Science daily.com - hydrogen sulphide

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Science daily.com - hydrogen sulphide

Science daily.com - hydrogen sulphide07-10-2017 02:54
Gaynor ☆☆☆☆☆ (32)	Please refer to this website on global warming and hydrogen sulphide for more information on effects during global warming. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm Edited on 07-10-2017 03:05
07-10-2017 12:06
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Hydrogen sulfide is extremely reflective and would cause a lot of cooling should there be significant quantities in the air. This is what causes the cooling after a volcanic erruption.
RE: Hydrogen sulphide07-10-2017 16:03
Gaynor ☆☆☆☆☆ (32)	Thank you for your reply. I am a novice at this so please be understanding. So I have researched what you said and my understanding is this, please feel free to correct me. Yes biological emissions of sulphur gases from the land and ocean surface can lead to aerosols in the atmosphere and can affect the climate. These emissions include dimethylsulfide, hydrogen sulphide and carbon sulphide. The gases can be oxidised to sulphar dioxide gas in the atmosphere and then to sulphate aerosol . Hence my understanding from this is that is produces cloud condensation nuclei and an increase in cloudiness which in turn could have a cooling effect on the environment. Clouds both reflect incoming sunlight and inhibit the radiation of heat radiation from the surface, thereby affecting both sides of the global energy balance equation. Clouds also produce precipitation from water vapor, releasing heat to the atmosphere in the process (evaporation of water vapor from the surface cools it, so that these two processes serve to transfer heat from the surface to the atmosphere). Thus, any changes in clouds will modify the radiative energy balance and water exchanges that determine the climate. For example, when heat radiation from the surface slows, as caused by increasing greenhouse gas abundances, the balance can only be maintained if the temperature rises. Changing clouds can alter this relation, either increasing or decreasing the magnitude of the resulting temperature increase. Also, when clouds change, precipitation will change, which will affect the supply of freshwater to the land where we live and grow our food. Right now, we do not know how important the cloud-radiative or cloud-precipitation effects are and can not predict possible climate changes accurately. (I have compiled this and quoted from several sources by the way for ease) So I gather from this information that it could go either way. There seems to be some debate on this from my reading but it is difficult to be conclusive as to the real effects it would have. Thus, coupled with the sciencedaily.com article that if there is continued heating there would be less oxygen to deep waters caused by warmer waters, thus the warmer water, the less oxygen can dissolve and move to deeper waters. As organic debris is produced by marine plants and animals need oxygen to decompose, the ocean becomes a hotbed of bacteria that their oxygen from sulfar oxide compounds and produce hydrogen sulphide, and the levels of hydrogen sulphide could rise catastrophically killing most of the oceanic plants and animals and humans once released into the atmosphere. If there is a cooling effect then this could also have a direct affect and a chain reaction e.g. on the food supply, water levels etc. Please excuse me if I have not understood this correctly and feel free to correct me. Appreciate your response either way.
07-10-2017 17:52
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	1, The normal condition of the earth is about 20c warmer than now. The present ice age we are in is only warm compared to the deep ice age as opposed to the present interglacial. Previous interglacials in this ice age have been warmer, a bit. 2, The process by which water is transfered to the deep ocean is that when cold water (below 4c) and warm water (over 4c) mix they result in 4c sea water. This is the most dense point of water, it is weird stuff, and this 4c water sinks to the depths. Thus the deep ocean is always supplied with water, with new oxygen in it, coming down at 4c. It changes temperature as it decends due to pressure in odd ways, water is odd again. If there comes a point where all the world's oceans are warm then this idea of no new oxygen getting down there could be real but since there have been very long periods of hot climate without such a die off of the sea bed I doubt it will happen. 3, Cooling of the world's climate could indeed be bad. The little ice age cause mass famine. The food we grow would be very severly reduced in range and productivity by such a thing. 4, Warming has the opposite effect. Lots more food and life. 5, Increased CO2 is very beneficial for plants. Lots more opportunity to make more plant out of the carbon in the air. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346
RE: Hydrogen Sulphide07-10-2017 19:33
Gaynor ☆☆☆☆☆ (32)	thank you for your response. so the warmer the water the less dense the oxygen becomes due to the oxygen not being able to dissolve. Therefore, the slower the water sinks and prevents it's ability to move to the deep oceans. So you are in essence saying that because the water isn't warm enough at this time that this process won't happen? With regards to the increase in CO2 I'm not sure I agree with you. There are many proponents that claim the positives are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, claims the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. I actually took a quick look at the historical data on category five hurricanes and these are increasing. There is also the consideration of increased methane hydrates into the atmosphere further increasing temperatures. Please see links below. So in essence, warmer temperatures may actually decrease food production and tree survival (there is also evidence that the warmer temp's are killing trees in the amazon due to the increase of some sort of beetle that thrives in warmer temp's and there is an increase in tree diseases), land is drying out leading to further droughts and the reductions in water supply (bad for humans and plant life), mass migration, rises in sea levels, forest fires, increase in heat waves. The list is endless. Please take a look at the links below as I feel you will find these interesting. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2012/06/GasHydrF4CRdesLG.jpg https://www.youtube.com/user/petercarter46 http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/water-supply.html

07-10-2017 22:55
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: 1, The normal condition of the earth is about 20c warmer than now. The present ice age we are in is only warm compared to the deep ice age as opposed to the present interglacial. Previous interglacials in this ice age have been warmer, a bit. 2, The process by which water is transfered to the deep ocean is that when cold water (below 4c) and warm water (over 4c) mix they result in 4c sea water. This is the most dense point of water, it is weird stuff, and this 4c water sinks to the depths. Thus the deep ocean is always supplied with water, with new oxygen in it, coming down at 4c. It changes temperature as it decends due to pressure in odd ways, water is odd again. If there comes a point where all the world's oceans are warm then this idea of no new oxygen getting down there could be real but since there have been very long periods of hot climate without such a die off of the sea bed I doubt it will happen. 3, Cooling of the world's climate could indeed be bad. The little ice age cause mass famine. The food we grow would be very severly reduced in range and productivity by such a thing. 4, Warming has the opposite effect. Lots more food and life. 5, Increased CO2 is very beneficial for plants. Lots more opportunity to make more plant out of the carbon in the air. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346 Thanks for that posting Tim. I had the idea that most very deep ocean canyons did not exchange water with oxygen rich surface water but what you say makes a whole lot of sense.
07-10-2017 23:05
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Gaynor wrote: thank you for your response. so the warmer the water the less dense the oxygen becomes due to the oxygen not being able to dissolve. Therefore, the slower the water sinks and prevents it's ability to move to the deep oceans. So you are in essence saying that because the water isn't warm enough at this time that this process won't happen? With regards to the increase in CO2 I'm not sure I agree with you. There are many proponents that claim the positives are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, claims the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. I actually took a quick look at the historical data on category five hurricanes and these are increasing. There is also the consideration of increased methane hydrates into the atmosphere further increasing temperatures. Please see links below. So in essence, warmer temperatures may actually decrease food production and tree survival (there is also evidence that the warmer temp's are killing trees in the amazon due to the increase of some sort of beetle that thrives in warmer temp's and there is an increase in tree diseases), land is drying out leading to further droughts and the reductions in water supply (bad for humans and plant life), mass migration, rises in sea levels, forest fires, increase in heat waves. The list is endless. Please take a look at the links below as I feel you will find these interesting. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2012/06/GasHydrF4CRdesLG.jpg https://www.youtube.com/user/petercarter46 http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/water-supply.html You have to be extremely careful of important sounding titles which are really outside of the expertise of the person expounding on a subject. Until relatively recently we haven't had the ability to know the real wind speed of hurricanes - especially those that didn't hit land. So the records are so short that you cannot tell whether catagory 5 hurricanes are increasing or not. We are not suggesting that extra tree growth would remove additional CO2 from the atmosphere but that additional CO2 is making large strides in solving world hunger etc. Animals all over the world are also muliplying from the increasing food supplies. The warmer weather is reducing the need particularly of the needy to have protection from cold weather. The increase in ocean plankton has increased the krill which in turn has dramatically increased the whale populations. The greatly increased fish populations have increased many of the predators such as the great white shark. They have become so common now that people are often warned out of the water - including expert surfers.
08-10-2017 01:44
Gaynor ☆☆☆☆☆ (32)	I have actually become very reluctant to post in here now and that is a shame. Parrot in particular seems a very unpleasant and abusive character. I wasn't aware this forum was for experts on this topic and excluded us mere novices. I have no issues with being corrected on my knowledge but would rather it be done in a kind and constructive manner. If people don't have the time or inclination to respond then fair enough. I'm not forcing anyone to respond. This is not directed at your response btw, just a bit bemused by some reactions. If parrot is such an expert why hasn't he solved the problem of climate change for us? Btw, I have M.E. And get very exhausted easily so I will take short cuts when posting. I told Tim earlier that I had used text from different sources. You have a fair point on hurricanes. Then if CO2 is not an issue why all the fuss from the scientific world?
08-10-2017 02:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Gaynor wrote: I have actually become very reluctant to post in here now and that is a shame. Parrot in particular seems a very unpleasant and abusive character. I wasn't aware this forum was for experts on this topic and excluded us mere novices. I have no issues with being corrected on my knowledge but would rather it be done in a kind and constructive manner. If people don't have the time or inclination to respond then fair enough. I'm not forcing anyone to respond. This is not directed at your response btw, just a bit bemused by some reactions. If parrot is such an expert why hasn't he solved the problem of climate change for us? Btw, I have M.E. And get very exhausted easily so I will take short cuts when posting. I told Tim earlier that I had used text from different sources. You have a fair point on hurricanes. Then if CO2 is not an issue why all the fuss from the scientific world? It's best to totally ignore a few of the loud mouths on this board or you'll find yourself acting in the same manner. It took me far too long to learn that lesson. I completely ignore lightbrain and nightmare (parrot)not only is overly abusive but is so far out in left field with his false science that it simply makes not the slightest difference to discuss anything with him. (You can't store heat??? You can't image the planet's heat from space??). James will make the most peculiar statements and if you correct him he claims you are bullying him. So there's no discussing anything with him. I'm an EE and have worked in just about every corner of the business for 50 years and been high order for 40 years. My efforts have helped one man win a Nobel Prize, another an Emmy Award and my boards are in the old section of the International Space Station. While there are many things I don't know trying to discuss them here with more than Tim and GasGuzzler seems a waste of time. I'm sure that we could use your knowledge here as you at the very least know how to learn. CO2 was focused on by Arrenhius in the 1880's if memory serves as a greenhouse gas. We continue to hear about how he proved it so. But his paper was written in German and if you read it he said no such things. He MEASURED nothing at all. He had neither the expertise nor money to do so. Instead all of his work was theoretical based upon the Moon's spectrum reported in another paper. Since then that business about CO2 causing atmospheric heating has popped up every once in awhile until Dr. Michael Mann seized upon it to explain why mankind was about to die a horrible death unless they gave him another research grant. The time of the apocalypse came and went without the end of everything and a Canadian researcher reading Mann's data noted that he had counterfeited a great deal of it. Mann sued and asked for a delay to make his case - the other researcher agreed on the grounds that Mann supply his entire data research before such a delay. This was so ordered by the court. The delay is presently on but Mann did not supply any data making him guilty of contempt of court when proceedings reconvene. But all you have to do is look at Mann's "hockey stick curve" to see that he removed the Medieval Warm Period completely from his dataset which would have shown that there were previous warmer periods with greater temperature rises. He also left out the Little Ice Age. We can eventually go into details but the real question is WHY NASA and NOAA would EVER get involved in this. Even amateurs can discover that a trace gas cannot effect tropospheric temperatures. Welcome to the group. This is one of the few where real science can be discussed since almost all other sites will not allow "deniers" or those who believe in science over imagination.
08-10-2017 19:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	Wake wrote: Gaynor wrote: I have actually become very reluctant to post in here now and that is a shame. Parrot in particular seems a very unpleasant and abusive character. I wasn't aware this forum was for experts on this topic and excluded us mere novices. I have no issues with being corrected on my knowledge but would rather it be done in a kind and constructive manner. If people don't have the time or inclination to respond then fair enough. I'm not forcing anyone to respond. This is not directed at your response btw, just a bit bemused by some reactions. If parrot is such an expert why hasn't he solved the problem of climate change for us? Btw, I have M.E. And get very exhausted easily so I will take short cuts when posting. I told Tim earlier that I had used text from different sources. You have a fair point on hurricanes. Then if CO2 is not an issue why all the fuss from the scientific world? It's best to totally ignore a few of the loud mouths on this board or you'll find yourself acting in the same manner. It took me far too long to learn that lesson. I completely ignore lightbrain and nightmare (parrot)not only is overly abusive but is so far out in left field with his false science that it simply makes not the slightest difference to discuss anything with him. (You can't store heat??? You can't image the planet's heat from space??). James will make the most peculiar statements and if you correct him he claims you are bullying him. So there's no discussing anything with him. You still haven't described how you can store the movement of thermal energy. That's what heat is. You still haven't described how you can measure the emissivity of Earth, which is required to know before you can use any kind of satellite to measure the temperature of the Earth. You still are trying to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are still trying to redefine what 'heat' is. Wake wrote: I'm an EE and have worked in just about every corner of the business for 50 years and been high order for 40 years. My efforts have helped one man win a Nobel Prize, another an Emmy Award and my boards are in the old section of the International Space Station. And again, I don't believe you. You have claimed so many credentials now that you can't support with associated knowledge that I don't believe any credentials you claim. You have trouble with Ohm's law. Wake wrote: While there are many things I don't know trying to discuss them here with more than Tim and GasGuzzler seems a waste of time. Because they know the science better than you do. Wake wrote: I'm sure that we could use your knowledge here as you at the very least know how to learn. Anyone here can learn. That's part of what this forum is for. It does, however, take effort to learn. It takes researching things that are said here and not just trusting any old link that comes along. A good place to start is to study the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy conservation laws in general, and Planck's laws, especially the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Wake wrote: CO2 was focused on by Arrenhius in the 1880's if memory serves as a greenhouse gas. We continue to hear about how he proved it so. But his paper was written in German and if you read it he said no such things. He MEASURED nothing at all. He had neither the expertise nor money to do so. Instead all of his work was theoretical based upon the Moon's spectrum reported in another paper. There is no proof in science. The Church of Global Warming constantly tries to 'prove' things in science. All Arrenhius showed is that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light, which it does. He showed that the effect of absorption is conversion of electromagnetic energy into thermal energy. It was later shown that the reverse also happens, due to the temperature of the gas. His theory that carbon dioxide heats the planet was falsified by the theories of thermodynamics. Wake wrote: Since then that business about CO2 causing atmospheric heating has popped up every once in awhile until Dr. Michael Mann seized upon it to explain why mankind was about to die a horrible death unless they gave him another research grant. The time of the apocalypse came and went without the end of everything and a Canadian researcher reading Mann's data noted that he had counterfeited a great deal of it. Mann sued and asked for a delay to make his case - the other researcher agreed on the grounds that Mann supply his entire data research before such a delay. This was so ordered by the court. The delay is presently on but Mann did not supply any data making him guilty of contempt of court when proceedings reconvene. But all you have to do is look at Mann's "hockey stick curve" to see that he removed the Medieval Warm Period completely from his dataset which would have shown that there were previous warmer periods with greater temperature rises. He also left out the Little Ice Age. This is why observation is not part of science. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets an observation in their own unique way. Data is an observation. Data is also easily manufactured instead of collected. Wake wrote: We can eventually go into details but the real question is WHY NASA and NOAA would EVER get involved in this. Even amateurs can discover that a trace gas cannot effect tropospheric temperatures. The reason is simple. The first purpose of any government agency is to justify a way to expand and grow. They don't have a profit motive. Wake wrote: Welcome to the group. This is one of the few where real science can be discussed since almost all other sites will not allow "deniers" or those who believe in science over imagination. Quite true. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-10-2017 20:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	Wake wrote: Gaynor wrote: thank you for your response. so the warmer the water the less dense the oxygen becomes due to the oxygen not being able to dissolve. Therefore, the slower the water sinks and prevents it's ability to move to the deep oceans. So you are in essence saying that because the water isn't warm enough at this time that this process won't happen? With regards to the increase in CO2 I'm not sure I agree with you. There are many proponents that claim the positives are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, claims the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. I actually took a quick look at the historical data on category five hurricanes and these are increasing. There is also the consideration of increased methane hydrates into the atmosphere further increasing temperatures. Please see links below. So in essence, warmer temperatures may actually decrease food production and tree survival (there is also evidence that the warmer temp's are killing trees in the amazon due to the increase of some sort of beetle that thrives in warmer temp's and there is an increase in tree diseases), land is drying out leading to further droughts and the reductions in water supply (bad for humans and plant life), mass migration, rises in sea levels, forest fires, increase in heat waves. The list is endless. Please take a look at the links below as I feel you will find these interesting. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2012/06/GasHydrF4CRdesLG.jpg https://www.youtube.com/user/petercarter46 http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/water-supply.html You have to be extremely careful of important sounding titles which are really outside of the expertise of the person expounding on a subject. Science isn't titles or credentials or government agencies. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No one owns science. There are a lot of people with doctorate degrees that have not used science in years nor have created any science. There are also those who had no credentials whatsoever that created a lot of science. As an EE, Wake, you should know that...but you don't. Another reason I don't believe your credentials you claim. Wake wrote: Until relatively recently we haven't had the ability to know the real wind speed of hurricanes - especially those that didn't hit land. So the records are so short that you cannot tell whether catagory 5 hurricanes are increasing or not. We've been able to measure the wind speed in hurricanes since 1942 (at least as accurately as it matters to anyone). Our precision has gotten better, but it makes no real difference in terms of the characteristics of a hurricane. The National Hurricane Center has a historical record of hurricanes in both the Atlantic (the more complete record) and Pacific oceans. The record extends to before 1942, when hurricane observations were made on the ground where it struck (not accurate due to poor instrumentation). Wake wrote: We are not suggesting that extra tree growth would remove additional CO2 from the atmosphere but that additional CO2 is making large strides in solving world hunger etc. Animals all over the world are also muliplying from the increasing food supplies. The warmer weather is reducing the need particularly of the needy to have protection from cold weather. No one knows this. No one is monitoring this. You don't even know what the temperature of Earth is. It's not possible to determine it. Wake wrote: The increase in ocean plankton has increased the krill which in turn has dramatically increased the whale populations. The greatly increased fish populations have increased many of the predators such as the great white shark. They have become so common now that people are often warned out of the water - including expert surfers. Great White population is unknown. They've always come in close to shore from time to time to harass swimmers. We have better beach guard facilities to watch for them now. The whales are not saved by warmer waters, they were saved by big oil. We don't hunt them for lamp oil anymore. Plankton and krill occur worldwide. They do not need warmer water to thrive. Both are found in Arctic waters and thrive quite well. Most krill seem to favor colder water. They live longer there. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-10-2017 20:30
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Gaynor wrote: I have actually become very reluctant to post in here now and that is a shame. Parrot in particular seems a very unpleasant and abusive character. I wasn't aware this forum was for experts on this topic and excluded us mere novices. I have no issues with being corrected on my knowledge but would rather it be done in a kind and constructive manner. If people don't have the time or inclination to respond then fair enough. I'm not forcing anyone to respond. This is not directed at your response btw, just a bit bemused by some reactions. If parrot is such an expert why hasn't he solved the problem of climate change for us? Btw, I have M.E. And get very exhausted easily so I will take short cuts when posting. I told Tim earlier that I had used text from different sources. You have a fair point on hurricanes. Then if CO2 is not an issue why all the fuss from the scientific world? It's best to totally ignore a few of the loud mouths on this board or you'll find yourself acting in the same manner. It took me far too long to learn that lesson. I completely ignore lightbrain and nightmare (parrot)not only is overly abusive but is so far out in left field with his false science that it simply makes not the slightest difference to discuss anything with him. (You can't store heat??? You can't image the planet's heat from space??). James will make the most peculiar statements and if you correct him he claims you are bullying him. So there's no discussing anything with him. You still haven't described how you can store the movement of thermal energy. That's what heat is. You still haven't described how you can measure the emissivity of Earth, which is required to know before you can use any kind of satellite to measure the temperature of the Earth. You still are trying to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are still trying to redefine what 'heat' is. Wake wrote: I'm an EE and have worked in just about every corner of the business for 50 years and been high order for 40 years. My efforts have helped one man win a Nobel Prize, another an Emmy Award and my boards are in the old section of the International Space Station. And again, I don't believe you. You have claimed so many credentials now that you can't support with associated knowledge that I don't believe any credentials you claim. You have trouble with Ohm's law. Wake wrote: While there are many things I don't know trying to discuss them here with more than Tim and GasGuzzler seems a waste of time. Because they know the science better than you do. Wake wrote: I'm sure that we could use your knowledge here as you at the very least know how to learn. Anyone here can learn. That's part of what this forum is for. It does, however, take effort to learn. It takes researching things that are said here and not just trusting any old link that comes along. A good place to start is to study the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy conservation laws in general, and Planck's laws, especially the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Wake wrote: CO2 was focused on by Arrenhius in the 1880's if memory serves as a greenhouse gas. We continue to hear about how he proved it so. But his paper was written in German and if you read it he said no such things. He MEASURED nothing at all. He had neither the expertise nor money to do so. Instead all of his work was theoretical based upon the Moon's spectrum reported in another paper. There is no proof in science. The Church of Global Warming constantly tries to 'prove' things in science. All Arrenhius showed is that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light, which it does. He showed that the effect of absorption is conversion of electromagnetic energy into thermal energy. It was later shown that the reverse also happens, due to the temperature of the gas. His theory that carbon dioxide heats the planet was falsified by the theories of thermodynamics. Wake wrote: Since then that business about CO2 causing atmospheric heating has popped up every once in awhile until Dr. Michael Mann seized upon it to explain why mankind was about to die a horrible death unless they gave him another research grant. The time of the apocalypse came and went without the end of everything and a Canadian researcher reading Mann's data noted that he had counterfeited a great deal of it. Mann sued and asked for a delay to make his case - the other researcher agreed on the grounds that Mann supply his entire data research before such a delay. This was so ordered by the court. The delay is presently on but Mann did not supply any data making him guilty of contempt of court when proceedings reconvene. But all you have to do is look at Mann's "hockey stick curve" to see that he removed the Medieval Warm Period completely from his dataset which would have shown that there were previous warmer periods with greater temperature rises. He also left out the Little Ice Age. This is why observation is not part of science. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets an observation in their own unique way. Data is an observation. Data is also easily manufactured instead of collected. Wake wrote: We can eventually go into details but the real question is WHY NASA and NOAA would EVER get involved in this. Even amateurs can discover that a trace gas cannot effect tropospheric temperatures. The reason is simple. The first purpose of any government agency is to justify a way to expand and grow. They don't have a profit motive. Wake wrote: Welcome to the group. This is one of the few where real science can be discussed since almost all other sites will not allow "deniers" or those who believe in science over imagination. Quite true. Let me try again for the final time: Heat is NOT the motion of thermal energy - it is the total contents of thermal energy in a component. I know you can't tell the difference but that's just too bad. You don't have to know anything at all about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law since a satellite measures the direct radiation of energy from each area of the surface scanned. And if you were interested in the S-B emmisivity you could use that direct measurement to calculate it. I couldn't care less about what you believe. You just made comments showing that you do not even know the difference between observations and measurement. I will not bother with you again.
08-10-2017 20:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	Gaynor wrote: I have actually become very reluctant to post in here now and that is a shame. You are welcome to post here. You are not welcome to spam here. Spam is never welcome anywhere. Gaynor wrote: Parrot in particular seems a very unpleasant and abusive character. I don't tolerate conspiracy theories or spam much. Gaynor wrote: I wasn't aware this forum was for experts on this topic and excluded us mere novices. If you want to learn, you are welcome to. I have no problem with someone that truly wants to learn. Gaynor wrote: I have no issues with being corrected on my knowledge but would rather it be done in a kind and constructive manner. You came in with an abusive manner. I responded in kind. If you want to learn instead. You are welcome. Ask your questions. People here will answer them. Be aware that you should analyze any answer to judge how correct it is. The subject of climate debate is a contentious issue. A lot of shouting goes on. One has to have a thick skin because of the insults that are often flung about here. This is the proverbial kitchen. It's hot in here, but you can get fed (learn) here. This is not the kiddie wading pool. Gaynor wrote: If people don't have the time or inclination to respond then fair enough. Odd. People ARE responding, so long as they have something to respond to. Gaynor wrote: I'm not forcing anyone to respond. This is not directed at your response btw, just a bit bemused by some reactions. If parrot is such an expert why hasn't he solved the problem of climate change for us? Because there is no problem. There is nothing to solve. On the other hand, there IS the political problem caused by the Church of Global Warming. That is not easily solvable. I point out the problems in the arguments the Church of Global Warming makes, and also describe why I consider this movement a religious one. Gaynor wrote: Btw, I have M.E. And get very exhausted easily so I will take short cuts when posting. I told Tim earlier that I had used text from different sources. Noted. Gaynor wrote: You have a fair point on hurricanes. Not really. We have able to accurately measure hurricanes since 1942. That's plenty of time to see any kind of trend. The historical data at the National Hurricane Center does not show any trend. Gaynor wrote: Then if CO2 is not an issue why all the fuss from the scientific world? Excellent question. The answer isn't pretty. Almost all scientists are funded by government grants of some type. Universities have on site an office which coordinates all the grant money on campus for their research programs. Many privately funded scientists are also funded by biased groups including groups that quite definitely lean left. Further, scientists are people. Like any other, they each have their own religious views, political views, and the need to eat and house themselves. Governments and their agencies do not have a profit motive. They do not produce anything for sale. They use a different success metric. This is because they tax or print the money they need. That metric is to expand and grow. Without a profit motive, how to do this? They must justify their existence with the people, or you get a revolt. To justify that existence, government agencies must appear to solve a problem, without actually doing it. (A solved problem means there is no longer any need for that agency.) Government agencies will easily take perceived problems from any source, or even create their own, just so they can appear to ride to the rescue and try to 'solve' it. They never do, of course. Since science is so heavily government funded, a scientist must conform to the government line to get their funding. That means, to be a successful scientist today, you have to profess a belief in the Church of Global Warming whether you believe it or not. Any scientist that denies the Church of Global Warming will quickly find himself without funding. A very few number of scientists are privately funded, and are relatively independent of this forced opinion. Others receive funding from private sources, such as oil companies, and spend their time in research programs favorable to their companies. When scientific associations form, they are made up primarily of scientists affected by government funding. They too must toe the government line. The corruption in science today is the problem, not global warming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-10-2017 20:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	Wake wrote: Let me try again for the final time: Heh. It won't be the final time. Wake wrote: Heat is NOT the motion of thermal energy - it is the total contents of thermal energy in a component. Nope. Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. The total content of thermal energy in a component is simply the total content of thermal energy in a component. The average of that thermal energy is what we call temperature. Temperature is not heat. Wake wrote: I know you can't tell the difference but that's just too bad. Inversion. It is YOU that can't tell the difference. Go look it up. Wake wrote: You don't have to know anything at all about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law since a satellite measures the direct radiation of energy from each area of the surface scanned. And if you were interested in the S-B emmisivity you could use that direct measurement to calculate it. You don't know the emissivity of Earth or of any part of it. To determine the emissivity of something, you FIRST have to accurately know it's temperature. You can't measure temperature using a satellite to measure the emissivity so you can measure the temperature using a satellite! Wake wrote: I couldn't care less about what you believe. This is YOUR circular argument. I use theories of science, not circular arguments. Wake wrote: You just made comments showing that you do not even know the difference between observations and measurement. There isn't any. All measurements are observations. Just because you assign what you observe to a scale of some kind makes no difference. Wake wrote: I will not bother with you again. Heh. I know you better than that! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Science daily.com - hydrogen sulphide:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The History of Science	1	19-04-2024 21:51
There is still no Global Warming science.	387	28-02-2024 23:50
A Science Test	18	09-12-2023 00:53
Magic or Science	7	06-12-2023 00:29
Science and Atmospheric Chemistry	6	25-11-2023 20:55