Remember me
▼ Content

Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?



Page 1 of 7123>>>
Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?07-07-2019 06:11
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Is Tangier Island a good illustration of human caused global warming?

It's sinking and famous for it due to it's Trump support:
politico-article

I saw a news segment where they mentioned part of the island sunk by 1920 and I wanted to understand how.

Below on the right is 1850 green compared with 2013 red (link):


And just the upper portion from 1938 to 2001 (you can see it's already much smaller in 1938 than in 1850) (1938to2001link)


The basic crisis is that: "... 75% of the land that formed Tangier Island in 1850 disappeared by 2015."

My crude understanding is that we have human caused global warming stacked onto natural warming, just by chance and bad luck. So from 1850 to 1938 you essentially just have the impact of natural warming? Is it the case that Tangier Island would be shrinking today anyway but more slowly?

Am I wrong in assuming that human caused global warming was not significant prior to 1938?
Edited on 07-07-2019 06:37
07-07-2019 18:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
What is "man made" about a naturally sinking island?

Is there a reason "climate" remains completely undefined?
Edited on 07-07-2019 18:07
08-07-2019 01:25
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
I don't know why everything has to be CO2 related these day. My guess it's erosion, and people racing large boats past the island sped things up a little. They probably dredge the channels often, so the really big boats can get through. Each time, takes a little more of the island with it, and makes room for more island to fall to the bottom. It's not just the climate changing, the planet has being changing, and always will. Considering it's just one island, that is sinking at that pace, shouldn't be obvious that the water isn't rising, but it's only erosion. There are hundreds of islands, be promoted as sinking, but I haven't seen anything beyond beach erosion in any of the pictures. There are tens of thousands of islands large enough to support some sort of life. Why are most islands unaffected, or non-news worthy?

Only about 20% of the earth's surface is dry land. Rising sea levels would have been quite obvious, and everywhere, all at once. A handful of examples of a prophecy, only proves it's fake signs of doom and damnation.

I haven't read any news reports on the California earthquakes, not bad enough for the local TV news. Little curious about how they will link it to Global Warming though, may slip over to the left-side media, and see how that spins. 6.4 isn't a particularly strong earthquake, certainly not strong enough to separate California from the United States (God willing), as predicted. Maybe it's just a little warning jolt, for the big one is coming soon.
08-07-2019 05:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
HarveyH55 wrote:I don't know why everything has to be CO2 related these day.

Harvey, CO2 is etched into the religion as the"bad guy" and just as Jews, Christians and Muslims attribute all evils to "Satan, " the Global Warming religion attributes all evils to CO2. It has to. There is no discussion on the matter.

HarveyH55 wrote: My guess it's erosion, and people racing large boats past the island sped things up a little. They probably dredge the channels often, so the really big boats can get through. Each time, takes a little more of the island with it, and makes room for more island to fall to the bottom.

No Harvey, the truth is that the island is sinking. Nothing more, nothing less. The island is sinking.

Do you know why New Orleans is currently below sea level? It wasn't below sea level a thousand years ago. Spoiler: sinking is a natural occurrence, just like the natural geological processes that lift mountains. That island's days are numbered ... and there is nothing any human can do about it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: We can talk about this without bothering with those who don't understand basic science08-07-2019 10:48
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
If your house caught fire one morning and the only notice you got was that it was warmest it had been in the past 12 hours, well, it would have been anyway. So it's not a helpful fact.

The headlines "warmest year ever", "highest water level", "least ice" would all be true without the added influence of human CO2 is my understanding.

This false argument DOES NOT mean that it doesn't matter. I think sadly it's because dishonesty is considered an acceptable strategy for most political movements.

Maybe the very real spike in CO2 will be OK. My question is how should people be asking that question and talking about.

And good point that there is a lot more than CO2 to talk about.
08-07-2019 14:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
tmiddles wrote:The headlines "warmest year ever", "highest water level", "least ice" would all be true without the added influence of human CO2 is my understanding.

Your understanding is correct. It would all be true without the added influence of the magickal pixie dust as well. The same goes for the added influence of the elven elixir.

Zero added to any value leaves just that value.

tmiddles wrote: This false argument DOES NOT mean that it doesn't matter.

Correct. It's absolutely critical if you want the general formula.

(You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?)

tmiddles wrote: I think sadly it's because dishonesty is considered an acceptable strategy for most political movements.

Climate Change anyone?

tmiddles wrote: Maybe the very real spike in CO2 will be OK.

It will.

tmiddles wrote: And good point that there is a lot more than CO2 to talk about.

Where? How do you know?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-07-2019 20:52
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
If your house caught fire one morning and the only notice you got was that it was warmest it had been in the past 12 hours, well, it would have been anyway. So it's not a helpful fact.

The headlines "warmest year ever", "highest water level", "least ice" would all be true without the added influence of human CO2 is my understanding.

This false argument DOES NOT mean that it doesn't matter. I think sadly it's because dishonesty is considered an acceptable strategy for most political movements.

Maybe the very real spike in CO2 will be OK. My question is how should people be asking that question and talking about.

And good point that there is a lot more than CO2 to talk about.


There have been people fighting against the use of fossil fuels, since we first started using them, for a variety of reasons. At first, it was the smell, and the soot, which industries found ways to burn cleaner. Some didn't like how machines were taking away jobs, ruining other businesses. People eventually learned new jobs, found new business to get into. But mostly, energy use is a powerful thing, in terms of economics, and controlling people's lives. CO2 is scraping the bottom of the barrel, for trying to gain control over energy use. Altogether, CO2 only makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. And the most used monitoring station is near an active volcano, so probably less. That's a really small number, considering the total volume of the atmosphere. If you pay attention, they are telling us the planet has warmed about 1 degree celsius, over about 300 years. That's a pretty tiny number as well, stretch out over all those years. We can't accurately measure global temperature or CO2 content, recorded continuous data goes back less than 100 years. Think 1958 is when they even start actually measuring CO2. There is a huge margin of error relate to the data recorded, a lot of room to play with the numbers, and still not be out right lying, just misrepresenting the truth. We just don't have the means to validate those global warming claims. Most of the events in Al Gore's movie, missed the mark he set, haven't happened, not even a little. The next deadline, is 2030, again, it doesn't appear like we are going to see the mass melting, ocean flooding, catastrophic events, that 'may' happen.
09-07-2019 10:37
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
So what is important? The best way to put trivial things in there place is to talk about what matters more. If you tell someone their science is wrong back it up with better science.

So question: Do you think it's possible for humans to do serious damage to their environment? Is there anything you are worried about?

History is full of examples of environmental mismanagement with dire consequences from Easter Islanders starving to death to dust bowl farmers.

All the more reason to bring sanity and sound thinking to the issue. Not simply dismiss the topic because morons showed up. And I would agree I've never seen more stupidity than on this subject. I even heard a friend wonder once if a man who died had died of global warming.

IBdaMann wrote:
the general formula....

(You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?)


Nope. You get points for showmanship though. Lay it on me.

HarveyH55 wrote:There is a huge margin of error relate to the data recorded, a lot of room to play with the numbers, and still not be out right lying, just misrepresenting the truth. We just don't have the means to validate those global warming claims.


But it's a sound hypothesis with a very serious risk identified. There is also a huge incentive for some to dismiss it and for others to treat it as fact. So it needs to be considered.
09-07-2019 18:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
So what is important? The best way to put trivial things in there place is to talk about what matters more. If you tell someone their science is wrong back it up with better science.

He already has.

The 'greenhouse' effect is not possible.

The 1st law of thermodynamics says why. You can't create energy out of nothing.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says why. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
The Stefan-Boltzman law says why. You can't trap light. You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. Not CO2, not water, not oxygen, not methane, not anything.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You can't make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot).
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

tmiddles wrote:
So question: Do you think it's possible for humans to do serious damage to their environment? Is there anything you are worried about?

A void question. First, you must define 'damage' and 'environment'. You might also try to define things like 'pollution'.
tmiddles wrote:
History is full of examples of environmental mismanagement with dire consequences from Easter Islanders starving to death to dust bowl farmers.

Cutting down all the trees on an island affected only that island.
Doughts are common in the South. Ground cover plants were brought in from other countries to help anchor the soil. One of them was kudzu, an extremely aggressive vine that is now somewhat a problem. Turned out to be a bit too aggressive!
Farming practices were improved as well. The droughts still occur, but they are not as destructive as they used to be thanks to Man's influence on the area.
tmiddles wrote:
All the more reason to bring sanity and sound thinking to the issue. Not simply dismiss the topic because morons showed up. And I would agree I've never seen more stupidity than on this subject. I even heard a friend wonder once if a man who died had died of global warming.

If you want sound thinking, A fundamentalist religion ain't the answer. The Church of Global Warming is such a religion. It can't even DEFINE what 'global warming' actually is.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
the general formula....

(You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?)


Nope. You get points for showmanship though. Lay it on me.

Energy(t+1) = Energy(t) + Work (energy is always conserved)

entropy(t+1) >= entropy(t) (entropy never decreases in any system)

radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 (blackbody radiance is proportional to temperature)

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:There is a huge margin of error relate to the data recorded, a lot of room to play with the numbers, and still not be out right lying, just misrepresenting the truth. We just don't have the means to validate those global warming claims.


But it's a sound hypothesis with a very serious risk identified.

WRONG. First you must DEFINE 'global warming'. Then you must have a falsifiable theory about it. Then, and ONLY then, can you have a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from existing theories. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

A theory must be a valid argument. No fallacies allowed. Until you define 'global warming' in the first place, you have no valid argument. You have a void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
There is also a huge incentive for some to dismiss it

Of course I dismiss it. I also do not want a fundamentalist religion to become a state religion.
tmiddles wrote:
and for others to treat it as fact.

You cannot have a fact about an undefined word. Define ''global warming' or 'climate change'. You should probably understand what 'fact' means as well. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. It is simply an assumed predicate.
tmiddles wrote:
So it needs to be considered.

Void argument. What needs to be considered? You have to define it first.


The Parrot Killer
09-07-2019 21:02
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
tmiddles wrote:
So what is important? The best way to put trivial things in there place is to talk about what matters more. If you tell someone their science is wrong back it up with better science.

So question: Do you think it's possible for humans to do serious damage to their environment? Is there anything you are worried about?

History is full of examples of environmental mismanagement with dire consequences from Easter Islanders starving to death to dust bowl farmers.

All the more reason to bring sanity and sound thinking to the issue. Not simply dismiss the topic because morons showed up. And I would agree I've never seen more stupidity than on this subject. I even heard a friend wonder once if a man who died had died of global warming.

IBdaMann wrote:
the general formula....

(You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?)


Nope. You get points for showmanship though. Lay it on me.

HarveyH55 wrote:There is a huge margin of error relate to the data recorded, a lot of room to play with the numbers, and still not be out right lying, just misrepresenting the truth. We just don't have the means to validate those global warming claims.


But it's a sound hypothesis with a very serious risk identified. There is also a huge incentive for some to dismiss it and for others to treat it as fact. So it needs to be considered.


Why invest a great deal of time and money on better science, to crush a bad idea? True, it would save the world a lot of expense and grief, in the long run, but it would be a long war to fight. Don't you think it's possible to spot and point out flaws, without making it a lifelong science project? Global warming is an annoyance, and potential threat to the economy, and our bank accounts. I have other interest, beyond exposing this fraudulent claim. Like any scam, the most important part, is the marketing, selling your product to the victims. Regardless of the science that refutes the fraudulent claims, one would still need to mass market it, present it to people willing to take a look at it, and get them to see the truth. Not such an easy task, specially with those who already foolishly bought a defective product, which is embarrassing. You are asking a whole lot of people to swallow their pride, admit they made a mistake, accept they were fools, and the victim of a scam. Scammers get away with it, because most of their victims won't admit they were taken, unless they have nothing left to lose.

Environmental damage? Not really significant, lot of damage is done to the environment is done naturally, and it heals over eventually as well. It's a very large planet, we inhabit only a small part of it, the damage we do, is only 'skin' deep. We might leave a few scars, but the planet will continue to do just fine. We only hurt ourselves, with all the trash and garbage we dump into the environment, and when enough people get tired of wading around in filth, they'll stop, and make some effort to clean up a little. With threats, like Global Warming, where we are all going to be burned beyond recognition, by the end of the century, if we don't through every cent we have into 'green' energy schemes, there isn't much incentive to change any habits, or clean up a mess. It's either poverty for most people, or scorched earth, or both, neither is a pleasant future, so just enjoy what little time there is left. Threats aren't very compelling, most people would ignore potential unpleasantness, that probably won't happen anyway. Most people don't go to a doctor or dentist, over every ache or pain, they ride it out for a while, see if it's going to be a persistent issue, or until the pain is crippling.
10-07-2019 04:30
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


Wouldn't this contradict an actual greenhouse? It's hot air who's thermal energy is being held within the space (green house or atmosphere). Light isn't being trapped, but the heat is being held. It's energy from the sun and so it's not being created just stored a bit longer.

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


The greenhouse effect is not blocking light, or reflecting light back in towards the earth. It's simply holding onto a bit more thermal energy longer that would otherwise escape sooner.

Into the Night wrote:
you must DEFINE 'global warming'.


You were just refuting it above and had it clearly identified. It's the greenhouse effect due to increases in gases in the atmosphere due to human activity. Agree or disagree it's a very simple theory. Some gases hold heat longer in the earths atmosphere than others and if we increase those gases we will cause the earth to warm.

IF this is the case there should be evidence of it in Earths history.


HarveyH55 wrote:
Why invest a great deal of time and money on better science, to crush a bad idea?


Because the better science has it's own rewards. I believe in democracy, working together and winning over your fellow human to make the world a better place. And bonus points if it's a less stupid place in the process.
10-07-2019 04:42
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


Wouldn't this contradict an actual greenhouse? It's hot air who's thermal energy is being held within the space (green house or atmosphere). Light isn't being trapped, but the heat is being held. It's energy from the sun and so it's not being created just stored a bit longer.

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


The greenhouse effect is not blocking light, or reflecting light back in towards the earth. It's simply holding onto a bit more thermal energy longer that would otherwise escape sooner.

Into the Night wrote:
you must DEFINE 'global warming'.


You were just refuting it above and had it clearly identified. It's the greenhouse effect due to increases in gases in the atmosphere due to human activity. Agree or disagree it's a very simple theory. Some gases hold heat longer in the earths atmosphere than others and if we increase those gases we will cause the earth to warm.

IF this is the case there should be evidence of it in Earths history.


HarveyH55 wrote:
Why invest a great deal of time and money on better science, to crush a bad idea?


Because the better science has it's own rewards. I believe in democracy, working together and winning over your fellow human to make the world a better place. And bonus points if it's a less stupid place in the process.



In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.
10-07-2019 05:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
James___ wrote: In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped.

This is the one thing you got correct in this post. Heat is reduced/eliminated. Greenhouse glass restricts/halts convection airflow.

James___ wrote: The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.

Nope. The barrier acts as a barrier and prevents airflow.

James___ wrote: The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms.

How do you imagine light is "slowed"? Does the light travel through the glass at less than the speed of light through glass?

Ohms is the measure of electrical resistance. Nothing "slows" photons.

James___ wrote: As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.

To what are you referring when you write the "potential" of a relationship?

James___ wrote:
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.

What do you mean by "heat"? This is like the ninth time you've been asked to clarify.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-07-2019 05:18
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
James___ wrote:
In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.


A green house let's light in and keeps the warmed air from leaving.Gardening explanation of greenhouses, the non political kind


Granted it's not identical but "greenhouse effect" is a reasonable title for the atmosphere holding heat to the earth a bit longer. Glass dissipates heat too, just as our atmosphere radiates it out into space. Also it should be noted that the "Greenhouse effect" has always been "in effect" and is a normal part of the physics of the solar system for a planet with an atmosphere.


So this makes sense to me: explaining how the atmosphere keeps earth warm

Reading that article and thinking about how CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, but just a little while ago it was only 0.03% is a bit unsettling.
Edited on 10-07-2019 05:23
10-07-2019 05:29
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.


A green house let's light in and keeps the warmed air from leaving.Gardening explanation of greenhouses, the non political kind


Granted it's not identical but "greenhouse effect" is a reasonable title for the atmosphere holding heat to the earth a bit longer. Glass dissipates heat too, just as our atmosphere radiates it out into space. Also it should be noted that the "Greenhouse effect" has always been "in effect" and is a normal part of the physics of the solar system for a planet with an atmosphere.


So this makes sense to me: explaining how the atmosphere keeps earth warm

Reading that article and thinking about how CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, but just a little while ago it was only 0.03% is a bit unsettling.



With the greenhouse effect, one wavelength might easily pass through it while the one it creates is reflected. Think of a one way mirror. You can see them but they can't see you. Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.
10-07-2019 05:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.


A green house let's light in and keeps the warmed air from leaving.

WRONG. Greenhouses are not airtight. The do work, however, by reducing heat. They reduce convective heating. Radiant heating is not stopped or reduced.
tmiddles wrote:
Granted it's not identical but "greenhouse effect" is a reasonable title for the atmosphere holding heat to the earth a bit longer.

No. There is no 'lid' to the atmosphere. There is no convective heating to space. All thermal energy lost to space is by radiance.

* It is not possible to hold or trap heat.
* It is not possible to trap light.
* It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Yes, even in greenhouses.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its energy at the same time. You can't do it in greenhouses either.

tmiddles wrote:
Glass dissipates heat too, just as our atmosphere radiates it out into space.

No. Conductive heating is not the same as radiant heating.
tmiddles wrote:
Also it should be noted that the "Greenhouse effect" has always been "in effect" and is a normal part of the physics of the solar system for a planet with an atmosphere.

No. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

tmiddles wrote:
So this makes sense to me: explaining how the atmosphere keeps earth warm

No. Same problems. Same theories of science being ignored.
tmiddles wrote:
Reading that article and thinking about how CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, but just a little while ago it was only 0.03% is a bit unsettling.

Irrelevant. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth. Zero. Zip. Nada.

CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. To emit that light, the surface must cool (it takes energy to emit light). This is just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere (it also does it by conduction).

CO2 also emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It cannot in turn heat the warmer surface. You cannot make heat flow backwards. CO2 emission is simply part of the infrared light emitted from Earth.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 05:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.


A green house let's light in and keeps the warmed air from leaving.Gardening explanation of greenhouses, the non political kind


Granted it's not identical but "greenhouse effect" is a reasonable title for the atmosphere holding heat to the earth a bit longer. Glass dissipates heat too, just as our atmosphere radiates it out into space. Also it should be noted that the "Greenhouse effect" has always been "in effect" and is a normal part of the physics of the solar system for a planet with an atmosphere.


So this makes sense to me: explaining how the atmosphere keeps earth warm

Reading that article and thinking about how CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, but just a little while ago it was only 0.03% is a bit unsettling.



With the greenhouse effect, one wavelength might easily pass through it while the one it creates is reflected. Think of a one way mirror. You can see them but they can't see you. Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


No. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 05:42
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
James___ wrote:Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


It's just glass James. You just got this one wrong. Greenhouses aren't that complicated. Warm air can't blow away, that's really all there is to it.

For the planetary sweater effect an atmosphere provides we call the green house effect, it's the various gases ability to absorb and store heat that matters.
10-07-2019 06:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


It's just glass James. You just got this one wrong. Greenhouses aren't that complicated. Warm air can't blow away, that's really all there is to it.

For the planetary sweater effect an atmosphere provides we call the green house effect, it's the various gases ability to absorb and store heat that matters.



Why in the summer is your car warmer in your car when it's windows are closed? That's the greenhouse effect. It's July, try it if you like.
10-07-2019 06:12
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Into the Night wrote:
No. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


So you're saying that a planet with an atmosphere like ours in no warmer than it would be without an atmosphere? The gases do nothing to change the surface temperature of the planet for us animals?

Doesn't Venus have some serious atmospheric warmth?:
Solar System Temperatures. In general, the surface temperatures decreases with increasing distance from the sun. Venus is an exception because its dense atmosphere acts as a greenhouse and heats the surface to above the melting point of lead, about 880 degrees Fahrenheit (471 degrees Celsius).
Edited on 10-07-2019 06:14
10-07-2019 06:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
tmiddles wrote:So you're saying that a planet with an atmosphere like ours in no warmer than it would be without an atmosphere?

Having an atmosphere does not change the body's average temperature.

Learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It's actual science, unlike your WACKY religious dogma.

tmiddles wrote:The gases do nothing to change the surface temperature of the planet for us animals?

You are very confused. You can't shift back and forth between the average global temperature (singular) and surface temperatures (plural) like they are the same thing.

The "surface" is just the bottom of the atmosphere which always has more thermal energy than the top of the atmosphere. It is stupid to ask if simply having an atmosphere increases the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere.

Venus has ten times the atmosphere of earth and thus much greater pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere. Read up on the ideal gas law (which is actual science).

tmiddles wrote:Doesn't Venus have some serious atmospheric warmth?:

Please stop being the poster boy for gullibility. It looks like you'll willingly regurgitate anything.

What do you mean by "warmth" anyway? Could you be a little less technical?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-07-2019 06:57
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Doesn't Venus have some serious atmospheric warmth?:

Please stop being the poster boy for gullibility. It looks like you'll willingly regurgitate anything.

What do you mean by "warmth" anyway? Could you be a little less technical?


So doesn't Venus have a warmer "Climate" than it would have if it didn't have the atmosphere it does? As in the temperature is higher than it would be without the "Greenhouse effect" on Venus.

"Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. ... In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K"

So given it's distance from the Sun Venus should be 339 K which is 66 C

But the temperature on Venus is actually 462 C

Why?
10-07-2019 07:00
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Doesn't Venus have some serious atmospheric warmth?:

Please stop being the poster boy for gullibility. It looks like you'll willingly regurgitate anything.

What do you mean by "warmth" anyway? Could you be a little less technical?


So doesn't Venus have a warmer "Climate" than it would have if it didn't have the atmosphere it does? As in the temperature is higher than it would be without the "Greenhouse effect" on Venus.

"Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. ... In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K"

So given it's distance from the Sun Venus should be 339 K which is 66 C

But the temperature on Venus is actually 462 C

Why?


Inverse square?
10-07-2019 07:08
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
[b]James___ wrote:[/b

Inverse square?


Is how you get what it would be without the greenhouse effect.

It's MUCH HOTTER, as in higher in temperature, than the inverse square would give you due to it's atmosphere.


My position, a social position, is that this battle isn't one to just let go of.

There are plenty of true scientific statements that don't factor in that they are insignificant.

Insignificance can be demonstrated and proven and it should be where appropriate.

If you argue that the greenhouse effect is a myth you're wasting everyone's time.
Edited on 10-07-2019 07:11
10-07-2019 07:39
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
tmiddles wrote:
[b]James___ wrote:[/b

Inverse square?


Is how you get what it would be without the greenhouse effect.

It's MUCH HOTTER, as in higher in temperature, than the inverse square would give you due to it's atmosphere.


My position, a social position, is that this battle isn't one to just let go of.

There are plenty of true scientific statements that don't factor in that they are insignificant.

Insignificance can be demonstrated and proven and it should be where appropriate.

If you argue that the greenhouse effect is a myth you're wasting everyone's time.


What is the inverse square of Venus' temperature? So if Venus is 400, then the Earth is 20. The small variation can be attributed to the composition of the atmospheres and the solar wind, etc.
Don't worry. These guys in here have no clue what I just said.
10-07-2019 08:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


It's just glass James. You just got this one wrong. Greenhouses aren't that complicated. Warm air can't blow away, that's really all there is to it.

For the planetary sweater effect an atmosphere provides we call the green house effect, it's the various gases ability to absorb and store heat that matters.


It is not possible to store or trap heat.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 08:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


It's just glass James. You just got this one wrong. Greenhouses aren't that complicated. Warm air can't blow away, that's really all there is to it.

For the planetary sweater effect an atmosphere provides we call the green house effect, it's the various gases ability to absorb and store heat that matters.



Why in the summer is your car warmer in your car when it's windows are closed? That's the greenhouse effect. It's July, try it if you like.


Because of reduced heat.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 08:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


So you're saying that a planet with an atmosphere like ours in no warmer than it would be without an atmosphere?
That is exactly what I am saying.
tmiddles wrote:
The gases do nothing to change the surface temperature of the planet for us animals?
That's right.
tmiddles wrote:
Doesn't Venus have some serious atmospheric warmth?:
No.
tmiddles wrote:
Solar System Temperatures. In general, the surface temperatures decreases with increasing distance from the sun. Venus is an exception because its dense atmosphere acts as a greenhouse and heats the surface to above the melting point of lead, about 880 degrees Fahrenheit (471 degrees Celsius).

Nope. Venus is no warmer than Mercury. The difference is:
1) Venus apparently has a higher emissivity than Mercury, allowing it to absorb sunlight more efficiently.
2) Venus has an incredibly long day. One day on Venus is 117 of our days long.
3) You are comparing surface temperatures as if they were the same pressure. Venus has an incredibly thick atmosphere (900 times that of Earth at the surface). This thick atmosphere is very good at picking up thermal energy from the surface by conductive heating, and is so efficient at moving thermal around that night time temperatures are virtually the same as daytime temperatures. At an altitude in the atmosphere that is similar to Earth's 1 atmosphere of pressure, temperatures are quite cool.

In contrast, Mercury has very little atmosphere, a short day, and a lower emissivity.

In total, the presence of an atmosphere does NOT increase the temperature of a planet. You are just measuring the temperature lower down into the planet.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 08:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Doesn't Venus have some serious atmospheric warmth?:

Please stop being the poster boy for gullibility. It looks like you'll willingly regurgitate anything.

What do you mean by "warmth" anyway? Could you be a little less technical?


So doesn't Venus have a warmer "Climate" than it would have if it didn't have the atmosphere it does?

You are again comparing a point much deeper into the planet (yes, the atmosphere is part of a planet) than on Earth. It's hotter there.
tmiddles wrote:
As in the temperature is higher than it would be without the "Greenhouse effect" on Venus.
There is no 'greenhouse effect' on Venus either. The planet is simply better at absorbing sunlight than Mercury is.
tmiddles wrote:
"Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. ... In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K"
Argument from randU fallacy. There is no 'should be'. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. They are different values.
tmiddles wrote:
So given it's distance from the Sun Venus should be 339 K which is 66 C
Argument from randU fallacy. There is no 'should be'. It simply is. The emissivity of Venus is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
But the temperature on Venus is actually 462 C

The temperature of Venus is unknown. Several points on the surface of Venus have recorded temperatures in that range. That is NOT the temperature of Venus.
tmiddles wrote:
Why?

Because you are comparing the temperature of a planet with the temperature of some point within the planet.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 08:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:[/b

Inverse square?


Is how you get what it would be without the greenhouse effect.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse effect'. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the 1st law of thermodynamics, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
[b]tmiddles wrote:
It's MUCH HOTTER, as in higher in temperature, than the inverse square would give you due to it's atmosphere.
The temperature of Venus is unknown. Again, you are comparing the temperature of Venus with a point WITHIN Venus.
tmiddles wrote:
My position, a social position, is that this battle isn't one to just let go of.

Fundamentalist religions are truly hard to give up.
tmiddles wrote:
There are plenty of true scientific statements that don't factor in that they are insignificant.Insignificance can be demonstrated and proven and it should be where appropriate.

If they are insignificant, why bring them up?
tmiddles wrote:
If you argue that the greenhouse effect is a myth you're wasting everyone's time.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

Let's try this: Explain, in your own words, the 'greenhouse effect'. Do copy and paste. Do not use Holy Links. Use your own words.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 08:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[b]James___ wrote:[/b

Inverse square?


Is how you get what it would be without the greenhouse effect.

It's MUCH HOTTER, as in higher in temperature, than the inverse square would give you due to it's atmosphere.


My position, a social position, is that this battle isn't one to just let go of.

There are plenty of true scientific statements that don't factor in that they are insignificant.

Insignificance can be demonstrated and proven and it should be where appropriate.

If you argue that the greenhouse effect is a myth you're wasting everyone's time.


What is the inverse square of Venus' temperature? So if Venus is 400, then the Earth is 20. The small variation can be attributed to the composition of the atmospheres and the solar wind, etc.
Don't worry. These guys in here have no clue what I just said.


YOU have no clue what you just said. You are talking gibberish word salad again.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 09:08
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to store or trap heat.


Do you believe in sweaters? Semantic games are waste of everyone's time too. Thermal energy storage is real enough to not bother another mention.

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Venus is no warmer than Mercury.


So your position is that there is a vast conspiracy to promote global warming that involves falsifying the temperature of other planets?: hottest planets
Googling some of what you wrote it'd clear you just making stuff up.

If you have anything you can back up share it.
10-07-2019 11:55
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Wow not having an atmosphere sure can leave a planet cold! Mercury is the closest planet to the sun and yet:
"In the shadows, temperatures plunge down to 80 Kelvin, which is -173 degrees Celsius"

Then there is Venus, still further from the sun yet:
"Venus remains that same temperature no matter where you go on the planet."
462 degrees Celsius! Hot enough to melt lead in the shade!

Wow that GREEN HOUSE EFFECT sure is somethin' !

Further from the sun and yet WAY HOTTER
Edited on 10-07-2019 11:59
10-07-2019 16:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
tmiddles wrote:Wow not having an atmosphere sure can leave a planet cold!

Somebody told you to believe that if a planet has a particular temperature at one point, that that is the planet's average temperature.

You are so naive that you obeyed and you apparently still believe that to this day.

I don't know if I can help you. I don't think anyone can, frankly.

tmiddles wrote:Then there is Venus, still further from the sun yet:
"Venus remains that same temperature no matter where you go on the planet." 462 degrees Celsius! Hot enough to melt lead in the shade!

Nope. At the very top of Venus' atmosphere on the side facing away from the sun, it is cold.

tmiddles wrote: Wow that GREEN HOUSE EFFECT sure is somethin' !

Nobody in the history of humanity has ever formally defined Greenhouse Effect such that science can apply to it. Why do you think that is?

[hint: it's religious gibber-babble aimed at the scientifically illiterate]

tmiddles wrote: Further from the sun and yet WAY HOTTER

It's not. You are mixing apples with oranges ... and don't understand that you are.

Remind me to never send you to the store for either apples or oranges.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-07-2019 19:02
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
The Greenhouse Effect... A greenhouse is basically a container, that reduces air flow, which would normally carry off the warming of the sun. It's never completely sealed, plants need to breath like do. They need sunlight as well, but artificial lighting could be used instead, the material used to cover a greenhouse doesn't make a huge difference. They pass sunlight, because it's free, and reduces costs. Earth isn't inside of any container. The atmosphere expands and contracts, moves around. Only half of the planet is exposed to the sun, at any given time. CO2 makes up approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere, 400 ppm. There is about 260 billion cubic miles of atmosphere, not sure how millions of parts that is, too many zeros for my math, but 400 ppm million, is about as significant, as peeing in an ocean. Commercial greenhouses commonly augment CO2 levels to 1200-2000 ppm, and there plants do extremely well. They grow very fast, strong, healthy this way, which great improves profits. If Earth is trapped inside a greenhouse, and burning up, we are all going to die, if CO2 reaches 570 ppm, why do plant thrive in a greenhouse, with a lot more CO2 added?

CO2 augmentation in greenhouse, indoor gardening (pot smokers) is well established, documented, and studied. Never looked into it far enough to see if the 2000 ppm is a limit, or just where adding more has little to no benefit. There is a lot of information, studies, even equipment for sale on the internet. You can also see for yourself locally, by visiting a few nurseries, or commercial greenhouses, ask if they augment CO2, look at their plants for sale. Small operations may not augment, added expense, not actually needed. But when compare the quality of plants, there is no question that more CO2, is very beneficial. It's something you can easily see with your own eyes, not just read about.
10-07-2019 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to store or trap heat.


Do you believe in sweaters?

Sure. Explaining the 'greenhouse effect' usually involves one of two arguments, which I call the Magick Blanket argument and the other the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.

Do you believe a sweater put over a rock can keep it warm?

tmiddles wrote:
Semantic games are waste of everyone's time too. Thermal energy storage is real enough to not bother another mention.

You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Now you are trying to deny there is such a thing as light.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Venus is no warmer than Mercury.


So your position is that there is a vast conspiracy to promote global warming that involves falsifying the temperature of other planets?

Pretty much. I call it the Church of Global Warming. We don't know the temperature of any planet. There is nothing to falsify.
tmiddles wrote:
hottest planets

False authority fallacy. You can google to your hearts content. It does not change the science or the math.
tmiddles wrote:
Googling some of what you wrote it'd clear you just making stuff up.
If you want to google for stuff, may I suggest you look at the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Since you brought up the Magick Blanket argument (briefly) as well, may I suggest you study the 1st law of thermodynamics and the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well?

I also recommend a good book on mathematics, especially centering around the rules of statistical mathematics and probability mathematics. There you will find that any statistical summary requires the calculation of the margin of error, that selected data must be from a raw data set and that set must be unbiased, and that the variance used to calculate the margin of error must be declared and justified.

We simply don't have enough thermometers to measure the temperature of any planet, including Earth.

tmiddles wrote:
If you have anything you can back up share it.

See the links I have provided. Theories of science back up my position. The rules of mathematics back up my position. I need nothing else.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 20:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
tmiddles wrote:
Wow not having an atmosphere sure can leave a planet cold! Mercury is the closest planet to the sun and yet:
"In the shadows, temperatures plunge down to 80 Kelvin, which is -173 degrees Celsius"

Then there is Venus, still further from the sun yet:
"Venus remains that same temperature no matter where you go on the planet."
462 degrees Celsius! Hot enough to melt lead in the shade!

Wow that GREEN HOUSE EFFECT sure is somethin' !

Further from the sun and yet WAY HOTTER


False equivalence fallacy. You are comparing the surface of Mercury with a point deep inside Venus. You are comparing a nighttime temperature on Mercury with a daytime surface temperature of Venus.

You keep forgetting that the atmosphere of a planet is part of the planet.


The Parrot Killer
10-07-2019 20:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The Greenhouse Effect... A greenhouse is basically a container, that reduces air flow, which would normally carry off the warming of the sun. It's never completely sealed, plants need to breath like do. They need sunlight as well, but artificial lighting could be used instead, the material used to cover a greenhouse doesn't make a huge difference. They pass sunlight, because it's free, and reduces costs. Earth isn't inside of any container. The atmosphere expands and contracts, moves around. Only half of the planet is exposed to the sun, at any given time. CO2 makes up approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere, 400 ppm. There is about 260 billion cubic miles of atmosphere, not sure how millions of parts that is, too many zeros for my math, but 400 ppm million, is about as significant, as peeing in an ocean. Commercial greenhouses commonly augment CO2 levels to 1200-2000 ppm, and there plants do extremely well. They grow very fast, strong, healthy this way, which great improves profits. If Earth is trapped inside a greenhouse, and burning up, we are all going to die, if CO2 reaches 570 ppm, why do plant thrive in a greenhouse, with a lot more CO2 added?

Quite right. Greenhouses even have heaters in them, to better manage nighttime temperatures since during nighttime, they lose all that accumulated energy again (because they radiate more due to higher temperatures).
HarveyH55 wrote:
CO2 augmentation in greenhouse, indoor gardening (pot smokers) is well established, documented, and studied. Never looked into it far enough to see if the 2000 ppm is a limit, or just where adding more has little to no benefit. There is a lot of information, studies, even equipment for sale on the internet. You can also see for yourself locally, by visiting a few nurseries, or commercial greenhouses, ask if they augment CO2, look at their plants for sale. Small operations may not augment, added expense, not actually needed. But when compare the quality of plants, there is no question that more CO2, is very beneficial. It's something you can easily see with your own eyes, not just read about.

Quite right. CO2 is beneficial for plants. They need it to combine with water using light to make carbohydrates, the basic food for the plant (and us).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-07-2019 20:34
10-07-2019 22:00
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
tmiddles wrote:
Is Tangier Island a good illustration of human caused global warming?

It's sinking and famous for it due to it's Trump support:
politico-article

I saw a news segment where they mentioned part of the island sunk by 1920 and I wanted to understand how.

Below on the right is 1850 green compared with 2013 red (link):


And just the upper portion from 1938 to 2001 (you can see it's already much smaller in 1938 than in 1850) (1938to2001link)


The basic crisis is that: "... 75% of the land that formed Tangier Island in 1850 disappeared by 2015."

My crude understanding is that we have human caused global warming stacked onto natural warming, just by chance and bad luck. So from 1850 to 1938 you essentially just have the impact of natural warming? Is it the case that Tangier Island would be shrinking today anyway but more slowly?

Am I wrong in assuming that human caused global warming was not significant prior to 1938?



Natural climate variation happens. During the last Ice Age there were over 30 climate ripples where it suddenly warmed without CO2 being involved.
Both the Mediaval Warm period and the Little Ice Age happened. These things aren't currently understood.
What could be an interesting little project is to consider that Newton's Theory of Gravity gives us one value. Other values might be able to be realized by looking for the common denominators in these values;
Planet Hi Temp/low temp (F/C) distance from Sun/gravity
Mercury 801/-173 427/-173 35.98 million miles 3.7 m/s^2
Venus 864/462 same 67.24 8.87 m/s^2
Earth 58.62/na 14.9/na 92/96 9.8 m/s^2
Mars 70/-100 20/-173 141.6 3.7 m/s^2

What should in theory allow for everything to average out is the density of the atmosphere. And since we know that the Earth has both warm and cool periods, the Earth's distance from the Sun might need to be reconsidered because the solar constant would change which would effect how warm or cool it is on our planet. And as we know, as atmospheric air pressure increases, so does the ambient temperature. But that's if we wanted to discuss science which is a religion to some in here.
We would also need to consider how much solar radiation is not be reflected by the stratospheric ozone layer as it is and has been depleted for decades which happens to coincide with the warming we've been experiencing since 1978. If that is the cause of the current warming period then it is man made but it's not CO2.
10-07-2019 23:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
James___ wrote: Natural climate variation happens.

I thought shit happens. Wait, maybe that's what you mean. Neither is defined.

Since you refuse to define your terms, and since "Shit Happens" came first ... I will presume that you mean "Natural Climate Variation" = "Shit."

James___ wrote: During the last Ice Age there were over 30 climate ripples where it suddenly warmed without CO2 being involved.

Is a "ripple" like there being corn in there for texture? Until "Ripple" is defined within this context, I'll assume it is a feature of "Shit."

James___ wrote: Both the Mediaval Warm period and the Little Ice Age happened.

... but what if they didn't? All we have are religious leaders interpreting omens and declaring prophecies have occurred.

So, how does your theory hold up if it turns out to be the case that those events actually did not happen?

James___ wrote: And as we know, as atmospheric air pressure increases, so does the ambient temperature.

As AGL (altitude) increases, up to a point, air pressure decreases with temperature. Beyond that point, temperature increases as pressure decreases.

James___ wrote: We would also need to consider how much solar radiation is not be reflected by the stratospheric ozone layer as it is and has been depleted for decades which happens to coincide with the warming we've been experiencing since 1978.

... and this is not true. You might be done here.

James___ wrote: If that is the cause of the current warming period then it is man made but it's not CO2.

The sun is the only energy source. You're done.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 7123>>>





Join the debate Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How climate change is sinking an Indian island.317-03-2019 21:17
Stream of thought poem re: London snow storms/Garbage Island002-02-2019 13:41
COP21 - Political Fantasy Island206-12-2015 02:11
▲ 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