Remember me
▼ Content

The cause of global warming explained



Page 2 of 2<12
23-06-2020 21:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
keepit wrote:
You response amounts to nothing more than "no". What a waste of time.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

No valid argumentation presented.
23-06-2020 22:12
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
@ITN and gfm1775, and now I officially feel bad. You guys simply ignored me. Aren't I worth discrediting? I did say that greenhouses warm as CO2 levels decrease. It's true. That's because they have all these things in them that convert water and CO2 into O2.
The "greenhouse effect" is real. Can't you guys at least say that with sufficient solar radiation, H2O, etc. that a "greenhouse" can become a tropical paradise? Do I need to do better to give you climate change deniers a better target?
I mean if we go by a literal greenhouse, it's more O2 than CO2. Can't you guys at least say there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect"? I'd feel better. And you do want me to feel good about disagreeing with you guys, right?
Maybe this will help you guys. Chemical processes that reduce the amount of O2 in our atmosphere are decreasing it's ability to radiate heat back out into space. Does that work for you guys? That's also AGW. An example is if you use a 2 part epoxy. It will use O2 as a source of heat/energy thereby reducing the amount of O2 in the atmosphere. And this would decrease the atmosphere's ability to radiate heat back out into space.
If you were to consider the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, you have to consider the density between atmospheric gases and black bodies. That might be about 7,000:1. So basically industrialization itself might be helping to keep heat in the atmosphere. And all of this can be tied to a manufacturing/population solution in mathematics.
And with over 80,000,000 people living between Washington, D.C. and Boston, now we have heat plus a reduction in the amount of O2 flowing north into the Arctic.
This important message has been brought to you by Facts Are Fun.

Edited on 23-06-2020 22:13
23-06-2020 22:58
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
keepit wrote:
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.
GHG law says........

More on this GHG law? Is this science or legislation? References?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
23-06-2020 23:15
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.
GHG law says........

More on this GHG law? Is this science or legislation? References?


And once again I am being ignored. I said greenhouses get warmer. Not you 2.
I will say that less CO2 and more O2 causes a greenhouse to warm relative to it's barrier. This is a greenhouse "effect". Can't you at least say that I am wrong?
This is why I have a poor attitude. I have as much right to have my opinion rejected as anyone else. I mean the "greenhouse effect" is real. The barrier and the gases within that barrier influence warming relative to the amount of solar radiation available.
Why are you guys not showing where I am wrong? Doesn't more O2 and less CO2 allow for warmer temperatures relative to the amount of incoming solar IR?
It pains me that you guys ignore me when I say that global warming is happening and that AGW might be influencing it. On my part, this sad. To be ignored in a climate debate forum for saying AGW. That doesn't happen guys.
I am willing to say that deforestation, industrialization and the general decrease of O2 is helping our atmosphere to warm some. With the O2, less heat as with ozone which is O3 is being radiated into space.
So I didn't say CO2, I did say O2 and the Chapman cycle. That should be good for a few critical remarks, yeh?
24-06-2020 00:05
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.
GHG law says........

More on this GHG law? Is this science or legislation? References?


I am working on getting drunk. Isn't my opinion worthy of being ridiculed? I mean climate change happens. Even Svante Aarhenius https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1903/arrhenius/biographical/ knew this.
His original calculations showed that an increase in CO2 caused an ice age. He changed it to be politically correct. What this basically suggests is that as CO2 levels increased, so did the ozone layer which was dos discovered by a Charles Fabry in 1913.
Basically, as CO2 levels in the lower troposphere increased, O2 levels in the upper troposphere into the ozone layer increased as well. This would be an exponential and not a linear increase.
Basically, CO2 would've trapped more heat in the lower troposphere while the increased amount of O2 in the Chapman cycle would've decreased the amount of heat entering the Earth's atmosphere.
An example today would be stratospheric cooling because of less O2 in the Chapman cycle. As a result, the lower troposphere is warmer. Basically, trapped heat isn't radiated. Hopefully you guys can say I'm stupid or something.
I do say that AGW is happening and it's because of increased population and it's residual effects. It's also a natural occurrence which we are influencing. But can't you guys take some exception to it? I mean if you like me, you'll say that we need more O2 in the atmosphere because that radiates thermal radiation which I haven't mentioned. That is if you guys are my friends.
24-06-2020 01:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
James___ wrote: You're so busy being anal retentive that you miss what is unique about a greenhouse.

I assure you, my retentiveness is purely cognitive. It's the main reason I unfortunately know everything.

The secret thing about greenhouses is that they have lots of other colors. I'm telling you because I can trust you not to let the word out.

James___ wrote: As O2 levels increase and CO2 levels decrease, it actually becomes warmer. Why is it that you climate change deniers refuse to accept that it's the BARRIER?

I try, really I do, but my thorough understanding of physics gets in the way.

James___ wrote: As for physics, CO2 stores heat while O2 is reactive. See how easy it is to play with science son? What do I want it to mean? With me, I haven't seen the research that I'd like to see.

Oh I totally get what you mean. CO2 is like a Federal prison for thermal energy: heat checks in but it doesn't check out. Once that thermal energy gets wedged in there you can't get it out with a crowbar. That stuff is SEALED, baby. In fact, that's why the "atom smasher" was invented, i.e. to crack the nut and to suckle on the sweet thermal energy inside ... but no dice. The best you can hope for is what happened at Chernobyl or at 3-mile Island.

It's just what you said; it's a thermal fruity that is BERRIER than the high levels of O2. Great point.

James___ wrote: It is possible that scientists are using CO2 in the same way that a nurse uses a thermometer.

Their sticking it up their netherpipes?

James___ wrote: This would suggest that scientists think that people are complete morons. People aren't. A lot are but not all.

There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people and those who do not.

James___ wrote: Aerosols might actually be the real problem but unless they have the same source as CO2, then targeting CO2 is a mistake.

I learned that LONG ago when I used to target atmospheric CO2 with my BB-gun. Big mistake! Then I figured out what you just said, i.e. instead, shoot at the aerosol cans.

James___ wrote: And this brings us full circle to why there is a debate. CO2 is basically being promoted as a singular cause while science doesn't support this scenario.

James__, it's good to have you on the team. Welcome aboard.

James___ wrote: And if you are not illiterate son, supporters of global warming/climate change (scientists) say that there is a 95% chance that AGW is caused by man.

Could you dig up the data that was used to calculate that probability? I lost my copy. Also, could you forward me the latest AGW User Guide that has those definitions (Global Warming, Climate Change, Scientists, AGW, human activity, etc)?

James___ wrote: This includes but is not limited to;

I need the unabridged list that does, in fact, contain all the causes.

James___ wrote: Basically, if cities are putting out sufficient heat to cause a feedback mechanism to increase it"s warming potential, that is AGW.

... but what if it's none of that and there is only the kind of heat that adheres to the laws of physics, what then?

James___ wrote: When you consider this, also consider that 25% of the US population lives between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Mass. That's over 80 million people generating heat that flows into the Arctic.

My main concern is that our uneven distribution is throwing the earth's rotation off kilter, causing it to be lopsided. Thus far we have made the earth "wobble" noticeably and this causes ice ages, global warming and Scandinavian jet streams. We need to spread out.

James___ wrote: How much heat can 80,000,000+ people generate?

... *and* their pets. Don't forget them.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
24-06-2020 01:36
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: You're so busy being anal retentive that you miss what is unique about a greenhouse.

I assure you, my retentiveness is purely cognitive. It's the main reason I unfortunately know everything.

The secret thing about greenhouses is that they have lots of other colors. I'm telling you because I can trust you not to let the word out.

James___ wrote: As O2 levels increase and CO2 levels decrease, it actually becomes warmer. Why is it that you climate change deniers refuse to accept that it's the BARRIER?

I try, really I do, but my thorough understanding of physics gets in the way.

James___ wrote: As for physics, CO2 stores heat while O2 is reactive. See how easy it is to play with science son? What do I want it to mean? With me, I haven't seen the research that I'd like to see.

Oh I totally get what you mean. CO2 is like a Federal prison for thermal energy: heat checks in but it doesn't check out. Once that thermal energy gets wedged in there you can't get it out with a crowbar. That stuff is SEALED, baby. In fact, that's why the "atom smasher" was invented, i.e. to crack the nut and to suckle on the sweet thermal energy inside ... but no dice. The best you can hope for is what happened at Chernobyl or at 3-mile Island.

It's just what you said; it's a thermal fruity that is BERRIER than the high levels of O2. Great point.

James___ wrote: It is possible that scientists are using CO2 in the same way that a nurse uses a thermometer.

Their sticking it up their netherpipes?

James___ wrote: This would suggest that scientists think that people are complete morons. People aren't. A lot are but not all.

There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people and those who do not.

James___ wrote: Aerosols might actually be the real problem but unless they have the same source as CO2, then targeting CO2 is a mistake.

I learned that LONG ago when I used to target atmospheric CO2 with my BB-gun. Big mistake! Then I figured out what you just said, i.e. instead, shoot at the aerosol cans.

James___ wrote: And this brings us full circle to why there is a debate. CO2 is basically being promoted as a singular cause while science doesn't support this scenario.

James__, it's good to have you on the team. Welcome aboard.

James___ wrote: And if you are not illiterate son, supporters of global warming/climate change (scientists) say that there is a 95% chance that AGW is caused by man.

Could you dig up the data that was used to calculate that probability? I lost my copy. Also, could you forward me the latest AGW User Guide that has those definitions (Global Warming, Climate Change, Scientists, AGW, human activity, etc)?

James___ wrote: This includes but is not limited to;

I need the unabridged list that does, in fact, contain all the causes.

James___ wrote: Basically, if cities are putting out sufficient heat to cause a feedback mechanism to increase it"s warming potential, that is AGW.

... but what if it's none of that and there is only the kind of heat that adheres to the laws of physics, what then?

James___ wrote: When you consider this, also consider that 25% of the US population lives between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Mass. That's over 80 million people generating heat that flows into the Arctic.

My main concern is that our uneven distribution is throwing the earth's rotation off kilter, causing it to be lopsided. Thus far we have made the earth "wobble" noticeably and this causes ice ages, global warming and Scandinavian jet streams. We need to spread out.

James___ wrote: How much heat can 80,000,000+ people generate?

... *and* their pets. Don't forget them.


.



I actually hoped that you could do better. I think the average person knows that if heat is trapped by CO2 that it is not being released like O2.
And if it can't radiate then it is not flowing and it is not "heat".
Kind of hoped that everyone would know what ITN has been saying.
Edited on 24-06-2020 01:36
24-06-2020 03:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
James___ wrote:
@ITN and gfm1775, and now I officially feel bad. You guys simply ignored me. Aren't I worth discrediting?

No.
24-06-2020 03:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.
GHG law says........

More on this GHG law? Is this science or legislation? References?

I have no idea what "GHG law" keepit is talking about... It most certainly is not science related though...
24-06-2020 03:47
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
James___ wrote:
And once again I am being ignored.

... there might be a reason for that...
24-06-2020 03:49
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
James___ wrote:
I am working on getting drunk.

I'd say that you already are.

James___ wrote:
Isn't my opinion worthy of being ridiculed?

No. I'm saving my ridicule for piddleboy. Your posts are much too sane compared to his.
Edited on 24-06-2020 03:49
24-06-2020 03:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
James___ wrote:
And once again I am being ignored.

I'm not ignoring you. I'm right there with you in your corner. It's you and I, fighting the onslaught of the hate-filled Norwegian Jet Stream. Together we defeat the mo-fo.

Do the Finns have a jet stream?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
Edited on 24-06-2020 04:58
24-06-2020 04:34
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
hahaha that Norwegian Jet Stream thing was hilarious... good times.
24-06-2020 04:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
Is Finland part of Russia?
24-06-2020 04:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
keepit wrote: Is Finland part of Russia?

It might as well be, right?


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
24-06-2020 05:24
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
gfm7175 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.
GHG law says........

More on this GHG law? Is this science or legislation? References?

I have no idea what "GHG law" keepit is talking about... It most certainly is not science related though...


I figured that but thought I'd throw the hanging curveball out over the plate and give keepit a chance at a base hit.

I have not been keeping up. Is he still whacking 0.000?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
24-06-2020 05:29
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: You're so busy being anal retentive that you miss what is unique about a greenhouse.

I assure you, my retentiveness is purely cognitive. It's the main reason I unfortunately know everything.

The secret thing about greenhouses is that they have lots of other colors. I'm telling you because I can trust you not to let the word out.

James___ wrote: As O2 levels increase and CO2 levels decrease, it actually becomes warmer. Why is it that you climate change deniers refuse to accept that it's the BARRIER?

I try, really I do, but my thorough understanding of physics gets in the way.

James___ wrote: As for physics, CO2 stores heat while O2 is reactive. See how easy it is to play with science son? What do I want it to mean? With me, I haven't seen the research that I'd like to see.

Oh I totally get what you mean. CO2 is like a Federal prison for thermal energy: heat checks in but it doesn't check out. Once that thermal energy gets wedged in there you can't get it out with a crowbar. That stuff is SEALED, baby. In fact, that's why the "atom smasher" was invented, i.e. to crack the nut and to suckle on the sweet thermal energy inside ... but no dice. The best you can hope for is what happened at Chernobyl or at 3-mile Island.

It's just what you said; it's a thermal fruity that is BERRIER than the high levels of O2. Great point.

James___ wrote: It is possible that scientists are using CO2 in the same way that a nurse uses a thermometer.

Their sticking it up their netherpipes?

James___ wrote: This would suggest that scientists think that people are complete morons. People aren't. A lot are but not all.

There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people and those who do not.

James___ wrote: Aerosols might actually be the real problem but unless they have the same source as CO2, then targeting CO2 is a mistake.

I learned that LONG ago when I used to target atmospheric CO2 with my BB-gun. Big mistake! Then I figured out what you just said, i.e. instead, shoot at the aerosol cans.

James___ wrote: And this brings us full circle to why there is a debate. CO2 is basically being promoted as a singular cause while science doesn't support this scenario.

James__, it's good to have you on the team. Welcome aboard.

James___ wrote: And if you are not illiterate son, supporters of global warming/climate change (scientists) say that there is a 95% chance that AGW is caused by man.

Could you dig up the data that was used to calculate that probability? I lost my copy. Also, could you forward me the latest AGW User Guide that has those definitions (Global Warming, Climate Change, Scientists, AGW, human activity, etc)?

James___ wrote: This includes but is not limited to;

I need the unabridged list that does, in fact, contain all the causes.

James___ wrote: Basically, if cities are putting out sufficient heat to cause a feedback mechanism to increase it"s warming potential, that is AGW.

... but what if it's none of that and there is only the kind of heat that adheres to the laws of physics, what then?

James___ wrote: When you consider this, also consider that 25% of the US population lives between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Mass. That's over 80 million people generating heat that flows into the Arctic.

My main concern is that our uneven distribution is throwing the earth's rotation off kilter, causing it to be lopsided. Thus far we have made the earth "wobble" noticeably and this causes ice ages, global warming and Scandinavian jet streams. We need to spread out.

James___ wrote: How much heat can 80,000,000+ people generate?

... *and* their pets. Don't forget them.


.


Best post I've read in a long time!



gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
24-06-2020 05:33
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
Thanks for trying guys. With Finland, it's not a part of Scandinavia. And with how close Санкт-Петербург (Saint Petersburg) is, almost have to wonder if all of the lakes and fjords in Finland is why it was as independent country.
The Norwegian jet stream actually flows over Finland towards Москва (Moscow). That draws warm air into Russia which allows them to have mild winters.
Whether wise, all we might be doing now is encouraging the next Little Ice Age.
This won't matter in Australia except for those parrots. They are a nuisance down under. If only there were a "parrot" killer. They'd love him mate. But it's time to bugger off now.
24-06-2020 05:58
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
As far as warming goes, how do winters today compare to Moscow during the Medieval Warm Period? That's the Gulf Stream and the air circulation from Washington, DC to Boston flowing north.
It's best to ignore the southern hemisphere unless you want to know what affects the southern oscillation. Then that's the hole in the ozone layer.
24-06-2020 06:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
James___ wrote: As far as warming goes, how do winters today compare to Moscow during the Medieval Warm Period?

Our winter wi-fi today is more reliable. The mixing on the winter hip-hop albums is better too. However I would point out that a silver kopek certainly went a lot further in buying groceries and blankets and heating oil. Vodka was cheaper back then as well, which might explain why it seemed so "warm", eh?

James___ wrote: It's best to ignore the southern hemisphere unless you want to know what affects the southern oscillation.

I just look that stuff up in The MANUAL

The Stadium Wave Prophecy:

"A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data. The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics. The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal. Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal. Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic's freshwater balance. Earth's rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere."

[Note on the Stadium Wave Prophesy: Scientists are already working on translating this beautiful and mysterious language.]

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
Edited on 24-06-2020 06:34
24-06-2020 16:45
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
GasGuzzler wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.
GHG law says........

More on this GHG law? Is this science or legislation? References?

I have no idea what "GHG law" keepit is talking about... It most certainly is not science related though...


I figured that but thought I'd throw the hanging curveball out over the plate and give keepit a chance at a base hit.

I have not been keeping up. Is he still whacking 0.000?

He actually got ONE hit a while back... I also recall him hitting a foul ball once, and a foul ball behind home plate a time or two. But as far as actual hits go, I can only recall the one.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate The cause of global warming explained:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse gases, explained224-03-2019 04:43
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact