Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios > Page 3

Page 3 of 6

RE: I finally started reading some of your shit.21-03-2022 10:22
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	people who arrive to this website and don't know how to find lists of posts available for reading from each member, may soon notice that for there are about an order of magnitude more troll responses than there are posts by the thread originators. It can be an aggravating nuisance to have to waste so many seconds of time just to scroll past garbage. You can find ALL the originators posts from the thread in chronological order by clicking "sealover" by the avatar. Above the middle of the page, "view all" will give the whole list rather just the most recent 10. So the option exists to never smell them once while you browse the library. But if you want to poke some of the bears around here to test your troll humiliation skills, they haven't all fled yet. They are so gullible too. Too easy. Kind of not as much fun this way. But still plenty of fun.
21-03-2022 12:04
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons. While admirable know that literally non one is here. There is no audience. The trolls killed this board long ago simply because it's not moderated. A guy named Jeppe Branner created this board and just let's it die ( I suspect that he wants a failed discussion online as he hopes to just throw some mud at the topic but I don't know, only motive I could think of). There is a foreign language version I think he's on so it's possible to discover his motives I suppose. But that said it's really just you and I talking here. If you want to feed the trolls you can. sealover wrote:...Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water...If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today... OK while a conveyor of an exothermic reaction (condensation) higher into the atmosphere does seem like it would reduce ground level temps a bit I have never come across this before (it's NOT in the climate models that are generally posted). See my thread here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php wikipedia heat budget So do you have a citation for that? It seems to me the clouds probably do more simply reflecting than the exothermic reaction of condensation. AND venus sure does have some shade down at the surface. Plenty of clouds there. Mars has clouds too. It seems wrong on it's face as a major factor in explaining Venus as Mars has no water and is even cooler than the Earth relative to it's distance from the Sun (presumably because of the thin atmosphere). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN The problem I see in this drawing is the inference that IR light is heading away from the Earth to outer space as heat and it is drawn as coming back down once hitting the greenhouse gasses which are drawn where the clouds are.2 problems .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are I raised this question at the warmazombie meeting I went to and the administrators response was so children could understand it.So we are lying to the children?It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! duncan61
21-03-2022 12:16
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	340.4 Wm2 sorry team I read the wrong one
21-03-2022 13:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	tmiddles wrote:It has NEVER been a contention of Climate Change alarmist that this is a spoil your picnic weather issue. It's about too violently disrupting the ecosystem. Double the hype while eliminating all specifics. tmiddles wrote:Interesting but that change wasn't anthropogenic of course. So my questions are still there. Why is it a "Vicious Feedback" now and it wasn't 5000 years ago? Is there something particularly important about the current temp on Earth? Admirable. You continue to pursue answers from a dishonest troll while knowing it will be futile. You know this because you are a dishonest troll yourself and you know how it works. You cling to the hope that you can leverage seal over's wamizombie requirement to stand in solidarity with you before deniers ... but you know that he won't budge. I have to laugh at the irony. I think about how I afforded you honest, thorough answers to every single question you had ... multiple times each ... and yet you would never answer my questions and only ever attacked me over bogus positions you assigned to me. Now you are groveling for answers from someone on your level of dishonesty, expecting honesty. Too funny. tmiddles wrote:Looking at this it seems that there are two things that seem to be true: 1- It was warmer before, 125,000 years ago. 2- We had a non-AGW spike leading us to where we are now. I'll leave you to your omniscience fantasy. I'm happy for you that you have another wamizombie troll with whom to play. Enjoy!
RE: Two ways water keeps us cool21-03-2022 20:44
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Two ways water keeps us cool. First, heat is removed from the surface by evaporation. Hopefully that requires no explanation. Heat that had been removed from the surface is released high above when water condenses. Some of that heat is released as infrared radiation that is as likely to go to space as it is back to the surface. Some of that heat simply raises the temperature of the air high above the surface. Away from the ground. Water also provides shade when it condenses into clouds. In the absence of clouds, a lot more sunlight would be heating the surface. Atmospheric physics is not my specialty. If you have a question you were hoping I could provide a citation for, I am going to restrict such efforts to biogeochemistry. Climate models aren't my thing. But some of my friends could give you a more clear explanation. Now, I hope you will try to imagine something. Someone who has never seen the world of Internet website discussions looks at this place for the first time. They might wonder what I wondered. Why are the same people who chronically engage in behavior that would be inexcusable in any valid scientific debate... Why aren't you ashamed of EACH OTHER? Doesn't the company one chooses to keep say something about THEM? Anyway, I'm not here to fight about climate models. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons. While admirable know that literally non one is here. There is no audience. The trolls killed this board long ago simply because it's not moderated. A guy named Jeppe Branner created this board and just let's it die ( I suspect that he wants a failed discussion online as he hopes to just throw some mud at the topic but I don't know, only motive I could think of). There is a foreign language version I think he's on so it's possible to discover his motives I suppose. But that said it's really just you and I talking here. If you want to feed the trolls you can. sealover wrote:...Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water...If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today... OK while a conveyor of an exothermic reaction (condensation) higher into the atmosphere does seem like it would reduce ground level temps a bit I have never come across this before (it's NOT in the climate models that are generally posted). See my thread here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php wikipedia heat budget So do you have a citation for that? It seems to me the clouds probably do more simply reflecting than the exothermic reaction of condensation. AND venus sure does have some shade down at the surface. Plenty of clouds there. Mars has clouds too. It seems wrong on it's face as a major factor in explaining Venus as Mars has no water and is even cooler than the Earth relative to it's distance from the Sun (presumably because of the thin atmosphere). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

21-03-2022 21:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: people who arrive to this website and don't know how to find lists of posts available for reading from each member, may soon notice that for there are about an order of magnitude more troll responses than there are posts by the thread originators. [quote]sealover wrote: It can be an aggravating nuisance to have to waste so many seconds of time just to scroll past garbage. ...deleted excess... Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented. 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
21-03-2022 21:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons. While admirable know that literally non one is here. There is no audience. The trolls killed this board long ago simply because it's not moderated. A guy named Jeppe Branner created this board and just let's it die ( I suspect that he wants a failed discussion online as he hopes to just throw some mud at the topic but I don't know, only motive I could think of). There is a foreign language version I think he's on so it's possible to discover his motives I suppose. But that said it's really just you and I talking here. If you want to feed the trolls you can. sealover wrote:...Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water...If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today... OK while a conveyor of an exothermic reaction (condensation) higher into the atmosphere does seem like it would reduce ground level temps a bit I have never come across this before (it's NOT in the climate models that are generally posted). See my thread here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php wikipedia heat budget So do you have a citation for that? It seems to me the clouds probably do more simply reflecting than the exothermic reaction of condensation. AND venus sure does have some shade down at the surface. Plenty of clouds there. Mars has clouds too. It seems wrong on it's face as a major factor in explaining Venus as Mars has no water and is even cooler than the Earth relative to it's distance from the Sun (presumably because of the thin atmosphere). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN The problem I see in this drawing is the inference that IR light is heading away from the Earth to outer space as heat and it is drawn as coming back down once hitting the greenhouse gasses which are drawn where the clouds are.2 problems .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are I raised this question at the warmazombie meeting I went to and the administrators response was so children could understand it.So we are lying to the children?It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! The problem with these drawings is that they deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't trap thermal energy. You can't trap light. You can't slow or trap heat. You can't heat a warmer object with a cold one. Making up numbers, as these drawings, do, and using them as data is a fallacy, known as the argument from randU 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
21-03-2022 22:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: Two ways water keeps us cool. Temperatures on the Moon (effectively the same distance from the Sun) can drop as low as -250 deg F. It has no appreciable water. How does water on Earth keep us cool? sealover wrote: First, heat is removed from the surface by evaporation. You cannot remove heat. sealover wrote: Hopefully that requires no explanation. None. It's quite obvious you have no idea what 'heat' means. sealover wrote: Heat that had been removed from the surface is released high above when water condenses. You cannot release heat. You cannot store or trap heat. sealover wrote: Some of that heat is released as infrared radiation that is as likely to go to space as it is back to the surface. You cannot release heat. You cannot store or trap heat. All matter radiates light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you are ignoring. sealover wrote: Some of that heat simply raises the temperature of the air high above the surface. Away from the ground. What 'heat'? You cannot store or trap heat. sealover wrote: Water also provides shade when it condenses into clouds. In the absence of clouds, a lot more sunlight would be heating the surface. Now you are ignoring Thenevin's law. You cannot separate atmosphere and the Earth. It is all one Earth. sealover wrote: Atmospheric physics is not my specialty. Obviously. sealover wrote: If you have a question you were hoping I could provide a citation for, I am going to restrict such efforts to biogeochemistry. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Climate models aren't my thing. They apparently are. You just tried to describe one (false as it is). sealover wrote: But some of my friends could give you a more clear explanation. Of what? Your inanity? Perhaps they could help you define your buzzwords. sealover wrote: Now, I hope you will try to imagine something. Someone who has never seen the world of Internet website discussions looks at this place for the first time. They might wonder what I wondered. Why are the same people who chronically engage in behavior that would be inexcusable in any valid scientific debate... Science isn't a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no moderator. There is no voting bloc. sealover wrote: Why aren't you ashamed of EACH OTHER? Doesn't the company one chooses to keep say something about THEM? Anyway, I'm not here to fight about climate models. So you discard your entire post. Gotit. 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
22-03-2022 01:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	seal over wrote:TFirst, heat is removed from the surface by evaporation. So the atmosphere is hotter. How does that make us cooler? seal over wrote:Hopefully that requires no explanation. Unfortunately, you have to explain what you mean by "heat." It would seem that you have no idea what you are talking about so you use the word "heat" in the hopes that you can slide by without any questions. From The MANUAL. Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. ... so when you write "heat" ... what semantic are you employing? seal over wrote:Heat that had been removed from the surface is released high above when water condenses. All the "heat" that you mention is simply coming from the water itself. The water isn't cooling anything if it is simply evaporating, which is a reflexive verb. If the "standing water" hadn't been there in the first place, the water wouldn't have heated up in the first place. The water isn't cooling anything by evaporating, but it is heating the atmosphere. That's not cooling. It's what fuels (but does not cause) storms. seal over wrote:Some of that heat is released as infrared radiation that is as likely to go to space as it is back to the surface. Here you clarify your belief that "heat" is electromagnetic radiation. Is that what you meant above or are you fluidly shifting semantics from something else to thermal radiation? Will you be shifting semantics ti something else after this? I notice that you also used the word "released" with respect to "heat." Is that because you don't know what heat is or are you intentionally being dishonest? [hint: heat cannot be trapped/contained/held/incarcerated and therefore cannot be released/set free. seal over wrote:Water also provides shade when it condenses into clouds. ... but clouds absorb electromagnetic radiation and increase in temperature, ... which increases the temperature of the atmosphere. seal over wrote: In the absence of clouds, a lot more sunlight would be heating the surface. Irrelevant. On a hot day, it's the air temperature that makes you hot, not your lawn. seal over wrote:Atmospheric physics is not my specialty. I'll give you another pass. seal over wrote:If you have a question you were hoping I could provide a citation for, I am going to restrict such efforts to biogeochemistry. ... and since there is no such thing as biogeochemistry, this is your way of saying that you won't be answering any questions. seal over wrote:Climate models aren't my thing. They're nobody's thing. There aren't any. A modeler would have to have an unambiguous definition of the global climate in order to build such a model, and as you are painfully aware, there are no unambiguous definitions of the global climate that aren't immediately FALSE out of the starting gate. This is why you have never seen a climate model. seal over wrote:But some of my friends could give you a more clear explanation. Nope. They haven't seen any global climate models either. seal over wrote:Now, I hope you will try to imagine something. Someone who has never seen the world of Internet website discussions looks at this place for the first time. They might wonder what I wondered. You wondered if you met the strict definition of "troll"? I would think that should have been obvious, but I can imagine visitors to this site wondering if they should openly call you a "troll" or if there might be a newer term that they were supposed to use. seal over wrote: Why are the same people who chronically engage in behavior that would be inexcusable in any valid scientific debate... So you think visitors might wonder why we let you carry on as you do without immediately banning you? Well, hopefully they will see that all views are permitted. We don't have censors here. This site is moderated but not censored. Trolls such as yourself who intend to only disrupt and who are desperate to control the expression of others have a very difficult time when confronted by a board of independent voices expressing analytical and critical reasoning. You will never get your way. You will not like it here. Of course, you'd be delighted at what you find at YAP. You'll be the god that you so desperately need to be, and you won't find any critical reasoning or math or science thrown at you there; anyone who tries will be quickly punished by the YAP censors. seal over wrote: Doesn't the company one chooses to keep say something about THEM? Doesn't the poor grammar one employs say a lot about his lack of education? seal over wrote:Anyway, I'm not here to fight about climate models. ... nor are you here for any constructive purpose. Attached image:
22-03-2022 01:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:...2 problems... .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless ! You are thinking of hot air rising. Radiance can go down. Sunlight comes down obviously. duncan61 wrote: .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are Its also lower and higher. Thats just an infographic. duncan61 wrote:...It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! This is what the ground level is emitting based on the temp. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 22-03-2022 01:56
RE: Please avoid cross talk. Respect the thread.22-03-2022 02:17
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Please avoid cross talk. Respect the thread. However, the cross talk here does not disrespect the thread. Not at all. It is a rational discussion related to the theme of the thread. It is most welcome. In contrast, the very same cross talk would have been disrespectful is the theme of the thread was alkalinity. But find a safe space to have a rational discussion. just try to keep it on topic. Please continue. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...2 problems... .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless ! You are thinking of hot air rising. Radiance can go down. Sunlight comes down obviously. duncan61 wrote: .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are Its also lower and higher. Thats just an infographic. duncan61 wrote:...It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! This is what the ground level is emitting based on the temp. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
22-03-2022 02:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are Its also lower and higher. Thats just an infographic. It's a fabricated fantasy graphic. It has no information. This is a fantasy graphic as well and it contains no useful information either: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! This is what the ground level is emitting based on the temp. Except that no one knows the emissivity and cannot determine the radiance based on the temp. It's a totally made-up number. The fantasy graphic contains no useful information.
22-03-2022 02:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote: Please avoid cross talk. the thread is about global warming due to increased CO2. Duncan had some basic questions about how the "standard model" works. That's on topic. You have, as a postulate to your topic here, that increased CO2 causes surface warming as described in the infographics I presented correct? Edited on 22-03-2022 02:42
RE: underlying assumptions about CO2 physical properties22-03-2022 03:12
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Underlying assumptions about CO2 physical properties. I'm going to trust the other scientists on what they figured out more than 150 years about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared in a way that neither nitrogen nor oxygen do. I'm going to trust my own research experience making successful use of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to measure organic carbon in soil based on the specific wavelengths for peak infrared absorption of specific kinds of bonds among carbon atoms. I'm going to trust my own lying eyes about how much more often the AC switched on and off when CO2 concentration was raised in an actual sealed greenhouse. But I cannot be required to answer outside my field of specialization. Some might consider it unethical if I pretended expertise in anything else. ------------------------------------------------------------------ tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote: Please avoid cross talk. the thread is about global warming due to increased CO2. Duncan had some basic questions about how the "standard model" works. That's on topic. You have, as a postulate to your topic here, that increased CO2 causes surface warming as described in the infographics I presented correct?
22-03-2022 03:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote: ...I'm going to trust the other scientists ... Im not a scientist and neither is Duncan. I'm interested in understanding how planetary climates work. While it may be settled science I don't really understand it well myself. If you prefer not to discuss it thats ok.

22-03-2022 05:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...2 problems... .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless ! You are thinking of hot air rising. Radiance can go down. Sunlight comes down obviously. No. He's not even thinking. Neither are you. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If the Sun is on the horizon, such as at sunset, how can it's light go down?? tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are Its also lower and higher. Thats just an infographic. So...lower is higher....gotit. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! This is what the ground level is emitting based on the temp. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the emissivity of the Earth. You are making up numbers again. 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
22-03-2022 05:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: Please avoid cross talk. Respect the thread. However, the cross talk here does not disrespect the thread. Not at all. It is a rational discussion related to the theme of the thread. It is most welcome. In contrast, the very same cross talk would have been disrespectful is the theme of the thread was alkalinity. But find a safe space to have a rational discussion. just try to keep it on topic. Please continue. Be respectful. Use the correct buzzword here. Using a different buzzword is not allowed. Sealover, the God of this Thread, has ordered it. 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
22-03-2022 05:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote: Please avoid cross talk. the thread is about global warming due to increased CO2. No, it isn't. It's about 'vicious cycles' (whatever THAT is!). Apparently the 'global warming' buzzword cannot be used here. Sealover, the God of this Thread, has declared it. Only He can ignore his own edict. 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
22-03-2022 05:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: Underlying assumptions about CO2 physical properties. I'm going to trust the other scientists on what they figured out more than 150 years about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared in a way that neither nitrogen nor oxygen do. Nitrogen absorbs infrared light. Oxygen absorbs infrared light. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light. Is there something about Carbon dioxide that absorbs infrared light in some special pretty way? Does it produce unicorns? sealover wrote: I'm going to trust my own research experience making successful use of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to measure organic carbon in soil based on the specific wavelengths for peak infrared absorption of specific kinds of bonds among carbon atoms. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: I'm going to trust my own lying eyes about how much more often the AC switched on and off when CO2 concentration was raised in an actual sealed greenhouse. Okay. Your eyes are lying to you, but you accept that. Gotit. sealover wrote: But I cannot be required to answer outside my field of specialization. You don't have one. sealover wrote: Some might consider it unethical if I pretended expertise in anything else. You don't have any expertise. 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
22-03-2022 05:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote: ...I'm going to trust the other scientists ... Im not a scientist and neither is Duncan. I'm interested in understanding how planetary climates work. There is no such thing as a planetary climate. tmiddles wrote: While it may be settled science I don't really understand it well myself. There is no such thing as 'thettled thience' either. tmiddles wrote: If you prefer not to discuss it thats ok. You went against the Holy Edicts of Sealover, the God of this Thread. Only He can go against his own edicts. 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
22-03-2022 05:34
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	sealover wrote: Please avoid cross talk. Respect the thread. Translation: Please, please, please, only talk about the things my climate priest taught me that I bought into hook, line, and sinker without question. Please respect my freedom of religion and never ever ever challenge my faith, lest I call you a troll. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
22-03-2022 05:44
James_ ★★★★★ (2235)	GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: Please avoid cross talk. Respect the thread. Translation: Please, please, please, only talk about the things my climate priest taught me that I bought into hook, line, and sinker without question. Please respect my freedom of religion and never ever ever challenge my faith, lest I call you a troll. deleted, a little boy misses his mommy. Edited on 22-03-2022 05:57
22-03-2022 05:54
James_ ★★★★★ (2235)	deleted; repeated post. Edited on 22-03-2022 05:56
22-03-2022 05:54
James_ ★★★★★ (2235)	Heidi and her mother: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql5fhul3-CA&t=71s Heidi's YouTube channel; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwn6vsKSyDJUCUPrpad-dDw Edited on 22-03-2022 05:55
RE: Photorespiration - the world's most abundant enzyme RuBisCO22-03-2022 05:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Photorespiration - the world's most abundant enzyme RuBisCO Increased atmospheric concentrations of Carbon in just the last few decades has caused significant increases in yields for plants that use C-3 metabolism. Which is almost all of them. Some in the desert do not because they cannot risk dessication by leaving open their stomata during the day when they would need to be pulling in CO2. They would have to open up at night and accumulate a stored reserve of CO2 taken in from the night air. It was costly to bind up the carbon dioxide without being able to use it yet for photosyntheis C-4 plants such as sugar cane, corn, and bamboo evolved a different way to catch CO2 that only became a competitive advantage within the past few million years, when CO2 dropped to below 350 ppm in the atmosphere. C-4 plants gained a major competitive advantage when the atmosphere changed a few million years ago. They have lost that competitive advantage in just the last few decades. Corn and sugar cane yields have not increased at all because of higher CO2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Photorespiration, rise of C-4 photosynthesis fitness when CO2 decline to 350ppm Three million years ago, Mother Nature reset the dial on the earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. It dropped down. Like way, way down to where it had never been before. going to be evasive about photorespiration details, but suffice it for now to say that when photorespiration causes the plant to waste organic carbon that it fixed from the atmosphere just an enzyme grabbed oxygen, accidentally, rather than carbon dioxide. Carbon is a limiting nutrient when everyone competes under low CO2 at high noon under dense canopy of tropical rainforest. They can draw it down enough to increase the cost of doing business for photosynthesis. Like, by a LOT. Not coincidentally, corn and sugarcane originated from such environment. Bamboo too. Able to outgrow neighbors who were losing most of the carbon they fixed to photorespiration when the carbon feeding frenzy was so fierce. Bamboo, sugar cane, corn. Notoriously fast growers shoot up high fast. C_4 metabolism enabled them to do that when their neighbors were stalling under CO2-starved conditions.
22-03-2022 06:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: Photorespiration - the world's most abundant enzyme RuBisCO ...deleted excess.. Buzzword fallacies. Spamming. No argument presented. 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
22-03-2022 06:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	seal over wrote:Underlying assumptions about CO2 physical properties. Once again we're back to the pointless trivia whereby you sanitize your posts so that no hint of your profound religious beliefs remain. You do this because you are ashamed of the religious beliefs you have been ordered to hold without question. The issue is not the physical properties of CO2. The issue is CO2's magickal superpowers to defy physics and to increase the average temperature of a planet surrounded by the vacuum of space without any additional thermal energy. That is one amazing superpower ... and you won't mention it because you will be deservedly mocked for having played hooky throughout middle school. seal over wrote:I'm going to trust the other scientists on what they figured out more than 150 years about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared in a way that neither nitrogen nor oxygen do. Big F'ing deal. This isn't even interesting trivia. Are you also going to trust "the scientists" who figured out more than 150 years ago that glass is transparent in ways that neither sodium carbonate nor potash are? What about the scientists who discovered more than 150 years ago that air is breathable by humans in ways that water and wood are not? What is it you believe about CO2 that you fear announcing in public? Surely you didn't write this post just to tell us how much you believe that CO2 absorbs infrared or just how much you believe that alkalines neutralize acids. There has to be more. Does it bring you shame? Say it. Is it such a profoundly held belief that you can only share it with those whom you know to believe it as well? seal over wrote:I'm going to trust my own research experience making successful use of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to measure organic carbon in soil based on the specific wavelengths for peak infrared absorption of specific kinds of bonds among carbon atoms. Is there anything else? This is pointless trivia. What conclusions did you draw from your own research that aren't what everybody already knows? Why tell us that you believe what everybody already knows? seal over wrote:I'm going to trust my own lying eyes about how much more often the AC switched on and off when CO2 concentration was raised in an actual sealed greenhouse. I believe we're all familiar with that little parlor trick that is so effective at fooling gullible warmizombies. Big deal. So you aren't very educated and you fell for it. Is there anything interesting you'd like to share with everyone or are you limiting your posts to the incredibly boring and the totally pointless? seal over wrote:But I cannot be required to answer outside my field of specialization. ... and you apparently have no field of specialization. What gives you away is your inability to define terms. You should be defining all of them up front but you refuse to define any of them, a clear sign that you are faking it. Your egregious science gaffes are another clear sign that you are lying about any credentials you have in order to garner undeserved authority. I notice that tmiddles cowers when you bark orders. It looks like he buys your claim of credentials. I suggest you milk it for all it's worth. Note: I will credit you for having defined one term. I almost couldn't believe it when I saw it but there it was: "ANC" - acid neutralizing capability, as a definition for alkalinity. It's not much of a definition but I'll take whatever I can get where you are concerned. sealover wrote:Some might consider it unethical if I pretended expertise in anything else. This is an anonymous forum. You shouldn't be relying on claims of any credentials. Your words are supposed to stand on their own. Otherwise, credentials mean zero. Yet here you are claiming a PhD that you render impossible to believe and none of your words stand on their own. You preach a WACKY religion while recounting pointless anecdotes. You have no intention of learning anything and instead lash out at being corrected because it damages your claim of authority. That's where we stand. You came here to troll this board, and while nobody is threatening to ban you, you nonetheless are on a crusade to have all those with differing views banned or ostracized or what have you. That is the third clear sign of an uneducated dolt, i.e. someone who fears the education of others as a threat to reveal his own ignorance. Your ignorance has already been revealed as has your troll nature. You are nothing but an ignorant troll. You have had countless opportunities to contribute intellectually to this site and you simply refuse. You choose to live under your bridge. Attached image: Edited on 22-03-2022 06:35
22-03-2022 16:37
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	IBdaMann wrote: seal over wrote:Underlying assumptions about CO2 physical properties. Once again we're back to the pointless trivia whereby you sanitize your posts so that no hint of your profound religious beliefs remain. You do this because you are ashamed of the religious beliefs you have been ordered to hold without question. The issue is not the physical properties of CO2. The issue is CO2's magickal superpowers to defy physics and to increase the average temperature of a planet surrounded by the vacuum of space without any additional thermal energy. That is one amazing superpower ... and you won't mention it because you will be deservedly mocked for having played hooky throughout middle school. seal over wrote:I'm going to trust the other scientists on what they figured out more than 150 years about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared in a way that neither nitrogen nor oxygen do. Big F'ing deal. This isn't even interesting trivia. Are you also going to trust "the scientists" who figured out more than 150 years ago that glass is transparent in ways that neither sodium carbonate nor potash are? What about the scientists who discovered more than 150 years ago that air is breathable by humans in ways that water and wood are not? What is it you believe about CO2 that you fear announcing in public? Surely you didn't write this post just to tell us how much you believe that CO2 absorbs infrared or just how much you believe that alkalines neutralize acids. There has to be more. Does it bring you shame? Say it. Is it such a profoundly held belief that you can only share it with those whom you know to believe it as well? seal over wrote:I'm going to trust my own research experience making successful use of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to measure organic carbon in soil based on the specific wavelengths for peak infrared absorption of specific kinds of bonds among carbon atoms. Is there anything else? This is pointless trivia. What conclusions did you draw from your own research that aren't what everybody already knows? Why tell us that you believe what everybody already knows? seal over wrote:I'm going to trust my own lying eyes about how much more often the AC switched on and off when CO2 concentration was raised in an actual sealed greenhouse. I believe we're all familiar with that little parlor trick that is so effective at fooling gullible warmizombies. Big deal. So you aren't very educated and you fell for it. Is there anything interesting you'd like to share with everyone or are you limiting your posts to the incredibly boring and the totally pointless? seal over wrote:But I cannot be required to answer outside my field of specialization. ... and you apparently have no field of specialization. What gives you away is your inability to define terms. You should be defining all of them up front but you refuse to define any of them, a clear sign that you are faking it. Your egregious science gaffes are another clear sign that you are lying about any credentials you have in order to garner undeserved authority. I notice that tmiddles cowers when you bark orders. It looks like he buys your claim of credentials. I suggest you milk it for all it's worth. Note: I will credit you for having defined one term. I almost couldn't believe it when I saw it but there it was: "ANC" - acid neutralizing capability, as a definition for alkalinity. It's not much of a definition but I'll take whatever I can get where you are concerned. sealover wrote:Some might consider it unethical if I pretended expertise in anything else. This is an anonymous forum. You shouldn't be relying on claims of any credentials. Your words are supposed to stand on their own. Otherwise, credentials mean zero. Yet here you are claiming a PhD that you render impossible to believe and none of your words stand on their own. You preach a WACKY religion while recounting pointless anecdotes. You have no intention of learning anything and instead lash out at being corrected because it damages your claim of authority. That's where we stand. You came here to troll this board, and while nobody is threatening to ban you, you nonetheless are on a crusade to have all those with differing views banned or ostracized or what have you. That is the third clear sign of an uneducated dolt, i.e. someone who fears the education of others as a threat to reveal his own ignorance. Your ignorance has already been revealed as has your troll nature. You are nothing but an ignorant troll. You have had countless opportunities to contribute intellectually to this site and you simply refuse. You choose to live under your bridge. IBdamann, At the risk of global genocide, I will speak to you directly. Every word of this response to the seal is dead nuts spot on. Just wanted to give it a bump to the top for all to read, of course with the exception of students of the seal. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
22-03-2022 16:56
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...2 problems... .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless ! You are thinking of hot air rising. Radiance can go down. Sunlight comes down obviously. duncan61 wrote: .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are Its also lower and higher. Thats just an infographic. duncan61 wrote:...It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! This is what the ground level is emitting based on the temp. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN I have learned on this site that UV light comes in from the sun and IR light returns to outer space as heat.The composition of the Atmosphere takes time to heat and cool keeping the place I live fabulous. It is rarely too hot or cold. The process starts at ground level not at some distance from the surface. The energy does not come back.CO2 makes it take a little longer to cool but the amount is tiny and not measurable.That is as simple as I can put it duncan61
22-03-2022 17:45
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	duncan61 wrote: CO2 makes it take a little longer to cool but the amount is tiny and not measurable. Why would it take longer to cool? CO2 conducts heat quite well. It is not an insulator. Notice that CO2 is used for insulating nothing. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

22-03-2022 18:09
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	* Worst case scenario contest entry * The one world government takes over, turning every country into a third world, rat infested, shit-hole. People starving, and willing to kill over government rationed Soylent green food-substitute. People destroying solar and wind farms, because the haven't anything that actually runs on electricity. Rather attempt to grow crops. Unfortunately, yields or poor in most areas, since most of the CO2 was captured and sequestered. Tax time, is pretty much anytime the 'elite' need food or something. Basically armed agents go door-to-door, seizing anything valuable or useful, until they find what they were sent out to collect.
RE: Trump and climate debate22-03-2022 19:23
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Trump and climate debate. One of the high points of his presidency was his visit to California, where unprecedented wildfires had brought climate change to the forefront of attention. Trump was speaking with scientists. His ignorance was on full display. Most of the wildfires were on federal land. Managed by the federal government. Trump cleared things up for those ignorant scientists. The only reason California had a wildfire problem was the refusal of Democrat run state agencies to go around with brooms to sweep the forest. As for the climate change stuff. Science doesn't know. It'll get cooler, you'll see. Donald Trump is an embarrassment to the United States. His bungling of climate change was a crime against humanity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HarveyH55 wrote: * Worst case scenario contest entry * The one world government takes over, turning every country into a third world, rat infested, shit-hole. People starving, and willing to kill over government rationed Soylent green food-substitute. People destroying solar and wind farms, because the haven't anything that actually runs on electricity. Rather attempt to grow crops. Unfortunately, yields or poor in most areas, since most of the CO2 was captured and sequestered. Tax time, is pretty much anytime the 'elite' need food or something. Basically armed agents go door-to-door, seizing anything valuable or useful, until they find what they were sent out to collect.
22-03-2022 19:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Climate-Debate Audience: Prepare thyselves for a bout of Trump Drengement Syndrome (TDS) sealover wrote: Trump and climate debate. One of the high points of his presidency was his visit to California, where unprecedented wildfires had brought climate change to the forefront of attention. Climate-Debate Audience: Do unprecedented fires cause Climate Change or does Climate Change cause unprecedented fires? What is the cause and what is the effect/result? GOTCHA! It was a trick question. Egregious California forest mismanagement causes unprecedented fires, and there is no such thing as that undefined buzzword "Climate Change." Wake up, audience. sealover wrote:Trump was speaking with scientists. They wore "My Name Is Scientist" tags. sealover wrote:His ignorance was on full display. ... and all of Trump's hot air about having a PhD in biogeochemistry. Boy, was he ever a disappointment. sealover wrote:Trump cleared things up for those ignorant scientists. This pointless anecdote has already gotten boring. sealover wrote:The only reason California had a wildfire problem was the refusal of Democrat run state agencies to go around with brooms to sweep the forest. California's problems were self-inflicted. The Democrat-run State ensured the fire situation got out of control so they could claim to be "Ground Zero" for Climate Change. It was all a charade to promote their WACKY religion. sealover wrote:[Trump's] bungling of climate change was a crime against humanity. At least he didn't violate Geneva Conventions by posting on Climate-Debate.
22-03-2022 20:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...2 problems... .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless ! You are thinking of hot air rising. Radiance can go down. Sunlight comes down obviously. duncan61 wrote: .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are Its also lower and higher. Thats just an infographic. duncan61 wrote:...It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! This is what the ground level is emitting based on the temp. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN I have learned on this site that UV light comes in from the sun and IR light returns to outer space as heat.The composition of the Atmosphere takes time to heat and cool keeping the place I live fabulous. It is rarely too hot or cold. The process starts at ground level not at some distance from the surface. The energy does not come back.CO2 makes it take a little longer to cool but the amount is tiny and not measurable.That is as simple as I can put it A pretty wide spectrum of light comes from the Sun, including UV(abc), infrared, visible light, and frequencies all the way down into the radio wave spectrum. Only infrared light, when it's absorbed, is converted to thermal energy. UV light, when absorbed, turns into chemical energy or directly ionizes. Think plastic degradation, suntans, or ozone. Visible light, when absorbed, turns into chemical energy. Think photosynthesis or plastic degradation. CO2 actually takes a bit LESS time to heat and cool than other gases. It therefore is simply the temperature of the air around it as it conducts heat better than most other gases. This is simply a result of it's mass per given volume at the same pressure. It is more massive than most other gases. This is why CO2 is a better gas to use in a Stirling engine than other commonly available gases. It is also one factor that makes CO2 a good extinguisher for fires (although a pretty minor one). You can find the thermal conductivity of various substances at engineering standards websites. Everything emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That emission does not change by substance. There is no variable for substance in the equation. There is no variable for frequency in the equation. r=Cet^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (that serves to convert the relation to our units of measure), 'e' is emissivity (or how well a surface radiates or absorbs light), and 't' is temperature in deg K. Note to sealover: This a definition. It is the definition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you ignore and deny. It is a theory of science. You cannot set it aside, ignore it, deny it, or try to change it without falsifying it first. 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 22-03-2022 21:00
22-03-2022 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	GasGuzzler wrote: duncan61 wrote: CO2 makes it take a little longer to cool but the amount is tiny and not measurable. Why would it take longer to cool? CO2 conducts heat quite well. It is not an insulator. Notice that CO2 is used for insulating nothing. Quite right. CO2 is a lousy insulator. 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
22-03-2022 21:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	HarveyH55 wrote: * Worst case scenario contest entry * The one world government takes over, turning every country into a third world, rat infested, shit-hole. People starving, and willing to kill over government rationed Soylent green food-substitute. People destroying solar and wind farms, because the haven't anything that actually runs on electricity. Rather attempt to grow crops. Unfortunately, yields or poor in most areas, since most of the CO2 was captured and sequestered. Tax time, is pretty much anytime the 'elite' need food or something. Basically armed agents go door-to-door, seizing anything valuable or useful, until they find what they were sent out to collect. Civil war breaks out before then. 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
22-03-2022 21:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: Trump and climate debate. Now the TDS becomes visible once again. sealover wrote: One of the high points of his presidency was his visit to California, where unprecedented wildfires had brought climate change to the forefront of attention. The wildfires are not unprecedented. sealover wrote: Trump was speaking with scientists. His ignorance was on full display. Most of the wildfires were on federal land. Managed by the federal government. Irrelevent. sealover wrote: Trump cleared things up for those ignorant scientists. The only reason California had a wildfire problem was the refusal of Democrat run state agencies to go around with brooms to sweep the forest. Word stuffing. That's a fallacy, dude. Trump never said this. The SDTC has a wildfire problem because of several factors: * spring rains and cooler temperatures cause grass to grow. * hot summer temperatures blond the grass out, turning it into tinder. * some **ing arsonist comes around and sets fire to the grass. The SDTC doesn't clear away brush like it used to. The SDTC fires are mostly arson. Not lightning strikes. Not accidents. Arson. sealover wrote: As for the climate change stuff. Science doesn't know. It'll get cooler, you'll see. Define 'climate change'. Science has no branch named 'climate' or 'climate change'. Science has no theories about undefined buzzwords. sealover wrote: Donald Trump is an embarrassment to the United States. His bungling of climate change was a crime against humanity. TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome, an pattern of hatred toward anything Trump, including making up stuff, ignoring history, and hating that he was such an effective and successful President). Define 'climate change'. Define how it's a 'crime against humanity'. 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**
23-03-2022 01:33
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	sealover wrote: Trump and climate debate. One of the high points of his presidency was his visit to California, where unprecedented wildfires had brought climate change to the forefront of attention. Trump was speaking with scientists. His ignorance was on full display. Most of the wildfires were on federal land. Managed by the federal government. Trump cleared things up for those ignorant scientists. The only reason California had a wildfire problem was the refusal of Democrat run state agencies to go around with brooms to sweep the forest. As for the climate change stuff. Science doesn't know. It'll get cooler, you'll see. Donald Trump is an embarrassment to the United States. His bungling of climate change was a crime against humanity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HarveyH55 wrote: * Worst case scenario contest entry * The one world government takes over, turning every country into a third world, rat infested, shit-hole. People starving, and willing to kill over government rationed Soylent green food-substitute. People destroying solar and wind farms, because the haven't anything that actually runs on electricity. Rather attempt to grow crops. Unfortunately, yields or poor in most areas, since most of the CO2 was captured and sequestered. Tax time, is pretty much anytime the 'elite' need food or something. Basically armed agents go door-to-door, seizing anything valuable or useful, until they find what they were sent out to collect. Trump's expertise is real estate, not alchemy. He knows his limitations, and defers to the experts, so he can focus on what he does best. Wildfire isn't a new thing, been happening forever. Natural, normal, and necessary. The frequency has increased, mostly because of careless, self-involved morons, including government officials in California. There are a lot of mitigation practices they refuse to use, because they aren't 'pretty', they cost money every year, and involve physical labor. Clearing the underbrush during the 'wet' season through prescribed burns is very effective, but there is unpleasant smoke. But, it gets a lot more smoky, longer, during a wildfire... Access roads and fire breaks are effective too, but they aren't very 'scenic'. They also need annual maintenance. California's would rather see their mansions burn (insurance will build them a new one), than scar the landscape with access roads, and bare patches. Wildfires are necessary to remove a build up of dead, dried underbrush, so new growth has a chance to get started. Nature will take care of it occasionally, or we can get to work, and keep some of it cleaned up, so it doesn't involve a huge, natural burn. California gets a lot of federal money to manage and maintain federal land in their state. Rather than mitigation, the spend it on campsites and recreational amenities. Besides, they get bonus federal disaster relief bucks, when there are wildfires, to misuse as they see fit.
23-03-2022 04:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	HarveyH55 wrote: sealover wrote: Trump and climate debate. One of the high points of his presidency was his visit to California, where unprecedented wildfires had brought climate change to the forefront of attention. Trump was speaking with scientists. His ignorance was on full display. Most of the wildfires were on federal land. Managed by the federal government. Trump cleared things up for those ignorant scientists. The only reason California had a wildfire problem was the refusal of Democrat run state agencies to go around with brooms to sweep the forest. As for the climate change stuff. Science doesn't know. It'll get cooler, you'll see. Donald Trump is an embarrassment to the United States. His bungling of climate change was a crime against humanity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HarveyH55 wrote: * Worst case scenario contest entry * The one world government takes over, turning every country into a third world, rat infested, shit-hole. People starving, and willing to kill over government rationed Soylent green food-substitute. People destroying solar and wind farms, because the haven't anything that actually runs on electricity. Rather attempt to grow crops. Unfortunately, yields or poor in most areas, since most of the CO2 was captured and sequestered. Tax time, is pretty much anytime the 'elite' need food or something. Basically armed agents go door-to-door, seizing anything valuable or useful, until they find what they were sent out to collect. Trump's expertise is real estate, not alchemy. He knows his limitations, and defers to the experts, so he can focus on what he does best. Wildfire isn't a new thing, been happening forever. Natural, normal, and necessary. The frequency has increased, mostly because of careless, self-involved morons, including government officials in California. There are a lot of mitigation practices they refuse to use, because they aren't 'pretty', they cost money every year, and involve physical labor. Clearing the underbrush during the 'wet' season through prescribed burns is very effective, but there is unpleasant smoke. But, it gets a lot more smoky, longer, during a wildfire... Access roads and fire breaks are effective too, but they aren't very 'scenic'. They also need annual maintenance. California's would rather see their mansions burn (insurance will build them a new one), than scar the landscape with access roads, and bare patches. Wildfires are necessary to remove a build up of dead, dried underbrush, so new growth has a chance to get started. Nature will take care of it occasionally, or we can get to work, and keep some of it cleaned up, so it doesn't involve a huge, natural burn. California gets a lot of federal money to manage and maintain federal land in their state. Rather than mitigation, the spend it on campsites and recreational amenities. Besides, they get bonus federal disaster relief bucks, when there are wildfires, to misuse as they see fit. Arson isn't a natural burn. 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
24-03-2022 10:32
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]duncan61 wrote:...2 problems... .Its heat,It does not come back down regardless ! You are thinking of hot air rising. Radiance can go down. Sunlight comes down obviously. duncan61 wrote: .The Atmosphere is denser at the surface so why are the gasses where the clouds are Its also lower and higher. Thats just an infographic. duncan61 wrote:...It has even been given a value of 398.2 Wm2.Please explain! This is what the ground level is emitting based on the temp. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN I have learned on this site that UV light comes in from the sun and IR light returns to outer space as heat.The composition of the Atmosphere takes time to heat and cool keeping the place I live fabulous. It is rarely too hot or cold. The process starts at ground level not at some distance from the surface. The energy does not come back.CO2 makes it take a little longer to cool but the amount is tiny and not measurable.That is as simple as I can put it A pretty wide spectrum of light comes from the Sun, including UV(abc), infrared, visible light, and frequencies all the way down into the radio wave spectrum. Only infrared light, when it's absorbed, is converted to thermal energy. UV light, when absorbed, turns into chemical energy or directly ionizes. Think plastic degradation, suntans, or ozone. Visible light, when absorbed, turns into chemical energy. Think photosynthesis or plastic degradation. CO2 actually takes a bit LESS time to heat and cool than other gases. It therefore is simply the temperature of the air around it as it conducts heat better than most other gases. This is simply a result of it's mass per given volume at the same pressure. It is more massive than most other gases. This is why CO2 is a better gas to use in a Stirling engine than other commonly available gases. It is also one factor that makes CO2 a good extinguisher for fires (although a pretty minor one). You can find the thermal conductivity of various substances at engineering standards websites. Everything emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That emission does not change by substance. There is no variable for substance in the equation. There is no variable for frequency in the equation. r=Cet^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (that serves to convert the relation to our units of measure), 'e' is emissivity (or how well a surface radiates or absorbs light), and 't' is temperature in deg K. Note to sealover: This a definition. It is the definition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you ignore and deny. It is a theory of science. You cannot set it aside, ignore it, deny it, or try to change it without falsifying it first.[/quote Thank you ITN.That has made all the sense I needed.I only ever wished to know how it worked.I am sort off done now.The people who are alarmed wish to be alarmed about something.Good work.Its quite cool in the mornings now I will start wearing a jacket when I ride my petrol powered pushbike to work duncan61

Page 3 of 6

Join the debate Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare	32	10-04-2024 08:23
Second case of top-secret Biden documents found stored at Staples near the printer	0	12-01-2023 01:46
The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way	0	22-07-2021 07:31
Another Trump Election Fraud Case Thrown Out	61	09-12-2020 20:12
This is a much bigger issue than a case of mere fraud	36	27-11-2020 23:07