Remember me
▼ Content

XKCD earth temperarture;



Page 2 of 3<123>
16-09-2016 12:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
You could be right they remind me a bit of http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land they have same pompous, mindset except instead of amusingly, worryingly twisting the laws of man they twist the laws of physics.

At least they are harmless.
16-09-2016 12:12
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
spot wrote:
You could be right they remind me a bit of http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land they have same pompous, mindset except instead of amusingly, worryingly twisting the laws of man they twist the laws of physics.

At least they are harmless.


There I disagree. People like them are helping to prevent the required response to GW, this is costing us all money, making us less secure, and killing about 50,000 people per year according to the WHO.

I do not call that harmless.

A child is being dragged out to sea by a vicious rip current. It is obviously drowning. These are like the people on the shore cheering at the show and claiming the child will not drown (because the sharks will eat it first). But worse than that they are trying to prevent the life guard from swimming out to rescue the kid. That is not harmless.
16-09-2016 13:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
To continue your analogy they are saying that there is no danger because water is not wet and you can breath water anyway and that there is no such thing as sharks, whats more if you disagree you're a Sharkozombie, It's clearly absurd. If the crowd are dumb enough to believe that then we are all doomed.

I don't think that's the problem these two are a distraction most I know people are aware that there is a problem the problem is what exactly do we do about it.

I don't have a car and do my shopping with my bike, not due to moral superiority just that in my current circumstance it makes financial sense, people are shocked when I tell them.
16-09-2016 14:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
To continue your analogy they are saying that there is no danger because water is not wet and you can breath water anyway and that there is no such thing as sharks, whats more if you disagree you're a Sharkozombie, It's clearly absurd. If the crowd are dumb enough to believe that then we are all doomed.

I don't think that's the problem these two are a distraction most I know people are aware that there is a problem the problem is what exactly do we do about it.

I don't have a car and do my shopping with my bike, not due to moral superiority just that in my current circumstance it makes financial sense, people are shocked when I tell them.


Your basic food prices are 30% to 70% more expensive due to the use of food as fuel.

You are in fact rich. That is by world standards. You must be you have access to both a computer and a bike.

For the poorest billion people who live on less than $1.25 a day it's much worse. Personally ican't see that less than 2% of their frequent deaths are not related to the cronic hunger caused by this artificial food price hike. That's 20 million per year.

The next billion of the world's population are of course further traped into their poverty by this rip off. How many of then die as a result of not being able to travel to the doctors to buy the medicine they need? How many are forced to not send their kids to school because it costs too much to both feed them and school them?
16-09-2016 14:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
This is dangerous because it sounds reasonable, its not clearly insane. However its based on wrong assumptions. I think if nothing is done to tackle global warming based on your stats wherever you got them from the poorest billion will have no reason to thank you far from it they will suffer the most.
Edited on 16-09-2016 14:38
16-09-2016 14:53
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
spot wrote:
This is dangerous because it sounds reasonable, its not clearly insane. However its based on wrong assumptions. I think if nothing is done to tackle global warming based on your stats wherever you got them from the poorest billion will have no reason to thank you far from it they will suffer the most.


The poorest are being most affected by AGW.
16-09-2016 15:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
This is dangerous because it sounds reasonable, its not clearly insane. However its based on wrong assumptions. I think if nothing is done to tackle global warming based on your stats wherever you got them from the poorest billion will have no reason to thank you far from it they will suffer the most.


The poorest billion people will be affected by the lack of food due to the use of biodiesel and not affected by the increase in food production due to the introduction of better, often bio-engineered, crops and the increase in food production due to the increasse in general plant fertility from warmer, wetter conditions with more CO2 which greatly helps plants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

When fools and liars drivel on about the impact of rising sea levels they speak about such places as Bangladesh. Bangladesh gets at least 2cm of sediment deposited on it every monsoon. 1m of sea level rise over 100 years will not keep up with that.

Edited on 16-09-2016 15:09
16-09-2016 15:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That 2%? You just pulled it out of your ass. When we want to discuss temperatures, you want EXACT DIRECT MEASUREMENTS. When you want a number, you just think and POOF! The exact measurement!
16-09-2016 15:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
So your not disputing its real then? I quote from the piece your referring to;


They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.


Interesting and thanks for bringing that to our attention but I still agree with DKRTS;

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.
16-09-2016 15:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's always fun when people quote-mine, then link to what they quote-mined.

Also, are you seriously claiming that a 40% increase in food costs (which can be more than offset by many people by eating out less) is comparable to a 100% decrease in gasoline costs? Or that a bike costs more than a car? His actions have reduced his carbon footprint. Then you try to move the conversation to poverty, wile attempting to make some kind of comparison. You can't. He's spending less money to stop gw, while the poor are not spending anything.

Besides, if you're so concerned about the poor, we could just tax the multibillionaires. There. Problem solved. [selfmocking](Everybody come buy my all-solving 'tax the rich' reptile extract!)[/selfmocking]
16-09-2016 17:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That 2%? You just pulled it out of your ass. When we want to discuss temperatures, you want EXACT DIRECT MEASUREMENTS. When you want a number, you just think and POOF! The exact measurement!


No. I understand that any measurement must be understood in terms of how accurate that measurement is.

I have seen estimates as low as 200k deaths per year due to the use of food as fuel. But I think this is ludicrously low. How many deaths do you think are acceptable for the attempt at prevention of AGW by using food as fuel?
16-09-2016 17:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
So your not disputing its real then? I quote from the piece your referring to;


They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.


Interesting and thanks for bringing that to our attention but I still agree with DKRTS;

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.


If you don't follow the AGW cult you will be sacked by the BBC.

Why would any scientist ever ramble on about something that was not in the paper he was talking about?
16-09-2016 17:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's always fun when people quote-mine, then link to what they quote-mined.

Also, are you seriously claiming that a 40% increase in food costs (which can be more than offset by many people by eating out less) is comparable to a 100% decrease in gasoline costs? Or that a bike costs more than a car? His actions have reduced his carbon footprint. Then you try to move the conversation to poverty, wile attempting to make some kind of comparison. You can't. He's spending less money to stop gw, while the poor are not spending anything.

Besides, if you're so concerned about the poor, we could just tax the multibillionaires. There. Problem solved. [selfmocking](Everybody come buy my all-solving 'tax the rich' reptile extract!)[/selfmocking]


Taxing the rich would be good idea.

Taxing the poor by way of artificially increasing food prices is a crime against humanity.

Using a bike instead of a car, great, whatever works for you.
16-09-2016 17:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
So your not disputing its real then? I quote from the piece your referring to;


They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.


Interesting and thanks for bringing that to our attention but I still agree with DKRTS;

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.


If you don't follow the AGW cult you will be sacked by the BBC.

Why would any scientist ever ramble on about something that was not in the paper he was talking about?


So why does Andrew Neil still work for them? another false assertion from you,

On your second point, So the Prof Ranga Myneni does not know what he's talking about? why link his work as if he's an authority then?
16-09-2016 20:12
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
So your not disputing its real then? I quote from the piece your referring to;


They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.


Interesting and thanks for bringing that to our attention but I still agree with DKRTS;

The poorest are being most affected by AGW.


If you don't follow the AGW cult you will be sacked by the BBC.

Why would any scientist ever ramble on about something that was not in the paper he was talking about?


So why does Andrew Neil still work for them? another false assertion from you,

On your second point, So the Prof Ranga Myneni does not know what he's talking about? why link his work as if he's an authority then?


I was making the point that increased CO2 makes the plants grow better.

Other things were not on topic.

The feature is about CO2 and plant growth. It has the compulsory global warming is doom tacked onto it as well. But that does not stop CO2 helping plants to grow.

Andrew Neil was doing his usual job. He is an interviewer who always attacks his guests as best as possible. If he had not he would not have been doing hos job. By suggesting that climate change should never be subject to the same scrutiny as everything else you show how weak you know your argument to be.

Edited on 16-09-2016 20:18
16-09-2016 20:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
CO2 is good for plants... Up to a point. Too much oxygen, in fact, can kill people. Similarly, too much CO2 is hazardous to plants. IIRC it is related to CO2-based acidity control mechanisms.
16-09-2016 21:02
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Tim the plumber wrote:
I was making the point that increased CO2 makes the plants grow better.



No, more CO2 makes SOME plants grow better, but if, and only if, the light, temperature and water is maintained at optimum levels.

The trouble is that with increasing temperatures the soil moisture levels drop and the plants die or become stunted.

Foe example we are in a drought in the northeast, so all out grass, trees and shrubs are dying despite the increase in CO2.
16-09-2016 21:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, that's a good point too. My explanation does have the benefit of being accepted by gw-skeptics as well as gw-supporters, though. (That is, Tim won't listen to anything unless it doesn't have a prerequisite of increased temperatures.)
17-09-2016 18:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
It seems someone left some snake oil on my doorstep.

DRKTS wrote:No, more CO2 makes SOME plants grow better,

Actually, for almost every plant, there is some quantity of additional CO2 that makes it grow better.

DRKTS wrote:but if, and only if, the light, temperature and water is maintained at optimum levels.

Nope. It's for any given environmental conditions.

DRKTS wrote:The trouble is that with increasing temperatures the soil moisture levels drop and the plants die or become stunted.

False premise. Temperature increases do not decrease water levels and additional CO2 does not increase temperature.

More CO2 is good for plants.

Drought causes decreased water levels. CO2 and temperature variations do not.




.


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
17-09-2016 18:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.
17-09-2016 21:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.


Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2016 21:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.


Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!
17-09-2016 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.


Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!


Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2016 22:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.


Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!


Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of individual molecules. Temperature is generally defined as a macroscopic property of an assembly of particles and is related to the average energy of those particles. In a drop of water at a uniform temperature, for example, the individual molecules have a wide range of energies and are constantly transferring energy from one to another.

How does this relate to the distinction between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases?
18-09-2016 00:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...have you ever taken a course on physics?

Molecules themselves do not have temperature. Temperature is a description of the overall energies of all molecules within a substance.

Edit: Sorry, was ninjaed. Referring to Into's post.
Edited on 18-09-2016 00:21
18-09-2016 01:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.


Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!


Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of individual molecules. Temperature is generally defined as a macroscopic property of an assembly of particles and is related to the average energy of those particles. In a drop of water at a uniform temperature, for example, the individual molecules have a wide range of energies and are constantly transferring energy from one to another.

How does this relate to the distinction between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases?

No, temperature CAN refer to an individual molecule. You are evading the question.

Is oxygen in the atmosphere a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 01:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...have you ever taken a course on physics?

Molecules themselves do not have temperature. Temperature is a description of the overall energies of all molecules within a substance.

Edit: Sorry, was ninjaed. Referring to Into's post.


Individual molecules DO have a temperature.

An average of a single sample is the sample itself.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 01:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Now I know that if you ever did take a course on physics, you either slept through it or it's been several decades since college. (Or maybe you only took an introductory course?)

The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a substance's molecules determines its temperature. Individual molecules do not have M-B distributions, and so do not have a correlating temperature.
18-09-2016 02:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.


Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!


Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of individual molecules. Temperature is generally defined as a macroscopic property of an assembly of particles and is related to the average energy of those particles. In a drop of water at a uniform temperature, for example, the individual molecules have a wide range of energies and are constantly transferring energy from one to another.

How does this relate to the distinction between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases?

No, temperature CAN refer to an individual molecule. You are evading the question.

Is oxygen in the atmosphere a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

I'm not evading the question; your question about single molecules simply doesn't make sense. The particles making up a substance have a distribution of energies, and it is this distribution that defines the temperature of the substance. This is true regardless of whether the particles are identical or not.

What does this have to do with your ridiculous assertion that oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation?
18-09-2016 03:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Now I know that if you ever did take a course on physics, you either slept through it or it's been several decades since college. (Or maybe you only took an introductory course?)

Just a "yes/no" question for you:

If the temperature of a single molecule has been defined and a method of measurement has been developed, will you issue a humble, heartfelt apology?


.


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
18-09-2016 03:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
By all means. In fact, I'll even write it now.

"I'm sorry, Into, for accusing you of not having had an extended scientific education due to your having said what I believed to be a falsehood. My disagreement was fine and nothing to apologize for, but the insult was not."

In fact, I'll write an apology that applies during what I believe to be the current situation (i.e., I am right).

"I'm sorry, Into. When I was wrong, you politely pointed out my mistakes, and I should have returned that favour. I was frustrated with your apparent lack of knowledge, but I should have done to you what I would have wanted to be done to myself. As someone who has made many mistakes, I know that the lack of a specific piece of knowledge is both nothing to shame someone for and not indicative of an overall lack of knowledge. I was angry at IB when he did this to me, but taking it out on you is inappropriate and worsens my relationship with the one skeptic here (not including semiskeptics or "actual skeptics" who think gw exists) who is polite and knowledgeable. I am working on becoming more polite online, and I hope that you accept my second apology for taking out my frustration with IB out on you."

(No, I did not write this just to spite you. I'm simply less nasty than you are. I also care about what Into thinks of me, and you happened to point out something rude that I had said.)
Edited on 18-09-2016 03:15
18-09-2016 03:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
By all means. In fact, I'll even write it now.

"I'm sorry, Into, for accusing you of not having had an extended scientific education due to your having said what I believed to be a falsehood. My disagreement was fine and nothing to apologize for, but the insult was not."

In fact, I'll write an apology that applies during what I believe to be the current situation (i.e., I am right).

"I'm sorry, Into. When I was wrong, you politely pointed out my mistakes, and I should have returned that favour. I was frustrated with your apparent lack of knowledge, but I should have done to you what I would have wanted to be done to myself. As someone who has made many mistakes, I know that the lack of a specific piece of knowledge is both nothing to shame someone for and not indicative of an overall lack of knowledge. I was angry at IB when he did this to me, but taking it out on you is inappropriate and worsens my relationship with the one skeptic here (not including semiskeptics or "actual skeptics" who think gw exists) who is polite and knowledgeable. I am working on becoming more polite online, and I hope that you accept my second apology for taking out my frustration with IB out on you."

(No, I did not write this just to spite you. I'm simply less nasty than you are. I also care about what Into thinks of me, and you happened to point out something rude that I had said.)

IBdaMann's probably dug around and found some specialist paper talking about the effective temperatures of molecules in electronic devices or suchlike, and he doesn't realise that this is completely different to the usual definition of temperature in gases. It's sad, but funny, how desperate he is for his moment of glory.
18-09-2016 07:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. Let's go with that. I'll put you in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 1 atm of pressure. Oxygen is good, right? You'll be fine.


Pure oxygen is toxic. It is also a 'greenhouse' gas just as much as carbon dioxide. It too is emitting absorbed energy as IR.

That's over a thousand posts, and you have still failed to grasp the absolutely fundamental point that gases with simple molecules, like O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit IR radiation. This is why they are not greenhouse gases.

Gases with heterogeneous molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, can absorb and emit IR radiation. That is why these gases are greenhouse gases.

The technical reason for this is that simple, diatomic molecules cannot vibrate in such a way as to change their dipole moment, while heterogeneous molecules can do so. Best stick to the basics here though, I think!


Do you believe the temperature of a carbon dioxide molecule and the temperature of an oxygen molecule right next to it are basically the same or do you believe they are radically different temperatures? (assume these two have been near each other for some time)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of individual molecules. Temperature is generally defined as a macroscopic property of an assembly of particles and is related to the average energy of those particles. In a drop of water at a uniform temperature, for example, the individual molecules have a wide range of energies and are constantly transferring energy from one to another.

How does this relate to the distinction between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases?

No, temperature CAN refer to an individual molecule. You are evading the question.

Is oxygen in the atmosphere a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

I'm not evading the question; your question about single molecules simply doesn't make sense. The particles making up a substance have a distribution of energies, and it is this distribution that defines the temperature of the substance. This is true regardless of whether the particles are identical or not.

What does this have to do with your ridiculous assertion that oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation?


Answer the question. Stop evading.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 08:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The question is not answerable. Molecules don't have temperatures. It's about as answerable as "will an oxygen molecule have as many cats in it as a CO2 molecule?"

If you mean energy, then they probably will have different kinetic energies. Molecules in a gas have a wide range of energies, as the link I posted shows.
18-09-2016 08:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Now I know that if you ever did take a course on physics, you either slept through it or it's been several decades since college. (Or maybe you only took an introductory course?)

The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a substance's molecules determines its temperature. Individual molecules do not have M-B distributions, and so do not have a correlating temperature.


Done. I am through being nice.

First, you are simply joining in the evasion. The question still stands and demands an answer.

Feel free to answer that question, but do not join and evasion by another.

You have demanded respect and yet insulted me and constantly another with whom I hold great respect for. I have tried to be very patient with you, despite presenting the same questions I've already answered for you very clearly. I warned you last time about dragging the conversation into the sewer. You took it there. It will be very difficult to get it back now.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 08:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
By all means. In fact, I'll even write it now.

"I'm sorry, Into, for accusing you of not having had an extended scientific education due to your having said what I believed to be a falsehood. My disagreement was fine and nothing to apologize for, but the insult was not."

In fact, I'll write an apology that applies during what I believe to be the current situation (i.e., I am right).

"I'm sorry, Into. When I was wrong, you politely pointed out my mistakes, and I should have returned that favour. I was frustrated with your apparent lack of knowledge, but I should have done to you what I would have wanted to be done to myself. As someone who has made many mistakes, I know that the lack of a specific piece of knowledge is both nothing to shame someone for and not indicative of an overall lack of knowledge. I was angry at IB when he did this to me, but taking it out on you is inappropriate and worsens my relationship with the one skeptic here (not including semiskeptics or "actual skeptics" who think gw exists) who is polite and knowledgeable. I am working on becoming more polite online, and I hope that you accept my second apology for taking out my frustration with IB out on you."

(No, I did not write this just to spite you. I'm simply less nasty than you are. I also care about what Into thinks of me, and you happened to point out something rude that I had said.)


Apology NOT accepted. You must show that you mean it now.

I consider this an empty apology.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 08:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
By all means. In fact, I'll even write it now.

"I'm sorry, Into, for accusing you of not having had an extended scientific education due to your having said what I believed to be a falsehood. My disagreement was fine and nothing to apologize for, but the insult was not."

In fact, I'll write an apology that applies during what I believe to be the current situation (i.e., I am right).

"I'm sorry, Into. When I was wrong, you politely pointed out my mistakes, and I should have returned that favour. I was frustrated with your apparent lack of knowledge, but I should have done to you what I would have wanted to be done to myself. As someone who has made many mistakes, I know that the lack of a specific piece of knowledge is both nothing to shame someone for and not indicative of an overall lack of knowledge. I was angry at IB when he did this to me, but taking it out on you is inappropriate and worsens my relationship with the one skeptic here (not including semiskeptics or "actual skeptics" who think gw exists) who is polite and knowledgeable. I am working on becoming more polite online, and I hope that you accept my second apology for taking out my frustration with IB out on you."

(No, I did not write this just to spite you. I'm simply less nasty than you are. I also care about what Into thinks of me, and you happened to point out something rude that I had said.)

IBdaMann's probably dug around and found some specialist paper talking about the effective temperatures of molecules in electronic devices or suchlike, and he doesn't realise that this is completely different to the usual definition of temperature in gases. It's sad, but funny, how desperate he is for his moment of glory.


You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 08:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Before anything else, calm down. (I can't read tone well, but you seem angry.)

First of all, what was wrong with my apology? I was angry because of IB. I was frustrated with your repeated assertions that went against basic physics. I wrote one nasty post. IB has wrote hundreds. Keep your consistency. If I agreed with you, would you still do this after I wrote a few nasty posts to someone else?

Second, what are these questions that you've answered "again and again"? Keep in mind that I /complimented/ you on your patience, tried to find a good diplomatic term for your group, even noted the many ways that you had taught and convinced me things. I think that I've made progress in understanding both the science and your position. Again, note how IB's arguments contain only a dozen things. Total. For all posts. His posts haven't changed for years, or at least a cursory look through the archives seems to suggest that.

Third, if you're upset at the flame war between me and IB, consider how our talks have had problems, but were overall much better. Then note how my welcome to these forums was written by IB. It's in one of the lower-section threads, I'll post it later. IB is pretty much a jerk. I have been a jerk back to him. I won't deny that. But he's pretty nasty to anyone who disagrees with him, even if it later turns out he was mistaken.

It's been nice talking with you. I hope it doesn't end this way. Again, my posts to you were unacceptable and violate even the most lenient philosophy of "tit for tat" - that is, they were unprovoked. I'm sorry. I should not have written them. I'm planning on waiting five minutes before posting in the future, because some of my posts make me sad. I'm not perfect, but I'm getting better. Please? Can we keep trying?
Edited on 18-09-2016 08:46
18-09-2016 10:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Before anything else, calm down. (I can't read tone well, but you seem angry.)
I am extremely angry with you.
jwoodward48 wrote:
First of all, what was wrong with my apology?
It was empty.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I was angry because of IB.
No excuse.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I was frustrated with your repeated assertions that went against basic physics.
He is not going against basic physics. You are. Both he and I have shown you exactly where.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I wrote one nasty post.
You wrote many nasty posts.
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB has wrote hundreds.
He has less patience than I do. I don't blame him.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep your consistency. If I agreed with you, would you still do this after I wrote a few nasty posts to someone else?

Yes, because your agreement is based on a lie. A lie to yourself.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Second, what are these questions that you've answered "again and again"?
DON'T play innocent with me. I have written practically a book explaining things to you to satisfy your questions.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind that I /complimented/ you on your patience, tried to find a good diplomatic term for your group, even noted the many ways that you had taught and convinced me things.
All for naught it seems.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I think that I've made progress in understanding both the science and your position.
You chucked it all away in the most recent cycle of posts.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, note how IB's arguments contain only a dozen things. Total. For all posts. His posts haven't changed for years, or at least a cursory look through the archives seems to suggest that.
It is because he concentrates on just a few key basic things most of the time. If people don't get these basic things, they have trouble with everything else.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Third, if you're upset at the flame war between me and IB,
You bet I am.
jwoodward48 wrote:
consider how our talks have had problems, but were overall much better.
That's all in the past now. You did it to yourself. You have only yourself to blame.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Then note how my welcome to these forums was written by IB.
I really don't care how he welcomed you.
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's in one of the lower-section threads, I'll post it later. IB is pretty much a jerk.
Not half the jerk you have been. I mean that to both of us.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I have been a jerk back to him.
I won't deny that.
Maybe you should try to understand what he says, rather then how he says it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But he's pretty nasty to anyone who disagrees with him, even if it later turns out he was mistaken.
He is not mistaken.
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's been nice talking with you. I hope it doesn't end this way.
You ended it. Only you can bring it back. That means you have to discuss what is being discussed without using tit-for-tat or any other excuse, even though people are being rude to you. It means you have to take to heart the physics that is being shown to you without having to repeat it over and over.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, my posts to you were unacceptable and violate even the most lenient philosophy of "tit for tat" - that is, they were unprovoked.
That they were.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm sorry. I should not have written them.
While I appreciate that, it's no longer good enough. I expect a certain amount of restitution for what you've done.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm planning on waiting five minutes before posting in the future, because some of my posts make me sad. I'm not perfect, but I'm getting better. Please? Can we keep trying?

That is entirely up to you. I admit that it's a little tough when you slap someone on the face and claim you're sorry. Especially when you do it twice. Especially when you ignore all I've discussed with you.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 11:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You "don't blame [IB]." Why are you blaming me then? Never mind, I know! You wrote it yourself!

" jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep your consistency. If I agreed with you, would you still do this after I wrote a few nasty posts to someone else?


Yes, because your agreement is based on a lie. A lie to yourself."

This is a very heated issue. I have a short temper. (Less short than IB's, though when I slowly "snap", I snap hard. That is, an increase in nastiness that is later to show up and slower to develop once it has, but with a higher maximum.) But since I disagree with you, I don't actually deserve the same politeness as IB.

That's just...

I cannot even put into words how disgusted I am at your blatant, outright support of his antics combined with your statement that I, because I disagree with you, deserve anything he says to me. Not even because I'm doing tit-for-tat! That I could see! But simply because I don't agree with you, I don't matter.

I cannot. I cannot, after reading that post, honestly say that I will improve my posts. Am I still sorry? Yes, because unlike you, I believe that those who I disagree with still deserve as much respect as I do. Tit-for-tat is a bit of a stretch. There is inconsistency. I do indeed have a nasty side, and a bubble, and an inherent bias toward reading your posts as vitriolic shit and Surface's posts as frustrated, correct statements.

But who gives a shit? The pot cannot call the kettle black. After I have sufficiently immersed myself in these forums, I am now black. Do you have a problem with that?

So in the end, I just really don't care. Pick apart my words, make all the tu quoeques you want. That doesn't make my science wrong. IB is an ****, and he is wrong, and those are distinct. Are we on an ethics board or a global warming board? If anyone wants to convince me to stop being nasty, by all means. But I don't get the point of your above posts. In the end, either you care about gw and politeness, or you care about gw. Neither you nor IB sound like you care about politeness. So bring the actual science ****ing on!

(Re: IB's welcome: That was sarcasm. His welcome was as shitty as every post he's written before or since.)

By the way, the apology I wrote was completely sincere at the time. Great ****ing job, man, this must all be my fault.
Edited on 18-09-2016 11:32
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate XKCD earth temperarture;:

Remember me

▲ 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