordered my own CO2 meter and point one is correct.The first measurement was taken at Mauna Loa in 1955 and the CO2 concentration was 280ppm and now it is over 400ppm.My personal reader has gone from 333ppm to over 600ppm.It calibrates every 30 seconds and jumps around a bit.If I blow on it it goes to 6000ppm and under the jeep exhaust it goes to 10,000ppm which must be its max.I have yet to witness any debate about the fact human activity has put more CO2 in the atmosphere.The next problem is so what.The theory is that somehow the CO2 reflects back some sort of energy and has warmed the planet .9 Degree C.Even if this is possible again so what.Wolves and Caribou live through plus 30C in summer to -40 in winter and they are fine how does.9C matter.Its the amounts that matter and I am with Don Easterbrook who states the effect of a tiny bit of CO2 are tiny.My personal big deal is this has been going on for 50 years now and none of the predicted extreme weather events have happened.The sea has not risen and you can not prove it has.2019 and 2020 Hudson bay froze all the way to Ontario and may do it again this year.The ice melts at the poles in summer as the direct sunshine is steady.It is not the atmospheric temperature but the direct sunshine.We are being bluffed and some of you are falling for it.You can not demonstrate one piece of climate variation that is not normal and has not happened before.The fires that have occured were mostly deliberatly lit or started by glass and stuff.It is the poor forest management that is to blame not a tiny percentage of CO2.Last bit for now.Try not to waste all your energy with ITN if the terminology is slightly out that is all that gets the focus.The big deal is are we destroying the planet or not
Attached image:
 |
| 18-10-2020 07:30 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5196) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless. |
| 18-10-2020 18:33 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
@ 1,000 ppm, people would start feeling the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That should translate to about 0.1%. No one has said how CO2 levels outdoors translate into CO2 levels in door.
An example is using natural gas for cooking or for heating. Then there's people and pets breathing. How long does it take the air inside of a building to be replaced by outside air?
When it comes to insulating buildings, any leakage is considered "breathing" which increases the cost of heating or cooling a building. Hence the phrase
"I'm going outside to get some fresh air". That's a literal truth unless you live somewhere with poor air quality. |
| 18-10-2020 21:25 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
@ 1,000 ppm, people would start feeling the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That should translate to about 0.1%. No one has said how CO2 levels outdoors translate into CO2 levels in door.
An example is using natural gas for cooking or for heating. Then there's people and pets breathing. How long does it take the air inside of a building to be replaced by outside air?
When it comes to insulating buildings, any leakage is considered "breathing" which increases the cost of heating or cooling a building. Hence the phrase
"I'm going outside to get some fresh air". That's a literal truth unless you live somewhere with poor air quality.
OSHA set 1200 ppm as a safe indoor level of CO2 to work in. It's not really the CO2, but the lack of oxygen. CO2 is heavier, and will tend to pool down where we breath more. If we kept the air 'fresh' and circulating, 1200 ppm won't be much of a problem, for anyone.
Outside, the air is in constant motion, and plants use up quite a bit of CO2. Even if Mauna Loa records 1200 ppm, doesn't mean every square inch of the planet is blanketed with a heavy layer of CO2. |
|
| 18-10-2020 21:44 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
@ 1,000 ppm, people would start feeling the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That should translate to about 0.1%. No one has said how CO2 levels outdoors translate into CO2 levels in door.
An example is using natural gas for cooking or for heating. Then there's people and pets breathing. How long does it take the air inside of a building to be replaced by outside air?
When it comes to insulating buildings, any leakage is considered "breathing" which increases the cost of heating or cooling a building. Hence the phrase
"I'm going outside to get some fresh air". That's a literal truth unless you live somewhere with poor air quality.
OSHA set 1200 ppm as a safe indoor level of CO2 to work in. It's not really the CO2, but the lack of oxygen. CO2 is heavier, and will tend to pool down where we breath more. If we kept the air 'fresh' and circulating, 1200 ppm won't be much of a problem, for anyone.
Outside, the air is in constant motion, and plants use up quite a bit of CO2. Even if Mauna Loa records 1200 ppm, doesn't mean every square inch of the planet is blanketed with a heavy layer of CO2.
1 mol of CO2 weighs 44.01 grams while 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. While you say OSHA "allows for" the academical community states that at ~ 1000 ppm people start to experience drowsiness and headaches.
I have to wonder if a person who is sleepy can safely operate a forklift. Also, if there is any circulation of air, then CO2 cannot settle. And if it did, it would be on the floor. That's well below the elevation of our respiratory system.
BTW, the readings that Duncan61 took in Australia were consistent with Mauna Loa. And yet you might not understand that salt in water will settle at the bottom of a glass. But with minimal circulation it will evenly disperse.
Just because something is heavier than something else does not mean it will not evenly disperse which CO2 seems to do as well.
It would be beneficial if you learned some physics and that like elements/molecules can repel each other because of having the same charge. With table salt, it's common name is NaCl or simply put, sodium chloride.
When dissolved in water, it actually separates into Na and Cl while those 2 elements will become NaCl again. What if CO2 molecules allows for a lighter gas like N2 to pass through it? Would that excite the CO2 molecule? If so, then if a CO2 molecule can conserve the KE of a lighter molecule, what do you think would happen?
Would that be like a turbine blowing air through itself to generate thrust? Isn't engineering fun? |
| 19-10-2020 19:05 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
duncan61 wrote:
I am so in to this debate I ordered my own CO2 meter and point one is correct.The first measurement was taken at Mauna Loa in 1955 and the CO2 concentration was 280ppm and now it is over 400ppm.My personal reader has gone from 333ppm to over 600ppm.It calibrates every 30 seconds and jumps around a bit.If I blow on it it goes to 6000ppm and under the jeep exhaust it goes to 10,000ppm which must be its max.I have yet to witness any debate about the fact human activity has put more CO2 in the atmosphere.The next problem is so what.The theory is that somehow the CO2 reflects back some sort of energy and has warmed the planet .9 Degree C.Even if this is possible again so what.Wolves and Caribou live through plus 30C in summer to -40 in winter and they are fine how does.9C matter.Its the amounts that matter and I am with Don Easterbrook who states the effect of a tiny bit of CO2 are tiny.My personal big deal is this has been going on for 50 years now and none of the predicted extreme weather events have happened.The sea has not risen and you can not prove it has.2019 and 2020 Hudson bay froze all the way to Ontario and may do it again this year.The ice melts at the poles in summer as the direct sunshine is steady.It is not the atmospheric temperature but the direct sunshine.We are being bluffed and some of you are falling for it.You can not demonstrate one piece of climate variation that is not normal and has not happened before.The fires that have occured were mostly deliberatly lit or started by glass and stuff.It is the poor forest management that is to blame not a tiny percentage of CO2.Last bit for now.Try not to waste all your energy with ITN if the terminology is slightly out that is all that gets the focus.The big deal is are we destroying the planet or not
I used to have the same position as you. So what?
Then I came to believe Earth's atmosphere is a closed container, upon which time I remembered the fun I used to have as a kid making dry ice bombs and blowing them up in the Great Basin Desert.
Have you ever studied the Libyan Glass Fields?
Edited on 19-10-2020 19:16 |
| 19-10-2020 19:11 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
@ 1,000 ppm, people would start feeling the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That should translate to about 0.1%. No one has said how CO2 levels outdoors translate into CO2 levels in door.
An example is using natural gas for cooking or for heating. Then there's people and pets breathing. How long does it take the air inside of a building to be replaced by outside air?
When it comes to insulating buildings, any leakage is considered "breathing" which increases the cost of heating or cooling a building. Hence the phrase
"I'm going outside to get some fresh air". That's a literal truth unless you live somewhere with poor air quality.
Hey in Norway winters, do people leave their windows closed all season long? I'm pretty lucky here in SF and can leave windows open most all the time. Helps avoid illness I find. |
| 19-10-2020 19:15 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
Here's a story from Kai McKinzie who posted in Quora:
"When I was 12, I left a bottle of Dr. Pepper in the freezer. I took it out when it was becoming a sort of carbonated slush. I opened the cap about half way, then the gasses inside forced the cap out. It hit me in the eye at a really high speed. I was blind in my left eye for 5 days after that. Moral of the story: Don't freeze soda." |
| 19-10-2020 20:32 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
duncan61 wrote:
I am so in to this debate I ordered my own CO2 meter and point one is correct.The first measurement was taken at Mauna Loa in 1955 and the CO2 concentration was 280ppm and now it is over 400ppm.My personal reader has gone from 333ppm to over 600ppm.It calibrates every 30 seconds and jumps around a bit.If I blow on it it goes to 6000ppm and under the jeep exhaust it goes to 10,000ppm which must be its max.I have yet to witness any debate about the fact human activity has put more CO2 in the atmosphere.The next problem is so what.The theory is that somehow the CO2 reflects back some sort of energy and has warmed the planet .9 Degree C.Even if this is possible again so what.Wolves and Caribou live through plus 30C in summer to -40 in winter and they are fine how does.9C matter.Its the amounts that matter and I am with Don Easterbrook who states the effect of a tiny bit of CO2 are tiny.My personal big deal is this has been going on for 50 years now and none of the predicted extreme weather events have happened.The sea has not risen and you can not prove it has.2019 and 2020 Hudson bay froze all the way to Ontario and may do it again this year.The ice melts at the poles in summer as the direct sunshine is steady.It is not the atmospheric temperature but the direct sunshine.We are being bluffed and some of you are falling for it.You can not demonstrate one piece of climate variation that is not normal and has not happened before.The fires that have occured were mostly deliberatly lit or started by glass and stuff.It is the poor forest management that is to blame not a tiny percentage of CO2.Last bit for now.Try not to waste all your energy with ITN if the terminology is slightly out that is all that gets the focus.The big deal is are we destroying the planet or not
Oh btw, I saw James theory about the ice in Hudson Bay. A vent at the bottom of the sea floor sealed up 10 years prior.
Speaking of which... If the opposite happened, vents opened up, wouldn't that lower sea levels?
Edited on 19-10-2020 20:45 |
| 19-10-2020 21:02 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
@ 1,000 ppm, people would start feeling the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That should translate to about 0.1%. No one has said how CO2 levels outdoors translate into CO2 levels in door.
An example is using natural gas for cooking or for heating. Then there's people and pets breathing. How long does it take the air inside of a building to be replaced by outside air?
When it comes to insulating buildings, any leakage is considered "breathing" which increases the cost of heating or cooling a building. Hence the phrase
"I'm going outside to get some fresh air". That's a literal truth unless you live somewhere with poor air quality.
Hey in Norway winters, do people leave their windows closed all season long? I'm pretty lucky here in SF and can leave windows open most all the time. Helps avoid illness I find.
I'd have thought people in SF would keep their windows closed, because of what the herds of homeless leave behind on the sidewalks... |
| 19-10-2020 21:15 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
@ 1,000 ppm, people would start feeling the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That should translate to about 0.1%. No one has said how CO2 levels outdoors translate into CO2 levels in door.
An example is using natural gas for cooking or for heating. Then there's people and pets breathing. How long does it take the air inside of a building to be replaced by outside air?
When it comes to insulating buildings, any leakage is considered "breathing" which increases the cost of heating or cooling a building. Hence the phrase
"I'm going outside to get some fresh air". That's a literal truth unless you live somewhere with poor air quality.
Hey in Norway winters, do people leave their windows closed all season long? I'm pretty lucky here in SF and can leave windows open most all the time. Helps avoid illness I find.
I'd have thought people in SF would keep their windows closed, because of what the herds of homeless leave behind on the sidewalks...
I'm a ways from downtown |
| 20-10-2020 03:40 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Yes that's right I don't get to speak for all scientists. But I haven't ever heard of a scientist hypothesizing that CO2 in the atmosphere has NOT substantially increased, and ice at the north pole has NOT substantially decreased, using a silly word game as the basis for their hypothesis. i wouldn't imagine there to be much tolerance for that.
Obviously 0.6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be way too much. Look what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer.
What happens? Does it freeze? I've never put one in the freezer, thought the ice expanding might rupture the can. Besides, I've got ice cubes for that.
Ideally, I think 0.08-0.12 would be the ideal level of CO2. Plants would grow amazingly fast. Should really help feed the homeless.
@ 1,000 ppm, people would start feeling the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That should translate to about 0.1%. No one has said how CO2 levels outdoors translate into CO2 levels in door.
An example is using natural gas for cooking or for heating. Then there's people and pets breathing. How long does it take the air inside of a building to be replaced by outside air?
When it comes to insulating buildings, any leakage is considered "breathing" which increases the cost of heating or cooling a building. Hence the phrase
"I'm going outside to get some fresh air". That's a literal truth unless you live somewhere with poor air quality.
Hey in Norway winters, do people leave their windows closed all season long? I'm pretty lucky here in SF and can leave windows open most all the time. Helps avoid illness I find.
I'd have thought people in SF would keep their windows closed, because of what the herds of homeless leave behind on the sidewalks...
I'm a ways from downtown
Sorry about the homeless reference, there was a news story earlier this year, that made a big stink about the situation. SF is a large city, and have small, problem areas, like every large city.
I agree that people went a little too far, on the energy-efficiency thing for decades. It created business opportunities, where people could convince homeowners, that even sealing the smallest 'leaks' would save them thousands of dollars, over the life of their house, if sealed. If course, there are trade offs and balances for most everything, and focusing entirely on one problem, usually makes something else worse. Feel a little sorry for people that got talked into rooftop solar panels. Most roof coverings might last 20 years, but they need maintenance and repairs over that period of time. The solar panels make it harder, more expensive. Most roofs were designed to bare that kind of weight either. But, who buys a house these days, fully expecting to keep it 20 years or more? |
| 20-10-2020 06:11 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.
Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I think increased density would lead to more convection and/or conduction, which could increase heat, right?
Heat has no temperature.
Irrelevant to the point if increase in density would lead to more heat.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I haven't heard anybody here say CO2 is generating radiation (except for that annoying bot who keeps accusing everybody else of saying it).
You have said it. You are trying to increase temperature (which requires energy) using a magick gas. You can't create energy out of nothing.
No, I'm saying (interpreting James comments) the increase in heat is from increase in density, leading to more convection and conduction. Like when you pump up a bicycle tire. |
| 20-10-2020 06:46 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Random numbers do not cause random numbers.
Both values are unknown. Math error. It is not possible to measure the global values of either
Another one of your nothing can ever be known arguments. You can measure enough to observe changes over time.
Condensation of water does not require CO2.
Irrelevant point. Clouds are more opaque and spongy than just water vapor.
CO2 does not raise the temperature of the soda.
Heat up 2 small greenhouses with identical lamps and pump more CO2 and methane in 1 of them and leave the other alone. Which 1 gets hotter???
The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 is unknown. It cannot be measured. Math error.
You like to quote a lot of random numbers you make up out of your head (or someone at NASA's head) as data. This is called the argument from randU fallacy. Made up numbers are not data.
Another one of your nothing can be known arguments. Your philosophy is called solipsism. Nothing can be known outside the self. |
| 20-10-2020 20:30 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.
Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I think increased density would lead to more convection and/or conduction, which could increase heat, right?
Heat has no temperature.
Irrelevant to the point if increase in density would lead to more heat.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I haven't heard anybody here say CO2 is generating radiation (except for that annoying bot who keeps accusing everybody else of saying it).
You have said it. You are trying to increase temperature (which requires energy) using a magick gas. You can't create energy out of nothing.
No, I'm saying (interpreting James comments) the increase in heat is from increase in density, leading to more convection and conduction. Like when you pump up a bicycle tire.
No one is pumping up the atmosphere. You can't create energy out of nothing.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-10-2020 20:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Random numbers do not cause random numbers.
Both values are unknown. Math error. It is not possible to measure the global values of either
Another one of your nothing can ever be known arguments. You can measure enough to observe changes over time.
Condensation of water does not require CO2.
Irrelevant point. Clouds are more opaque and spongy than just water vapor.
CO2 does not raise the temperature of the soda.
Heat up 2 small greenhouses with identical lamps and pump more CO2 and methane in 1 of them and leave the other alone. Which 1 gets hotter???
The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 is unknown. It cannot be measured. Math error.
You like to quote a lot of random numbers you make up out of your head (or someone at NASA's head) as data. This is called the argument from randU fallacy. Made up numbers are not data.
Another one of your nothing can be known arguments. Your philosophy is called solipsism. Nothing can be known outside the self.
I never said nothing can be known, liar.
The temperature of the Earth is unknown, and cannot be measured. You cannot justify random numbers as data through the use of a compositional error fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-10-2020 20:49 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
No one is pumping up the atmosphere. You can't create energy out of nothing.
People are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Your comment is not applicable. |
| 20-10-2020 21:07 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
I never said nothing can be known, liar.
The temperature of the Earth is unknown, and cannot be measured. You cannot justify random numbers as data through the use of a compositional error fallacy.
Many temperatures all around the world can be known to give you a sense of change over time.
In a sense, you are saying, because it all can't be known, nothing can be known. Insane. |
| 21-10-2020 04:08 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
I never said nothing can be known, liar.
The temperature of the Earth is unknown, and cannot be measured. You cannot justify random numbers as data through the use of a compositional error fallacy.
Many temperatures all around the world can be known to give you a sense of change over time.
In a sense, you are saying, because it all can't be known, nothing can be known. Insane.
We can only know the temperature of specific location, at the instant we captured the reading, we are looking at. I don't remember how many zeros after the decimal point. But, if you had a temperature meter, that had the precision needed, for the expected daily global warming, caused by man made CO2, it would be jumping all over the place. You couldn't just look at it, and read it. You'd have to press the <Hold> button, just to look at those scary digits. You don't even have to travel far, to a difference of whole degrees. Just the wind blowing, can effect the temperature readings.
We only have a limit amount of temperature data recorded, mostly daily highs and lows. These readings weren't taken with the purpose of showing global warming. They just represent the max. and min. temperature for each day. Global Warming is an agenda, and they just scrounge up any scrap of garbage they can find, throw some paint on it, and try to sell it to fools. The 'paint', is scientific methods and principals, but they are still working with garbage, and there is a strong odor associated. |
|
| 21-10-2020 05:15 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
No one is pumping up the atmosphere. You can't create energy out of nothing.
People are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Your comment is not applicable.
CO2 is part of the atmosphere. It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 21-10-2020 05:15 |
| 21-10-2020 05:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
I never said nothing can be known, liar.
The temperature of the Earth is unknown, and cannot be measured. You cannot justify random numbers as data through the use of a compositional error fallacy.
Many temperatures all around the world can be known to give you a sense of change over time. Base rate fallacy. Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to remove biasing influences of data collection.
Spongy Iris wrote:
In a sense, you are saying, because it all can't be known, nothing can be known. fCompositional error fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Insane.
Yes. You are being inane. No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Compositional error fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-10-2020 06:35 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
We can only know the temperature of specific location, at the instant we captured the reading, we are looking at. I don't remember how many zeros after the decimal point. But, if you had a temperature meter, that had the precision needed, for the expected daily global warming, caused by man made CO2, it would be jumping all over the place. You couldn't just look at it, and read it. You'd have to press the <Hold> button, just to look at those scary digits. You don't even have to travel far, to a difference of whole degrees. Just the wind blowing, can effect the temperature readings.
We only have a limit amount of temperature data recorded, mostly daily highs and lows. These readings weren't taken with the purpose of showing global warming. They just represent the max. and min. temperature for each day. Global Warming is an agenda, and they just scrounge up any scrap of garbage they can find, throw some paint on it, and try to sell it to fools. The 'paint', is scientific methods and principals, but they are still working with garbage, and there is a strong odor associated.
The strongest evidence we presented here is how much sea ice has decreased around the north pole in the past 30 years and more.
Negation of this point have so far been,
We can't measure all the sea ice at the north pole with 100% accuracy,
and some accusing the data of being biased, with no arguments presented.
I have no idea what agenda you are talking about. Agenda 21??? |
| 21-10-2020 10:28 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
We can only know the temperature of specific location, at the instant we captured the reading, we are looking at. I don't remember how many zeros after the decimal point. But, if you had a temperature meter, that had the precision needed, for the expected daily global warming, caused by man made CO2, it would be jumping all over the place. You couldn't just look at it, and read it. You'd have to press the <Hold> button, just to look at those scary digits. You don't even have to travel far, to a difference of whole degrees. Just the wind blowing, can effect the temperature readings.
We only have a limit amount of temperature data recorded, mostly daily highs and lows. These readings weren't taken with the purpose of showing global warming. They just represent the max. and min. temperature for each day. Global Warming is an agenda, and they just scrounge up any scrap of garbage they can find, throw some paint on it, and try to sell it to fools. The 'paint', is scientific methods and principals, but they are still working with garbage, and there is a strong odor associated.
The strongest evidence we presented here is how much sea ice has decreased around the north pole in the past 30 years and more.
Negation of this point have so far been,
We can't measure all the sea ice at the north pole with 100% accuracy,
and some accusing the data of being biased, with no arguments presented.
I have no idea what agenda you are talking about. Agenda 21???
Can only guess at the actual goal, but I'm pretty sure saving the planet, has nothing to do with it.
Summer time a lot of ice melts, not just arctic sea ice either. Below the arctic, we have ice and snow melting all over the northern hemisphere. The spring run off, made a lot of rivers and streams rise, least where I grew up. The constant, miserable rain, didn't help much either. Wouldn't the annual melt, and run off, of half the planet, cause all those threatened areas to be, underwater, every summer? Climate change, only focuses on the difference in arctic ice, melting and reforming. There is a lot of ice and snow, else where, that melts too.
I've no confidence in global warming temperature data. There has been much, that was specific to the study, very large margin of error generated, trying to convert what is available. Computers generate pseudo-random numbers, not data. Climate simulations aren't any better than video games.
Facts aren't defined by consensus. It's still speculation, and a belief, most that it's 'technically' possible, even if most believe it's highly unlikely.
CO2 is a trace gas, and consumed by plants, as much as they can get. We only have about half, of what's been determine to be the ideal level for maximum plant growth and health.
It's our first inter-glacial period, we don't know what's natural and normal. There is no way to tell there is any problem, that actually needs fixing. Our burning fossil fuel, is likely a non-issue, coincidental. |
| 21-10-2020 12:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
We can only know the temperature of specific location, at the instant we captured the reading, we are looking at. I don't remember how many zeros after the decimal point. But, if you had a temperature meter, that had the precision needed, for the expected daily global warming, caused by man made CO2, it would be jumping all over the place. You couldn't just look at it, and read it. You'd have to press the <Hold> button, just to look at those scary digits. You don't even have to travel far, to a difference of whole degrees. Just the wind blowing, can effect the temperature readings.
We only have a limit amount of temperature data recorded, mostly daily highs and lows. These readings weren't taken with the purpose of showing global warming. They just represent the max. and min. temperature for each day. Global Warming is an agenda, and they just scrounge up any scrap of garbage they can find, throw some paint on it, and try to sell it to fools. The 'paint', is scientific methods and principals, but they are still working with garbage, and there is a strong odor associated.
The strongest evidence we presented here is how much sea ice has decreased around the north pole in the past 30 years and more. It hasn't. The last few years, the winter ice extent at both poles has been increasing. In 2014, the Antarctic pole saw a record high winter ice extent, the highest ever recorded.
The ice extent measurement does not measure ice thickness.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Negation of this point have so far been,
We can't measure all the sea ice at the north pole with 100% accuracy, You can't measure it at all.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and some accusing the data of being biased, with no arguments presented. Temperature readings are biased by location grouping and time. Both factors must be eliminated for unbiased data collection. Secondly, you have to have enough thermometers to account for the variance.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-10-2020 17:34 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
good shot ITN.I guess you run a 30/06 Springfield |
| 21-10-2020 23:48 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
No one is pumping up the atmosphere. You can't create energy out of nothing.
People are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Your comment is not applicable.
CO2 is part of the atmosphere. It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.
People multiply and add CO2 to the atmosphere.
Heat up 2 small greenhouses with identical lamps and pump more CO2 and methane in 1 of them and leave the other alone. Which 1 gets hotter???
The Beatles know, "We all live in a yellow submarine."
How do you think +1000 tonnes of yellow glass got spread across the Libyan desert in a 50 by 130 km oval? |
| 22-10-2020 01:54 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
Spongy Iris wrote:Heat up 2 small greenhouses with identical lamps and pump more CO2 and methane in 1 of them and leave the other alone. Which 1 gets hotter???
This is a standard parlor trick that never gets old ... to the scientifically illiterate.
Take two Identical side-by-side greenhouses, A and B, and simply put them in direct sunlight. Add lots CO2 to greenhouse B. Is there now a temperature difference between A and B?
[hint: no]
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 22-10-2020 04:42 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1643) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Heat up 2 small greenhouses with identical lamps and pump more CO2 and methane in 1 of them and leave the other alone. Which 1 gets hotter???
This is a standard parlor trick that never gets old ... to the scientifically illiterate.
Take two Identical side-by-side greenhouses, A and B, and simply put them in direct sunlight. Add lots CO2 to greenhouse B. Is there now a temperature difference between A and B?
[hint: no]
Are there trees and plants in your greenhouses A and B? Do they both keep the windows and/or doors open?
Maybe I should just link you to the experiment on Mythbusters...
https://youtu.be/pPRd5GT0v0I |
| 22-10-2020 19:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Heat up 2 small greenhouses with identical lamps and pump more CO2 and methane in 1 of them and leave the other alone. Which 1 gets hotter???
This is a standard parlor trick that never gets old ... to the scientifically illiterate.
Take two Identical side-by-side greenhouses, A and B, and simply put them in direct sunlight. Add lots CO2 to greenhouse B. Is there now a temperature difference between A and B?
[hint: no]
Are there trees and plants in your greenhouses A and B? Do they both keep the windows and/or doors open?
Maybe I should just link you to the experiment on Mythbusters...
https://youtu.be/pPRd5GT0v0I
Parlor trick. You've been fooled again. CO2 does absorb infrared light. Big deal. The surface has to cool to emit that infrared light. CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool by interacting with the atmosphere.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot stop light. You cannot stop heat. You cannot slow or stop thermal energy. There is always heat. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.
No argument presented. False authorities. Denial of science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 22-10-2020 19:37 |