Remember me
▼ Content

Global Warming Argument Simplified



Page 2 of 2<12
07-12-2018 03:52
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(694)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.


So, does the water vapor absorb the same frequencies as CO2 at the same time, or does it have to wait until the CO2 gets it's fill first? If there is little or no CO2 present, does that mean the H2O can't absorb those wavelengths instead? Not to mention, there are likely others, besides just CO2 and H2O, that can absorb those very same wavelengths.

Do you see how climate science works here? You focus entirely on the CO2, like that is the only molecule in the atmosphere, or in this case, the test greenhouses. Both would still have the normal atmospheric gasses and water vapor, just one would have some CO2 added. I suggested raising it to 1200 ppm, since most planets do very well at that level, and it's considerably higher, than what's being sold as catastrophic levels. Neither greenhouse would need to be completely seal, evacuated, and carefully filled with a select gas or vapor, a measured mix. All I'm trying to say, is that regardless of the level of CO2, the energy entering the greenhouse, is going to get absorb by something, and despite, all at about the same rate, no measurable difference.

And you've never known a textbook to be wrong? What's on paper, or computer screen might look fine, make great sense, but doesn't always work outside the lab, sometimes, not even a little. Never had one of those head-scratching moments, what went wrong? A lot of those explanations on how CO2 works, from your textbooks, can't be seen, and only measured under some very strict, laboratory conditions. Can't be done out in the wild world, too many other things going on, to tiny a test subject, not even 1% of the other gasses and vapors, you aren't interesting in.
07-12-2018 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
I decided to give Wake a chance to answer this question, since you asked it of him. He has not responded, so here goes:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, does the water vapor absorb the same frequencies as CO2 at the same time, or does it have to wait until the CO2 gets it's fill first? If there is little or no CO2 present, does that mean the H2O can't absorb those wavelengths instead? Not to mention, there are likely others, besides just CO2 and H2O, that can absorb those very same wavelengths.

There is no sequence to absorption. It's all mixed together, so whatever is there at the time absorbs it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Do you see how climate science works here? You focus entirely on the CO2, like that is the only molecule in the atmosphere, or in this case, the test greenhouses. Both would still have the normal atmospheric gasses and water vapor, just one would have some CO2 added. I suggested raising it to 1200 ppm, since most planets do very well at that level, and it's considerably higher, than what's being sold as catastrophic levels. Neither greenhouse would need to be completely seal, evacuated, and carefully filled with a select gas or vapor, a measured mix. All I'm trying to say, is that regardless of the level of CO2, the energy entering the greenhouse, is going to get absorb by something, and despite, all at about the same rate, no measurable difference.

Here your argument is essentially a correct one. There are many gases that absorb infrared light, but CO2 is the primary concern by the Church of Global Warming. Why? It's because CO2 is produced by industry. Since the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx, this gas is targeted as the excuse to shut down industry.
HarveyH55 wrote:
And you've never known a textbook to be wrong?

Most textbooks are wrong. There is certainly nothing magick about the content of any textbook just because someone wrote the words, printed them, and bound the pages. Elite 'approval' boards are no better than 'peer review'. Useless. Science doesn't use consensus.
HarveyH55 wrote:
What's on paper, or computer screen might look fine, make great sense, but doesn't always work outside the lab, sometimes, not even a little.

It might, it might not. Taking a bit of the universe out and isolating it can be an effective technique, so long as you don't ignore some factor that does have a bearing on your result.

We can, for example, fill a box with CO2 gas and light it with various frequencies of light, and measure which frequencies get absorbed. We know that even out in the 'wild' as you call it, that will not change. By these kinds of experiments and models, we know that stuff that absorbs infrared light will become warmer. We know that stuff that absorbs visible light generally doesn't, but instead chemical changes will occur. We know that higher frequencies of light don't warm much, if any, at all. Instead direct ionization or chemical changes occur.
This is true of the wild, as well as in the laboratory.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Never had one of those head-scratching moments, what went wrong?

Heh. All the time. Usually it's because I forgot some significant factor.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A lot of those explanations on how CO2 works, from your textbooks, can't be seen, and only measured under some very strict, laboratory conditions.

Still works that way in the wild. The problem is that OTHER conclusions are being made that were never tested, in a laboratory or outside of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Can't be done out in the wild world, too many other things going on, to tiny a test subject, not even 1% of the other gasses and vapors, you aren't interesting in.

Ignoring insignificant factors is actually okay. Ignoring significant factors is not. Western Civilization's method of taking a bit of the Universe out, figuring out how it works, and reinserting what you know into the whole of the Universe as valid knowledge is one that does work, properly done. It is the Greek way, and our way ever since.

Eastern cultures tend to reject this idea. You can't model a bit of the Universe like that because the entire Universe is contained in anything you model. You can't change any bit of it without changing the whole. It's as if every object, every bit of the Universe has a spirit or character about it that can't be translated into an isolated model. This stems from Shinto and related religions, including several American Indian religions.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-12-2018 21:41
09-12-2018 19:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.


So, does the water vapor absorb the same frequencies as CO2 at the same time, or does it have to wait until the CO2 gets it's fill first? If there is little or no CO2 present, does that mean the H2O can't absorb those wavelengths instead? Not to mention, there are likely others, besides just CO2 and H2O, that can absorb those very same wavelengths.

Do you see how climate science works here? You focus entirely on the CO2, like that is the only molecule in the atmosphere, or in this case, the test greenhouses. Both would still have the normal atmospheric gasses and water vapor, just one would have some CO2 added. I suggested raising it to 1200 ppm, since most planets do very well at that level, and it's considerably higher, than what's being sold as catastrophic levels. Neither greenhouse would need to be completely seal, evacuated, and carefully filled with a select gas or vapor, a measured mix. All I'm trying to say, is that regardless of the level of CO2, the energy entering the greenhouse, is going to get absorb by something, and despite, all at about the same rate, no measurable difference.

And you've never known a textbook to be wrong? What's on paper, or computer screen might look fine, make great sense, but doesn't always work outside the lab, sometimes, not even a little. Never had one of those head-scratching moments, what went wrong? A lot of those explanations on how CO2 works, from your textbooks, can't be seen, and only measured under some very strict, laboratory conditions. Can't be done out in the wild world, too many other things going on, to tiny a test subject, not even 1% of the other gasses and vapors, you aren't interesting in.


Well, H2O does absorb in the upper two absorption bands of CO2 as well. But that only serves to further reduce the availability of energy in those bands. You could have looked this up instead of writing whatever pops into your head.
09-12-2018 23:05
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(694)
Wake wrote:

Well, H2O does absorb in the upper two absorption bands of CO2 as well. But that only serves to further reduce the availability of energy in those bands. You could have looked this up instead of writing whatever pops into your head.


Ah, but forums are place to share thoughts, ideas, and information. It wasn't posted, for you personally, otherwise I would have sent out private messages.

So, on the average, CO2 is only about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, and water vapor varies, up to 4.0 percent, it's a whole lot more likely to grab up most of those wavelengths. But water vapor does so much more. Not to mention, 4/5ths of the warming Earth's surface is water, which turns to water vapor, when sufficiently warmed. Clearly, a huge mitigating factor, least some overwhelming competition for the man-made CO2 (the super molecule). Wouldn't more water vapor in the atmosphere, also sort of reduce the water levels on the ground? Water evaporates, it takes heat with it, cooling the surface.
10-12-2018 01:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Well, H2O does absorb in the upper two absorption bands of CO2 as well. But that only serves to further reduce the availability of energy in those bands. You could have looked this up instead of writing whatever pops into your head.


Ah, but forums are place to share thoughts, ideas, and information. It wasn't posted, for you personally, otherwise I would have sent out private messages.

So, on the average, CO2 is only about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, and water vapor varies, up to 4.0 percent, it's a whole lot more likely to grab up most of those wavelengths. But water vapor does so much more. Not to mention, 4/5ths of the warming Earth's surface is water, which turns to water vapor, when sufficiently warmed. Clearly, a huge mitigating factor, least some overwhelming competition for the man-made CO2 (the super molecule). Wouldn't more water vapor in the atmosphere, also sort of reduce the water levels on the ground? Water evaporates, it takes heat with it, cooling the surface.


Sorry Harvey, I was pretty irritable because I had brochitis for five weeks and it is just starting to go away and I got in my first bike ride for five weeks.

Though H2O absorbs in the upper two absorption bands of CO2, it is not a very strong absorption. And it doesn't absorb in the low infrared and the largest band of absorption is around 10 mm. But that frequency is so low that there is almost no energy in the sun in that band. The Earth is heated from the most energetic bands of visible light and this emits energy in that wavelength. But there isn't a whole lot of that generated because it has to be absorbed by a material that will warm enough to emit at that rather high band for the re-emission of energy. Most of the Earth is water and it doesn't heat enough to emit in that band.

So again we are stuck with the fact there simply isn't any energy in the CO2 absorption bands for CO2 to absorb.
Edited on 10-12-2018 02:01
10-12-2018 16:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Well, H2O does absorb in the upper two absorption bands of CO2 as well. But that only serves to further reduce the availability of energy in those bands. You could have looked this up instead of writing whatever pops into your head.


Ah, but forums are place to share thoughts, ideas, and information. It wasn't posted, for you personally, otherwise I would have sent out private messages.

So, on the average, CO2 is only about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, and water vapor varies, up to 4.0 percent, it's a whole lot more likely to grab up most of those wavelengths. But water vapor does so much more. Not to mention, 4/5ths of the warming Earth's surface is water, which turns to water vapor, when sufficiently warmed. Clearly, a huge mitigating factor, least some overwhelming competition for the man-made CO2 (the super molecule). Wouldn't more water vapor in the atmosphere, also sort of reduce the water levels on the ground? Water evaporates, it takes heat with it, cooling the surface.


Sorry Harvey, I was pretty irritable because I had brochitis for five weeks and it is just starting to go away and I got in my first bike ride for five weeks.

Though H2O absorbs in the upper two absorption bands of CO2, it is not a very strong absorption. And it doesn't absorb in the low infrared and the largest band of absorption is around 10 mm. But that frequency is so low that there is almost no energy in the sun in that band. The Earth is heated from the most energetic bands of visible light and this emits energy in that wavelength. But there isn't a whole lot of that generated because it has to be absorbed by a material that will warm enough to emit at that rather high band for the re-emission of energy. Most of the Earth is water and it doesn't heat enough to emit in that band.

So again we are stuck with the fact there simply isn't any energy in the CO2 absorption bands for CO2 to absorb.



Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.
10-12-2018 17:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


For simple minded people I suggest you watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM
10-12-2018 17:46
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


For simple minded people I suggest you watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM


It's sad that all you have are insults. You can't even state your own opinion because you simply lack the knowledge to do so. That doesn't really allow for any type of discussion now, does it? It doesn't.
10-12-2018 18:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


For simple minded people I suggest you watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM


It's sad that all you have are insults. You can't even state your own opinion because you simply lack the knowledge to do so. That doesn't really allow for any type of discussion now, does it? It doesn't.
Not anywhere near as sad that you couldn't watch that proving you wrong. I suggest you not talk about simple math when you haven't a shred of knowledge about the actual data and are willing to use phony data.
10-12-2018 18:40
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


For simple minded people I suggest you watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM


It's sad that all you have are insults. You can't even state your own opinion because you simply lack the knowledge to do so. That doesn't really allow for any type of discussion now, does it? It doesn't.
Not anywhere near as sad that you couldn't watch that proving you wrong. I suggest you not talk about simple math when you haven't a shred of knowledge about the actual data and are willing to use phony data.



This is too funny. You won't even sat what "it: is. don't you know? I do have my own interests that I'm pursuing. Have been. And on a personal note, remember when you made fun of me for needing surgery? I was actually placed on disability by the Social Security Administration. I wanted SSDI for the 2 years that I couldn't work before surgery. When I was given SSDI for problems AFTER surgery I knew my situation wasn't good. I am working as I am able to try to improve my situation. Even though I am limited it's not stopping me from trying to do something. This is one reason why I'm learning calculus. I've got the time and so it's an opportunity for me to be better prepared for what I'd like to pursue in Atmospheric Physics. And with you being abled bodied only have insults because you have no interest in learning, in trying or taking an interst in something.
See? It's actually you who are handicapped and not me. You're not capable of considering new ideas or learning.
Maybe you could take the time to learn some calculus? This will help if you have the time to read something. It even lets you know the various uses for calculus.
To say it measures the change of something is such an over simplification that it really doesn't mean anything. Even the Fibonacci sequence shows change. Is that calculus too?

http://www.math.odu.edu/~jhh/Volume-1.PDF
10-12-2018 18:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


For simple minded people I suggest you watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM


It's sad that all you have are insults. You can't even state your own opinion because you simply lack the knowledge to do so. That doesn't really allow for any type of discussion now, does it? It doesn't.
Not anywhere near as sad that you couldn't watch that proving you wrong. I suggest you not talk about simple math when you haven't a shred of knowledge about the actual data and are willing to use phony data.



This is too funny. You won't even sat what "it: is. don't you know? I do have my own interests that I'm pursuing. Have been. And on a personal note, remember when you made fun of me for needing surgery? I was actually placed on disability by the Social Security Administration. I wanted SSDI for the 2 years that I couldn't work before surgery. When I was given SSDI for problems AFTER surgery I knew my situation wasn't good. I am working as I am able to try to improve my situation. Even though I am limited it's not stopping me from trying to do something. This is one reason why I'm learning calculus. I've got the time and so it's an opportunity for me to be better prepared for what I'd like to pursue in Atmospheric Physics. And with you being abled bodied only have insults because you have no interest in learning, in trying or taking an interst in something.
See? It's actually you who are handicapped and not me. You're not capable of considering new ideas or learning.
Maybe you could take the time to learn some calculus? This will help if you have the time to read something. It even lets you know the various uses for calculus.
To say it measures the change of something is such an over simplification that it really doesn't mean anything. Even the Fibonacci sequence shows change. Is that calculus too?

http://www.math.odu.edu/~jhh/Volume-1.PDF


Perhaps you could reference where I "made fun of you for needing surgery"? We could do a lot better without your continuously stupid remarks. Over-simplification doesn't even get through to you. The pretense that you are a math professor in a calculus class shows right through your, shall we say, interesting personality. And you have better things to do than to learn real facts because you wouldn't understand them anyway.
10-12-2018 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Well, H2O does absorb in the upper two absorption bands of CO2 as well. But that only serves to further reduce the availability of energy in those bands. You could have looked this up instead of writing whatever pops into your head.


Ah, but forums are place to share thoughts, ideas, and information. It wasn't posted, for you personally, otherwise I would have sent out private messages.

So, on the average, CO2 is only about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, and water vapor varies, up to 4.0 percent, it's a whole lot more likely to grab up most of those wavelengths. But water vapor does so much more. Not to mention, 4/5ths of the warming Earth's surface is water, which turns to water vapor, when sufficiently warmed. Clearly, a huge mitigating factor, least some overwhelming competition for the man-made CO2 (the super molecule). Wouldn't more water vapor in the atmosphere, also sort of reduce the water levels on the ground? Water evaporates, it takes heat with it, cooling the surface.


Sorry Harvey, I was pretty irritable because I had brochitis for five weeks and it is just starting to go away and I got in my first bike ride for five weeks.

Though H2O absorbs in the upper two absorption bands of CO2, it is not a very strong absorption. And it doesn't absorb in the low infrared and the largest band of absorption is around 10 mm. But that frequency is so low that there is almost no energy in the sun in that band. The Earth is heated from the most energetic bands of visible light and this emits energy in that wavelength. But there isn't a whole lot of that generated because it has to be absorbed by a material that will warm enough to emit at that rather high band for the re-emission of energy. Most of the Earth is water and it doesn't heat enough to emit in that band.

So again we are stuck with the fact there simply isn't any energy in the CO2 absorption bands for CO2 to absorb.



Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


Molecules don't have shells.


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2018 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


For simple minded people I suggest you watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM


It's sad that all you have are insults. You can't even state your own opinion because you simply lack the knowledge to do so. That doesn't really allow for any type of discussion now, does it? It doesn't.


??? THAT's an insult??? What language are YOU using???


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2018 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


For simple minded people I suggest you watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM


It's sad that all you have are insults. You can't even state your own opinion because you simply lack the knowledge to do so. That doesn't really allow for any type of discussion now, does it? It doesn't.
Not anywhere near as sad that you couldn't watch that proving you wrong. I suggest you not talk about simple math when you haven't a shred of knowledge about the actual data and are willing to use phony data.



This is too funny. You won't even sat what "it: is. don't you know? I do have my own interests that I'm pursuing. Have been. And on a personal note, remember when you made fun of me for needing surgery? I was actually placed on disability by the Social Security Administration. I wanted SSDI for the 2 years that I couldn't work before surgery. When I was given SSDI for problems AFTER surgery I knew my situation wasn't good. I am working as I am able to try to improve my situation. Even though I am limited it's not stopping me from trying to do something. This is one reason why I'm learning calculus. I've got the time and so it's an opportunity for me to be better prepared for what I'd like to pursue in Atmospheric Physics. And with you being abled bodied only have insults because you have no interest in learning, in trying or taking an interst in something.
See? It's actually you who are handicapped and not me. You're not capable of considering new ideas or learning.
Maybe you could take the time to learn some calculus? This will help if you have the time to read something. It even lets you know the various uses for calculus.
To say it measures the change of something is such an over simplification that it really doesn't mean anything. Even the Fibonacci sequence shows change. Is that calculus too?

http://www.math.odu.edu/~jhh/Volume-1.PDF


More random buzzword crap. Can't you at least stick to a topic long enough to form any kind of argument?


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2018 22:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Well, H2O does absorb in the upper two absorption bands of CO2 as well. But that only serves to further reduce the availability of energy in those bands. You could have looked this up instead of writing whatever pops into your head.


Ah, but forums are place to share thoughts, ideas, and information. It wasn't posted, for you personally, otherwise I would have sent out private messages.

So, on the average, CO2 is only about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, and water vapor varies, up to 4.0 percent, it's a whole lot more likely to grab up most of those wavelengths. But water vapor does so much more. Not to mention, 4/5ths of the warming Earth's surface is water, which turns to water vapor, when sufficiently warmed. Clearly, a huge mitigating factor, least some overwhelming competition for the man-made CO2 (the super molecule). Wouldn't more water vapor in the atmosphere, also sort of reduce the water levels on the ground? Water evaporates, it takes heat with it, cooling the surface.


Sorry Harvey, I was pretty irritable because I had brochitis for five weeks and it is just starting to go away and I got in my first bike ride for five weeks.

Though H2O absorbs in the upper two absorption bands of CO2, it is not a very strong absorption. And it doesn't absorb in the low infrared and the largest band of absorption is around 10 mm. But that frequency is so low that there is almost no energy in the sun in that band. The Earth is heated from the most energetic bands of visible light and this emits energy in that wavelength. But there isn't a whole lot of that generated because it has to be absorbed by a material that will warm enough to emit at that rather high band for the re-emission of energy. Most of the Earth is water and it doesn't heat enough to emit in that band.

So again we are stuck with the fact there simply isn't any energy in the CO2 absorption bands for CO2 to absorb.



Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


Molecules don't have shells.


Atoms have electrons orbiting them at about 1/137th the speed of light. This contains the electron below the relativistic speed of light but remember that the diameter of orbit of the electron is so small that the electrons is virtually everywhere in the orbit at all times. And the nucleus always is revolving. This means that there is what is essentially a shell around every atom.

But as to James talking about the shell refracting energy - it doesn't. Light is massless and the wavelengths are so long in comparison to the shell that the only thing that occurs to light is that it passes though the structure of the atom except for the absorption bands at which the light has the same frequency as the vibratory ability of the nucleus.
Edited on 10-12-2018 22:21
11-12-2018 03:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Well, H2O does absorb in the upper two absorption bands of CO2 as well. But that only serves to further reduce the availability of energy in those bands. You could have looked this up instead of writing whatever pops into your head.


Ah, but forums are place to share thoughts, ideas, and information. It wasn't posted, for you personally, otherwise I would have sent out private messages.

So, on the average, CO2 is only about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, and water vapor varies, up to 4.0 percent, it's a whole lot more likely to grab up most of those wavelengths. But water vapor does so much more. Not to mention, 4/5ths of the warming Earth's surface is water, which turns to water vapor, when sufficiently warmed. Clearly, a huge mitigating factor, least some overwhelming competition for the man-made CO2 (the super molecule). Wouldn't more water vapor in the atmosphere, also sort of reduce the water levels on the ground? Water evaporates, it takes heat with it, cooling the surface.


Sorry Harvey, I was pretty irritable because I had brochitis for five weeks and it is just starting to go away and I got in my first bike ride for five weeks.

Though H2O absorbs in the upper two absorption bands of CO2, it is not a very strong absorption. And it doesn't absorb in the low infrared and the largest band of absorption is around 10 mm. But that frequency is so low that there is almost no energy in the sun in that band. The Earth is heated from the most energetic bands of visible light and this emits energy in that wavelength. But there isn't a whole lot of that generated because it has to be absorbed by a material that will warm enough to emit at that rather high band for the re-emission of energy. Most of the Earth is water and it doesn't heat enough to emit in that band.

So again we are stuck with the fact there simply isn't any energy in the CO2 absorption bands for CO2 to absorb.



Gosh Beav, hear goes another wild assed theory. Can't the shell of a molecule refracted incoming solar radiation? Or if passes through a molecule of gas in our atmosphere can it's wavelength be affected by passing through it's field?
Actually not wild assed theory but questions. And of course your answer will be an online search because you didn't read the book.
And wake, the reason I'm in the wrong place is because I've taken the time to read books. It does show that you guys haven't read much.


Molecules don't have shells.


Atoms have electrons orbiting them at about 1/137th the speed of light. This contains the electron below the relativistic speed of light but remember that the diameter of orbit of the electron is so small that the electrons is virtually everywhere in the orbit at all times. And the nucleus always is revolving. This means that there is what is essentially a shell around every atom.

James was talking about a molecule, not an atom.
Wake wrote:
But as to James talking about the shell refracting energy - it doesn't. Light is massless and the wavelengths are so long in comparison to the shell that the only thing that occurs to light is that it passes though the structure of the atom except for the absorption bands at which the light has the same frequency as the vibratory ability of the nucleus.

This is essentially correct. James is being weird with his buzzwords, as usual of late.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-12-2018 03:40
11-12-2018 16:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Into the Night wrote:


Molecules don't have shells.



And I suppose you learned this by NOT studying physics, right? That seems logical. I can't believe you really don't know this. It's basic atmospheric chemistry and since this is an Understanding Our Environment forum where we're all concerned about what's happening to our environment.
How the heck can atmospheric gases (spelled gasses is also correct) have a covalent bond (CO2 has a double covalent bond) if elements don't share an electron? Now this will seem really stupid since the question has to be asked, where are electrons that ARE NOT free radicals found?
This is very simple, in the shell of an element. Don't you remember Paulie's Exclusion Principle? Electrons (fermions that are 1/2 integers) can't have the same phase. This is because matter can't occupy the same space so electrons/fermions have to be in a different part of the shell.
I hope you're only acting stupid for everyone else's benefit.
Edited on 11-12-2018 17:44
11-12-2018 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Molecules don't have shells.



And I suppose you learned this by NOT studying physics, right? That seems logical. I can't believe you really don't know this.
No matter how you trivialize what I said, molecules don't have shells, James.
James___ wrote:
It's basic atmospheric chemistry
Not chemistry at all. Molecules don't have shells.
James___ wrote:
and since this is an Understanding Our Environment forum where we're all concerned about what's happening to our environment.

You are not discussing environment. You are discussing molecules.
James___ wrote:
How the heck can atmospheric gases (spelled gasses is also correct) have a covalent bond (CO2 has a double covalent bond) if elements don't share an electron? Now this will seem really stupid since the question has to be asked, where are electrons that ARE NOT free radicals found?
Electrons are never free radicals, not even free electrons. They are found in every atom, as well as roaming free by themselves.
James___ wrote:
This is very simple, in the shell of an element. Don't you remember Paulie's Exclusion Principle? Electrons (fermions that are 1/2 integers) can't have the same phase. This is because matter can't occupy the same space so electrons/fermions have to be in a different part of the shell.

Molecules don't apply to Paulie's Exclusion Principle. Atoms do.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 21:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Molecules don't have shells.



And I suppose you learned this by NOT studying physics, right? That seems logical. I can't believe you really don't know this.
No matter how you trivialize what I said, molecules don't have shells, James.
James___ wrote:
It's basic atmospheric chemistry
Not chemistry at all. Molecules don't have shells.
James___ wrote:
and since this is an Understanding Our Environment forum where we're all concerned about what's happening to our environment.

You are not discussing environment. You are discussing molecules.
James___ wrote:
How the heck can atmospheric gases (spelled gasses is also correct) have a covalent bond (CO2 has a double covalent bond) if elements don't share an electron? Now this will seem really stupid since the question has to be asked, where are electrons that ARE NOT free radicals found?
Electrons are never free radicals, not even free electrons. They are found in every atom, as well as roaming free by themselves.
James___ wrote:
This is very simple, in the shell of an element. Don't you remember Paulie's Exclusion Principle? Electrons (fermions that are 1/2 integers) can't have the same phase. This is because matter can't occupy the same space so electrons/fermions have to be in a different part of the shell.

Molecules don't apply to Paulie's Exclusion Principle. Atoms do.


Will you please stop pulling your stupid carp? Pauli's Exclusion principle has to do with quantum particles and not molecules. A photon is not a quantum particle because it has no mass, travels at the speed of light and can be anywhere at any time.

Molecules do have shells because they share electrons in order to allow the atoms to exist in close proximity.

This all of your "you can't tell temperature by light" all over again. You keep talking about the Stefan-Boltzman law and yet do not know how to use it.
11-12-2018 21:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Molecules don't have shells.



And I suppose you learned this by NOT studying physics, right? That seems logical. I can't believe you really don't know this.
No matter how you trivialize what I said, molecules don't have shells, James.
James___ wrote:
It's basic atmospheric chemistry
Not chemistry at all. Molecules don't have shells.
James___ wrote:
and since this is an Understanding Our Environment forum where we're all concerned about what's happening to our environment.

You are not discussing environment. You are discussing molecules.
James___ wrote:
How the heck can atmospheric gases (spelled gasses is also correct) have a covalent bond (CO2 has a double covalent bond) if elements don't share an electron? Now this will seem really stupid since the question has to be asked, where are electrons that ARE NOT free radicals found?
Electrons are never free radicals, not even free electrons. They are found in every atom, as well as roaming free by themselves.
James___ wrote:
This is very simple, in the shell of an element. Don't you remember Paulie's Exclusion Principle? Electrons (fermions that are 1/2 integers) can't have the same phase. This is because matter can't occupy the same space so electrons/fermions have to be in a different part of the shell.

Molecules don't apply to Paulie's Exclusion Principle. Atoms do.


Will you please stop pulling your stupid carp? Pauli's Exclusion principle has to do with quantum particles and not molecules. A photon is not a quantum particle because it has no mass, travels at the speed of light and can be anywhere at any time.

Molecules do have shells because they share electrons in order to allow the atoms to exist in close proximity.

This all of your "you can't tell temperature by light" all over again. You keep talking about the Stefan-Boltzman law and yet do not know how to use it.


An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion
11-12-2018 23:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Molecules don't have shells.



And I suppose you learned this by NOT studying physics, right? That seems logical. I can't believe you really don't know this.
No matter how you trivialize what I said, molecules don't have shells, James.
James___ wrote:
It's basic atmospheric chemistry
Not chemistry at all. Molecules don't have shells.
James___ wrote:
and since this is an Understanding Our Environment forum where we're all concerned about what's happening to our environment.

You are not discussing environment. You are discussing molecules.
James___ wrote:
How the heck can atmospheric gases (spelled gasses is also correct) have a covalent bond (CO2 has a double covalent bond) if elements don't share an electron? Now this will seem really stupid since the question has to be asked, where are electrons that ARE NOT free radicals found?
Electrons are never free radicals, not even free electrons. They are found in every atom, as well as roaming free by themselves.
James___ wrote:
This is very simple, in the shell of an element. Don't you remember Paulie's Exclusion Principle? Electrons (fermions that are 1/2 integers) can't have the same phase. This is because matter can't occupy the same space so electrons/fermions have to be in a different part of the shell.

Molecules don't apply to Paulie's Exclusion Principle. Atoms do.


Will you please stop pulling your stupid carp? Pauli's Exclusion principle has to do with quantum particles and not molecules. A photon is not a quantum particle because it has no mass, travels at the speed of light and can be anywhere at any time.

Molecules do have shells because they share electrons in order to allow the atoms to exist in close proximity.

This all of your "you can't tell temperature by light" all over again. You keep talking about the Stefan-Boltzman law and yet do not know how to use it.


An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

...so? Do you have a point or are you just posting random crap again?


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 23:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
itn, I deleted my post because you don't like science. I really don't have anything to say to you because it's a waste of time or more to the point, you are.
Edited on 11-12-2018 23:59
12-12-2018 00:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
itn, I deleted my post because you don't like science.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
I really don't have anything to say to you because it's a waste of time or more to the point, you are.

Considering your other random crap, it's not a loss.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 01:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote: An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion


No, a FREE electron is a fermion. And if memory serves you can even have an entire atom as a fermion.

But in reality quantum mechanics is very very difficult to prove because it may not be real at all but a side effect of the huge amounts of energy used to generate them. Either in the Sun or in man made devices like the cyclotron. As they pour more and more energy into accelerators they continue to find more and more previously unknown particle. They keep changing the rules to explain these additional new particles. While you could say that they are developing a true picture of the universe it continues to make more and more physicists suspicious.
12-12-2018 02:26
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion


No, a FREE electron is a fermion. And if memory serves you can even have an entire atom as a fermion.

But in reality quantum mechanics is very very difficult to prove because it may not be real at all but a side effect of the huge amounts of energy used to generate them. Either in the Sun or in man made devices like the cyclotron. As they pour more and more energy into accelerators they continue to find more and more previously unknown particle. They keep changing the rules to explain these additional new particles. While you could say that they are developing a true picture of the universe it continues to make more and more physicists suspicious.


And all of this is because you and itn aren't capable of understanding atmospheric chemistry and physics. It is your loss in a way since all you're interested in is sating your own egos.
12-12-2018 02:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion


No, a FREE electron is a fermion. And if memory serves you can even have an entire atom as a fermion.

But in reality quantum mechanics is very very difficult to prove because it may not be real at all but a side effect of the huge amounts of energy used to generate them. Either in the Sun or in man made devices like the cyclotron. As they pour more and more energy into accelerators they continue to find more and more previously unknown particle. They keep changing the rules to explain these additional new particles. While you could say that they are developing a true picture of the universe it continues to make more and more physicists suspicious.


There are no proofs in science, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 02:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion


No, a FREE electron is a fermion. And if memory serves you can even have an entire atom as a fermion.

But in reality quantum mechanics is very very difficult to prove because it may not be real at all but a side effect of the huge amounts of energy used to generate them. Either in the Sun or in man made devices like the cyclotron. As they pour more and more energy into accelerators they continue to find more and more previously unknown particle. They keep changing the rules to explain these additional new particles. While you could say that they are developing a true picture of the universe it continues to make more and more physicists suspicious.


And all of this is because you and itn aren't capable of understanding atmospheric chemistry
Nothing to do with atmospheric chemistry, or any chemistry for that matter.
James___ wrote:
and physics.
Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
It is your loss in a way since all you're interested in is sating your own egos.


Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 03:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion


No, a FREE electron is a fermion. And if memory serves you can even have an entire atom as a fermion.

But in reality quantum mechanics is very very difficult to prove because it may not be real at all but a side effect of the huge amounts of energy used to generate them. Either in the Sun or in man made devices like the cyclotron. As they pour more and more energy into accelerators they continue to find more and more previously unknown particle. They keep changing the rules to explain these additional new particles. While you could say that they are developing a true picture of the universe it continues to make more and more physicists suspicious.


And all of this is because you and itn aren't capable of understanding atmospheric chemistry and physics. It is your loss in a way since all you're interested in is sating your own egos.

Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.
12-12-2018 03:50
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(694)
Science really is about making an observation, and then try to find ways to explain what was observed. Even if it's repeatable, it still isn't a closed case, it's just an observation, there could be more to it, than previously explained, or might even be something else entirely. We only have are past experience to use to describe things, and we don't have perfect tools to aid in the observations. We might be so focused on one small detail, we miss seeing dozens of other unusual things. Our current tools, may not even have the capacity to see everything related to an observation. Conclusions, are a best guess, but as we learn more, develop better tools, that can change. Science really isn't about proving right or wrong, only in learning the truth.
12-12-2018 04:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion


No, a FREE electron is a fermion. And if memory serves you can even have an entire atom as a fermion.

But in reality quantum mechanics is very very difficult to prove because it may not be real at all but a side effect of the huge amounts of energy used to generate them. Either in the Sun or in man made devices like the cyclotron. As they pour more and more energy into accelerators they continue to find more and more previously unknown particle. They keep changing the rules to explain these additional new particles. While you could say that they are developing a true picture of the universe it continues to make more and more physicists suspicious.


And all of this is because you and itn aren't capable of understanding atmospheric chemistry and physics. It is your loss in a way since all you're interested in is sating your own egos.

Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.



In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.
Edited on 12-12-2018 04:53
12-12-2018 21:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.

In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


Well gee, I don't see your explanation of how atmospheric chemistry applies to AGM. You've already shown that you will change the subject if questioned about atmospheric physics so I am doubtful that you even know what "atmospheric physics" is.
12-12-2018 21:20
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.

In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


Well gee, I don't see your explanation of how atmospheric chemistry applies to AGM. You've already shown that you will change the subject if questioned about atmospheric physics so I am doubtful that you even know what "atmospheric physics" is.


Until you learn something about physics it'd be a waste of time.
Besides, AGM stands for Annual General Meeting. Both Shell and BP Oil have them along with other corporations.
Not sure what that has to do with anything unless it's this:
https://transform.iema.net/article/shell-urges-shareholders-accept-climate-change-resolution-agm

Needless to say it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.
12-12-2018 21:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.

In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


Well gee, I don't see your explanation of how atmospheric chemistry applies to AGM. You've already shown that you will change the subject if questioned about atmospheric physics so I am doubtful that you even know what "atmospheric physics" is.


Until you learn something about physics it'd be a waste of time.
Besides, AGM stands for Annual General Meeting. Both Shell and BP Oil have them along with other corporations.
Not sure what that has to do with anything unless it's this:
https://transform.iema.net/article/shell-urges-shareholders-accept-climate-change-resolution-agm

Needless to say it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.


So, your answer is still not to explain anything you supposedly know about atmospheric chemistry or physics but to point out a typo and then to reference an oil company memo that in fact would end up with the oil company making FAR high profits from their products. I'd say that is a great explanation of what physics you know.

By the way - I actually am a scientist. I have worked in science for 40 years. I worked on every thing from high energy nuclear research to measuring the amount of water loss through transorption through concrete on the sides of swimming pools. What is it that you do for a living again?
12-12-2018 21:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.

In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


Well gee, I don't see your explanation of how atmospheric chemistry applies to AGM. You've already shown that you will change the subject if questioned about atmospheric physics so I am doubtful that you even know what "atmospheric physics" is.


Until you learn something about physics it'd be a waste of time.
Besides, AGM stands for Annual General Meeting. Both Shell and BP Oil have them along with other corporations.
Not sure what that has to do with anything unless it's this:
https://transform.iema.net/article/shell-urges-shareholders-accept-climate-change-resolution-agm

Needless to say it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.


So, your answer is still not to explain anything you supposedly know about atmospheric chemistry or physics but to point out a typo and then to reference an oil company memo that in fact would end up with the oil company making FAR high profits from their products. I'd say that is a great explanation of what physics you know.

By the way - I actually am a scientist. I have worked in science for 40 years. I worked on every thing from high energy nuclear research to measuring the amount of water loss through transorption through concrete on the sides of swimming pools. What is it that you do for a living again?


Yep, when you were younger you had it going on. Was that the 50's or the 60's?


You remind me of a guy that'd follow me around the internet. He kept saying "I'm an American". He never took the time to learn anything. That's why all you have are insults. Not my problem.
Edited on 12-12-2018 21:40
12-12-2018 22:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science really is about making an observation, and then try to find ways to explain what was observed. Even if it's repeatable, it still isn't a closed case, it's just an observation, there could be more to it, than previously explained, or might even be something else entirely. We only have are past experience to use to describe things, and we don't have perfect tools to aid in the observations. We might be so focused on one small detail, we miss seeing dozens of other unusual things. Our current tools, may not even have the capacity to see everything related to an observation. Conclusions, are a best guess, but as we learn more, develop better tools, that can change. Science really isn't about proving right or wrong, only in learning the truth.


You actually have it pretty darn close, but not in the gold.

The problem is observations is described in a branch of philosophy known as 'phenomenology'. This branch of philosophy concerns how we perceive the world around us.

Observation necessarily involves interpreting what our senses are telling us. This interpretation is according to your own personal model of how the Universe works.

Two people see the same sunrise. One sees a god, the other sees a fusion reaction. They both think they're right. It's the same sunrise event, and the same sensory stimuli, but they are interpreted differently by each.

This sort of problem extends to all observations. This means observations are not a proof of any kind, but are simply evidence.

Science itself is a set of falsifiable theories. Yes, it is true that many theories are inspired by an observation, but they need not be. They can be inspired from any source, whether it's the result of a mathematical or logical proof, an observation, a thought experiment (logic), or even from sleeping or watching TV.

When a theory is first formed, it begins as a circular argument, or argument of faith. It is the test of falsifiability that takes a theory beyond the simple circular argument and make it a scientific theory.

Science does not use supporting evidence. The theory itself provides that. Science uses only conflicting evidence. The idea is to try to break the theory using tests that are available, practical, specific, and produces specific results. As long as the theory survives such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. A theory of science remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification (one of the tests destroyed the theory).

A theory that does not have such tests available to conduct remain nonscientific theories. They are not falsifiable. It is not possible to show they are True or False. They also remain theories, but they cannot be destroyed. They simply remain theories forever.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: An electron is a fermion. Electrons come before quantum particles as far as the history of physics goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion


No, a FREE electron is a fermion. And if memory serves you can even have an entire atom as a fermion.

But in reality quantum mechanics is very very difficult to prove because it may not be real at all but a side effect of the huge amounts of energy used to generate them. Either in the Sun or in man made devices like the cyclotron. As they pour more and more energy into accelerators they continue to find more and more previously unknown particle. They keep changing the rules to explain these additional new particles. While you could say that they are developing a true picture of the universe it continues to make more and more physicists suspicious.


And all of this is because you and itn aren't capable of understanding atmospheric chemistry and physics. It is your loss in a way since all you're interested in is sating your own egos.

Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.



In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


I am an old guy, and I own the pasture. Still run my business though.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.

In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


Well gee, I don't see your explanation of how atmospheric chemistry applies to AGM. You've already shown that you will change the subject if questioned about atmospheric physics so I am doubtful that you even know what "atmospheric physics" is.


Until you learn something about physics it'd be a waste of time.
Besides, AGM stands for Annual General Meeting. Both Shell and BP Oil have them along with other corporations.
Not sure what that has to do with anything unless it's this:
https://transform.iema.net/article/shell-urges-shareholders-accept-climate-change-resolution-agm

Needless to say it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.


So, your answer is still not to explain anything you supposedly know about atmospheric chemistry or physics but to point out a typo and then to reference an oil company memo that in fact would end up with the oil company making FAR high profits from their products. I'd say that is a great explanation of what physics you know.

By the way - I actually am a scientist. I have worked in science for 40 years. I worked on every thing from high energy nuclear research to measuring the amount of water loss through transorption through concrete on the sides of swimming pools. What is it that you do for a living again?


I don't believe you.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2018 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.

In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


Well gee, I don't see your explanation of how atmospheric chemistry applies to AGM. You've already shown that you will change the subject if questioned about atmospheric physics so I am doubtful that you even know what "atmospheric physics" is.


Until you learn something about physics it'd be a waste of time.
Besides, AGM stands for Annual General Meeting. Both Shell and BP Oil have them along with other corporations.
Not sure what that has to do with anything unless it's this:
https://transform.iema.net/article/shell-urges-shareholders-accept-climate-change-resolution-agm

Needless to say it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.


So, your answer is still not to explain anything you supposedly know about atmospheric chemistry or physics but to point out a typo and then to reference an oil company memo that in fact would end up with the oil company making FAR high profits from their products. I'd say that is a great explanation of what physics you know.

By the way - I actually am a scientist. I have worked in science for 40 years. I worked on every thing from high energy nuclear research to measuring the amount of water loss through transorption through concrete on the sides of swimming pools. What is it that you do for a living again?


Yep, when you were younger you had it going on. Was that the 50's or the 60's?


You remind me of a guy that'd follow me around the internet. He kept saying "I'm an American". He never took the time to learn anything. That's why all you have are insults. Not my problem.

Fallacy fallacy. Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2018 00:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:Then why don't you calmly and quietly tell us all you know about atmospheric chemistry and physics as applies to AGM? That certainly would beat your inference that you know something that no one else does.

In reading some of the posts by you and others, you guys sound like a bunch of old men that's been put out to pasture
That is it, isn't it? Ya'all reminiscing. D@mn!!! It does explain a lot.


Well gee, I don't see your explanation of how atmospheric chemistry applies to AGM. You've already shown that you will change the subject if questioned about atmospheric physics so I am doubtful that you even know what "atmospheric physics" is.


Until you learn something about physics it'd be a waste of time.
Besides, AGM stands for Annual General Meeting. Both Shell and BP Oil have them along with other corporations.
Not sure what that has to do with anything unless it's this:
https://transform.iema.net/article/shell-urges-shareholders-accept-climate-change-resolution-agm

Needless to say it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.


So, your answer is still not to explain anything you supposedly know about atmospheric chemistry or physics but to point out a typo and then to reference an oil company memo that in fact would end up with the oil company making FAR high profits from their products. I'd say that is a great explanation of what physics you know.

By the way - I actually am a scientist. I have worked in science for 40 years. I worked on every thing from high energy nuclear research to measuring the amount of water loss through transorption through concrete on the sides of swimming pools. What is it that you do for a living again?


Yep, when you were younger you had it going on. Was that the 50's or the 60's?


You remind me of a guy that'd follow me around the internet. He kept saying "I'm an American". He never took the time to learn anything. That's why all you have are insults. Not my problem.

And yet I haven't seen any of those explanation of chemical makeup of the atmosphere or your marvelous take on atmospheric physics. It is now getting to the point where a blind man could tell you're lying with his cane.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Global Warming Argument Simplified:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'124-02-2019 18:59
The Argument for AGW6415-01-2018 23:52
CO2 is but one factor in the climate change argument1013-06-2017 05:23
Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith24818-10-2016 22:23
no one can refute this argument from deniers1307-02-2016 21:08
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact