Remember me
▼ Content

Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA)



Page 2 of 4<1234>
27-07-2017 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


"The scale of this new agriculture is tiny. There are just a few dozen sheep farms in southern Greenland"

And this is on the southern edge of Greenland. The agricultural areas from before the little ice age was in the northwestern areas.

But when you are a complete F-ing fool I suppose you are willing to say anything.

It is plain that you know nothing and are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your moronic beliefs. I am sure that you think that the Fukushima disaster has covered the Pacific coast with deadly nuclear debris and that 9/11 was the CIA blowing up these buildings. People like you have these sorts of beliefs.


Everyone knows it was the Orbital Weather Control Lasers that caused the Fukushima disaster. And it was Chemtrails that made the CIA blow up those buildings!


In actual news, the underwater robot has finally found some of the damaged fuel rods. They are now constructing a plan to recover them. Unfortunately, they are melted into the surrounding debris somewhat and difficult to remove.

Also, we found a couple of extra neutrons in Seattle last week.


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
Edited on 27-07-2017 23:25
28-07-2017 02:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


"The scale of this new agriculture is tiny. There are just a few dozen sheep farms in southern Greenland"

And this is on the southern edge of Greenland. The agricultural areas from before the little ice age was in the northwestern areas.

But when you are a complete F-ing fool I suppose you are willing to say anything.

It is plain that you know nothing and are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your moronic beliefs. I am sure that you think that the Fukushima disaster has covered the Pacific coast with deadly nuclear debris and that 9/11 was the CIA blowing up these buildings. People like you have these sorts of beliefs.


"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk.


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.
28-07-2017 02:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


"The scale of this new agriculture is tiny. There are just a few dozen sheep farms in southern Greenland"

And this is on the southern edge of Greenland. The agricultural areas from before the little ice age was in the northwestern areas.

But when you are a complete F-ing fool I suppose you are willing to say anything.

It is plain that you know nothing and are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your moronic beliefs. I am sure that you think that the Fukushima disaster has covered the Pacific coast with deadly nuclear debris and that 9/11 was the CIA blowing up these buildings. People like you have these sorts of beliefs.


"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk.


And the more northwestern area just below the Arctic Circle is still too cold.
28-07-2017 19:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


"The scale of this new agriculture is tiny. There are just a few dozen sheep farms in southern Greenland"

And this is on the southern edge of Greenland. The agricultural areas from before the little ice age was in the northwestern areas.

But when you are a complete F-ing fool I suppose you are willing to say anything.

It is plain that you know nothing and are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your moronic beliefs. I am sure that you think that the Fukushima disaster has covered the Pacific coast with deadly nuclear debris and that 9/11 was the CIA blowing up these buildings. People like you have these sorts of beliefs.


"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk.


And the more northwestern area just below the Arctic Circle is still too cold.


...and your point?

Heck there are regions here in Washington that are still too cold. The top of Mt Rainier for example.


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
28-07-2017 20:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


"The scale of this new agriculture is tiny. There are just a few dozen sheep farms in southern Greenland"

And this is on the southern edge of Greenland. The agricultural areas from before the little ice age was in the northwestern areas.

But when you are a complete F-ing fool I suppose you are willing to say anything.

It is plain that you know nothing and are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your moronic beliefs. I am sure that you think that the Fukushima disaster has covered the Pacific coast with deadly nuclear debris and that 9/11 was the CIA blowing up these buildings. People like you have these sorts of beliefs.


"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk.


And the more northwestern area just below the Arctic Circle is still too cold.


...and your point?

Heck there are regions here in Washington that are still too cold. The top of Mt Rainier for example.


Why are you writing anything if you can't even follow a conversation?
28-07-2017 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


"The scale of this new agriculture is tiny. There are just a few dozen sheep farms in southern Greenland"

And this is on the southern edge of Greenland. The agricultural areas from before the little ice age was in the northwestern areas.

But when you are a complete F-ing fool I suppose you are willing to say anything.

It is plain that you know nothing and are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your moronic beliefs. I am sure that you think that the Fukushima disaster has covered the Pacific coast with deadly nuclear debris and that 9/11 was the CIA blowing up these buildings. People like you have these sorts of beliefs.


"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk.


And the more northwestern area just below the Arctic Circle is still too cold.


...and your point?

Heck there are regions here in Washington that are still too cold. The top of Mt Rainier for example.


Why are you writing anything if you can't even follow a conversation?


?? I am. It is YOU that brought up how cold a bit of Greenland is like it was some overwhelming exception.


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
28-07-2017 21:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.
28-07-2017 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


No one has measured the glaciers of the world.

Only a very few are being monitored at all.

Buzzwords are not a good way to justify an argument from randU.


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
28-07-2017 23:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


"The scale of this new agriculture is tiny. There are just a few dozen sheep farms in southern Greenland"

And this is on the southern edge of Greenland. The agricultural areas from before the little ice age was in the northwestern areas.

But when you are a complete F-ing fool I suppose you are willing to say anything.

It is plain that you know nothing and are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your moronic beliefs. I am sure that you think that the Fukushima disaster has covered the Pacific coast with deadly nuclear debris and that 9/11 was the CIA blowing up these buildings. People like you have these sorts of beliefs.


"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk.


And the more northwestern area just below the Arctic Circle is still too cold.


...and your point?

Heck there are regions here in Washington that are still too cold. The top of Mt Rainier for example.


Why are you writing anything if you can't even follow a conversation?


?? I am. It is YOU that brought up how cold a bit of Greenland is like it was some overwhelming exception.


And yet again you show that you are incapable of following a conversation. Why do you post if all you have is ignorant garbage.
28-07-2017 23:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.
29-07-2017 02:02
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.
29-07-2017 05:23
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
" old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: how many glaciologists do you know?

One of my astronomy professors loved to study glaciers.... as a hobby.
///////
Next question "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" will ask is, "How many glaciologists can fit on the head of a pin?"
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" attempts to side-track because it, itself, is.... off-track.
29-07-2017 10:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


I met someone, I'm not best friends with the man, I'm not sure of his job title. But I do know that people that study Glaciers are not mythical beings. And they write stuff down, stuff that contradicts your insane ramblings.


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.
29-07-2017 14:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


I met someone, I'm not best friends with the man, I'm not sure of his job title. But I do know that people that study Glaciers are not mythical beings. And they write stuff down, stuff that contradicts your insane ramblings.


Are you capable of working out how much snowfall/rainfall lands of Greenland from it's area and the average?

Then comparing that number with the outflow of the rivers in Greenland.

Using the Mississippi river as a guide as to what to look for?

You need to find 40 Mississippi river months of flow to break even.
29-07-2017 16:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


I met someone, I'm not best friends with the man, I'm not sure of his job title. But I do know that people that study Glaciers are not mythical beings. And they write stuff down, stuff that contradicts your insane ramblings.


Are you capable of working out how much snowfall/rainfall lands of Greenland from it's area and the average?

Then comparing that number with the outflow of the rivers in Greenland.

Using the Mississippi river as a guide as to what to look for?

You need to find 40 Mississippi river months of flow to break even.



Why ask me? you could look into yourself. As I recall we have had this conversation before. I satisfied myself that you did not have a clue and was too stubborn to admit you made an error in your underlying assumptions.

I'll tell you what; tell me how much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood and then I'll get on it for you, it's about as relevant.


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.
29-07-2017 17:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.


Glaciology is a specialty that not many people are going to get involved in. That doesn't mean that other people with other specialties do not get involved around the fringes.
29-07-2017 19:21
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.


Glaciology is a specialty that not many people are going to get involved in. That doesn't mean that other people with other specialties do not get involved around the fringes.


You're way off track. what you're missing is that ice core samples are also compared to core samples taken from the ground and the sea floor (sediment) as well. And with ice core samples that can show when and how much a glacier either retreated or advanced. A lot of research is put into this. And this is what is now allowing ice core researchers to say that CO2 is an intensifier.
What an intensifier does is to magnify the heat in a given system such as our atmosphere. What the graph in my first post shows is that warming and cooling happens without CO2. With climate change what is being discussed is CO2's ability to intensify or increase natural warming.
And while CO2's role in ozone recovery allows for a cooling effect what seems to be the primary problem at the moment are gases that destroy ozone. And to save into the night the trouble of saying ozone can't be destroyed the quantity of Chapman cycles can be decreased by certain gases such as flourine, chlorine-bromide or CFC's. That is accepted by about everybody except for into the night.
And since we do need the ozone layer to prevent immediate consequences what is being done to either lower or remove gases that destroy ozone ? That should probably be the first priority because focusing on CO2 is to ignore the immediate threat.


Jim
Edited on 29-07-2017 19:22
29-07-2017 21:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.


Glaciology is a specialty that not many people are going to get involved in. That doesn't mean that other people with other specialties do not get involved around the fringes.


You're way off track. what you're missing is that ice core samples are also compared to core samples taken from the ground and the sea floor (sediment) as well. And with ice core samples that can show when and how much a glacier either retreated or advanced. A lot of research is put into this. And this is what is now allowing ice core researchers to say that CO2 is an intensifier.
What an intensifier does is to magnify the heat in a given system such as our atmosphere. What the graph in my first post shows is that warming and cooling happens without CO2. With climate change what is being discussed is CO2's ability to intensify or increase natural warming.
And while CO2's role in ozone recovery allows for a cooling effect what seems to be the primary problem at the moment are gases that destroy ozone. And to save into the night the trouble of saying ozone can't be destroyed the quantity of Chapman cycles can be decreased by certain gases such as flourine, chlorine-bromide or CFC's. That is accepted by about everybody except for into the night.
And since we do need the ozone layer to prevent immediate consequences what is being done to either lower or remove gases that destroy ozone ? That should probably be the first priority because focusing on CO2 is to ignore the immediate threat. Jim


Jim, can you explain how you get "ice cores" from drilling in the ground?

" Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3 km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica."

As for ozone: "Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O)"

So you see any mention of CO2 there? Or of any of the other so-called "greenhouse gases"?
29-07-2017 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.


Glaciology is a specialty that not many people are going to get involved in. That doesn't mean that other people with other specialties do not get involved around the fringes.


You're way off track. what you're missing is that ice core samples are also compared to core samples taken from the ground and the sea floor (sediment) as well.

Sea floor cores do not show the behavior of any glacier.
James_ wrote:
And with ice core samples that can show when and how much a glacier either retreated or advanced. A lot of research is put into this. And this is what is now allowing ice core researchers to say that CO2 is an intensifier.

What is an 'intensifier'?
James_ wrote:
What an intensifier does is to magnify the heat in a given system such as our atmosphere.

Ah. An 'intensifier' is something that violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Raising the temperature requires energy. CO2 or any other magick holy gas is not a source of energy.

CO2 and other magick holy gases are generally cooler than the surface. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are trying to make hot coffee with an ice cube. Such an event decreases entropy, which is never possible.

James_ wrote:
What the graph in my first post shows is that warming and cooling happens without CO2.

Not surprising, since CO2 doesn't cause warming or cooling.
James_ wrote:
With climate change what is being discussed is CO2's ability to intensify or increase natural warming.

It can't without violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James_ wrote:
And while CO2's role in ozone recovery

CO2 has no role in ozone creation or destruction.
James_ wrote:
allows for a cooling effect

CO2 does not warm or cool the ozone.
James_ wrote:
what seems to be the primary problem at the moment are gases that destroy ozone.

Not a problem.
James_ wrote:
And to save into the night the trouble of saying ozone can't be destroyed the quantity of Chapman cycles can be decreased by certain gases such as flourine, chlorine-bromide or CFC's.

Let's go through these:

Flourine gas is fairly light. It can float in the air pretty well. Given no other factors it would rise pretty high in the sky. But there are other factors. Flourine is extremely reactive. It doesn't get very far in any direction before reacting with something else. It is not a problem for the ozone layer.

Chlorine gas is the same way, but it is heavier and wouldn't rise as high as fast. Same with bromine gas.

There is a reason these gases are treated very carefully. They are very reactive.

CFC's are an inert material in the presence of ozone. It doesn't react with it. The whole reason for developing CFC's in the first place was for this property, to make it a much safer refrigerant than ammonia, which was in use (and still is in a few places) at the time.

Only if CFC's are broken up into chlorine and flourine can it react with ozone at all. UV can do this (it takes a lot of energy to break up this molecule), but the gases simply react with something else very quickly.

James_ wrote:
That is accepted by about everybody except for into the night.

Because a) I understand the chemistry involved, and b) I am not a believer in your religion.
James_ wrote:
And since we do need the ozone layer to prevent immediate consequences what is being done to either lower or remove gases that destroy ozone ?

Man couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if he wanted to. We don't have that power. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it.
James_ wrote:
That should probably be the first priority because focusing on CO2 is to ignore the immediate threat.

There is no threat from either chlorine, bromine, flourine, or CO2 to the atmosphere.

Ask yourself this question:
If ozone was damaged by the industrial nations, such as the United States, why does the hole appear over the poles and only in the winters of a pole? Penguin farts? Polar bear flatulence?


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
29-07-2017 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.


Glaciology is a specialty that not many people are going to get involved in. That doesn't mean that other people with other specialties do not get involved around the fringes.


You're way off track. what you're missing is that ice core samples are also compared to core samples taken from the ground and the sea floor (sediment) as well. And with ice core samples that can show when and how much a glacier either retreated or advanced. A lot of research is put into this. And this is what is now allowing ice core researchers to say that CO2 is an intensifier.
What an intensifier does is to magnify the heat in a given system such as our atmosphere. What the graph in my first post shows is that warming and cooling happens without CO2. With climate change what is being discussed is CO2's ability to intensify or increase natural warming.
And while CO2's role in ozone recovery allows for a cooling effect what seems to be the primary problem at the moment are gases that destroy ozone. And to save into the night the trouble of saying ozone can't be destroyed the quantity of Chapman cycles can be decreased by certain gases such as flourine, chlorine-bromide or CFC's. That is accepted by about everybody except for into the night.
And since we do need the ozone layer to prevent immediate consequences what is being done to either lower or remove gases that destroy ozone ? That should probably be the first priority because focusing on CO2 is to ignore the immediate threat. Jim


Jim, can you explain how you get "ice cores" from drilling in the ground?

" Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3 km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica."

As for ozone: "Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O)"

So you see any mention of CO2 there? Or of any of the other so-called "greenhouse gases"?

He won't see it in any of the other steps of the Chapman cycle either.

How he figures CO2 will ''save' the ozone layer is beyond me. Oh...wait...it isn't. It's just another religion.


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
29-07-2017 22:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.


Glaciology is a specialty that not many people are going to get involved in. That doesn't mean that other people with other specialties do not get involved around the fringes.


You're way off track. what you're missing is that ice core samples are also compared to core samples taken from the ground and the sea floor (sediment) as well. And with ice core samples that can show when and how much a glacier either retreated or advanced. A lot of research is put into this. And this is what is now allowing ice core researchers to say that CO2 is an intensifier.
What an intensifier does is to magnify the heat in a given system such as our atmosphere. What the graph in my first post shows is that warming and cooling happens without CO2. With climate change what is being discussed is CO2's ability to intensify or increase natural warming.
And while CO2's role in ozone recovery allows for a cooling effect what seems to be the primary problem at the moment are gases that destroy ozone. And to save into the night the trouble of saying ozone can't be destroyed the quantity of Chapman cycles can be decreased by certain gases such as flourine, chlorine-bromide or CFC's. That is accepted by about everybody except for into the night.
And since we do need the ozone layer to prevent immediate consequences what is being done to either lower or remove gases that destroy ozone ? That should probably be the first priority because focusing on CO2 is to ignore the immediate threat. Jim


Jim, can you explain how you get "ice cores" from drilling in the ground?

" Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3 km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica."

As for ozone: "Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O)"

So you see any mention of CO2 there? Or of any of the other so-called "greenhouse gases"?

He won't see it in any of the other steps of the Chapman cycle either.

How he figures CO2 will ''save' the ozone layer is beyond me. Oh...wait...it isn't. It's just another religion.


James isn't a "True Believer". He simply has an extremely difficult time believing that NASA and NOAA would lie to the American public. So he continues to try and find a way that these agencies would be able to say what they're saying.
29-07-2017 22:58
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
Hey, stupid question here from my wandering little brain....

How does a magnifying glass in the sun reconcile with the first law of thermodynamics?

It would seem to "create" more heat from a constant source. I get that the heat is channeled and focused through the glass, does that mean that areas nearby would necessarily have to cool?...if it weren't for the bonfire I just started?


Something for you guys to argue about.

Edited on 29-07-2017 23:02
29-07-2017 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Amusing as it is to see you two senile old gits confusedly argue at each other I still think that I will take the word of Glaciologists when it comes to Glaciers.


Exactly how many glaciologists do you know? This ought to be good since there is only one in the world and he is 22 years older than me.


There's more than that. There's Jason Box at Ohio St., there are more. Most ice core researchers watch glaciers closely.


Glaciology is a specialty that not many people are going to get involved in. That doesn't mean that other people with other specialties do not get involved around the fringes.


You're way off track. what you're missing is that ice core samples are also compared to core samples taken from the ground and the sea floor (sediment) as well. And with ice core samples that can show when and how much a glacier either retreated or advanced. A lot of research is put into this. And this is what is now allowing ice core researchers to say that CO2 is an intensifier.
What an intensifier does is to magnify the heat in a given system such as our atmosphere. What the graph in my first post shows is that warming and cooling happens without CO2. With climate change what is being discussed is CO2's ability to intensify or increase natural warming.
And while CO2's role in ozone recovery allows for a cooling effect what seems to be the primary problem at the moment are gases that destroy ozone. And to save into the night the trouble of saying ozone can't be destroyed the quantity of Chapman cycles can be decreased by certain gases such as flourine, chlorine-bromide or CFC's. That is accepted by about everybody except for into the night.
And since we do need the ozone layer to prevent immediate consequences what is being done to either lower or remove gases that destroy ozone ? That should probably be the first priority because focusing on CO2 is to ignore the immediate threat. Jim


Jim, can you explain how you get "ice cores" from drilling in the ground?

" Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3 km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica."

As for ozone: "Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O)"

So you see any mention of CO2 there? Or of any of the other so-called "greenhouse gases"?

He won't see it in any of the other steps of the Chapman cycle either.

How he figures CO2 will ''save' the ozone layer is beyond me. Oh...wait...it isn't. It's just another religion.


James isn't a "True Believer". He simply has an extremely difficult time believing that NASA and NOAA would lie to the American public.

That makes him a 'True Believer'. He worships government as science.
Wake wrote:
So he continues to try and find a way that these agencies would be able to say what they're saying.

Just anyone that has their religion threatened.


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
30-07-2017 20:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:


Jim, can you explain how you get "ice cores" from drilling in the ground?

" Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3 km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica."

As for ozone: "Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O)"

So you see any mention of CO2 there? Or of any of the other so-called "greenhouse gases"?


Wake,
Can you take your blinders off for a minute ?
You missed some things about core samples; https://www.windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html

Also you over look this simple fact accepted by scientists who say that CO2 is causing climate change; pg. 4, the graph is on the top right. it shows as CO2 levels increase the loss of ozone decreases.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034011/pdf

And Wake, this is why my experiment would be important. it would show a missing cycle in Atmospheric Chemistry.

@gasguzzler,
When a magnifying focuses light in one area the area around the light does cool. A magnifying glass is a prism which changes the speed of light passing through it. This is how it can either magnify or reduce the size of an image.
The link is an example of how prisms work;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism
30-07-2017 20:47
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
The link is to one of the satellites they use to measure glaciers with.

read 3.2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3675549/

and there is http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/glacier-recession/observing-glacier-change-space/
30-07-2017 22:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


Jim, can you explain how you get "ice cores" from drilling in the ground?

" Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3 km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica."

As for ozone: "Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O)"

So you see any mention of CO2 there? Or of any of the other so-called "greenhouse gases"?


Also you over look this simple fact accepted by scientists who say that CO2 is causing climate change; pg. 4, the graph is on the top right. it shows as CO2 levels increase the loss of ozone decreases.

...deleted Holy Link...

Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't scientists either.

Frankly, I don't care what some religious nuts say, even if they are scientists. Even if they are government employees.

The theory that CO2 has anything to do with ozone can be falsified. If CO2 is producing ozone, that would mean carbon would come raining down (soot). It would mean an endless supply of fuel.

We know what it takes to make ozone. It isn't carbon dioxide. It is just oxygen and an energy source.

James_ wrote:
And Wake, this is why my experiment would be important. it would show a missing cycle in Atmospheric Chemistry.

I thought you were looking for formaldehyde, not ozone, in your experiment. Are you talking about a different experiment now?
James_ wrote:
@gasguzzler,
When a magnifying focuses light in one area the area around the light does cool.
...deleted redundant statements and Holy Link...

If you take like away from one surface area (to concentrate it on another), that surface area is not absorbing as much light. It is slightly cooler (though still heated by conduction). This is news?

What has this to do with carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide is not a magnifying glass.


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
30-07-2017 22:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
@All,
The link is to one of the satellites they use to measure glaciers with.

read 3.2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3675549/

and there is http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/glacier-recession/observing-glacier-change-space/


So...for you, the significant starting date for 'global warming' begins in late 1999?

Why is your date significant? Why is any other date not significant? Is it just because we happen to launch a satellite?

CO2 has been around a lot longer than satellites!


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
31-07-2017 05:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@into the night,
You don't understand physics, do you ?
When you say that CO2 can't intensify warming because of thermodynamics or any work Boltzmann was involved with, please explain.
While you made a claim you offered no reason which would validate your belief
As a part of a debate you need to support your claims or otherwise they are just that, claims.

I won't he able to let you off the hook anymore. Since CO2 is one of the heqvier gases lighter gases like oxygen and nitrogen become more excited. This would allow them to absorb and release more electromagnetic radiation as a result. Not sure but I think that's physics 101 it's so basic.
And since increasing CO2 is increasing the KE of the atmosphere then as KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2 KT shows that by increasing the energy in a system that the temperature will rise and CO2 does bring it's own heat.
And into the night, this is what you omit from all of your replies, the reason why you disagree with someone. It has gotten old.
Edited on 31-07-2017 06:04
31-07-2017 06:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
With the Boltzmann constant, it is for an ideal gas. Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas. When nitrogen, O2 oxygen and water vapor cools CO2 will retain more heat. Because of this it will have more kinetic energy and CO2 also has a greater molecular mass.
As for nitrogen and O2 oxygen they make up about 95% of our atmosphere. So the question is how much can CO2 excite such a field ?
Edited on 31-07-2017 06:28
31-07-2017 07:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


Jim, can you explain how you get "ice cores" from drilling in the ground?

" Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3 km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica."

As for ozone: "Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O)"

So you see any mention of CO2 there? Or of any of the other so-called "greenhouse gases"?


Wake,
Can you take your blinders off for a minute ?
You missed some things about core samples; https://www.windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html

Also you over look this simple fact accepted by scientists who say that CO2 is causing climate change; pg. 4, the graph is on the top right. it shows as CO2 levels increase the loss of ozone decreases.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034011/pdf

And Wake, this is why my experiment would be important. it would show a missing cycle in Atmospheric Chemistry.

@gasguzzler,
When a magnifying focuses light in one area the area around the light does cool. A magnifying glass is a prism which changes the speed of light passing through it. This is how it can either magnify or reduce the size of an image.
The link is an example of how prisms work;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism


As has been said - comparing things that occur near the same time is like blaming the rain on an umbrella.

Sediments are EXTREMELY unreliable because of tectonic activity. Fossils are fine for what they can tell you. Do you realize that there are several species from the time of the dinosaurs that are alive today in precisely the same DNA?

Let me suggest you learn how to make the references so that you can simply click on them: Press the [url] box and insert your reference between the boxes.

Now I want you to think of something - if you couldn't figure THAT out what makes you believe you can figure anything else out?
31-07-2017 07:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
@into the night,
You don't understand physics, do you ?
When you say that CO2 can't intensify warming because of thermodynamics or any work Boltzmann was involved with, please explain.
While you made a claim you offered no reason which would validate your belief
As a part of a debate you need to support your claims or otherwise they are just that, claims.

I won't he able to let you off the hook anymore. Since CO2 is one of the heqvier gases lighter gases like oxygen and nitrogen become more excited. This would allow them to absorb and release more electromagnetic radiation as a result. Not sure but I think that's physics 101 it's so basic.
And since increasing CO2 is increasing the KE of the atmosphere then as KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2 KT shows that by increasing the energy in a system that the temperature will rise and CO2 does bring it's own heat.
And into the night, this is what you omit from all of your replies, the reason why you disagree with someone. It has gotten old.


Physics 101 would be to simply look up the specific heat of the various gases and see that CO2 has a lower specific heat and hence would radiate before the other gases. But then that would require actually thinking about it.
31-07-2017 11:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
@into the night,
You don't understand physics, do you ?

I understand physics just fine.
James_ wrote:
When you say that CO2 can't intensify warming because of thermodynamics or any work Boltzmann was involved with, please explain.

I already have. I will explain [i]again/i] for you. Please pay attention this time.

The first law of thermodynamics is essentially the conservation of energy law for thermal energy. For energy to be in a system (such as the Earth), it must come from an energy source. There are two concerning the Earth: The Earth itself (through fission at the Earth's core), and the prevalent source, the Sun.

CO2 is not an energy source. It is also not an energy sink. It is just part of the material substance that makes up the Earth.

You are suggesting the CO2 is acting as an energy source to heat the Earth. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is also known as the law of entropy. For any system, thermal energy will always flow from hot to cold. It never flows from cold to hot. Entropy (the disorder of any system) always increases. It never decreases. All differences of temperature in any system will cause heat to flow to even out these differences.

It is not possible for a colder substance to warm an already warmer substance. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Using colder carbon dioxide to heat the warmer surface violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter if the method of heating is by conduction, convection, or radiance.

The effect of absorption by carbon dioxide of the radiance of Earth's surface is to simply provide another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, helping to cool the surface.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law says that radiance (of Earth) must increase if the temperature (of Earth) increases. If carbon dioxide is absorbing infrared light from Earth and preventing it's escape, the radiance is decreasing, since you removed that component of electromagnetic energy. If the temperature of the Earth is increasing as a result of this decreased radiance, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is violated.

James_ wrote:
While you made a claim you offered no reason which would validate your belief
As a part of a debate you need to support your claims or otherwise they are just that, claims.

My sources are the theories of science that I have drawn your attention to. I need no other sources.
James_ wrote:
I won't he able to let you off the hook anymore.

I'm not on a hook.
James_ wrote:
Since CO2 is one of the heqvier gases lighter gases like oxygen and nitrogen become more excited.

Atomic weight of a gas does not effect it's level of excitement.
James_ wrote:
This would allow them to absorb and release more electromagnetic radiation as a result.

Atomic weight of a material is not proportional to how much electromagnetic energy is absorbed by that material.
James_ wrote:
Not sure but I think that's physics 101 it's so basic.

What you are proposing is not physics 101 or any other physics.
James_ wrote:
And since increasing CO2 is increasing

If you go by the Mauna Loa data, true. There are some issues. There are too few stations to properly determine how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and the method of instrumentation does have some weaknesses which I don't believe are properly compensated for.

However, for now I will accept the fact that CO2 is increasing for the purposes of this argument.

James_ wrote:
the KE of the atmosphere then as KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2 KT shows that by increasing the energy in a system that the temperature will rise and CO2 does bring it's own heat.

CO2 is not an energy source or energy sink.
James_ wrote:
And into the night, this is what you omit from all of your replies, the reason why you disagree with someone.

Argument of the Stone. I have said why I disagree with you. I have drawn your attention to the theories of science involved. I have shown why you are violating them. I have done so several times.
James_ wrote:
It has gotten old.

Too bad. I am not going to drop physics to agree with you or with the Church of Global Warming.


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
31-07-2017 11:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
@All,
With the Boltzmann constant, it is for an ideal gas.
The Boltzmann constant and the Gas constant are constants, not the ideal gas law. Both do appear in the ideal gas law though. The purpose of both of these constants is to convert the relation to our units of measurement.
James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.
It is close enough.
James_ wrote:
When nitrogen, O2 oxygen and water vapor cools CO2 will retain more heat.

WRONG. See the charts for the specific heat of substances. Several people have them. You might try the Engineering Toolbox site.
James_ wrote:
As for nitrogen and O2 oxygen they make up about 95% of our atmosphere. So the question is how much can CO2 excite such a field ?

If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???


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
31-07-2017 14:52
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.
It is close enough.
If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???


This shows you don't understand physics. CO2 is not "close enough". And yes, everyone except for YOU knows that a molecule of CO2 has more energy than one molecule of oxygen or one element of nitrogen. I have to wonder how you could miss such a basic observation.
As for Boltzmann's constant, you need to read up on it. Your post strongly suggests that you don't grasp it's concepts. Either that or you only want to disrupt this forum because you're bored and you get off on messing with people's minds. Myself, I think it's the latter.
31-07-2017 16:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
These are the "masses" of the 3 primary gases in our atmosphere.
Nitrogen = 7
Oxygen (O2) = 16
CO2 = 22

They are basically atmoic/molecular weights. The 7, 16 and 22 are the number of protons and neutrons that the 3 are composed of. And since CO2 has 6 more protons and neutrons than Oxygen (O2) and 15 more than Nitrogen, it has more kinetic energy. This is what allows it to excite gases of lighter atomic/molecular masses.
How much does CO2 increase the ability of nitrogen and oxygen to absorb more background radiation ? There hasn't been any real research that I've been able to find. And for anyone who knows me I wouldn't be surprised if waste heat is the bigger threat.
And with water vapor, it is 17 but if it's excitation comes from other gases then this would agree with why they say it's actually the gas that allows our atmosphere to store the most amount of energy. If you're not familiar with the principal Conservation of Angular Momentum then it wouldn't make sense to you. Nothing personal but I think even scientists have over looked this aspect of conservation of momentum.

@Into the Night, ever think of doing some research ? After all, you will post vague comments about things you thing you can disprove. Yet you support Boltzmann while you say Newton's Theory of Gravity was falsified by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Edited on 31-07-2017 16:38
31-07-2017 18:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.
It is close enough.
If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???


This shows you don't understand physics. CO2 is not "close enough". And yes, everyone except for YOU knows that a molecule of CO2 has more energy than one molecule of oxygen or one element of nitrogen. I have to wonder how you could miss such a basic observation.
As for Boltzmann's constant, you need to read up on it. Your post strongly suggests that you don't grasp it's concepts. Either that or you only want to disrupt this forum because you're bored and you get off on messing with people's minds. Myself, I think it's the latter.


James - how many times do I have to repeat this?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

If you look at the specific heat capacity of CO2 and then the other gases - or just "air" you will see that CO2 has a far lower specific heat capacity. This means that the CO2 molecules begin jumping about a lot more with the addition of energy. They THEN pass this heat on to the other gases in air through conduction. CO2 is actually a COOLANT and not something that contains "more energy" than the other gases.
31-07-2017 19:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.
It is close enough.
If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???


This shows you don't understand physics. CO2 is not "close enough". And yes, everyone except for YOU knows that a molecule of CO2 has more energy than one molecule of oxygen or one element of nitrogen. I have to wonder how you could miss such a basic observation.
As for Boltzmann's constant, you need to read up on it. Your post strongly suggests that you don't grasp it's concepts. Either that or you only want to disrupt this forum because you're bored and you get off on messing with people's minds. Myself, I think it's the latter.


James - how many times do I have to repeat this?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

If you look at the specific heat capacity of CO2 and then the other gases - or just "air" you will see that CO2 has a far lower specific heat capacity. This means that the CO2 molecules begin jumping about a lot more with the addition of energy. They THEN pass this heat on to the other gases in air through conduction. CO2 is actually a COOLANT and not something that contains "more energy" than the other gases.


Wake,
You ignored what I said. It is like you say, there is no need for any research to be tried if everyone would just listen to you, right ? Why we don't get along.
If you go back and read what I said, I think we need to TEST to verify CO2's influence on our atmosphere. It is a heavier gas and if it accelerates a lighter gas then that can gas can absorb and release more background radiation.
You're over looking this and are looking at it's gas constant only and not how it interacts with other gases. An example is that as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere the more water vapor that is in the atmosphere. And water vapor is actually considered what needs to be lowered but that won't happen if CO2 levels aren't lowered. Can you show how it's gas constant explains this relationship ? It doesn't and that is why I don't listen to you.

Jim
Edited on 31-07-2017 20:21
31-07-2017 20:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.
It is close enough.
If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???


This shows you don't understand physics. CO2 is not "close enough". And yes, everyone except for YOU knows that a molecule of CO2 has more energy than one molecule of oxygen or one element of nitrogen. I have to wonder how you could miss such a basic observation.
As for Boltzmann's constant, you need to read up on it. Your post strongly suggests that you don't grasp it's concepts. Either that or you only want to disrupt this forum because you're bored and you get off on messing with people's minds. Myself, I think it's the latter.


James - how many times do I have to repeat this?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

If you look at the specific heat capacity of CO2 and then the other gases - or just "air" you will see that CO2 has a far lower specific heat capacity. This means that the CO2 molecules begin jumping about a lot more with the addition of energy. They THEN pass this heat on to the other gases in air through conduction. CO2 is actually a COOLANT and not something that contains "more energy" than the other gases.


Is it okay if I explain what you're missing ? I don't think you know what this means; Individual Gas constant
.......................- R -

the .... are necessary to position the -R-.
This is what you are talking about, right ?

It's from PV = nRT, this is what you're actually referring to, right ?
Need to know. I'll explain later.


Jim


I just referred you to a chart that gives the the specific heat, the specific heat radio and the individual gas constants. ALL of these show that CO2 carries less energy than Nitrogen which composes almost 2000 times more of the atmosphere than CO2.

I really do not understand what you think you are trying to prove.
31-07-2017 20:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.
It is close enough.
If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???


This shows you don't understand physics. CO2 is not "close enough". And yes, everyone except for YOU knows that a molecule of CO2 has more energy than one molecule of oxygen or one element of nitrogen. I have to wonder how you could miss such a basic observation.
As for Boltzmann's constant, you need to read up on it. Your post strongly suggests that you don't grasp it's concepts. Either that or you only want to disrupt this forum because you're bored and you get off on messing with people's minds. Myself, I think it's the latter.


James - how many times do I have to repeat this?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

If you look at the specific heat capacity of CO2 and then the other gases - or just "air" you will see that CO2 has a far lower specific heat capacity. This means that the CO2 molecules begin jumping about a lot more with the addition of energy. They THEN pass this heat on to the other gases in air through conduction. CO2 is actually a COOLANT and not something that contains "more energy" than the other gases.


Is it okay if I explain what you're missing ? I don't think you know what this means; Individual Gas constant
.......................- R -

the .... are necessary to position the -R-.
This is what you are talking about, right ?

It's from PV = nRT, this is what you're actually referring to, right ?
Need to know. I'll explain later.


Jim


I just referred you to a chart that gives the the specific heat, the specific heat radio and the individual gas constants. ALL of these show that CO2 carries less energy than Nitrogen which composes almost 2000 times more of the atmosphere than CO2.

I really do not understand what you think you are trying to prove.


Wake,
This is what your missing. I'm not trying to prove anything but you are. You look at one thing and then have all of the answers. I'm jealous. I really am.
Still, if you look at this, Co2 has more kinetic energy than O2 which has more kinetic energy than nitrogen. Can you show where I said CO2 can warm our atmosphere by transporting heat by itself ? That's what your link is about. A field of pure CO2. Our atmosphere is composed of more than that one gas. You don't realize that. And as you said you will keep showing that one link as your source for ALL of what you know. The link has no information on it that matters to me.
And since you failed to comment on the math, it shows you don't understand why kinetic energy matters. With you, you'd have everything shut down just to say your right. You can't consider that CO2 can transfer momentum to another gas. This doesn't require it to transfer heat because then it can conserve it's own momentum to increase it's kinetic potential once again. But you have no understanding of this. You say it simply doesn't matter because you are right.

https://goo.gl/images/nKe6m7

read this if you will, it'll help. it's the 2nd to last topic. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/shegas.html
Edited on 31-07-2017 20:43
31-07-2017 22:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.
It is close enough.
If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???


This shows you don't understand physics. CO2 is not "close enough". And yes, everyone except for YOU knows that a molecule of CO2 has more energy than one molecule of oxygen or one element of nitrogen. I have to wonder how you could miss such a basic observation.
As for Boltzmann's constant, you need to read up on it. Your post strongly suggests that you don't grasp it's concepts. Either that or you only want to disrupt this forum because you're bored and you get off on messing with people's minds. Myself, I think it's the latter.


James - how many times do I have to repeat this?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

If you look at the specific heat capacity of CO2 and then the other gases - or just "air" you will see that CO2 has a far lower specific heat capacity. This means that the CO2 molecules begin jumping about a lot more with the addition of energy. They THEN pass this heat on to the other gases in air through conduction. CO2 is actually a COOLANT and not something that contains "more energy" than the other gases.


Is it okay if I explain what you're missing ? I don't think you know what this means; Individual Gas constant
.......................- R -

the .... are necessary to position the -R-.
This is what you are talking about, right ?

It's from PV = nRT, this is what you're actually referring to, right ?
Need to know. I'll explain later.


Jim


I just referred you to a chart that gives the the specific heat, the specific heat radio and the individual gas constants. ALL of these show that CO2 carries less energy than Nitrogen which composes almost 2000 times more of the atmosphere than CO2.

I really do not understand what you think you are trying to prove.


Wake,
This is what your missing. I'm not trying to prove anything but you are. You look at one thing and then have all of the answers. I'm jealous. I really am.
Still, if you look at this, Co2 has more kinetic energy than O2 which has more kinetic energy than nitrogen. Can you show where I said CO2 can warm our atmosphere by transporting heat by itself ? That's what your link is about. A field of pure CO2. Our atmosphere is composed of more than that one gas. You don't realize that. And as you said you will keep showing that one link as your source for ALL of what you know. The link has no information on it that matters to me.
And since you failed to comment on the math, it shows you don't understand why kinetic energy matters. With you, you'd have everything shut down just to say your right. You can't consider that CO2 can transfer momentum to another gas. This doesn't require it to transfer heat because then it can conserve it's own momentum to increase it's kinetic potential once again. But you have no understanding of this. You say it simply doesn't matter because you are right.

https://goo.gl/images/nKe6m7

read this if you will, it'll help. it's the 2nd to last topic. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/shegas.html


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
NOAA's greenhouse gas forcing is fake?107-02-2019 19:12
The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA8010-11-2017 05:08
World Population and Annual Global temperature Since 19501026-09-2017 03:32
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 22:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact