Remember me
▼ Content

There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2



Page 5 of 7<<<34567>
30-11-2019 17:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
MarcusR wrote: IPCC actually don't do any own research, meassurements etc - they simply assess science.

Nope. The IPCC does NOT assess science. That doesn't even make sense.

The IPCC preaches a political Marxist party line and fabricates "data" for the benefit of its gullible congregation.

MarcusR wrote: Nonetheless, IPCC's reports are great summaries and a even better index so you can look up articles, studies, papers etc ut you want to look deeper on a specific matter.

The IPCC's reports are great hymnals.

MarcusR wrote: The physical properties of i.e CO2 has been known since about 150 years.

Yes, and it is well documented that CO2 cannot defy physics as the IPCC preaches.

MarcusR wrote: Today we simply know the details a little better than i.e Tyndal did back in the mid 19'th century.

Which is why science has discarded Tyndal's work in this area.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
02-12-2019 09:12
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
[b]
Religion is not science.


Scientist publish their research and findings in papers such as the one above. The impact factor of that Magazine is (from webofscience):
Impact Factor
4.578 4.909
2018 5 year
JCR® Category Rank in Category Quartile in Category
GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY 14 of 196 Q1

While 4.578 is not Nature territtory it nonetheless shows significance - in the scientific world.
02-12-2019 09:16
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Which is why science has discarded Tyndal's work in this area.


.


Not correct:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC
02-12-2019 09:23
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
[
You cannot just discard science.



Correct. Start with Reading i.e Grant W Petty's "A first Course of atmospheric radiation". It is quite Good and you don't need extreme math skills to read it. I Only have a M.Sc and have no issue with the maths in it.
02-12-2019 10:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Yes, and it is well documented that CO2 cannot defy physics as the IPCC preaches.
And your explanation for Venus is? ________________

And of course your person and private "physics" is defied by ever text book on physics.

TWELVE references showing IBD is full of it

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
02-12-2019 17:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:And your explanation for Venus is?

The same way any other planet ends up orbiting the sun.

I didn't realize this was what was keeping you up at night.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
02-12-2019 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
MarcusR wrote:
[b]
Religion is not science.


Scientist publish their research and findings in papers such as the one above. The impact factor of that Magazine is (from webofscience):
Impact Factor
4.578 4.909
2018 5 year
JCR® Category Rank in Category Quartile in Category
GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY 14 of 196 Q1

While 4.578 is not Nature territtory it nonetheless shows significance - in the scientific world.


Science isn't a 'world'. It isn't any data or observation. It isn't random numbers. It is not any paper, book, magazine, journal, web site, or religion.

Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
MarcusR wrote:
[
You cannot just discard science.



Correct. Start with Reading i.e Grant W Petty's "A first Course of atmospheric radiation". It is quite Good and you don't need extreme math skills to read it. I Only have a M.Sc and have no issue with the maths in it.


A book is not a proof. You don't need a book on atmospheric radiance. All you need is Stefan-Boltzman's law.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Yes, and it is well documented that CO2 cannot defy physics as the IPCC preaches.
And your explanation for Venus is? ________________

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
And of course your person and private "physics" is defied by ever text book on physics.

Compositional error fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:42
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
More semantics disputes slowing things here.
What needs to be understood is that many words have multiple meanings and different people choose different meanings to use. It's causing misunderstandings.
02-12-2019 21:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
MarcusR wrote:
Which is why science has discarded Tyndal's work in this area.

.


Not correct:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

Do you know what a "delusion" is?

Do you see Tyndal's name mentioned anywhere on that page? If you do, then yes, you know what a delusion is.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
02-12-2019 21:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: More semantics disputes slowing things here.


keepit wrote: What needs to be understood is that many words have multiple meanings and different people choose different meanings to use. It's causing misunderstandings.


What do you suggest? The implication from your post is that we shouldn't clarify meaning.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
02-12-2019 22:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: More semantics disputes slowing things here.


keepit wrote: What needs to be understood is that many words have multiple meanings and different people choose different meanings to use. It's causing misunderstandings.


What do you suggest? The implication from your post is that we shouldn't clarify meaning.



He doesn't understand that some people like circular arguments for their entertainment value.
02-12-2019 22:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
I don't particularly like circular arguments.
Way too much energy is spent clarifying things that one would think would be clear but aren''t because of whatever.
02-12-2019 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
I don't particularly like circular arguments.

Yet you make them and even try to prove them.
keepit wrote:
Way too much energy is spent clarifying things that one would think would be clear but aren''t because of whatever.


Because you haven't defined them. Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-12-2019 23:08
03-12-2019 10:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD? link

But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: IBD: What is your take on ITN's statement below? Agree? Disagree?
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

James___ wrote:...some people like circular arguments for their entertainment value.
Well said. And because circular logic is invincible. Anyone who can never admit their wrong is destined to be that insane.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 03-12-2019 11:29
03-12-2019 18:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD?

We did take an accurate reading there. One thermometer does not give you the temperature of an entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver


One thermometer does not give you the temperature of Denver either.

You are desperately trying to deny statistical math, and you are desperately trying to assume that the temperature of anything you measure is uniform.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2019 18:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD?

We did take an accurate reading there. One thermometer does not give you the temperature of an entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver


One thermometer does not give you the temperature of Denver either.

You are desperately trying to deny statistical math, and you are desperately trying to assume that the temperature of anything you measure is uniform.


So Denver is hotter then Venus?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-12-2019 20:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD?

We did take an accurate reading there. One thermometer does not give you the temperature of an entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver


One thermometer does not give you the temperature of Denver either.

You are desperately trying to deny statistical math, and you are desperately trying to assume that the temperature of anything you measure is uniform.


So Denver is hotter then Venus?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2019 20:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD?

We did take an accurate reading there. One thermometer does not give you the temperature of an entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver


One thermometer does not give you the temperature of Denver either.

You are desperately trying to deny statistical math, and you are desperately trying to assume that the temperature of anything you measure is uniform.


So Denver is hotter then Venus?

RQAA.


You should be last person to complain about repetitious questions. And I don't recall you answering it.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-12-2019 20:39
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD?

We did take an accurate reading there. One thermometer does not give you the temperature of an entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver


One thermometer does not give you the temperature of Denver either.

You are desperately trying to deny statistical math, and you are desperately trying to assume that the temperature of anything you measure is uniform.


So Denver is hotter then Venus?



Context please. https://www.facebook.com/DenverDream/
03-12-2019 22:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote:So Denver is hotter then Venus?

Either you suck at logic or you suck at science ... or both.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
03-12-2019 23:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:So Denver is hotter then Venus?

Either you suck at logic or you suck at science ... or both.
You suck at Dodging.

So Denver is hotter than Venus IBD? Or it could be? We have no idea?
03-12-2019 23:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:So Denver is hotter then Venus?

Either you suck at logic or you suck at science ... or both.


.


Well I am quite confident what the answer is, I'm testing you and your fellow chuckle brother.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-12-2019 00:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD?

We did take an accurate reading there. One thermometer does not give you the temperature of an entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver


One thermometer does not give you the temperature of Denver either.

You are desperately trying to deny statistical math, and you are desperately trying to assume that the temperature of anything you measure is uniform.


So Denver is hotter then Venus?

RQAA.


You should be last person to complain about repetitious questions. And I don't recall you answering it.

RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 00:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...explanation for Venus is?
...orbiting the sun.
DODGE! what happened to your insights into how the thermometers were too hot to take accurate reading there IBD?

We did take an accurate reading there. One thermometer does not give you the temperature of an entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But then you can't even wrap your head around the temperature of Denver


One thermometer does not give you the temperature of Denver either.

You are desperately trying to deny statistical math, and you are desperately trying to assume that the temperature of anything you measure is uniform.


So Denver is hotter then Venus?



Context please. https://www.facebook.com/DenverDream/


There isn't any.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:So Denver is hotter then Venus?

Either you suck at logic or you suck at science ... or both.
You suck at Dodging.

So Denver is hotter than Venus IBD? Or it could be? We have no idea?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 02:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:So Denver is hotter then Venus?

Either you suck at logic or you suck at science ... or both.
You suck at Dodging.

I'm sorry, my bad, my bad ... yes, yes, yes, I meant to include you ... Yes, you suck at logic as well. It never occurred to me that you'd feel so snubbed that you'd take it personally.

It was an honest oversight. I publicly apologize.

IBdaMann wrote: So Denver is hotter than Venus IBD? Or it could be? We have no idea?

You certainly have no clue. You suck at math, science, logic, the English language and perception in general. That would be where you should look first for why you are asking really stupid questions.

Refresh my memory, what position have you assigned to me today?


I'm going to get back to my Rammstein techno-mix. Let me know if you have any questions.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-12-2019 02:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: So Denver is hotter than Venus IBD? Or it could be? We have no idea?

You certainly have no clue.


No I know Venus is hotter. Question is how is it you pretend not to.

Living a lie must be exhausting.
04-12-2019 02:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: No I know Venus is hotter. Question is how is it you pretend not to. Living a lie must be exhausting.


Wait a minute. So you are assigning me two positions today? In your delusional safe-space, how do I answer these questions?

On another topic, I heard we are no longer in the Climate-accordion? Who saved us from that crap?




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-12-2019 04:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:So you are assigning me...
DODGE!
04-12-2019 08:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
What position are you taking today?
04-12-2019 12:06
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)

Do you see Tyndal's name mentioned anywhere on that page? If you do, then yes, you know what a delusion is.

.


Tyndal discovered that certwin gasses such as CO2 absorbed infrated radiation. Thag is exactly what the IR spectrum in the link shows, just more detailed.
04-12-2019 16:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: What position are you taking today?

I'm not bending over for you, if that's what you were hoping.

... but I am thinking of you. Here's a little something for you:




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-12-2019 17:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
MarcusR wrote:
Tyndal discovered...
Very true. Tyndall's work is incorporated into all of the scientific work we have today. Ludwig Boltzmann's own work followed and built on Tyndalls.

But again we debate facts as though they were in question.
04-12-2019 18:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
Tyndal discovered...
Very true. Tyndall's work is incorporated into all of the scientific work we have today. Ludwig Boltzmann's own work followed and built on Tyndalls.

But again we debate facts as though they were in question.


Sadly CO2 levels show little relationship to annual global warming. This is going by information given by people like NASA, the EPA or the IPCC. But people see what they are told to see.
From about 1946 to 1978 there was no warming yet CO2 levels steadily rose. At the same time it is said that global warming started in 1950.
When the IPCC 2013 report was soon to be released, the IPCC created a new group to issue a strongly worded report in 2014 discrediting the IPCC's 2013 report.
What group creates a group to discredit its own report? The IPCC.
And yet no one finds this strange.

Spot, I can easily say that regardless of CO2 that "green" technologies would still be pursued. Look at the development of computers and video games when there was not much of a market for them.
IBM didn't pursue the personal computer because they didn't think people would want one. Not sure why new technologies wouldn't emerge regardless of our climate. Some people like pursuing new ideas and investors see opportunities in that. Kind of how capitalism works.
Edited on 04-12-2019 18:32
04-12-2019 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
MarcusR wrote:

Do you see Tyndal's name mentioned anywhere on that page? If you do, then yes, you know what a delusion is.

.


Tyndal discovered that certwin gasses such as CO2 absorbed infrated radiation. Thag is exactly what the IR spectrum in the link shows, just more detailed.


Makes no difference. Absorption of infrared light by CO2 (or any other gas or vapor) that is emitted from Earth's surface does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
Tyndal discovered...
Very true. Tyndall's work is incorporated into all of the scientific work we have today. Ludwig Boltzmann's own work followed and built on Tyndalls.

But again we debate facts as though they were in question.


No, you are just trying to create energy out of nothing. Not possible. (1st law of thermodynamics).


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 19:02
Xadoman
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
I think I know where the roots of the beliveing in the global warming are. People see that adding insulation to the walls of the house helps to reduce heat loss and similarily they think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere somehow is reducing the heatloss. They see atmosphere as an insulation. The trouble is that earth is in space and the heat loss could be only via thermal radiaton. Therefore adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.
04-12-2019 21:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Xadoman wrote:
I think I know where the roots of the beliveing in the global warming are. People see that adding insulation to the walls of the house helps to reduce heat loss and similarily they think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere somehow is reducing the heatloss. They see atmosphere as an insulation. The trouble is that earth is in space and the heat loss could be only via thermal radiaton. Therefore adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.



In a way that is how it is being equated. The term greenhouse effect was first used in 1827. Just as a greenhouse has a barrier that traps heat, it was consider why the Little Ice Age ended.
If you read this, he does give CO2 some credit. If not then he could not be considered a credible scientist. That position is a requirement of political correctness. In his article he mentions
quote
One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.


Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


When he says ; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be:

What he is implying is that if we leave nature alone (CO2 levels, at less than 300 ppm) that nature will continue to change.
And for anything I do, it would only cause myself problems if I tried challenging political correctness.
Edited on 04-12-2019 21:05
Page 5 of 7<<<34567>





Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?4211-12-2019 01:25
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or5625-11-2019 15:53
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control814-11-2019 23:28
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Articles
Theory
▲ 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