ClimateSanity
New member
To argue against what? What conclusion have you drawn that is ignorant for a person to not believe?
Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
To argue against what? What conclusion have you drawn that is ignorant for a person to not believe?
Quetzal
New member
Put me in coach, i'm ready! Because many people who do not believe refuse to believe scientific evidence. You don't have to go in hook, line and sinker but at least acknowledging there might be something to it would be a breath of fresh air.
ClimateSanity
New member
They mean the warming of the planet since the industrial revolution due almost 100% to man's industrial activities and most of that from emissions of carbon dioxide.
Revelation 16:7 And I heard the altar reply: “Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.” 8 Next, the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was given power to scorch the people with fire. 9 And the people were scorched by intense heat, and they cursed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues; yet they did not repent and give Him glory.…
Quetzal
New member
Beautiful passage.
ClimateSanity
New member
I acknowledge that there has been warming for over a century . I recognize that carbon dioxide levels have risen significantly during that time. I recognize carbon dioxide as a green house gas. I recognize the possibility of rising carbon dioxide levels as a possible reason for the warming. What else do you want me to recognize?
A lot of assumptions have to be made to make rising carbon dioxide levels the mechanism behind our warming planet. Those assumptions have not been verified scientifically. There are other mechanisms possible for our current warming and if you ask yourself how did our earth reach 99% of our current temperature basically since creation, you will realize that carbon dioxide is not the reason and neither is radiative physics.
Quetzal
New member
Good post! Then my previous post does not apply to you.
gcthomas
New member
No-one says that CO2 is responsible for the majority of the 33°C of greenhouse effect temperature rise, compared to an Earth without an atmosphere. But increasing CO2 can slightly increase the equilibrium temperature, say by 1% or so.
Can you agree this much, as this effect was predicted theoretically by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century, long before the CO2 emissions had a noticeable effect.
(You mention radiative physics, and whenever someone does in this context they always seem to refer to the same source — one which I have read and which has a number of fundamental physics misconceptions. Please tell me you have a better source.)
ClimateSanity
New member
You are assuming that 33 C of earths 288 C Temperature is due to a greenhouse effect temperature rise. I assume a radiatively driven one? Earth and the moon are the same distance from the sun on average. The moon's average long term temperature is -76 C. Earths average temperature is 15 C for a difference of 91 C not 33 C. There is no atmosphere on the moon and no ocean.
Mars atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide. It's effective temperature is exactly that of its apparent temperature.
On earth, greenhouse gases are said to raise the effective radiating level from the surface to some height in the middle of the atmosphere because of the 33 C difference between its apparent temperature and the effective one seen in space calculated from the Steven Boltzmann law.
If a 96% percent co2 atmosphere on Mars cannot raise its effective temperature off the ground, how can a .04% co2 concentration on earth raise its effective temperature to the height it's is?
The answer is that the total atmosphere of earth, including its ocean, is responsible for its effective radiating height and the rise in temperature from -76 C to 15 C.
If carbon dioxide is an extremely low percentage of the total heat storage on earth, how can it raise the earths rise in temperature of 2 C since the industrial age if it had no part in raising 89 C from that of the moon?
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
You seem to have left out the effect of albedo and rotation rate on the equilibrium temperature. The temperature is proportional to (1-albedo)^¼, while a slow rotation rate will allow for more cooling to reduce the day/night average. How can you claim to reject radiative theory if you are unaware of the effect of these factors?
The Earth isn't the Moon, so the radiative equilibrium temperature is different. And only you could claim that a new effect cannot happen if another effect is larger or happened first. That is just silly.
Example: I fill my glass to the brim with Martini and Lemonade. Will adding a small ice cube now cause it to overflow even though the ice had no part in initially filling the glass? :think:
Question for you: who/what is your source? Can you provide a link, so I can see the assumptions and derivations, please?
ClimateSanity
New member
I'm not going to play the source game with a die hard global warming believer. Your sources have assumptions and so it's disingenuous to ask for my assumptions. I'm sure you will type their name on Google and probably find them on some denier list that will twist and distort their work.
I will break down your responses either today or when I find time.
gcthomas
New member
I am a Physicist, and I am quite capable of dealing with the actual data, concepts, inductions, deductions and mathematical modelling without resorting to Googling.
The source will let me see what the claim is without it passing through you in a limited fashion — with novel scientific claims you should either present the hypothesis yourself, unabridged if possible, or give me a link so I can look at it myself directly. I will present my objections, if I find any problems, so you can challenge them. Otherwise it is empty assertion on your part.
ClimateSanity
New member
I have a hypothesis but that isn't my point here. You guys state that co2 is the reason for the increase in temperature over the last century and a half. All I'm saying is that co2 cannot possibly do that. It's up to you to show I'm wrong.
Specifically , explain why radiation is the main mechanism in global and not conduction and convection. The only way the earth can warm outside extra solar input is to slow down the release of long wave radiation to space. The whole atmosphere holds onto heat not just co2. The ocean does as well. Explain how the absorption of LWR can slow down the release of heat for a much longer time than the rest of the atmosphere and ocean.
gcthomas
New member
Sarkozy is running for president, so his comments on the stump are as likely to come to fruition as Trumps random promises. Less likely, in fact, since even as President of France he will not be able to force the rest of the to go along with his demands.
<Exactly Zero>
There has been exactly zero change in climate since it was brought it up nearly two decades ago.
They have managed nonetheless to get a lot of money off of it, which has gone to exactly zero progress concerning global warming.
Likewise, scientists have EXACTLY ZERO motivation to challenge global warming because the money is going in their pockets.
I think the Left needs to shut up about something they are receiving exactly zero benefit from, and stop pretending they know so much about something they really know exactly zero about- they pretty much rehash the same things over and over, just like evolutionists
I recall when it was brought up, back in the 90's, it caused this big scare- these global warmists were preaching an imminent danger.
And then nothing happened. Why should we continue to believe it?
There has been exactly zero change in climate since it was brought it up nearly two decades ago.
They have managed nonetheless to get a lot of money off of it, which has gone to exactly zero progress concerning global warming.
Likewise, scientists have EXACTLY ZERO motivation to challenge global warming because the money is going in their pockets.
I think the Left needs to shut up about something they are receiving exactly zero benefit from, and stop pretending they know so much about something they really know exactly zero about- they pretty much rehash the same things over and over, just like evolutionists
I recall when it was brought up, back in the 90's, it caused this big scare- these global warmists were preaching an imminent danger.
And then nothing happened. Why should we continue to believe it?
gcthomas
New member
<Exactly Zero>
There has been exactly zero change in climate since it was brought it up nearly two decades ago.
They have managed nonetheless to get a lot of money off of it, which has gone to exactly zero progress concerning global warming.
Likewise, scientists have EXACTLY ZERO motivation to challenge global warming because the money is going in their pockets.
I think the Left needs to shut up about something they are receiving exactly zero benefit from, and stop pretending they know so much about something they really know exactly zero about- they pretty much rehash the same things over and over, just like evolutionists
I recall when it was brought up, back in the 90's, it caused this big scare- these global warmists were preaching an imminent danger.
And then nothing happened. Why should we continue to believe it?
I've looked and looked and looked, but I can't find the honest part of your post.
Could you help me out? The fact (if there is one) seems to be buried in misrepresentations and fibs.