Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse gasses



Page 1 of 3123>
Greenhouse gasses25-12-2018 05:32
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
I've really been trying to understand how the hear is being re-directed back to the surface. Heat rises, so most of the excess should be going up, not down. Molecules would radiate in all directions, but the heat would still rise, since the upper atmosphere is always going to be cooler. I'd imagine that a molecule can only absorb so much IR, there must be some point were it has to release energy, or it's going to break down the bonds. I just can't grasp how the heat is mainly directed back down to the surface. The heat released would naturally be conducted toward a cooler surface, the upper atmosphere. Only part of the planet is facing the sun, so it could never be a global warming thing to begin with. Soon as something warm comes in contact with something cooler, heat is transferred. Water vapor, the cloud cover, blocks a lot of the sun's heat from reaching the surface. Water vapor also transfers heat, but heat rises, so you'd expect more heat to be radiated out toward cooler upper atmosphere.
25-12-2018 07:01
James___
★★★★☆
(1286)
Harvey,
Please get a clue. I beg of you. The mesopause is cold. The thermosphere above it is warmer than it is on the ground. How do you miss this? Thermodynamics requires that an equilibrium be reached but it just doesn't happen. At least do a basic internet search first. The next thing I know is that free government money for not working isn't socialism but that I'm actually defending capitalism. I'm your tax dollars at work. If I had a job which I could have I wouldn't be pointing out your mistakes. But you are paying for me to sit at home and consider physics so Thank You!!
25-12-2018 17:04
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
I was under the impression that space, was a clod place, if not out where the sun can reach you. Heat would still keep moving up and out, least on the night side of the planet. Climatology seems to focus on only one half of the story, so figuring they are only working the sunny, day side, and probably exclude cloudy/rainy days, as those days wouldn't contribute to the study. CO2 can't create energy, only conduct or change what is already there. Water vapor can get so dense it blocks/reflects most all the sun's energy at times, good 10-20 degrees F cooler, than the previous sunny day. Obviously, we really need the atmosphere hang on to some heat, for a few days, so we wouldn't have huge temperature swings, between night and day, cloudy days. Couldn't be all that warm up there, I grew up on a snow capped mountain, year-rounds skiing, very rare for the resort slopes to close, due to lack of snow. Sometimes wasn't ideal, but there was snow. I haven't been back in over thirty years, but know the snow is still there, people climb that mountain, need rescuing, makes the news, still plenty of snow, which makes finding them harder.

The point is, one side of the planet, the night side, is going to be only releasing heat, since it isn't getting any more from the sun. The hot, day side only receives more energy, depending weather conditions. The planet surface is mostly covered with water, which warming evaporates, to create clouds, that rise, carrying off heat with it, but also blocks/reflects a good portion of the sun's energy, from reaching the surface. Doesn't really matter much what CO2 does, or doesn't do, the water vapor will moderate it anyway. There should be some temperature point, where it's cloudy over large portions of the planet, and the surface receives little sun's energy, cools sufficiently, to allow the water vapor to condense, and return to the surface. The water vapor would need to release a lot of heat, upward, before it can fall back to ground. May not seem as obvious up in the yankee states, cold climate most of the time, but down here, there is a huge temperature change, before, during, and after a good rain, nice break from our usually warm/hot climate.

Which reminds me... Merry Christmas, and hope you all are enjoying a nice, white, Christmas day, the climate science predict in might be your last... We didn't get one this year, again... Woke up to 60 degree F, probably up in the 70s later today. Oh well, maybe next year...
25-12-2018 20:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've really been trying to understand how the hear is being re-directed back to the surface.

It isn't. It can't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Heat rises, so most of the excess should be going up, not down.
It all goes 'up'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Molecules would radiate in all directions, but the heat would still rise, since the upper atmosphere is always going to be cooler. I'd imagine that a molecule can only absorb so much IR, there must be some point were it has to release energy, or it's going to break down the bonds.

Discussed below.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I just can't grasp how the heat is mainly directed back down to the surface. The heat released would naturally be conducted toward a cooler surface, the upper atmosphere.

Heat always flows from hot to cold. If the atmosphere is warmer than the surface, it can heat the surface. If the surface is warmer than the atmosphere (the usual case) then heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere. ALL of it flows to space, the coldest of all.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only part of the planet is facing the sun, so it could never be a global warming thing to begin with.
Heat flows to space 24 hours a day, even from the daylight side. However, the Earth is warmed from one side only. The rotation of the Earth acts like a rotisserie, evening baking the Earth in the warmth of the Sun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Soon as something warm comes in contact with something cooler, heat is transferred.

Heat flows when there is a difference in temperature and there is some kind of coupling between the two regions. Contact is coupling for conductive heating.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water vapor, the cloud cover, blocks a lot of the sun's heat from reaching the surface. Water vapor also transfers heat, but heat rises, so you'd expect more heat to be radiated out toward cooler upper atmosphere.


Now to answer your multiple questions about heat:

Heat is not measured in temperature. It is not how warm something is. That is called thermal energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. It is not the energy itself. Like the current in a river, heat is not the water itself, but the flow. Like a current in a river, heat always flows 'downhill', that is, to areas of less thermal energy (colder areas).

In any system, energy always dissipates or stays the same. This is a result of entropy always increasing or staying the same. Concentrated energy is low entropy. Dissipated energy is high entropy. Entropy is the 'randomness' of the system. In any system, entropy always increases or stays the same. That system must be closed. In other words, no energy source or sink from outside that system may be considered. If you wish to consider them, you must change the boundaries of that system (and again consider it as a closed system).

This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action.

Heat can flow one of three ways: Conductive heat, which is transferring energy molecule by molecule because they 'touch' each other; convective heat, which dissipates energy by molecules rising and dissipating over a larger sphere; or radiant heat, which converts thermal energy (the kinetic energy of molecules) to electromagnetic energy (light) and back again somewhere else, like a burger sitting under a heat lamp to keep it warm.

Anything warmer than absolute zero emits light. The warmer it is, the more light is emitted. If an object becomes warm enough, that light becomes visible. The object begins to glow, first red, then orange, then yellow, then white. The light begin emitted is including the more energetic frequencies (the higher the frequency of light, the higher energy it is).

Earth doesn't visibly glow, but it emits light all the same. The light is infrared light. This is a pretty wide band of frequencies. Things like CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. absorb a very narrow part of these frequencies. This is what labels them 'greenhouse' gases.

A molecule will absorb a photon if and only if the molecule has less energy than the photon has. Not all photons are created equal. They each have energy depending on the frequency of light that it is. When a molecule absorbs a photon, that photon is utterly destroyed. The result is conversion of electromagnetic energy into something else.

If the light is infrared, that absorption results in conversion to thermal energy of the molecule (the molecule becomes warmer). That warmer molecule dissipates it's energy to nearby molecules by conduction of heat.

If the light is visible light, little thermal energy results. Conversion is mostly to chemical energy. This light is energetic enough to break bonds and allow a chemical reaction to take place more easily. One such example is photosynthesis. Others are the fading of paints and coatings, the chemical reaction in your own retinas that allow you to see, photographic film, etc.

If the light is ultraviolet, no thermal energy results. Conversion is to chemical reactions and even direct ionization of molecules (they start to lose electrons). Examples of this is the breakdown of plastics in ultraviolet, the tanning (and burning!) of your skin, silk screening, an the making of plates in offset printing.

Most of the Sun's energy is in the infrared band. Fortunately for us, the portion that is ultraviolet and X-rays are filtered out by our atmosphere. The only UV that reaches the surface is the lower end of the band (called UV-A), producing the tanning rays, and a small amount of higher frequency UV (called UV-
that produces the burning rays. UV-C is completely filtered out. They would kill us and blind us.

Earth is like a coal being warmed by a nearby fire. It doesn't warm itself. It is simply warmed by the fire. Yes, the coal glows, but it doesn't get warmer from anything else except from the fire. Earth too glows, but not in the visible range.


The Parrot Killer
25-12-2018 23:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Harvey,
Please get a clue. I beg of you. The mesopause is cold. The thermosphere above it is warmer than it is on the ground. How do you miss this? Thermodynamics requires that an equilibrium be reached but it just doesn't happen. At least do a basic internet search first. The next thing I know is that free government money for not working isn't socialism but that I'm actually defending capitalism. I'm your tax dollars at work. If I had a job which I could have I wouldn't be pointing out your mistakes. But you are paying for me to sit at home and consider physics so Thank You!!


Temperature inversions in the atmosphere don't falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics, James.

The thermosphere is quite thin. It is barely there at all.
The temperature is increases, but the total energy per cubic foot is still decreasing.

Same thing for the temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

Heat is lost from Earth by radiant heating, not convective or conductive heating. It is YOU that denies physics.


The Parrot Killer
26-12-2018 04:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was under the impression that space, was a clod place, if not out where the sun can reach you. Heat would still keep moving up and out, least on the night side of the planet. Climatology seems to focus on only one half of the story, so figuring they are only working the sunny, day side, and probably exclude cloudy/rainy days, as those days wouldn't contribute to the study. CO2 can't create energy, only conduct or change what is already there. Water vapor can get so dense it blocks/reflects most all the sun's energy at times, good 10-20 degrees F cooler, than the previous sunny day. Obviously, we really need the atmosphere hang on to some heat, for a few days, so we wouldn't have huge temperature swings, between night and day, cloudy days. Couldn't be all that warm up there, I grew up on a snow capped mountain, year-rounds skiing, very rare for the resort slopes to close, due to lack of snow. Sometimes wasn't ideal, but there was snow. I haven't been back in over thirty years, but know the snow is still there, people climb that mountain, need rescuing, makes the news, still plenty of snow, which makes finding them harder.

The point is, one side of the planet, the night side, is going to be only releasing heat, since it isn't getting any more from the sun. The hot, day side only receives more energy, depending weather conditions. The planet surface is mostly covered with water, which warming evaporates, to create clouds, that rise, carrying off heat with it, but also blocks/reflects a good portion of the sun's energy, from reaching the surface. Doesn't really matter much what CO2 does, or doesn't do, the water vapor will moderate it anyway. There should be some temperature point, where it's cloudy over large portions of the planet, and the surface receives little sun's energy, cools sufficiently, to allow the water vapor to condense, and return to the surface. The water vapor would need to release a lot of heat, upward, before it can fall back to ground. May not seem as obvious up in the yankee states, cold climate most of the time, but down here, there is a huge temperature change, before, during, and after a good rain, nice break from our usually warm/hot climate.

Which reminds me... Merry Christmas, and hope you all are enjoying a nice, white, Christmas day, the climate science predict in might be your last... We didn't get one this year, again... Woke up to 60 degree F, probably up in the 70s later today. Oh well, maybe next year...


Merry Christmas to you, Harvey. Seattle normally is around 45 deg F and raining on Christmas, but we got some clear weather today. White Christmases are very rare in Seattle.

Hope you had a good one!


The Parrot Killer
27-12-2018 17:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was under the impression that space, was a clod place, if not out where the sun can reach you. Heat would still keep moving up and out, least on the night side of the planet. Climatology seems to focus on only one half of the story, so figuring they are only working the sunny, day side, and probably exclude cloudy/rainy days, as those days wouldn't contribute to the study. CO2 can't create energy, only conduct or change what is already there. Water vapor can get so dense it blocks/reflects most all the sun's energy at times, good 10-20 degrees F cooler, than the previous sunny day. Obviously, we really need the atmosphere hang on to some heat, for a few days, so we wouldn't have huge temperature swings, between night and day, cloudy days. Couldn't be all that warm up there, I grew up on a snow capped mountain, year-rounds skiing, very rare for the resort slopes to close, due to lack of snow. Sometimes wasn't ideal, but there was snow. I haven't been back in over thirty years, but know the snow is still there, people climb that mountain, need rescuing, makes the news, still plenty of snow, which makes finding them harder.

The point is, one side of the planet, the night side, is going to be only releasing heat, since it isn't getting any more from the sun. The hot, day side only receives more energy, depending weather conditions. The planet surface is mostly covered with water, which warming evaporates, to create clouds, that rise, carrying off heat with it, but also blocks/reflects a good portion of the sun's energy, from reaching the surface. Doesn't really matter much what CO2 does, or doesn't do, the water vapor will moderate it anyway. There should be some temperature point, where it's cloudy over large portions of the planet, and the surface receives little sun's energy, cools sufficiently, to allow the water vapor to condense, and return to the surface. The water vapor would need to release a lot of heat, upward, before it can fall back to ground. May not seem as obvious up in the yankee states, cold climate most of the time, but down here, there is a huge temperature change, before, during, and after a good rain, nice break from our usually warm/hot climate.

Which reminds me... Merry Christmas, and hope you all are enjoying a nice, white, Christmas day, the climate science predict in might be your last... We didn't get one this year, again... Woke up to 60 degree F, probably up in the 70s later today. Oh well, maybe next year...


To read nightmare you'd think that atmosphere has no effect on surface temperature of the Earth. But he really is very slow so paying the least attention to him is counterproductive.

The atmosphere acts as a blanket. And every gas slows the egress of some wavelengths of heat. The Earth absorbs the light energy of the Sun and is warmed by every wavelength and not the moronic claims of nightmare that light energy doesn't heat anything - only infrared.

This light energy having warmed the Earth is eventually radiated through the lower atmosphere through the process of conduction since this energy in large part is trapped as it radiates in the infrared bands by the H2O in the atmosphere which absorbs most of the infrared wavelengths. CO2 also absorbs in a narrow band and it too moves energy into the upper atmosphere through the processes of conduction and convection.

Finally when the energy reaches the upper atmosphere - the lower and middle stratosphere the number of molecules gets too low - the atmosphere becomes too thin - for the processes of conduction to operate and the energy is radiated away.

Now as atoms and molecules release this energy it is radiated in all directions. This means part of it goes back down into the atmosphere to again be trapped and move back up again to be radiated etc. until this energy is all released into outer space.

Watching the idiotic comments of nightmare does give me something to look forward to each day. Like him saying something, me repeating it and then him saying he never said that while I'm using EXACTLY the same words he used.
27-12-2018 20:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was under the impression that space, was a clod place, if not out where the sun can reach you. Heat would still keep moving up and out, least on the night side of the planet. Climatology seems to focus on only one half of the story, so figuring they are only working the sunny, day side, and probably exclude cloudy/rainy days, as those days wouldn't contribute to the study. CO2 can't create energy, only conduct or change what is already there. Water vapor can get so dense it blocks/reflects most all the sun's energy at times, good 10-20 degrees F cooler, than the previous sunny day. Obviously, we really need the atmosphere hang on to some heat, for a few days, so we wouldn't have huge temperature swings, between night and day, cloudy days. Couldn't be all that warm up there, I grew up on a snow capped mountain, year-rounds skiing, very rare for the resort slopes to close, due to lack of snow. Sometimes wasn't ideal, but there was snow. I haven't been back in over thirty years, but know the snow is still there, people climb that mountain, need rescuing, makes the news, still plenty of snow, which makes finding them harder.

The point is, one side of the planet, the night side, is going to be only releasing heat, since it isn't getting any more from the sun. The hot, day side only receives more energy, depending weather conditions. The planet surface is mostly covered with water, which warming evaporates, to create clouds, that rise, carrying off heat with it, but also blocks/reflects a good portion of the sun's energy, from reaching the surface. Doesn't really matter much what CO2 does, or doesn't do, the water vapor will moderate it anyway. There should be some temperature point, where it's cloudy over large portions of the planet, and the surface receives little sun's energy, cools sufficiently, to allow the water vapor to condense, and return to the surface. The water vapor would need to release a lot of heat, upward, before it can fall back to ground. May not seem as obvious up in the yankee states, cold climate most of the time, but down here, there is a huge temperature change, before, during, and after a good rain, nice break from our usually warm/hot climate.

Which reminds me... Merry Christmas, and hope you all are enjoying a nice, white, Christmas day, the climate science predict in might be your last... We didn't get one this year, again... Woke up to 60 degree F, probably up in the 70s later today. Oh well, maybe next year...


To read nightmare you'd think that atmosphere has no effect on surface temperature of the Earth. But he really is very slow so paying the least attention to him is counterproductive.

Never said any such thing, Wake. Insult fallacy. Lie.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere acts as a blanket.

No, it doesn't, Wake. The atmosphere does not insulate anything, either in or out. If the Earth were covered in a giant blanket, it would be colder, not warmer. There is no such thing as a magick one way blanket.
Wake wrote:
And every gas slows the egress of some wavelengths of heat.
You cannot slow heat, Wake. Heat also doesn't have a wavelength.
Wake wrote:
The Earth absorbs the light energy of the Sun and is warmed by every wavelength and not the moronic claims of nightmare that light energy doesn't heat anything - only infrared.

Only the absorption of infrared light causes conversion to thermal energy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
This light energy having warmed the Earth is eventually radiated through the lower atmosphere through the process of conduction

Radiance isn't conduction, Wake.
Wake wrote:
since this energy in large part is trapped

It is not possible to trap thermal energy, Wake. There is always heat.
Wake wrote:
as it radiates in the infrared bands by the H2O in the atmosphere which absorbs most of the infrared wavelengths.

Water in the atmosphere does not absorb most of the infrared energy from the Sun, Wake. The surface does.
Wake wrote:
CO2 also absorbs in a narrow band and it too moves energy into the upper atmosphere through the processes of conduction and convection.
Absorption is not conduction or convection, and radiant heating is not conductive or convective heating, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Finally when the energy reaches the upper atmosphere - the lower and middle stratosphere the number of molecules gets too low - the atmosphere becomes too thin - for the processes of conduction to operate and the energy is radiated away.

What molecules? You said there are very few.

You are again ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Most of Earth's radiance comes from the surface itself. Only a small portion comes from the atmosphere. You are trying to say the atmosphere is reducing radiance while the temperature of the Earth is increased. Not possible.
Wake wrote:
Now as atoms and molecules release this energy it is radiated in all directions.

Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
This means part of it goes back down into the atmosphere to again be trapped and move back up again to be radiated etc. until this energy is all released into outer space.

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, Wake. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot trap thermal energy. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. There is always heat.
Wake wrote:
Watching the idiotic comments of nightmare does give me something to look forward to each day. Like him saying something, me repeating it and then him saying he never said that while I'm using EXACTLY the same words he used.

No, you are putting words in people's mouths. That's lying, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
27-12-2018 22:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was under the impression that space, was a clod place, if not out where the sun can reach you. Heat would still keep moving up and out, least on the night side of the planet. Climatology seems to focus on only one half of the story, so figuring they are only working the sunny, day side, and probably exclude cloudy/rainy days, as those days wouldn't contribute to the study. CO2 can't create energy, only conduct or change what is already there. Water vapor can get so dense it blocks/reflects most all the sun's energy at times, good 10-20 degrees F cooler, than the previous sunny day. Obviously, we really need the atmosphere hang on to some heat, for a few days, so we wouldn't have huge temperature swings, between night and day, cloudy days. Couldn't be all that warm up there, I grew up on a snow capped mountain, year-rounds skiing, very rare for the resort slopes to close, due to lack of snow. Sometimes wasn't ideal, but there was snow. I haven't been back in over thirty years, but know the snow is still there, people climb that mountain, need rescuing, makes the news, still plenty of snow, which makes finding them harder.

The point is, one side of the planet, the night side, is going to be only releasing heat, since it isn't getting any more from the sun. The hot, day side only receives more energy, depending weather conditions. The planet surface is mostly covered with water, which warming evaporates, to create clouds, that rise, carrying off heat with it, but also blocks/reflects a good portion of the sun's energy, from reaching the surface. Doesn't really matter much what CO2 does, or doesn't do, the water vapor will moderate it anyway. There should be some temperature point, where it's cloudy over large portions of the planet, and the surface receives little sun's energy, cools sufficiently, to allow the water vapor to condense, and return to the surface. The water vapor would need to release a lot of heat, upward, before it can fall back to ground. May not seem as obvious up in the yankee states, cold climate most of the time, but down here, there is a huge temperature change, before, during, and after a good rain, nice break from our usually warm/hot climate.

Which reminds me... Merry Christmas, and hope you all are enjoying a nice, white, Christmas day, the climate science predict in might be your last... We didn't get one this year, again... Woke up to 60 degree F, probably up in the 70s later today. Oh well, maybe next year...


To read nightmare you'd think that atmosphere has no effect on surface temperature of the Earth. But he really is very slow so paying the least attention to him is counterproductive.

Never said any such thing, Wake. Insult fallacy. Lie.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere acts as a blanket.

No, it doesn't, Wake. The atmosphere does not insulate anything, either in or out. If the Earth were covered in a giant blanket, it would be colder, not warmer. There is no such thing as a magick one way blanket.
Wake wrote:
And every gas slows the egress of some wavelengths of heat.
You cannot slow heat, Wake. Heat also doesn't have a wavelength.
Wake wrote:
The Earth absorbs the light energy of the Sun and is warmed by every wavelength and not the moronic claims of nightmare that light energy doesn't heat anything - only infrared.

Only the absorption of infrared light causes conversion to thermal energy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
This light energy having warmed the Earth is eventually radiated through the lower atmosphere through the process of conduction

Radiance isn't conduction, Wake.
Wake wrote:
since this energy in large part is trapped

It is not possible to trap thermal energy, Wake. There is always heat.
Wake wrote:
as it radiates in the infrared bands by the H2O in the atmosphere which absorbs most of the infrared wavelengths.

Water in the atmosphere does not absorb most of the infrared energy from the Sun, Wake. The surface does.
Wake wrote:
CO2 also absorbs in a narrow band and it too moves energy into the upper atmosphere through the processes of conduction and convection.
Absorption is not conduction or convection, and radiant heating is not conductive or convective heating, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Finally when the energy reaches the upper atmosphere - the lower and middle stratosphere the number of molecules gets too low - the atmosphere becomes too thin - for the processes of conduction to operate and the energy is radiated away.

What molecules? You said there are very few.

You are again ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Most of Earth's radiance comes from the surface itself. Only a small portion comes from the atmosphere. You are trying to say the atmosphere is reducing radiance while the temperature of the Earth is increased. Not possible.
Wake wrote:
Now as atoms and molecules release this energy it is radiated in all directions.

Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
This means part of it goes back down into the atmosphere to again be trapped and move back up again to be radiated etc. until this energy is all released into outer space.

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, Wake. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot trap thermal energy. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. There is always heat.
Wake wrote:
Watching the idiotic comments of nightmare does give me something to look forward to each day. Like him saying something, me repeating it and then him saying he never said that while I'm using EXACTLY the same words he used.

No, you are putting words in people's mouths. That's lying, Wake.


I absolutely love it when you deny something and then say it again.

You start by denying that you ever said that the atmosphere doesn't have any effect on the temperature of the Earth and then SAY it hasn't any effect.

What a clown.

"No, it doesn't, Wake. The atmosphere does not insulate anything, either in or out. If the Earth were covered in a giant blanket, it would be colder, not warmer. There is no such thing as a magick one way blanket"

This is an especially good one since the atmosphere passes visible light which composes 90% of the Sun's energy. Absorbed into the ground it heats to a temperature that emits in the infrared range. And the atmosphere does absorb and insulate the infrared from direct radiation.

You do not seem capable of refraining from the direct demonstration of stupidity. It never for one second occurs to you that if energy is not reflect it is absorbed and absorption must have an effect - heating.

You just went through EXACTLY what I said you did denying the entire time you do so. Well, at least it is good for a laugh.
27-12-2018 23:00
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
Either way, the surface, where we live stays cooler than the atmosphere, since heat is still escaping out to space. The atmosphere cannot create energy, only convert what's there, or conduct heat, which will always rise toward space. The gasses may slow the escape, but not stop, or reverse the direction it's moving.

Consider a hot air balloon, it's filled by burning gas, so must contain a good portion of CO2. You have to keep adding heat, to keep it rising, keep it from sinking. You also hit hot and warm pockets, that can change your altitude considerably. If you stop burning, you slowly descend. You can open vents, to fall quicker. Now, if all that CO2 in the balloon behaves the same as atmospheric CO2, the people in the basket would be getting burned, if the heat is being directed down to earth. Doubt many people would enjoy flying in a balloon, if it's so uncomfortably hot under it...

Even with the alarming effects of global warming, it only got up to 77F here today. It was 60F when I got of bed this morning, almost put a sweatshirt on, but figured I'd just take it off, after a few minutes of work. It has been overcast most of the day, may have got back to more normal climate otherwise (80s). Really don't see the planet getting to seriously warm, water vapor will just increase, and cool things down.

Had a thought at work... The main CO2 monitor is on the side of a volcano. Pretty sure all the Hawaiian volcanoes are classified as active, not all erupt very often though. They all vent gas though, and some of that gas would be CO2. I wondered how much that vented gas would effect the readings, that are the basis for 'Climate Change'. Thought it amusing, that if they found a serious vent, right near the sensor someday, and the rise in CO2 has just been an increase in volcanic activity, more gas venting, and not 'fossil fuels'... It would be a much bigger scientific blunder, than Cold Fusion, about a decade ago.
27-12-2018 23:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Either way, the surface, where we live stays cooler than the atmosphere, since heat is still escaping out to space. The atmosphere cannot create energy, only convert what's there, or conduct heat, which will always rise toward space. The gasses may slow the escape, but not stop, or reverse the direction it's moving.

Consider a hot air balloon, it's filled by burning gas, so must contain a good portion of CO2. You have to keep adding heat, to keep it rising, keep it from sinking. You also hit hot and warm pockets, that can change your altitude considerably. If you stop burning, you slowly descend. You can open vents, to fall quicker. Now, if all that CO2 in the balloon behaves the same as atmospheric CO2, the people in the basket would be getting burned, if the heat is being directed down to earth. Doubt many people would enjoy flying in a balloon, if it's so uncomfortably hot under it...

Even with the alarming effects of global warming, it only got up to 77F here today. It was 60F when I got of bed this morning, almost put a sweatshirt on, but figured I'd just take it off, after a few minutes of work. It has been overcast most of the day, may have got back to more normal climate otherwise (80s). Really don't see the planet getting to seriously warm, water vapor will just increase, and cool things down.

Had a thought at work... The main CO2 monitor is on the side of a volcano. Pretty sure all the Hawaiian volcanoes are classified as active, not all erupt very often though. They all vent gas though, and some of that gas would be CO2. I wondered how much that vented gas would effect the readings, that are the basis for 'Climate Change'. Thought it amusing, that if they found a serious vent, right near the sensor someday, and the rise in CO2 has just been an increase in volcanic activity, more gas venting, and not 'fossil fuels'... It would be a much bigger scientific blunder, than Cold Fusion, about a decade ago.


CO2 vented from volcanos or from the ocean are "new" and have large amounts of Carbon-14 in them. Fossil fuels contain almost no carbon-14 and hence you can tell the difference in many cases though not all. For instance - volcanos that burn through coal and oil beds have low carbon-14.

Watching some of the videos or reading some of the horse manure published in Skeptical Science is funny. For instance: acid rain. Water is a base: adding carbolic acid (a very weak acid) makes is less of a base and not an acid. Even more so with salt water.

The oceans are not absorbing CO2. As the temperature of the Earth returns to normal after the Little Ice Age, the oceans are in fact warming and expelling CO2. So aside from the very slow increase in atmospheric CO2 why isn't the CO2 build-up in the atmosphere much more rapid?

This is because of the huge blooming of Earth's photosynthesis via plant life. Everywhere you go there is more plant life, more plant eating animal life and consequently more predators. Life is all around you and people cannot see it.

There comes a point at which CO2 will not be venting from the ocean because it stabilizes when the oceans water stops heating. This is very slow to happen since the amount of water in the oceans is so very large. And at some point the amount of plant life will be so large that the amount of CO2 being introduced by man with be in balance with nature.

I expect forests to begin returning to the grass areas of the world that were once covered in forests. As the CO2 levels fell below a certainly level the forests disappeared without enough CO2 to support it and the grasslands of the Great Plains and the Savanas of African appeared. Grass requires less CO2 and the CO2 produced is far more likely to be recycled since it rots and the carbon left combines with atmospheric oxygen to return CO2 back to whence it came.

The pure ignorance of the environmentalists of the world around them and for that matter for anything of historic value is one of the driving factors of phony science researchers and politicians who can take advantage of ignorance of the sort that these people demonstrate.
28-12-2018 02:28
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
As far as I know, plants are the only living thing, that gets it's nutrients directly from the soil and atmosphere. Fungus/mushrooms grow in dirt, but it has to be rich in organic matter (rotted plant). There always a few exceptions to everything, but as rare as the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. Sorry, but I just can't grasp such a small quantity, have such a major impact to such a huge planet, temperature wise. Anyway, plants do incredibly well, with much higher CO2, and warmer climate. Only a small part of the CO2 plants take in, ever makes back to the atmosphere as CO2, unless it's from burning (which is okay, since it's 'carbon-neutral', least that's what the climatologist claim). Most of the organic carbon returns to the ground, which I tend to believe becomes oil. I believe a healthy growing environment for plants, is the measure of what is normal, since most life on the planet would quickly die out with vegetation. We can't do much about the warmer temperature, but increasing atmospheric CO2 seems to be a 'thing', although I don't think the mega-tons being quoted, is accurate, or all that significant. Better than nothing though. The other byproducts of burning fossil fuels aren't probably ideal for the enviroment, and more should be done to clean those up.
28-12-2018 07:24
wdmn
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Harvey,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a troll, and spend some time talking to you as though you're sincere. Let me explain a couple of methodological errors you're making before I point out some of your false statements.

Science is not bound by the limits of our common sense thinking. It's quite easy to understand how, using common sense reasoning, we should conclude with confidence that the earth must be stationary, with the sun revolving around us. However, it's a very stupid thing to continue to argue this without bothering to consider the evidence to the contrary.

Don't assume that everyone else knows less than you, least of all people who have studied subjects for decades, and who are publishing research on it. It's extremely obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the subject that you have not bothered to look at the current literature. For example, you say "plants do incredibly well with much higher co2 and a warmer climate." For CO2 to be used in photosynthesis H20 is also required, so it's not as simple as increasing growth by increasing CO2. If you had done any reading on climate change, you would know that part of what's changing are precipitation patterns. Assuming that the additional water will be available for the plants is not a good assumption. There are also limits beyond which more ceases to be a benefit (even with water). If you bothered to look at the literature you would know that people have done studies on this. Warmer temperatures are also clearly not good for all plants all of the time (making a general proposition like this is false). Plants, like animals, are adapted to certain temperature ranges, and when it gets significantly hotter or colder than those ranges, they get stressed (use that device you're on to look up "heat stress" in plants), inhibiting growth (even if water and co2 are available), and eventually leading to death. There are all sorts of other factors, like the spread of insects, the decline of other parts of the ecosystem, etc., that your common sense reasoning will not adequately account for, which is why we have the scientific method.

In the last few posts you've been making a big deal about CO2 rising, from which you conclude that if CO2 traps heat it would be trapped away from the earth's surface, and would not warm the surface. Again, you've chosen to rely on your "common sense" reasoning rather than being curious enough to look at the empirical data. In fact, C02 mixes very uniformly throughout the atmosphere, as you can see here https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=16.44,1.33,493/loc=32.998,-22.577

You can click on different areas of the globe and it will tell you the CO2 in ppm. While CO2 mixes uniformly you'll note that levels are generally currently higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. This is due to it being winter in the north; plants are mostly not absorbing CO2.

You'll also note that these are SURFACE CO2 levels. It turns out that the atmosphere is right down here at the surface too! If you had thought a bit more carefully, you would have realized that you implicitly acknowledged this already, thus contradicting your own flawed thinking about the atmosphere being "up there" somewhere. You acknowledged that plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere. How is that possible unless the CO2 is down here (just like the oxygen we breath)? In fact, if you look at the link I sent, you'll notice that CO2 levels at the surface are slightly higher than the average ppm in the atmosphere.

As far as being puzzled about how such a small part of the earth's atmosphere can have such a consequence, it's good to wonder about such things, but you should not stop at that. You should try to find out whether your intuition is actually correct. Here's a very simple way of visualizing how a small concentration of something can have large consequences: https://youtu.be/hwtO6nAXrGk

Of course you can find tons of other literature if you bother to look.
Edited on 28-12-2018 07:35
28-12-2018 11:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've really been trying to understand how the hear is being re-directed back to the surface. Heat rises, so most of the excess should be going up, not down. Molecules would radiate in all directions, but the heat would still rise, since the upper atmosphere is always going to be cooler. I'd imagine that a molecule can only absorb so much IR, there must be some point were it has to release energy, or it's going to break down the bonds. I just can't grasp how the heat is mainly directed back down to the surface. The heat released would naturally be conducted toward a cooler surface, the upper atmosphere. Only part of the planet is facing the sun, so it could never be a global warming thing to begin with. Soon as something warm comes in contact with something cooler, heat is transferred. Water vapor, the cloud cover, blocks a lot of the sun's heat from reaching the surface. Water vapor also transfers heat, but heat rises, so you'd expect more heat to be radiated out toward cooler upper atmosphere.


Heat rises in a fluid. That is convection.

Radient heat is different.

That the temperature is higher at the bottom of the atmosphere than the top is the result of pressure. It would be so if there was no sunshine. It is so in Jupiter.

The greenhouse idea is that radient energy from the sun has lots of UV and other high energy light in it. When this is absorbed by the earth the earth radiates only IR back out. This IR is more prone to interception by the air than the incoming stuff.

I hjave seen an argument that seemed decent that there is no need for the adjustment of any greenhouse effect to account for our temperatures but I don't know enough physics to say if that is right.
28-12-2018 12:00
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
Plants, like animals, are adapted to certain temperature ranges, and when it gets significantly hotter or colder than those ranges, they get stressed (use that device you're on to look up "heat stress" in plants), inhibiting growth (even if water and co2 are available), and eventually leading to death. There are all sorts of other factors, like the spread of insects, the decline of other parts of the ecosystem, etc., that your common sense reasoning will not adequately account for, which is why we have the scientific method.


Heat stress? We are talking about 1-3 degrees increase, over a century span. Not sufficient to heat stress most of what we consider food plants. Warmer temperatures, also mean more water vapor in the atmosphere, a shield from direct sunlight, and likely frequent rain. Overall, it should be great for the vast majority of vegetation. Consider how many plants die or go dormant in the fall and winter months, even here in Florida. Insects need to eat too, and the increased vegetations should provide plenty of food for them too. They also provide a useful function in the ecosystem, and are need as well. Fossil records of insects show they were plentiful, and much larger as well. Computer models are generally biased, and don't accurately forecast future events very well. Weather models, which have been worked on for decades, and openly, aren't 100%, accuracy declines rapidly after only a few days out. Weather models are easier to adjust, since we can see the results, and work on the faults. Climate Change models are looking decades, if not centuries into the future, which is a long wait to see what actually happens.

In the last few posts you've been making a big deal about CO2 rising, from which you conclude that if CO2 traps heat it would be trapped away from the earth's surface, and would not warm the surface. Again, you've chosen to rely on your "common sense" reasoning rather than being curious enough to look at the empirical data. In fact, C02 mixes very uniformly throughout the atmosphere, as you can see here https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=16.44,1.33,493/loc=32.998,-22.577

You can click on different areas of the globe and it will tell you the CO2 in ppm. While CO2 mixes uniformly you'll note that levels are generally currently higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. This is due to it being winter in the north; plants are mostly not absorbing CO2.


Uniformly, means spread evenly, not higher in some places, lower in others. Condescending contradictory statements, not to mention the atmosphere isn't stationary, nor the planet. If the planet warms, plants will be growing in those winter months, and absorbing CO2. Try to stay consistent, not convenient. It's the complete focus on the potential negatives, and dismissive of the positives, that keeps me skeptical. CO2 makes up about only 0.04% of the total atmospheric gasses, much too thin to have a huge impact, and it doesn't create energy, or additional heat, only works with what's already here. Only cloudy days (high water vapor), it has less to work with, less warming effect. Warmer climate, will mean more water vapor, since 80% of the planet surface is covered in water.

A man could spend a lifetime reading the long, confusing, contradictory circumstantial case, based on computer models, proxy/virtual data, trying to understand flawed science of Climatology. Logic and commonsense wins out every time, and I'll trust my instinct on this one. Might not know or understand everything, but my gut tells me it just doesn't add up.
28-12-2018 23:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:
I absolutely love it when you deny something and then say it again.

Never happened, Wake.
Wake wrote:
You start by denying that you ever said that the atmosphere doesn't have any effect on the temperature of the Earth and then SAY it hasn't any effect.

Never said the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of Earth, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, it doesn't, Wake. The atmosphere does not insulate anything, either in or out. If the Earth were covered in a giant blanket, it would be colder, not warmer. There is no such thing as a magick one way blanket


This is an especially good one since the atmosphere passes visible light which composes 90% of the Sun's energy.

WRONG. Most of the Sun's energy is infrared light.
Wake wrote:
Absorbed into the ground it heats
Visible light does not convert to thermal energy, Wake. It converts to chemical reactions.
Wake wrote:
to a temperature that emits in the infrared range. And the atmosphere does absorb and insulate the infrared from direct radiation.

The atmosphere does not insulate infrared radiation. Nor does it reduce it any.
Wake wrote:
You do not seem capable of refraining from the direct demonstration of stupidity. It never for one second occurs to you that if energy is not reflect it is absorbed and absorption must have an effect - heating.
Visible light does not convert to thermal energy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
You just went through EXACTLY what I said you did denying the entire time you do so. Well, at least it is good for a laugh.

YOU need to pay attention and stop taking things out of context.


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2018 23:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Either way, the surface, where we live stays cooler than the atmosphere, since heat is still escaping out to space. The atmosphere cannot create energy, only convert what's there, or conduct heat, which will always rise toward space. The gasses may slow the escape, but not stop, or reverse the direction it's moving.
They do not slow anything. Any infrared radiance emitted by the Earth and absorbed by CO2 (or anything else) simply is another for the surface to heat the atmosphere. It isn't really any different than conductive heating of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is also mass. It is also warmer than absolute zero. It is also emitting infrared light. That light is too dim and too low in energy to heat the surface.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Consider a hot air balloon, it's filled by burning gas, so must contain a good portion of CO2. You have to keep adding heat, to keep it rising, keep it from sinking. You also hit hot and warm pockets, that can change your altitude considerably. If you stop burning, you slowly descend. You can open vents, to fall quicker. Now, if all that CO2 in the balloon behaves the same as atmospheric CO2, the people in the basket would be getting burned, if the heat is being directed down to earth. Doubt many people would enjoy flying in a balloon, if it's so uncomfortably hot under it...
It actually isn't. All the hot air in a hot air balloon is in the balloon. Temperatures in the basket hanging below it are really not much different than just the outside air.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even with the alarming effects of global warming, it only got up to 77F here today. It was 60F when I got of bed this morning, almost put a sweatshirt on, but figured I'd just take it off, after a few minutes of work. It has been overcast most of the day, may have got back to more normal climate otherwise (80s). Really don't see the planet getting to seriously warm, water vapor will just increase, and cool things down.
No gas or vapor can warm or cool the Earth. When clouds reduce the sunlight reaching the surface, heating is going into the cloud instead of the surface. It is still part of Earth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Had a thought at work... The main CO2 monitor is on the side of a volcano. Pretty sure all the Hawaiian volcanoes are classified as active, not all erupt very often though. They all vent gas though, and some of that gas would be CO2. I wondered how much that vented gas would effect the readings, that are the basis for 'Climate Change'. Thought it amusing, that if they found a serious vent, right near the sensor someday, and the rise in CO2 has just been an increase in volcanic activity, more gas venting, and not 'fossil fuels'... It would be a much bigger scientific blunder, than Cold Fusion, about a decade ago.

Excellent realization of the problem with Mauna Loa. Yes, the volcanoes there are still active. Indeed, there was a major eruption of one fairly close to the Mauna Loa observatory last summer. There should have been a CO2 spike in the data. There wasn't. Mauna Loa has been shown to be cooking the data. It's useless.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 00:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Either way, the surface, where we live stays cooler than the atmosphere, since heat is still escaping out to space. The atmosphere cannot create energy, only convert what's there, or conduct heat, which will always rise toward space. The gasses may slow the escape, but not stop, or reverse the direction it's moving.

Consider a hot air balloon, it's filled by burning gas, so must contain a good portion of CO2. You have to keep adding heat, to keep it rising, keep it from sinking. You also hit hot and warm pockets, that can change your altitude considerably. If you stop burning, you slowly descend. You can open vents, to fall quicker. Now, if all that CO2 in the balloon behaves the same as atmospheric CO2, the people in the basket would be getting burned, if the heat is being directed down to earth. Doubt many people would enjoy flying in a balloon, if it's so uncomfortably hot under it...

Even with the alarming effects of global warming, it only got up to 77F here today. It was 60F when I got of bed this morning, almost put a sweatshirt on, but figured I'd just take it off, after a few minutes of work. It has been overcast most of the day, may have got back to more normal climate otherwise (80s). Really don't see the planet getting to seriously warm, water vapor will just increase, and cool things down.

Had a thought at work... The main CO2 monitor is on the side of a volcano. Pretty sure all the Hawaiian volcanoes are classified as active, not all erupt very often though. They all vent gas though, and some of that gas would be CO2. I wondered how much that vented gas would effect the readings, that are the basis for 'Climate Change'. Thought it amusing, that if they found a serious vent, right near the sensor someday, and the rise in CO2 has just been an increase in volcanic activity, more gas venting, and not 'fossil fuels'... It would be a much bigger scientific blunder, than Cold Fusion, about a decade ago.


CO2 vented from volcanos or from the ocean are "new" and have large amounts of Carbon-14 in them.

There is no such thing as 'new' CO2, Wake. Neither have large amounts of C-14 in them.
Wake wrote:
Fossil fuels contain almost no carbon-14
That's because fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
Wake wrote:
and hence you can tell the difference in many cases though not all. For instance - volcanos that burn through coal and oil beds have low carbon-14.
Volcanoes don't burn through anything layer, Wake. They're magma IS the layer powering a volcano.
Wake wrote:
Watching some of the videos or reading some of the horse manure published in Skeptical Science is funny. For instance: acid rain. Water is a base:
Water is not an alkaline, Wake. It is neutral. It has a pH of 7.
Wake wrote:
adding carbolic acid (a very weak acid) makes is less of a base and not an acid.

Adding carbolic acid to water makes acid, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Even more so with salt water.
Sale makes no difference, Wake. NaCl is also neutral.
Wake wrote:
The oceans are not absorbing CO2.
Yes they are, Wake. The amount of CO2 in ocean water is about the same as the atmosphere above it.
Wake wrote:
As the temperature of the Earth returns to normal after the Little Ice Age, the oceans are in fact warming and expelling CO2.

The oceans aren't warming, Wake. The Sun is putting out the same energy.
Wake wrote:
So aside from the very slow increase in atmospheric CO2 why isn't the CO2 build-up in the atmosphere much more rapid?
Ocean water CO2 and atmospheric CO2 are the same concentrations, Wake. Most CO2 in ocean water is simply dissolved CO2, only about 1% becomes carbolic acid.
Wake wrote:
There comes a point at which CO2 will not be venting from the ocean because it stabilizes when the oceans water stops heating.

Like the land, ocean water absorbs energy from the Sun and radiates into space. They never stop heating or being heated.
Wake wrote:
This is very slow to happen since the amount of water in the oceans is so very large. And at some point the amount of plant life will be so large that the amount of CO2 being introduced by man with be in balance with nature.
What balance??
Wake wrote:
I expect forests to begin returning to the grass areas of the world that were once covered in forests.
Most grasslands were never covered by forests at all. We do have more trees than ever in the United States though, thanks to people like Weyerhauser.
Wake wrote:
As the CO2 levels fell below a certainly level the forests disappeared without enough CO2 to support it and the grasslands of the Great Plains and the Savanas of African appeared.
There were never trees there, Wake...other than the kind of stuff that's there now.

Most of the land is grasslands. Grass is an amazing plant. It can grow almost anywhere, including the Antarctic!
Wake wrote:
Grass requires less CO2 and the CO2 produced is far more likely to be recycled since it rots and the carbon left combines with atmospheric oxygen to return CO2 back to whence it came.

It doesn't require less CO2, Wake. Grass grows fast. It requires MORE CO2 (per equivalent surface area) to build all those carbohydrates it needs. Given proper conditions, grass can grow as tall as a tree.
Wake wrote:
The pure ignorance of the environmentalists of the world around them and for that matter for anything of historic value is one of the driving factors of phony science researchers and politicians who can take advantage of ignorance of the sort that these people demonstrate.

Like you?


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 00:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
As far as I know, plants are the only living thing, that gets it's nutrients directly from the soil and atmosphere. Fungus/mushrooms grow in dirt, but it has to be rich in organic matter (rotted plant). There always a few exceptions to everything, but as rare as the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. Sorry, but I just can't grasp such a small quantity, have such a major impact to such a huge planet, temperature wise. Anyway, plants do incredibly well, with much higher CO2, and warmer climate. Only a small part of the CO2 plants take in, ever makes back to the atmosphere as CO2, unless it's from burning (which is okay, since it's 'carbon-neutral', least that's what the climatologist claim). Most of the organic carbon returns to the ground, which I tend to believe becomes oil. I believe a healthy growing environment for plants, is the measure of what is normal, since most life on the planet would quickly die out with vegetation. We can't do much about the warmer temperature, but increasing atmospheric CO2 seems to be a 'thing', although I don't think the mega-tons being quoted, is accurate, or all that significant. Better than nothing though. The other byproducts of burning fossil fuels aren't probably ideal for the enviroment, and more should be done to clean those up.


Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. You mean carbon-based fuels, I believe.

Carbon based fuel, when it burns, produce CO2 and water. If too much fuel is added, CO and unburned fuel particulates can result (the smoke or soot). It slightly not enough fuel is added, a burn can become too hot in certain cases and begin to oxidize nitrogen in the air. Any less fuel, and the fire begins to go out.

That said, various fuels, coming from natural sources can contain sulfur or other impurities. These impurities cause things like acid rain (in the case of sulfur impurities). These elements can be filtered out.

Coal, for example, is primarily carbon. It may also contain sulfur, calcium carbonates (limestone and embedded fossils), and even just silicates (sand). When burned, these impurities either burn with it, producing sulfur dioxide, or just 'ash' that is cleaned out of the firebox later. Sulfur dioxide, when mixed with water (or rain) will acidify that water, producing sulfuric acid. Today, sulfur dioxide is filtered out in the smokestack of coal plants and collected for resale. Acid rain isn't the problem it used to be.

Oil is better. Containing a wide variety of hydrocarbons, energy can be obtained not only from the carbon, but from the hydrogen associated with the chain. Oxidizing carbon produces CO2. Oxidizing the hydrogen produces water. Oil too, can contain impurities, including sulfur (sour oil). That can be filtered out at the refinery. Oil that is lower in sulfur impurities is called 'sweet' oil.

Natural gas is even better at burning clean, but it produces less power than oil does (about one fifth of the power). It is also more difficult to handle, requiring gas tight piping and tanks.

Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. The Earth naturally makes them. Coal we don't know yet. The stuff about the dinosaurs and oil they taught in school is wrong.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 00:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
wdmn wrote:
Harvey,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a troll, and spend some time talking to you as though you're sincere. Let me explain a couple of methodological errors you're making before I point out some of your false statements.

How generous of you. You start out by assuming that anyone that disagrees with you is a 'troll'. Jerk.
wdmn wrote:
Science is not bound by the limits of our common sense thinking. It's quite easy to understand how, using common sense reasoning, we should conclude with confidence that the earth must be stationary, with the sun revolving around us. However, it's a very stupid thing to continue to argue this without bothering to consider the evidence to the contrary.

This is not science. It has nothing to do with science. You are describing the effects of a branch of philosophy known as 'phenomenology'.
wdmn wrote:
Don't assume that everyone else knows less than you, least of all people who have studied subjects for decades, and who are publishing research on it.

He doesn't. YOU are doing this right now. Inversion fallacy.
wdmn wrote:
It's extremely obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the subject that you have not bothered to look at the current literature. For example, you say "plants do incredibly well with much higher co2 and a warmer climate."

They do.
wdmn wrote:
For CO2 to be used in photosynthesis H20 is also required, so it's not as simple as increasing growth by increasing CO2.

In all cases it is assumed they have sufficient water available.
wdmn wrote:
If you had done any reading on climate change, you would know that part of what's changing are precipitation patterns.

No one is measuring precipitation patterns. It is not possible to measure. You have no reference. Void argument fallacy.

Also, for your information, data that we DO have, like hurricane activity, does not show any increase in the number or frequency of storms beyond the usual variation.
wdmn wrote:
Assuming that the additional water will be available for the plants is not a good assumption.

It is a good assumption.
wdmn wrote:
There are also limits beyond which more ceases to be a benefit (even with water). If you bothered to look at the literature you would know that people have done studies on this.

Void argument fallacy. What studies are you referring to?
wdmn wrote:
Warmer temperatures are also clearly not good for all plants all of the time (making a general proposition like this is false). Plants, like animals, are adapted to certain temperature ranges, and when it gets significantly hotter or colder than those ranges, they get stressed (use that device you're on to look up "heat stress" in plants), inhibiting growth (even if water and co2 are available), and eventually leading to death.

Compositional error fallacy. Not all plants are the same, dude.

Some plants grow everywhere on Earth and in all climates (like grass). Some plants don't, because they are sensitive to damage from freezing temperatures or not enough water.

Oranges, for example, CAN grow anywhere as long as they get enough light and water and are protected from freezing temperatures. There are orange trees in greenhouses as far north as Alaska.

Harsher conditions favor the fir and evergreen trees. Fir needs more water than a pine tree. You will tend to find them in wetter environments. Deciduous trees are more sensitive to freezing temperatures and high wind loads. That's why they shed their leaves ever autumn. Given some protection from these elements, such trees can grow quite well.

Deserts tend to favor plants that are efficient with their water use. You CAN grow oranges in the desert, plant fir trees in the desert, or pretty much anything else, as long as they get the water they need and you protect them from the freezing temperatures found in the desert.

Plants don't feel temperature. What triggers their time to bloom in the spring is determined by the time they went to sleep in the autumn. Day length controls this cycle, not temperature.
wdmn wrote:
There are all sorts of other factors, like the spread of insects,

Insects go where there is a food supply. Compositional error fallacy. Most insects are beneficial to plant life.
wdmn wrote:
the decline of other parts of the ecosystem, etc.

Void argument fallacy. What decline? What is 'declining'? Why is it considered a 'decline'?
wdmn wrote:
that your common sense reasoning will not adequately account for,

BS. Common sense reasoning IS reasoning. You carelessly discard other's experiences and reasoning ability. Jerk.
wdmn wrote:
which is why we have the scientific method.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
wdmn wrote:
In the last few posts you've been making a big deal about CO2 rising, from which you conclude that if CO2 traps heat it would be trapped away from the earth's surface, and would not warm the surface. Again, you've chosen to rely on your "common sense" reasoning rather than being curious enough to look at the empirical data. In fact, C02 mixes very uniformly throughout the atmosphere, as you can see here ...deleted Holy Link...

Nope. CO2 is NOT uniformly mixed in the atmosphere. Mauna Loa and other station data shows that.
wdmn wrote:
You can click on different areas of the globe and it will tell you the CO2 in ppm.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. Not anywhere near enough monitoring stations, and those stations are located only on the surface. Further, Mauna Loa data has been shown to be cooked data. It is useless.
wdmn wrote:
While CO2 mixes uniformly you'll note that levels are generally currently higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. This is due to it being winter in the north; plants are mostly not absorbing CO2.

WRONG. It's the opposite. CO2 spikes during SUMMER, not winter, as ocean water warms up and vents a bit more CO2.
wdmn wrote:
You'll also note that these are SURFACE CO2 levels.

Missing altitude value. Void argument fallacy. How far above the surface is 'the surface'?
wdmn wrote:
It turns out that the atmosphere is right down here at the surface too! If you had thought a bit more carefully, you would have realized that you implicitly acknowledged this already, thus contradicting your own flawed thinking about the atmosphere being "up there" somewhere.

The atmosphere is above the surface, in case you haven't noticed. Quibbling.
wdmn wrote:
As far as being puzzled about how such a small part of the earth's atmosphere can have such a consequence, it's good to wonder about such things, but you should not stop at that. You should try to find out whether your intuition is actually correct. Here's a very simple way of visualizing how a small concentration of something can have large consequences:...deleted Holy Link...

0.04% of the atmosphere is a small value. Further, CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. None. Zero. Nada. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
wdmn wrote:
Of course you can find tons of other literature if you bother to look.

True. There is tons of literature pushing the Church of Global Warming. Big deal.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 01:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Tim the plumber wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've really been trying to understand how the hear is being re-directed back to the surface. Heat rises, so most of the excess should be going up, not down. Molecules would radiate in all directions, but the heat would still rise, since the upper atmosphere is always going to be cooler. I'd imagine that a molecule can only absorb so much IR, there must be some point were it has to release energy, or it's going to break down the bonds. I just can't grasp how the heat is mainly directed back down to the surface. The heat released would naturally be conducted toward a cooler surface, the upper atmosphere. Only part of the planet is facing the sun, so it could never be a global warming thing to begin with. Soon as something warm comes in contact with something cooler, heat is transferred. Water vapor, the cloud cover, blocks a lot of the sun's heat from reaching the surface. Water vapor also transfers heat, but heat rises, so you'd expect more heat to be radiated out toward cooler upper atmosphere.


Heat rises in a fluid. That is convection.

Radient heat is different.


Heat flows by conduction, by convection, or by radiance. Convection is heat rising in a fluid. You are trying to make radiant heating 'special' because it's not convection.

Tim the plumber wrote:
That the temperature is higher at the bottom of the atmosphere than the top is the result of pressure. It would be so if there was no sunshine. It is so in Jupiter.

There is sunshine on Jupiter. True, however. Thicker atmospheres can absorb more energy from the Sun directly. Atmosphere is mass.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The greenhouse idea is that radient energy from the sun has lots of UV and other high energy light in it. When this is absorbed by the earth the earth radiates only IR back out. This IR is more prone to interception by the air than the incoming stuff.

This is WRONG.

The atmosphere of Earth directly absorbs UV light, especially the higher frequency bands of UV (called UV-C and most of UV-
. Absorption of UV light does not result in conversion to thermal energy. It results in chemical reactions. One of those reactions is actually endothermic. It COOLS the atmosphere around it. This is the formation of ozone from oxygen and UV-B light.

The bulk of energy emitted by the Sun is infrared light.

Infrared light is converted to thermal energy when absorbed. This includes any CO2, water vapor, etc. in the atmosphere.

Infrared light emitted by the surface is over a wide band. Some of this is also absorbed by CO2 and water. Absorption of surface infrared does not warm the Earth. Emission of infrared by CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere does not warm the already warmer surface. Heat does not flow backwards.

Tim the plumber wrote:
I hjave seen an argument that seemed decent that there is no need for the adjustment of any greenhouse effect to account for our temperatures but I don't know enough physics to say if that is right.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Nothing about CO2 or water vapor in the atmosphere has the capability to warm the Earth using surface emitted IR. You can't create energy out of nothing by bouncing infrared light around.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-12-2018 01:05
29-12-2018 01:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants, like animals, are adapted to certain temperature ranges, and when it gets significantly hotter or colder than those ranges, they get stressed (use that device you're on to look up "heat stress" in plants), inhibiting growth (even if water and co2 are available), and eventually leading to death. There are all sorts of other factors, like the spread of insects, the decline of other parts of the ecosystem, etc., that your common sense reasoning will not adequately account for, which is why we have the scientific method.


Heat stress? We are talking about 1-3 degrees increase, over a century span. Not sufficient to heat stress most of what we consider food plants. Warmer temperatures, also mean more water vapor in the atmosphere, a shield from direct sunlight, and likely frequent rain. Overall, it should be great for the vast majority of vegetation. Consider how many plants die or go dormant in the fall and winter months, even here in Florida. Insects need to eat too, and the increased vegetations should provide plenty of food for them too. They also provide a useful function in the ecosystem, and are need as well. Fossil records of insects show they were plentiful, and much larger as well. Computer models are generally biased, and don't accurately forecast future events very well. Weather models, which have been worked on for decades, and openly, aren't 100%, accuracy declines rapidly after only a few days out. Weather models are easier to adjust, since we can see the results, and work on the faults. Climate Change models are looking decades, if not centuries into the future, which is a long wait to see what actually happens.

In the last few posts you've been making a big deal about CO2 rising, from which you conclude that if CO2 traps heat it would be trapped away from the earth's surface, and would not warm the surface. Again, you've chosen to rely on your "common sense" reasoning rather than being curious enough to look at the empirical data. In fact, C02 mixes very uniformly throughout the atmosphere, as you can see here https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=16.44,1.33,493/loc=32.998,-22.577

You can click on different areas of the globe and it will tell you the CO2 in ppm. While CO2 mixes uniformly you'll note that levels are generally currently higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. This is due to it being winter in the north; plants are mostly not absorbing CO2.


Uniformly, means spread evenly, not higher in some places, lower in others. Condescending contradictory statements, not to mention the atmosphere isn't stationary, nor the planet. If the planet warms, plants will be growing in those winter months, and absorbing CO2. Try to stay consistent, not convenient. It's the complete focus on the potential negatives, and dismissive of the positives, that keeps me skeptical. CO2 makes up about only 0.04% of the total atmospheric gasses, much too thin to have a huge impact, and it doesn't create energy, or additional heat, only works with what's already here. Only cloudy days (high water vapor), it has less to work with, less warming effect. Warmer climate, will mean more water vapor, since 80% of the planet surface is covered in water.

A man could spend a lifetime reading the long, confusing, contradictory circumstantial case, based on computer models, proxy/virtual data, trying to understand flawed science of Climatology. Logic and commonsense wins out every time, and I'll trust my instinct on this one. Might not know or understand everything, but my gut tells me it just doesn't add up.


There is no branch of science called climatology. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

'Greenhouse effect' theory isn't even a nonscientific theory, much less a scientific one. It is associated with the meaningless buzzword 'global warming' or 'climate change'. It uses phrases to describe how it works that are meaningless.

It is not possible to construct a theory out of a void argument, whether it is a scientific theory or a nonscientific theory.

Ask them: What IS 'global warming'? Define 'global warming'. They will find they cannot define by anything other than itself, then argue that they somehow 'defined' it.

To describe anything that is 'warming', you must take to temperature measurements and compare them. You must also declare the times you are taking the measurements, and why those times are significant, and other times are not significant.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and the Church of Global Warming crowd can't even declare starting and ending times for measurements since they can't even declare why those starting and ending times are significant and other times are not significant.

Thus, the phrase 'global warming' itself is utterly meaningless. It's a buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 01:20
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
As far as I know, plants are the only living thing, that gets it's nutrients directly from the soil and atmosphere. Fungus/mushrooms grow in dirt, but it has to be rich in organic matter (rotted plant). There always a few exceptions to everything, but as rare as the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. Sorry, but I just can't grasp such a small quantity, have such a major impact to such a huge planet, temperature wise. Anyway, plants do incredibly well, with much higher CO2, and warmer climate. Only a small part of the CO2 plants take in, ever makes back to the atmosphere as CO2, unless it's from burning (which is okay, since it's 'carbon-neutral', least that's what the climatologist claim). Most of the organic carbon returns to the ground, which I tend to believe becomes oil. I believe a healthy growing environment for plants, is the measure of what is normal, since most life on the planet would quickly die out with vegetation. We can't do much about the warmer temperature, but increasing atmospheric CO2 seems to be a 'thing', although I don't think the mega-tons being quoted, is accurate, or all that significant. Better than nothing though. The other byproducts of burning fossil fuels aren't probably ideal for the enviroment, and more should be done to clean those up.


Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. You mean carbon-based fuels, I believe.

Carbon based fuel, when it burns, produce CO2 and water. If too much fuel is added, CO and unburned fuel particulates can result (the smoke or soot). It slightly not enough fuel is added, a burn can become too hot in certain cases and begin to oxidize nitrogen in the air. Any less fuel, and the fire begins to go out.

That said, various fuels, coming from natural sources can contain sulfur or other impurities. These impurities cause things like acid rain (in the case of sulfur impurities). These elements can be filtered out.

Coal, for example, is primarily carbon. It may also contain sulfur, calcium carbonates (limestone and embedded fossils), and even just silicates (sand). When burned, these impurities either burn with it, producing sulfur dioxide, or just 'ash' that is cleaned out of the firebox later. Sulfur dioxide, when mixed with water (or rain) will acidify that water, producing sulfuric acid. Today, sulfur dioxide is filtered out in the smokestack of coal plants and collected for resale. Acid rain isn't the problem it used to be.

Oil is better. Containing a wide variety of hydrocarbons, energy can be obtained not only from the carbon, but from the hydrogen associated with the chain. Oxidizing carbon produces CO2. Oxidizing the hydrogen produces water. Oil too, can contain impurities, including sulfur (sour oil). That can be filtered out at the refinery. Oil that is lower in sulfur impurities is called 'sweet' oil.

Natural gas is even better at burning clean, but it produces less power than oil does (about one fifth of the power). It is also more difficult to handle, requiring gas tight piping and tanks.

Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. The Earth naturally makes them. Coal we don't know yet. The stuff about the dinosaurs and oil they taught in school is wrong.


The gas we buy at the pump, has additives. You can purchase additives, for your fuel separately, probably pretty useless, like fuel injector cleaner, mileage boosters, and so forth. Engines also burn oil, owned quite few over the years. Sure, an engine properly tuned and maintained will burn relatively clean, but in practice, most are only maintained, when performance is poor.

I tend to believe decaying organic matter does play a part in oil. Energy is stored as fat and oils, in both plants and animals. I'm referring to energy, as in the biological form, stuff converted to blood sugar. Didn't really get into geology much, identify a few rocks, land features. I use fossil fuels, as it's a common label, which doesn't need to be technically accurate. I fly a drone, although it's not, technically, it's a radio controlled model. Does have a few automated features, but needs input to do much of anything in the air, doesn't avoid obstacles, or pick a safe place to land automatically.
29-12-2018 07:36
wdmn
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants, like animals, are adapted to certain temperature ranges, and when it gets significantly hotter or colder than those ranges, they get stressed (use that device you're on to look up "heat stress" in plants), inhibiting growth (even if water and co2 are available), and eventually leading to death. There are all sorts of other factors, like the spread of insects, the decline of other parts of the ecosystem, etc., that your common sense reasoning will not adequately account for, which is why we have the scientific method.


Heat stress? We are talking about 1-3 degrees increase, over a century span. Not sufficient to heat stress most of what we consider food plants. Warmer temperatures, also mean more water vapor in the atmosphere, a shield from direct sunlight, and likely frequent rain. Overall, it should be great for the vast majority of vegetation. Consider how many plants die or go dormant in the fall and winter months, even here in Florida. Insects need to eat too, and the increased vegetations should provide plenty of food for them too. They also provide a useful function in the ecosystem, and are need as well. Fossil records of insects show they were plentiful, and much larger as well. Computer models are generally biased, and don't accurately forecast future events very well. Weather models, which have been worked on for decades, and openly, aren't 100%, accuracy declines rapidly after only a few days out. Weather models are easier to adjust, since we can see the results, and work on the faults. Climate Change models are looking decades, if not centuries into the future, which is a long wait to see what actually happens.

In the last few posts you've been making a big deal about CO2 rising, from which you conclude that if CO2 traps heat it would be trapped away from the earth's surface, and would not warm the surface. Again, you've chosen to rely on your "common sense" reasoning rather than being curious enough to look at the empirical data. In fact, C02 mixes very uniformly throughout the atmosphere, as you can see here https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=16.44,1.33,493/loc=32.998,-22.577

You can click on different areas of the globe and it will tell you the CO2 in ppm. While CO2 mixes uniformly you'll note that levels are generally currently higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. This is due to it being winter in the north; plants are mostly not absorbing CO2.


Uniformly, means spread evenly, not higher in some places, lower in others. Condescending contradictory statements, not to mention the atmosphere isn't stationary, nor the planet. If the planet warms, plants will be growing in those winter months, and absorbing CO2. Try to stay consistent, not convenient. It's the complete focus on the potential negatives, and dismissive of the positives, that keeps me skeptical. CO2 makes up about only 0.04% of the total atmospheric gasses, much too thin to have a huge impact, and it doesn't create energy, or additional heat, only works with what's already here. Only cloudy days (high water vapor), it has less to work with, less warming effect. Warmer climate, will mean more water vapor, since 80% of the planet surface is covered in water.

A man could spend a lifetime reading the long, confusing, contradictory circumstantial case, based on computer models, proxy/virtual data, trying to understand flawed science of Climatology. Logic and commonsense wins out every time, and I'll trust my instinct on this one. Might not know or understand everything, but my gut tells me it just doesn't add up.


I can see now that you are definitely a troll, and probably a paid troll at that. Even so you were only able to find two little points in my long argument to try to create confusion and doubt.

Yes, heat stress, as you would know that shifts in jet stream mean longer heat waves, and that a small change in average temperature results in much larger increase in extremes (see attached image). Nor is it true that we're talking about 1-3 degrees over a century. You're a liar.

Again, disingenuous. If you compare CO2 to other atmospheric gases you'd see why it counts as uniform. The word is relative. I did not say it was perfectly uniform. The rest of your comments are pathetic even for a troll. If the planet warms 1-3 degrees over a century, plants will not be growing during the winter months. That comment is a complete red herring anyway, since I was pointing out what's happening right now, while the forests of the northern hemisphere are mostly dormant.

The earth is stationary. The stars, the sun, the planets orbit around us. Keep peddling your intellectual poison you shill.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/16/exxon-climate-change/
Attached image:

29-12-2018 11:06
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
I can see now that you are definitely a troll, and probably a paid troll at that. Even so you were only able to find two little points in my long argument to try to create confusion and doubt.

Yes, heat stress, as you would know that shifts in jet stream mean longer heat waves, and that a small change in average temperature results in much larger increase in extremes (see attached image). Nor is it true that we're talking about 1-3 degrees over a century. You're a liar.

Again, disingenuous. If you compare CO2 to other atmospheric gases you'd see why it counts as uniform. The word is relative. I did not say it was perfectly uniform. The rest of your comments are pathetic even for a troll. If the planet warms 1-3 degrees over a century, plants will not be growing during the winter months. That comment is a complete red herring anyway, since I was pointing out what's happening right now, while the forests of the northern hemisphere are mostly dormant.

The earth is stationary. The stars, the sun, the planets orbit around us. Keep peddling your intellectual poison you shill.


I've got better things to do, besides swapping insults, middle-school name calling, and pseudo-intellectual regurgitation.

The 1-3 C degree temperature increase comes from the IPCC assessment report, so guess if I'm a liar, so are they, which is my belief as well... All the weather predictions for decades in the future, are obvious garbage, since we can't accurately predict weather more than a few days, confidence drops rapidly beyond 7 days, to basically a coin toss.

I don't just quote what I've read, and re-post it as my own intelligence. I read, think about it, and post my impression of it. Never claim to be right. Much of the IPCC is simple a group of people sitting around discussing the topic, the use of computer models, to illustrate some of the ideas they come up with. It's more about what might happen, what could happen, but not much fact, like a science fiction novel. The data used to run the models, isn't ideal or complete, nor does it run for a particularly long span of years, compared to the distance being predicted. The error rate also goes into a negative range as well, could just as likely cool down by the same amount. People get so wrapped up in the story, they sort of forget some of the details, make allowances, because it's a story, tend to start believing it's factual. Just because a group of people share a common belief, doesn't mean it's a proven fact, just that they have faith in what they believe. A whole lot of people believe in God, so God must exist.

Now, I can tell from your two posts, that you are angry, bitter, frustrated... Understandable, you wasted a lot of time and resources, memorizing a lot of facts and figures, that you are probably realizing were mis-used or fabricated
29-12-2018 22:35
wdmn
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Once again you're demonstrating your illiteracy on the subject. My first post was not name calling, though it was harsh. It was harsh to test whether or not you are a troll (more likely a shill), or someone who is actually interested in learning about a subject. It seems quite likely that you're the former with your attempts to spin and misdirect. If you are a shill, then you should know that you're doing a horrible job.

The IPCC report has multiple projections. 3C is not the upper limit of warming projected by 2100 (moreover, the IPCC has proven again and again to be overly conservative in their projections). Even if 3C were the upper limit, you have failed to address my argument: averages are only part of the picture. I attached a graphic which demonstrates part of this, and you did not reply to it (just as you have not replied to any substantial point I've made). The arctic also warms much faster than the rest of the planet. Since many components of the climate are based on the temperature gradient across the globe (for example, the jet streams), even 1C of change means we have seen significant shifts contributing to longer and more frequent heat waves (and so increased probability of heat stress). Again, the truth or falsity of these claims is not to be determined by any a priori logical method or application of common sense. One would actually have to look and see what the data says.

These are all examples of how logic can be valid but not be sound, and thus give you the wrong answer. You've not bothered to make sure that your inputs are correct. When you take AVERAGE warming and act as though it means UNIFORM warming across space and time very serious errors in your conclusions arise. You should acknowledge and correct this. You have made a mistake (actually several, as I've pointed out). Will you acknowledge these mistakes? (If not, that is another piece of evidence that you are a shill).

As for the inability to predict weather, even if it were true that weather models are unreliable (funny how people and institutions rely on them all of the time), weather is not climate. Weather events are not climatic trends. It is harder to predict how the jet stream will behave over Russia in two weeks than it is to predict how the jet stream will be changed by a long term change in the temperature gradient across the globe, similar (not identical) to the fact that it is easier to predict the rough distribution of 1000 coin flips than it is to predict the result of a coin flip 1000 individual times, or what the result will be of the flip 7 flips from now.

Just to drive this point home, the first prediction that the co2 being added to the atmosphere by industrial activity would cause warming was made in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius a chemist who later won the nobel prize. Of course in 1896 they could not predict the weather 5 days out with very much accuracy at all; and yet Svante was right.

You, on the other hand, are almost entirely wrong.
Edited on 29-12-2018 22:38
29-12-2018 22:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
As far as I know, plants are the only living thing, that gets it's nutrients directly from the soil and atmosphere. Fungus/mushrooms grow in dirt, but it has to be rich in organic matter (rotted plant). There always a few exceptions to everything, but as rare as the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. Sorry, but I just can't grasp such a small quantity, have such a major impact to such a huge planet, temperature wise. Anyway, plants do incredibly well, with much higher CO2, and warmer climate. Only a small part of the CO2 plants take in, ever makes back to the atmosphere as CO2, unless it's from burning (which is okay, since it's 'carbon-neutral', least that's what the climatologist claim). Most of the organic carbon returns to the ground, which I tend to believe becomes oil. I believe a healthy growing environment for plants, is the measure of what is normal, since most life on the planet would quickly die out with vegetation. We can't do much about the warmer temperature, but increasing atmospheric CO2 seems to be a 'thing', although I don't think the mega-tons being quoted, is accurate, or all that significant. Better than nothing though. The other byproducts of burning fossil fuels aren't probably ideal for the enviroment, and more should be done to clean those up.


Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. You mean carbon-based fuels, I believe.

Carbon based fuel, when it burns, produce CO2 and water. If too much fuel is added, CO and unburned fuel particulates can result (the smoke or soot). It slightly not enough fuel is added, a burn can become too hot in certain cases and begin to oxidize nitrogen in the air. Any less fuel, and the fire begins to go out.

That said, various fuels, coming from natural sources can contain sulfur or other impurities. These impurities cause things like acid rain (in the case of sulfur impurities). These elements can be filtered out.

Coal, for example, is primarily carbon. It may also contain sulfur, calcium carbonates (limestone and embedded fossils), and even just silicates (sand). When burned, these impurities either burn with it, producing sulfur dioxide, or just 'ash' that is cleaned out of the firebox later. Sulfur dioxide, when mixed with water (or rain) will acidify that water, producing sulfuric acid. Today, sulfur dioxide is filtered out in the smokestack of coal plants and collected for resale. Acid rain isn't the problem it used to be.

Oil is better. Containing a wide variety of hydrocarbons, energy can be obtained not only from the carbon, but from the hydrogen associated with the chain. Oxidizing carbon produces CO2. Oxidizing the hydrogen produces water. Oil too, can contain impurities, including sulfur (sour oil). That can be filtered out at the refinery. Oil that is lower in sulfur impurities is called 'sweet' oil.

Natural gas is even better at burning clean, but it produces less power than oil does (about one fifth of the power). It is also more difficult to handle, requiring gas tight piping and tanks.

Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. The Earth naturally makes them. Coal we don't know yet. The stuff about the dinosaurs and oil they taught in school is wrong.


The gas we buy at the pump, has additives.

True. Those additives are a moderator (to prevent the fuel from burning too quickly), detergents (to clean out varnish in fuel systems), and in some cases, particularly aircraft, a dye to indicate the octane rating of the fuel. All of these components are cleanly burnable as well. They are carbohydrates or hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can purchase additives, for your fuel separately, probably pretty useless, like fuel injector cleaner, mileage boosters, and so forth.

Yes, you can. They are pretty useless in most cases, because they are already in the fuel you buy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Engines also burn oil, owned quite few over the years.

Older engines do. The newer ones burn very little oil. Tolerances are so tight in the newer engines that thick films of oil on cylinder walls are no longer necessary. Engine oil is a hydrocarbon. It smokes when an engine burns it because the engine is designed to burn gasoline, a distillate of a hydrocarbon. Adding engine oil to the burn is effectively too rich a mixture and not hot enough, hence the soot and smoke. These are particulates. They drop out of the air by their own weight pretty quickly, despite the clouds produced.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, an engine properly tuned and maintained will burn relatively clean, but in practice, most are only maintained, when performance is poor.

'Clean' is a relative term. It is one thing to burn fuel to minimize visible clouds of smoke, it is quite another to minimize gases that are not visible. Nitrogen dioxides, for example, are easily minimized using the EGR system.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I tend to believe decaying organic matter does play a part in oil.

None. Oil is found well below any fossil layer or any plant matter. You can also pump a well dry, cap it, and it will be full of oil again in a short while. It is not seeping in from other wells. The entire field can be pumped dry and you can do that.

The Fischer-Tropsche process, invented by the Germans in WW2, is capable of synthesizing oil directly, using no plant or animal matter as source material. The conditions of the process are the same as naturally found underground. The Earth is a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor. You can use carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide as the source material, along with hydrogen. The only thing you need after that is iron as a catalyst, heat, and pressure.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Energy is stored as fat and oils, in both plants and animals. I'm referring to energy, as in the biological form, stuff converted to blood sugar.

You are referring to various forms of carbohydrates. Sucrose, the sugar that is in your own blood, is a carbohydrate, just like fat is.

Oil is a hydrocarbon, not a carbohydrate.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Didn't really get into geology much, identify a few rocks, land features.

It can be a fascinating study, but not really needed to understand the basics of the Fischer-Tropsche process.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I use fossil fuels, as it's a common label, which doesn't need to be technically accurate.

I reject the label. It is used to label 'bad' fuel as opposed to 'good' fuel. Oil and natural gas have nothing to do with fossils at all. They are not fossils themselves, and they do not come from fossils. This label is also a hangover from the wrong stuff they taught in school about the origin of oil. It reinforces bad thinking and conclusions. The correct term is carbon based fuels. It is just as easy to say.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I fly a drone, although it's not, technically, it's a radio controlled model.

I do not know what the aircraft design is, but it's probably a quad copter. It IS technically also called a drone IF it can fly and navigate without radio controlled assistance.

RC quad copters are not drones. They are RC aircraft. To call them drones IS technically wrong. I don't mind so much, because the use of the term is not being used to politically manipulate minds. It does show, however, the idiocy of the media, which constantly misuses the term (how the public came to think of RC quad copters as 'drones').

The idiocy of the media (and of government bureaucrats) has caused a lot of words to be redefined in the interest of politics. 'Vegetable' is another one...a very old one. The way the U.S. government defines it is for tax reasons. Due to it's age, the wrong meaning is worldwide now.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Does have a few automated features, but needs input to do much of anything in the air, doesn't avoid obstacles, or pick a safe place to land automatically.

They can be fun, and they can be useful. They can also be dangerous, mostly to other aircraft, but also to people on the ground. There were so many people being dangerous with them, that the FAA had to step in and regulate them.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 22:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
wdmn wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants, like animals, are adapted to certain temperature ranges, and when it gets significantly hotter or colder than those ranges, they get stressed (use that device you're on to look up "heat stress" in plants), inhibiting growth (even if water and co2 are available), and eventually leading to death. There are all sorts of other factors, like the spread of insects, the decline of other parts of the ecosystem, etc., that your common sense reasoning will not adequately account for, which is why we have the scientific method.


Heat stress? We are talking about 1-3 degrees increase, over a century span. Not sufficient to heat stress most of what we consider food plants. Warmer temperatures, also mean more water vapor in the atmosphere, a shield from direct sunlight, and likely frequent rain. Overall, it should be great for the vast majority of vegetation. Consider how many plants die or go dormant in the fall and winter months, even here in Florida. Insects need to eat too, and the increased vegetations should provide plenty of food for them too. They also provide a useful function in the ecosystem, and are need as well. Fossil records of insects show they were plentiful, and much larger as well. Computer models are generally biased, and don't accurately forecast future events very well. Weather models, which have been worked on for decades, and openly, aren't 100%, accuracy declines rapidly after only a few days out. Weather models are easier to adjust, since we can see the results, and work on the faults. Climate Change models are looking decades, if not centuries into the future, which is a long wait to see what actually happens.

In the last few posts you've been making a big deal about CO2 rising, from which you conclude that if CO2 traps heat it would be trapped away from the earth's surface, and would not warm the surface. Again, you've chosen to rely on your "common sense" reasoning rather than being curious enough to look at the empirical data. In fact, C02 mixes very uniformly throughout the atmosphere, as you can see here https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=16.44,1.33,493/loc=32.998,-22.577

You can click on different areas of the globe and it will tell you the CO2 in ppm. While CO2 mixes uniformly you'll note that levels are generally currently higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. This is due to it being winter in the north; plants are mostly not absorbing CO2.


Uniformly, means spread evenly, not higher in some places, lower in others. Condescending contradictory statements, not to mention the atmosphere isn't stationary, nor the planet. If the planet warms, plants will be growing in those winter months, and absorbing CO2. Try to stay consistent, not convenient. It's the complete focus on the potential negatives, and dismissive of the positives, that keeps me skeptical. CO2 makes up about only 0.04% of the total atmospheric gasses, much too thin to have a huge impact, and it doesn't create energy, or additional heat, only works with what's already here. Only cloudy days (high water vapor), it has less to work with, less warming effect. Warmer climate, will mean more water vapor, since 80% of the planet surface is covered in water.

A man could spend a lifetime reading the long, confusing, contradictory circumstantial case, based on computer models, proxy/virtual data, trying to understand flawed science of Climatology. Logic and commonsense wins out every time, and I'll trust my instinct on this one. Might not know or understand everything, but my gut tells me it just doesn't add up.


I can see now that you are definitely a troll, and probably a paid troll at that.

Insults are a fallacy, dude. You also have no idea what a 'troll' is. Buzzword fallacy.
wdmn wrote:
Even so you were only able to find two little points in my long argument to try to create confusion and doubt.

There are lot more than two!
wdmn wrote:
Yes, heat stress, as you would know that shifts in jet stream mean longer heat waves, and that a small change in average temperature results in much larger increase in extremes (see attached image).

The jet stream hasn't moved, other than the usual variations.
wdmn wrote:
Nor is it true that we're talking about 1-3 degrees over a century. ..deleted insult...

The Church of Global Warming usually says 1 to 3 degrees over the next century. I don't know what your personal random number is.
wdmn wrote:
Again, disingenuous. If you compare CO2 to other atmospheric gases you'd see why it counts as uniform.

CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. It is a bit heavier than air, for one thing. It also changes local concentrations as ocean water warms up and cools down with the seasons and as plants bloom and go dormant.
wdmn wrote:
The word is relative. I did not say it was perfectly uniform.
Yes, you effectively did.
wdmn wrote:
...deleted insult... If the planet warms 1-3 degrees over a century, plants will not be growing during the winter months.
Most plants are generally dormant during the winter months. They do not feel temperature and are unaffected by it, other than freezing risks while active. Some plants, like oranges or lemons, are active year 'round.
wdmn wrote:
That comment is a complete red herring anyway, since I was pointing out what's happening right now, while the forests of the northern hemisphere are mostly dormant.

So you argument is that Earth is only warming when it is winter in the northern hemisphere???
wdmn wrote:
The earth is stationary. The stars, the sun, the planets orbit around us.
...deleted insults and Holy Link...

Go read about Galileo. He falsified that model. Read a book of his called 'The Starry Messenger'.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I can see now that you are definitely a troll, and probably a paid troll at that. Even so you were only able to find two little points in my long argument to try to create confusion and doubt.

Yes, heat stress, as you would know that shifts in jet stream mean longer heat waves, and that a small change in average temperature results in much larger increase in extremes (see attached image). Nor is it true that we're talking about 1-3 degrees over a century. You're a liar.

Again, disingenuous. If you compare CO2 to other atmospheric gases you'd see why it counts as uniform. The word is relative. I did not say it was perfectly uniform. The rest of your comments are pathetic even for a troll. If the planet warms 1-3 degrees over a century, plants will not be growing during the winter months. That comment is a complete red herring anyway, since I was pointing out what's happening right now, while the forests of the northern hemisphere are mostly dormant.

The earth is stationary. The stars, the sun, the planets orbit around us. Keep peddling your intellectual poison you shill.


I've got better things to do, besides swapping insults, middle-school name calling, and pseudo-intellectual regurgitation.

It's amazing how anyone that disagrees with a fundamentalist religion like the Church of Global Warming quickly becomes the Great Satan himself and must be insulted.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The 1-3 C degree temperature increase comes from the IPCC assessment report, so guess if I'm a liar, so are they, which is my belief as well... All the weather predictions for decades in the future, are obvious garbage, since we can't accurately predict weather more than a few days, confidence drops rapidly beyond 7 days, to basically a coin toss.

We can only accurately predict weather at a location for 24 hours. A general prediction is good out to 36 hours. Beyond that, a general pattern can be deduced out to the 7 or 10 days you mention. It's like watching waves on the sea approach your shoreline. No one can predict the movement of a wave that hasn't formed yet.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't just quote what I've read, and re-post it as my own intelligence. I read, think about it, and post my impression of it. Never claim to be right. Much of the IPCC is simple a group of people sitting around discussing the topic, the use of computer models, to illustrate some of the ideas they come up with. It's more about what might happen, what could happen, but not much fact, like a science fiction novel. The data used to run the models, isn't ideal or complete, nor does it run for a particularly long span of years, compared to the distance being predicted. The error rate also goes into a negative range as well, could just as likely cool down by the same amount. People get so wrapped up in the story, they sort of forget some of the details, make allowances, because it's a story, tend to start believing it's factual. Just because a group of people share a common belief, doesn't mean it's a proven fact, just that they have faith in what they believe. A whole lot of people believe in God, so God must exist.

Bingo. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. Only religions make use of supporting evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence at all.

As far as I have observed, the Church of Global Warming has two gods: The Great God Consensus, and the Great Goddess Gaia. They are all powerful, can defy the laws of physics, and send their prophets to preach gloom and doom and to punish Man for his sins.

The Son is Al Gore, put to death by hanging chad, but rises from the dead from time to time to say something stupid.

The Holy Gas, carbon dioxide, is pervasive in its presence, revealing the sins of Man.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Now, I can tell from your two posts, that you are angry, bitter, frustrated... Understandable, you wasted a lot of time and resources, memorizing a lot of facts and figures, that you are probably realizing were mis-used or fabricated

Nah. A fundamentalist never thinks that way. Any fundamentalist attempts to prove their religion correct by using supporting evidence, even to the point of ignoring any conflicting evidence.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2018 23:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
wdmn wrote:
Once again you're demonstrating your illiteracy on the subject. My first post was not name calling, though it was harsh.

No, it was name calling. Don't lie.
wdmn wrote:
It was harsh to test whether or not you are a troll (more likely a shill),

Name calling again. Insult fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. You don't know the meaning of either 'troll' or 'shill'. I worked in the gaming industry I was a shill. Did you know that shills perform a very useful function for other gamblers? That's why casinos hire them. Do you even know what a shill does?
wdmn wrote:
or someone who is actually interested in learning about a subject.

He knows a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do.
wdmn wrote:
It seems quite likely that you're the former with your attempts to spin and misdirect. If you are a shill, then you should know that you're doing a horrible job.
Not what a shill does. He is not 'spinning' or misdirecting anything. YOU are! Inversion fallacy. Redirection fallacy.
wdmn wrote:
The IPCC report has multiple projections.
Because it is multiple reports. False prophecy is false prophecy. These projections are Holy Prophecies for the Church of Global Warming. They are random numbers.
wdmn wrote:
3C is not the upper limit of warming projected by 2100 (moreover, the IPCC has proven again and again to be overly conservative in their projections).

Please show me your proof. Include all work please.
wdmn wrote:
Even if 3C were the upper limit, you have failed to address my argument: averages are only part of the picture.
Averages by themselves are meaningless. Statistical analysis requires the calculation of the margin of error, and that the raw data source used, the average, and the margin of error all be published in the result.
wdmn wrote:
I attached a graphic which demonstrates part of this, and you did not reply to it (just as you have not replied to any substantial point I've made).

Argument from randU. You are quoting random numbers.
wdmn wrote:
The arctic also warms much faster than the rest of the planet.

No, it doesn't. There is nothing special about the arctic. BTW, did you know that winter ice extents are going up right now? Antarctica had a record high ice extent in 2014. The largest ever recorded.
wdmn wrote:
Since many components of the climate are based on the temperature gradient across the globe (for example, the jet streams),
The jet stream is not a temperature gradient. Temperature gradients vary widely from place to place. I have seen temperature gradients as high as 20 deg F in a single mile from time to time.
wdmn wrote:
even 1C of change means we have seen significant shifts contributing to longer and more frequent heat waves
The jet stream is not moving other than it's usual variations. It also does not cause heat waves.
wdmn wrote:
(and so increased probability of heat stress).

Plants are insensitive to temperature, other than freezing risk while active.
wdmn wrote:
Again, the truth or falsity of these claims is not to be determined by any a priori logical method or application of common sense.

The falseness is determined by both logic and common sense. Logic is not a method. It is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
wdmn wrote:
One would actually have to look and see what the data says.

What data? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The jet streams haven't moved beyond their usual variations. It is not possible to predict or measure 'heat waves'. It is not possible to measure the precipitation of the Earth. Hurricane activity is not increasing in the intensity or number of storms.

Argument from randU. There is no data.
wdmn wrote:
These are all examples of how logic can be valid but not be sound,

Paradox. Logic is valid. It is also sound. They cannot be opposites. Logic cannot be both valid and unsound.
wdmn wrote:
and thus give you the wrong answer.
Logic does not give answers. Like mathematics, logic is a closed functional system. It is not a set of answers, but a simple set of rules and formal proofs to extend those rules.
wdmn wrote:
You've not bothered to make sure that your inputs are correct.

What inputs? You keep mentioning all this data. You have none.
wdmn wrote:
When you take AVERAGE warming and act as though it means UNIFORM warming across space and time very serious errors in your conclusions arise.

Divisional error fallacy. Math error. Failure to declare selection source. Failure to declare tolerances. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randU. Failure to calculate margin of error.
wdmn wrote:
You should acknowledge and correct this. You have made a mistake (actually several, as I've pointed out). Will you acknowledge these mistakes?

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is making mistakes.
wdmn wrote:
...deleted insult and buzzword...
As for the inability to predict weather, even if it were true that weather models are unreliable (funny how people and institutions rely on them all of the time),

Weather is not predicted using models. It is predicted by observing approaching storms.
wdmn wrote:
weather is not climate.

Climate is usually defined as something similar to 'weather over a long time'. It is weather.
wdmn wrote:
Weather events are not climatic trends.

Yes they are! Weather over 'a long time' is climate!
wdmn wrote:
It is harder to predict how the jet stream will behave over Russia in two weeks than it is to predict how the jet stream will be changed by a long term change in the temperature gradient across the globe, similar (not identical) to the fact that it is easier to predict the rough distribution of 1000 coin flips than it is to predict the result of a coin flip 1000 individual times, or what the result will be of the flip 7 flips from now.

Argument from randU. Math error. Probabilities calculated from void sources.
wdmn wrote:
Just to drive this point home, the first prediction that the co2 being added to the atmosphere by industrial activity would cause warming was made in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius a chemist who later won the nobel prize.

Stop misusing this poor man's name (either Arrhenius or Nobel). Arrhenius' theory of CO2 warming the Earth has been falsified by the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He did not win the Nobel prize for this prediction. He won it for his work with acids and bases. The Nobel prize is not a proof in science, or even a proof that anything a scientist says is True. Science has no proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
wdmn wrote:
Of course in 1896 they could not predict the weather 5 days out with very much accuracy at all; and yet Svante was right.

It is not possible to measure either the temperature of the Earth or it's global atmospheric CO2 content.
wdmn wrote:
You, on the other hand, are almost entirely wrong.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science here. You are also denying mathematics and logic.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-12-2018 23:44
30-12-2018 02:56
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
The IPCC report has multiple projections. 3C is not the upper limit of warming projected by 2100 (moreover, the IPCC has proven again and again to be overly conservative in their projections). Even if 3C were the upper limit, you have failed to address my argument: averages are only part of the picture. I attached a graphic which demonstrates part of this, and you did not reply to it (just as you have not replied to any substantial point I've made). The arctic also warms much faster than the rest of the planet. Since many components of the climate are based on the temperature gradient across the globe (for example, the jet streams), even 1C of change means we have seen significant shifts contributing to longer and more frequent heat waves (and so increased probability of heat stress). Again, the truth or falsity of these claims is not to be determined by any a priori logical method or application of common sense. One would actually have to look and see what the data says.


As for the inability to predict weather, even if it were true that weather models are unreliable (funny how people and institutions rely on them all of the time), weather is not climate. Weather events are not climatic trends. It is harder to predict how the jet stream will behave over Russia in two weeks than it is to predict how the jet stream will be changed by a long term change in the temperature gradient across the globe, similar (not identical) to the fact that it is easier to predict the rough distribution of 1000 coin flips than it is to predict the result of a coin flip 1000 individual times, or what the result will be of the flip 7 flips from now.

IPCC models can predict accurately, but weather models can not? Climate isn't weather, but Global warming causes bad weather, wild fires, droughts, floods, hurricanes? No wonder I get confused, contradictory statements. Your graphs didn't carry much meaning, no legend, no way of knowing what those lines means, wasn't even a 'Hockey-Stick'.

How much does the IPCC pay trolls? I could find anything on the internet search, sort of when I looked into paid-protesters. Guess they do exist, but it's sort of a secretive crowd.

I read, and I post my opinions and impressions. Not all that impressed either. It's like reading the bible, and still not being convinced that God exists. There are tons of other writings, that weren't included in the common bible, one could read, or even get copies of the originals, learn to translate them, many years, lot of dedication. But in the end, it still comes down to faith. Climate Change is a lot like that, there is no proof, the evidence presented, requires faith. Chose the religion analogy, because Climate Change closely parallels a lot of doomsday cults. A secretive lot, who doesn't grant free access to the models being used, or the data used to feed them. Once the final conclusion is announced, most every scientist on the planet publishes and shares everything. It's the final test, to see if there are any flaws, and to get credit for the work. The work holds, when everyone who replicates the work, gets rough the same results. Climate Science is much different though, they only share bits and pieces of their findings, not so much about how they got them. The have no base line (what's normal), nor do the have a past period to compare the present or predicted future with. Much too focused on man-made CO2, and 'Fossil-Fuels'. Sometimes individual parts don't seem so significant, but make a much bigger difference when combined.

I never made any claim of being an expert, or knowing a whole lot about any one subject, but I do have a function knowledge of many things. I don't need to always be right, or have everyone believe I am. I just share my thoughts, doesn't really matter how they are viewed, they are just my thoughts, agree or disagree. My thoughts will change, when I learn new things. I'm not likely to put a lot of credibility on an untrusted source, like the IPCC, and those who quote the same propaganda. I don't give my trust and faith lightly, or blindly. To many inconsistencies and contradictions from the IPCC, even from you (same source, same people).

Your name calling, insults, and condescending tone, doesn't give you any credibility. Mostly, it's a weak cult recruitment scheme, since most would simply agree with you, rather than be subjected to more. I don't break so easy, or maybe I'm already broken, who really knows what is normal. The CO2/warming case is a very long, complex, circumstantial one, takes a lot of liberties a long the way, requires considerable trust and faith. CO2 is a rather simple molecule, the warming is rather subtle, if even true. It's not blatantly obvious, and not an impending crisis, for which we need to jump into action. Even the IPCC concedes that ending man-made CO2 won't stop or reverse the Warming trend, the best we can hope for, is to slow the rate, a little. Instead of a costly stall tactic, wouldn't our resources be better used, to adapt to the projected conditions? We have plenty of time to do the work that will be needed anyway. Problem is that we neglect and only upgrade the infrastructure, after it fails. We don't do regular maintenance, and add to it, before it's needed. A lot of the flood and wildfire damage could have been avoid, if those areas most effected, would have maintained the infrastructure meant to protect them. Fewer lives would have been lost, if people wouldn't have waited until the last minute to evacuate...
30-12-2018 07:07
wdmn
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Harvey, your last post is even less about the substance of my post than any of your previous ones.

Are you suggesting that weather and climate are synonyms? I would suggest you use the powerful device you're on to look up the difference.

You also appear not to understand the IPCC at all (which I didn't bring up, you did), which has rotating panelists. The panelists (who are scientists) first review thousands of papers from the scientific literature, they then come up with a report based on those studies. The report then must be signed off on by participating nations. Very often it is at that stage that certain countries apply pressure to have the report modified, but always to make it more palatable for policy makers. So, most recently the U.S., Australia and Saudi Arabia had certain statements removed, such as the warning that 1.5C of warming could cause the mass displacement of people. As I've said already, the IPCC has proven to be overly conservative in almost all of their projections.

As for the graphs I posted, which are graphs showing standard deviation (such graphs rarely label the axes), and in this case the bottom shows deviation from the baseline temperature. If you look at the graph on the right you'll see that a relatively small shift in average temperature (of about 1.5C) between the two time periods results in a much larger shift in the distribution of extreme weather. I mentioned this in the post that I put the graph in. You can find out more here: https://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415?sid=49a62009-036c-4f0b-bd6f-6d286e1ff83e
30-12-2018 19:08
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
wdmn wrote:
Harvey, your last post is even less about the substance of my post than any of your previous ones.

Are you suggesting that weather and climate are synonyms? I would suggest you use the powerful device you're on to look up the difference.

You also appear not to understand the IPCC at all (which I didn't bring up, you did), which has rotating panelists. The panelists (who are scientists) first review thousands of papers from the scientific literature, they then come up with a report based on those studies. The report then must be signed off on by participating nations. Very often it is at that stage that certain countries apply pressure to have the report modified, but always to make it more palatable for policy makers. So, most recently the U.S., Australia and Saudi Arabia had certain statements removed, such as the warning that 1.5C of warming could cause the mass displacement of people. As I've said already, the IPCC has proven to be overly conservative in almost all of their projections.

As for the graphs I posted, which are graphs showing standard deviation (such graphs rarely label the axes), and in this case the bottom shows deviation from the baseline temperature. If you look at the graph on the right you'll see that a relatively small shift in average temperature (of about 1.5C) between the two time periods results in a much larger shift in the distribution of extreme weather. I mentioned this in the post that I put the graph in. You can find out more here: https://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415?sid=49a62009-036c-4f0b-bd6f-6d286e1ff83e


Harvey, your last post is even less about the substance of my post than any of your previous ones.

Are you suggesting that weather and climate are synonyms? I would suggest you use the powerful device you're on to look up the difference.


It's all about you? Your the one(s) confusing weather and climate. Weather is what's happening, Climate is how we perceive our environment. The climate can FEEL warm, hot, cold, damp, wet, dry. The perception isn't shared equally from person to person. Many office environments, which you are probably most familiar, don't have much agreement on where to set the thermostat. The manager usually has to set policy, the rest have to dress appropriately to deal with it. Some even bring their own desktop fans and heaters... The planet isn't a closed system, and we have no control over a global thermostat, nor do we have a clue what 'normal' should be.

You also appear not to understand the IPCC at all (which I didn't bring up, you did), which has rotating panelists. The panelists (who are scientists) first review thousands of papers from the scientific literature, they then come up with a report based on those studies. The report then must be signed off on by participating nations. Very often it is at that stage that certain countries apply pressure to have the report modified, but always to make it more palatable for policy makers.


No, I don't understand the IPCC, as compared to normal science, lot of politics. I understand it about as well as Scientology, which doesn't seem to involve science at all. I don't believe Climatology is an actual science, but more of a political body, that (mis)uses scientific papers. You stated it quite clearly, that they aren't opposed to changing there findings, to make the product more attractive. Not exactly the truth or facts, not truly science. Religion is big business these days as well, why not do the same with science. The Bible was created to help mankind get along better with their neighbors, bring peace and prosperity. Those same scriptures are used in many different ways, but not as originally intended. There are a lot of 'mega-churches' that hold millions of dollars of tax-free assets, while communities are starving, millions homeless...
Climate Change policies will require trillions of dollars, to meet any of the proposed goals, in the project timeframe. It's going cause a lot of hardship for those already struggling. And the best the IPCC can offer, is that if we follow the recommendations, we might be able to put off the changes for a while. The climate changes everyday, some days are better than others, some are tragic. It's always been that way, and always will be, we have no control over it.

As for the graphs I posted, which are graphs showing standard deviation (such graphs rarely label the axes), and in this case the bottom shows deviation from the baseline temperature. If you look at the graph on the right you'll see that a relatively small shift in average temperature (of about 1.5C) between the two time periods results in a much larger shift in the distribution of extreme weather.


Weather isn't climate, or so you made clear earlier, but you go back and forth on that issue, really confusing, for one of us... Graphical representation is usually biased, there is a branch of mathematics that deals entirely with the topic. Graphs are used to illustrate an idea or desire, which isn't obvious from looking at a list of numbers. Those numbers seldom fit neatly on a graph, so you'll need to modify them some, to get the results you were looking to visualize. The average temperature changes constantly, across the whole planet. Here in Florida, we had an almost 20 F degree change in daily high, in about 24 hours. An accurate graph could never be smooth like a bell, or hockey-stick.

Climate Change is mainly political, they craft their findings, to appeal to the largest audience, those that will give them money (donations) and power. To me, Climate Change and the door-to-door Jehovah Witnesses, use a similar marketing technique, just a different God, and sales pitch (well, actually pretty similar, since both focus on tragic events). You got sucked into a Cult, somewhere along the line, you broke, it just got easier to agree. Eventually, your interest turn from learning about what was happening, to learning how to recruit others into the cult. You can quote scriptures all day, and correct me, when I interpret them differently than you want, but it's not likely to sway me. There are a couple of hundred different Christian churches one could choose from, all use the same bible, mostly the same translation as well. They don't all interpret the bible in the same way though, or use the words the same. Some are very strict and literal, scripture is law. Others are more relaxed, it's more of a guidebook. Some churches are political, they want to change everyone, whether they want it or not. Some churches are focused on money.

Climatology, seems to spend most of there energy on marketing. True, they use existing scientific works (papers), but most aren't at their direction, many they dug deep in the past. The internet is great for such research.
30-12-2018 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
wdmn wrote:
Harvey, your last post is even less about the substance of my post than any of your previous ones.

Lie. He is right on topic.
wdmn wrote:
Are you suggesting that weather and climate are synonyms? I would suggest you use the powerful device you're on to look up the difference.

Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'.

Climate IS the predominate weather.
wdmn wrote:
You also appear not to understand the IPCC at all (which I didn't bring up, you did), which has rotating panelists.

WRONG. It's the same panelists, rotating in position.
wdmn wrote:
The panelists (who are scientists)

None of the panelists are scientists. All of them deny science and mathematics.
wdmn wrote:
first review thousands of papers from the scientific literature,

There is no such thing as 'scientific' literature. Science isn't a magazine or journal. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
wdmn wrote:
they then come up with a report based on those studies.

A garbage report from garbage studies. Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research' either. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
wdmn wrote:
The report then must be signed off on by participating nations.

Meh. Means nothing. The UN is decidedly Marxist.
wdmn wrote:
Very often it is at that stage that certain countries apply pressure to have the report modified, but always to make it more palatable for policy makers. So, most recently the U.S., Australia and Saudi Arabia had certain statements removed, such as the warning that 1.5C of warming could cause the mass displacement of people. As I've said already, the IPCC has proven to be overly conservative in almost all of their projections.

Argument from randU. You are making up numbers.
wdmn wrote:
As for the graphs I posted, which are graphs showing standard deviation (such graphs rarely label the axes),

Graphs of random numbers are still random numbers.
wdmn wrote:
and in this case the bottom shows deviation from the baseline temperature.

Nope. They are random numbers. There is no baseline temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
wdmn wrote:
If you look at the graph on the right you'll see that a relatively small shift in average temperature (of about 1.5C) between the two time periods results in a much larger shift in the distribution of extreme weather.

It is not possible to measure global storm activity, heat waves, cold waves, tornado activity or precipitation.
wdmn wrote:
I mentioned this in the post that I put the graph in.

Argument from randU. You are quoting manufactured data.
wdmn wrote:
You can find out more here:...deleted Holy Link...

False authority fallacy. Anyone claiming they have a global temperature is lying. Anyone claiming they have a measurement of global storm activity is lying.


The Parrot Killer
30-12-2018 20:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
wdmn wrote:
Once again you're demonstrating your illiteracy on the subject. My first post was not name calling, though it was harsh. It was harsh to test whether or not you are a troll (more likely a shill), or someone who is actually interested in learning about a subject. It seems quite likely that you're the former with your attempts to spin and misdirect. If you are a shill, then you should know that you're doing a horrible job.

The IPCC report has multiple projections. 3C is not the upper limit of warming projected by 2100 (moreover, the IPCC has proven again and again to be overly conservative in their projections). Even if 3C were the upper limit, you have failed to address my argument: averages are only part of the picture. I attached a graphic which demonstrates part of this, and you did not reply to it (just as you have not replied to any substantial point I've made). The arctic also warms much faster than the rest of the planet. Since many components of the climate are based on the temperature gradient across the globe (for example, the jet streams), even 1C of change means we have seen significant shifts contributing to longer and more frequent heat waves (and so increased probability of heat stress). Again, the truth or falsity of these claims is not to be determined by any a priori logical method or application of common sense. One would actually have to look and see what the data says.

These are all examples of how logic can be valid but not be sound, and thus give you the wrong answer. You've not bothered to make sure that your inputs are correct. When you take AVERAGE warming and act as though it means UNIFORM warming across space and time very serious errors in your conclusions arise. You should acknowledge and correct this. You have made a mistake (actually several, as I've pointed out). Will you acknowledge these mistakes? (If not, that is another piece of evidence that you are a shill).

As for the inability to predict weather, even if it were true that weather models are unreliable (funny how people and institutions rely on them all of the time), weather is not climate. Weather events are not climatic trends. It is harder to predict how the jet stream will behave over Russia in two weeks than it is to predict how the jet stream will be changed by a long term change in the temperature gradient across the globe, similar (not identical) to the fact that it is easier to predict the rough distribution of 1000 coin flips than it is to predict the result of a coin flip 1000 individual times, or what the result will be of the flip 7 flips from now.

Just to drive this point home, the first prediction that the co2 being added to the atmosphere by industrial activity would cause warming was made in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius a chemist who later won the nobel prize. Of course in 1896 they could not predict the weather 5 days out with very much accuracy at all; and yet Svante was right.

You, on the other hand, are almost entirely wrong.


None of the models, not ONE, has shown not only any accuracy in predicting temperature changes, but operating backwards has even been able to predict the climate that was. Now this is important because it is the past temperatures that supposedly directed the calculation of the computer models.

So you cannot say one single word about IPCC predictions with any knowledge whatsoever.

And there is far more to this than you seem to realize. The "predictions" of the IPCC are "from the start of the industrial period". That is 1880 or just 30 years after the agreed upon end of the Little Ice Age.

Tell me - wouldn't you expect the temperatures to warm after the end of an extremely cold period in which the entire subcontinent of Greenland was rendered uninhabitable? Where Alaskan Glaciers grew as much as 30 miles from their previous bases?

Just returning to "normal" pre-LIA temperatures would show the warming that we have seen. Also the rise in sea levels.

Then the IPCC makes what is not a mistake but rather a totally unscientific prediction - that the world will not return to normal but will continue to heat at the same rate indefinitely.

There is absolutely NO basis for this. This is nothing more than political scare tactics in order to gain political control over as much of the world as possible.

If you wish to believe that the IPCC conclusions are accurate then do so. But the rest of the world does not. China and India have simply signed the agreement and then totally ignored it. China is taking actions that reduced the horrible smog in the major cities and they tell people they are taking actions agreed upon with the IPCC. They are not by simply installing stack scrubbers - the technology developed in the US in the 1960's because of the smog problem especially in LA.

To be rather pointed - I have yet to see any answers as to why NASA counterfeited their own temperature data lists in 1998 and again in 2008. I have yet to see any answers as to how NASA had temperature data from areas around the world where neither they or any local authorities have weather stations to record such data.

And most importantly, since it is nearly impossible to correct temperature for the Urban Heat Island Effect I would like to know why they haven't explained this problem.
31-12-2018 00:49
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
How about the use of Chlorine in drinking water, pools, or Fluorine? Aren't these also greenhouse gasses, which we've been releasing in to the atmosphere, in large quantities for quite some time. Not sure when water treatment started, but both have other industrial applications.

Maybe, sugary, carbonated beverages. The industrial revolution mass produced many things, that also released 'greenhouse' gases. I just find it odd that it's only CO2, from burning 'fossil fuels' that's the only problem worth consideration. Our many energy source is 'Fossil Fuels', and cutting their use, is going to significantly cut available energy. Alternatives aren't cheap, as efficient. Low power, more efficient replacements for existing equipment, aren't readily available, cheap, or as efficient.

The IPCC never promises to stop, or reverse the warming trend, just that me might slow it down, so another generation can deal with it. A lot of people are struggling as it is, and a quick change to alternative energy sources, will literally kill many of them. Rich folks will ride out the storm, some better than others, but quite a few will grow their wealth, at an alarming rate... Seems like the 'cure' is scarier than the weather and natural disasters being predicted. I've survived some pretty nasty weather events, so have millions of others. But then again, I've been through several financial hardships, and survived as well. Least with the weather, it's relatively a brief event, and you can pick up the pieces afterwards. Financial hardships take years sometimes, takes almost a miracle to turn things around, like landing a better paying job, when few people are hiring. It's depressing, to work long hours, tight survivalist budget, and have very little left of you paycheck, after the most basic expenses are paid...
31-12-2018 07:45
wdmn
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Weather is what's happening, Climate is how we perceive our environment. The climate can FEEL warm, hot, cold, damp, wet, dry. The perception isn't shared equally from person to person.


Well folks, there you have it. This is Harvey's commitment to truth and inquiry on display. You have the internet or a dictionary? You can see that he has not a clue what he's talking about, OR he's deliberately attempting to mislead.

Either way, I rest my case.
31-12-2018 10:54
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(692)
Oh yes, let's pull out the dictionary, the final word, when a discussion gets to difficult, get literal. You and the IPCC are selling extreme changes in 'climate', where I was pointing out that climate is how we individuals perceive what is normal. A few degrees warmer, isn't going to change the climate in Florida, since our climate changes all the time. Winter has been mild for a while now, don't mind it a bit, 82 F yesterday, even ran the air conditioner some, while worked around the house. It's rare to hit triple digits in the summer, where it use to be fairly common. 'Climate Change' has been good for us. Been decades since we had a hard freeze, which we need occasionally to kill off some bugs...

But your dictionary defense... Words describe things, we put labels on our perceptions. Words can be used many ways, even to alter the perceptions of others. But, I'm no professional, I've got a decent vocabulary, mostly from doing a lot of reading. I may not articulate well at times, trying to put my thoughts into words, since they are my thoughts, and not quoting scripture (IPCC reports). I don't claim to be accurate or correct, these are just my thoughts, and impressions. Unlike the IPCC, I'm not selling anything. If it makes sense, people can look into anything I've written, and see if there is any truth to it.

I might not know exactly how or why, but 'Climate Change' has a wrong feeling, doesn't add up, doesn't balance. The core defies everything I ever learned about science. My interest in the topic, is mostly to find out why I perceive it to be so wrong. On the surface, it's just CO2, and temperature, simple. But, it's a very long a complex circumstantial case, to explain how it works, and how they are even related, not to mention how it's only 'man-made' CO2. Everything else is so quickly and easily dismissed, but the man-made CO2 connection is unusually complex. CO2 isn't a major component of the atmosphere, or even one of the most potent 'greenhouse' gasses. Sort of shady on the reasoning, that the warming trend being used couldn't be natural, even though we have nothing to compare with. This is our first warming period, where we could measure and record, after a major ice age. We had a little one, seems like we could still be recovering from that, like still have some warming from the bigger one. Question is, warmer, compared to what normal?
31-12-2018 17:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1177)
Wdmn,

Maybe I give YOU the benefit of the doubt that you're not just a troll.

I've been reading your posts and I'd like to give you a chance to explain.

You seem to be, like many others who have come here and failed, trying to associate a warming earth with extreme weather events. You have stated the Arctic is warming at a much faster rate.

Like Harvey, I see a whole lotta hooyey that don't add up. You correctly stated that weather events are created from temperature differential. One example is the jet. A stronger differential is a stronger jet. It has been my experience following my local weather for decades that a weak jet is typically benign weather.

Please explain how a warming Arctic is conducive to a stronger jet and extreme weather.

Maybe you back up a step and show me some actual data that shows extreme weather events are on the increase.....and the 1930s in the USA...what the hell was THAT all about??
Edited on 31-12-2018 17:30
31-12-2018 18:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
wdmn wrote:
Weather is what's happening, Climate is how we perceive our environment. The climate can FEEL warm, hot, cold, damp, wet, dry. The perception isn't shared equally from person to person.


Well folks, there you have it. This is Harvey's commitment to truth and inquiry on display. You have the internet or a dictionary? You can see that he has not a clue what he's talking about, OR he's deliberately attempting to mislead.

Either way, I rest my case.


Unfortunately we do not have people purposely misleading people. They honestly believe what they honestly believe.

The educational system has been slowly and surely destroyed because it requires ignorant people to be handled by a bureaucratic government composed of hundreds of little Fiefdoms.

I'm retired as is my wife. I was a high school dropout from the 60's that went into the Air Force and was put through 6 months of basic electronics training. After getting out I built that into a nice career - technician, senior technician, jr engineer, engineer, sr. engineer and finally a manager which I hated and dropped back to sr. engineer but once you've been a department head it is difficult not to fix things in a bad company so I would hire on as an engineer and end up straightening up the companies I would work for. It was staggering how graduate engineers or even post grads could not do half the work that I could. In one company I had six engineers working for me and I still had to do half of the hardware design, write the entire real time operating system and then finish half of the application software. ONE VS SIX!

My wife was a teacher and she had something rather informative to say. When they taught high school they used text books from the 1950's and 60's. But when they taught the advanced classes they used textbooks from the 1920's.

So when you see the almost unbelievable ignorance displayed on these groups (nightmare is a perfect example) you can write this off to an education that was purposely designed to not teach whatever subject it was supposed to be. Education made to either ill educate or to not educate at all.

Most Americans are well aware of this. They can see what has occurred to their own children. People do not like to think that they are smarter than they own children who they paid vast sums to send through college but they are watching it and wondering. There is only one thing to do - get the government entirely out of education and leave it to the states who are much more under state control - under voter control.

So don't think that people are lying to you so much as they think they're telling the truth and couldn't find the truth if it was staring them in the eyes.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Greenhouse gasses:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann815-04-2019 00:43
Greenhouse gases, explained224-03-2019 04:43
Greenhouse gas hypothesis violates Law of Conservation of Energy218-03-2019 18:56
It is ridiculous to suggest N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases just because the don't absorb IR324-02-2019 22:09
▲ 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