climate change

djpbarry

Lbeard wrote: »

So now the air is transparent.

You're actually going to argue that air is not transparent? You can see air, can you?

Lbeard wrote: »

Magical infrared again, and the glass is opaque on one side, and transparent on the other.

I never said any such thing.

Lbeard wrote: »

And the air in the greenhouse is no longer transparent to radiation.

Again, I never said any such thing.

Lbeard wrote: »

And in the end of the day we're just talking rubbish about back garden greenhouses, not the Greenhouse Effect, because DJ, in his straw clutching is hoping to catch me out.

The connection is obvious, I would have thought. You have claimed repeatedly that the sun heats the atmosphere - it doesn't to any significant degree. The sun heats the Earth's surface, which heats the atmosphere through conduction/convection and radiates heat in the infrared.

Unless of course you want to explain how the sun heats the atmosphere?

Lbeard

citrus burst wrote: »

Not all atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases. O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases. H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 are greenhouse gases.

If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.

That is not what happens Citrus, because it would break the laws of physics.

Thermal equilibrium, Citrus..........Thermal equilibrium.

When a claim breaks the laws of physics, the only way you can believe it is through cognitive dissonance.

Quantum spectral effects have no effect on thermal equilibrium either. They never have - unless you set up equipment in a lab wrong, and don't really know what you're doing. Again.....And this has occurred, even in other areas of science - cognitive dissonance can make you find the answer you want, and not the one that is reality.

And it's more interesting in the atmosphere, as the atmosphere tries to reach more of an energy equilibrium. The clouds are cold, but they have more potential energy than the water vapors near the ground - they are cold because their kinetic energy has become potential energy.

I know the scientific paper that gave CH4 its' vaunted "greenhouse" gas status - and the temperature in this case is individual molecules in the upper atmosphere (but gases are made of individual molecules anyway). I know where the kranks got "24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2" it's not science it's krank nonsense. It's in a UN report on climate change, which gets cited in other climate science papers, but it is just nonsense.

Man made climate change, is as scientific as a Scientology. Or a creationist "science" museum, where they have Adam and Eve playing with the dinosaurs.


It's an apocalyptic UFO cult....it wouldn't be unfair to say it's above chemitrails, some of the chemitrails loopiness having worked its' way in.

Turtwig

What have I just spent the last 3/4 hour reading? :eek:
(Sorry that's probably my least constructive post on boards. But, what the hell have I just read?)

Lbeard

djpbarry wrote: »

You're actually going to argue that air is not transparent? You can see air, can you?

You want the air transparent, then you want it opaque. You need the sun to heat the atmosphere, and then you don't want the sun to heat the atmosphere.

DJ do you even know the fundamentals of the theory you're trying to defend?

Unless of course you want to explain how the sun heats the atmosphere?

Okay, DJ, have you ever wondered why the sky is blue? It's a heating effect you can actually see with the naked eye.

Or another one DJ....You know how people who go skiing get lovely tans and even sunburn?

I'll explain. It's not the sun reflecting off the piste.....because if you're on snow at sea level you will not get a tan.........At high altitudes there is less atmospheric gases....more high energy sun light gets through. So you can burn. If you go well above the atmosphere, the sun light is very strong (there's no atmosphere to absorb it), it would literally cook you like a chicken if you were exposed to it.

How does the snow not melt at higher altitudes then if the sunlight is stronger up there? DJ I hear you thinking................Because there's less atmosphere, there's less atmosphere to get warm and melt the snow, and the light reflects off the snow and bounces up, and out into outer space.

citrus burst

Lbeard wrote: »

If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.

That is not what happens Citrus, because it would break the laws of physics.

Thermal equilibrium, Citrus..........Thermal equilibrium.

I think you are looking at this in the wrong way. Keeping everything else consistent (i.e distance from the sun, planet size), which do you think would be hotter, a planet with an atmosphere made up only of CO2 or one with only N2 and why?

Lbeard wrote: »

Quantum spectral effects have no effect on thermal equilibrium either. They never have - unless you set up equipment in a lab wrong, and don't really know what you're doing. Again.....And this has occurred, even in other areas of science - cognitive dissonance can make you find the answer you want, and not the one that is reality.

Vibrational spectroscopy is used to determine the temperature of a gas.

Capt'n Midnight

Lbeard wrote: »

If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.

That is not what happens Citrus, because it would break the laws of physics.

Thermal equilibrium, Citrus..........Thermal equilibrium.

The more of that adsorbing species present the more energy it can capture to share. Adding blackcurrant juice to water doesn't make the water itself block more light, it's just the juice doing that.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic

Insane Troll Logic is the kind of logic that just can't be argued with because it's so demented, so lost in its own insanity. Any attempts to correct it would be met with more gibberish. It is logic failure that crosses over into parody or Poe's Law. A character says something so blatantly illogical that it has to be deliberate on the part of the writer.

djpbarry

Lbeard wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Unless of course you want to explain how the sun heats the atmosphere?

Okay, DJ, have you ever wondered why the sky is blue? It's a heating effect you can actually see with the naked eye.

Or another one DJ....You know how people who go skiing get lovely tans and even sunburn?

I'll explain. It's not the sun reflecting off the piste.....because if you're on snow at sea level you will not get a tan.........At high altitudes there is less atmospheric gases....more high energy sun light gets through. So you can burn. If you go well above the atmosphere, the sun light is very strong (there's no atmosphere to absorb it), it would literally cook you like a chicken if you were exposed to it.

How does the snow not melt at higher altitudes then if the sunlight is stronger up there? DJ I hear you thinking................Because there's less atmosphere, there's less atmosphere to get warm and melt the snow, and the light reflects off the snow and bounces up, and out into outer space.

That's a very long-winded way of not answering a question

IRWolfie-

LBeard wrote:

Preferably a peer-reviewed paper that explains the mechanism?

You don't look at peer reviewed papers for the fundamentals, pick up a standard textbook. Have a read IPCC v4: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf and then compare it to the kind of highschool physics you seem to be relying on.

LBeard wrote:

There must be a precise mechanism that makes a difference. This is chemistry and physics, not biology where there a zillions of mechanisms we don't understand. The precise mechanism that differentiates CO2 from methane in global warming......What is it?

Methane breaks down after a few years, CO2 does not.

LBeard wrote:

Is the absorption being interpreted correctly as having a thermal effect?

Light absorption is not a thermal effect. Your statement makes no sense. This is Physics 101.

LBEARD wrote:

Clouds are made of ice particles, they're not actually a gas

All clouds are not made of ice. Whether its a gas or not is irrelevant to the issue.

LBEARD wrote:

Your explanation, I'm not going to say is completely incorrect, and it's an explanation lots of people use. Unfortunately it's mangled. When a molecule absorbs radiation, its' electrons move to a higher energy level - it doesn't vibrate. Explaining heat in terms of atoms vibrating is misleading.

This is utterly wrong. You appear to have confused electronic, vibrational and rotational transitions. Later you also confuse vibrational transitions with thermal effects.

LBEARD wrote:

Temperature is a measure of particle momentum

Temperature is a measure of the average thermal energy of a substance. It is definetly not a measure of particle momentum, and temperature is not clearly defined for all systems. Pick up a standard undergraduate university physics book. Young & Freedman is a good place to start.

LBEARD wrote:

The kinetic energy of a single atom can be referred to as its' temperature.

You could refer to that as temperature, but you would be wrong.

LBEARD wrote:

. It was just rubbish nonsensical claim after nonsensical claim.

Considering your inability to understand basic physics your comment is meaningless.

LBEARD wrote:

If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.

No, if they are not greenhouse gases they just need to be transparent (i.e not absorbed) to the particular radiation of interest.

This person is a pure crank and should be blocked to stop this pointless nonsense. The irony of the crank posting about Cognitive dissonance is not lost on me.

Mark Hamill

Jernal wrote: »

What have I just spent the last 3/4 hour reading? :eek:
(Sorry that's probably my least constructive post on boards. But, what the hell have I just read?)

It kind of reminds me of the anecdote of the scientist and the old woman:

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Capt'n Midnight

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It kind of reminds me of the anecdote of the scientist and the old woman:

Underneath the world there's a ton of turtles. :pac:

Lbeard

IRWolfie- wrote: »

Methane breaks down after a few years, CO2 does not.

Is that true?...Really?.....So plants do not absorb CO2? (and release CO2 on decomposition?)...The seas don't absorb it either - so organic life in the sea has nothing to eat? Once CO2 is in the atmosphere it stays there?.....That's real krank science, isn't it? The implicit claim that "natural" CO2 is good, and cycled out of the atmosphere, whereas "unnatural" CO2, ie man made CO2, magically stays, increasing year on year and bring us closer to a man made apocalypse.

IRWolfie. I know precisely how both Methane and CO2 behave in the atmosphere. Do you know how or why methane would break down in the first place?

Light absorption is not a thermal effect. Your statement makes no sense. This is Physics 101.

No I am correct. Absorption on the spectral lines of molecules and atoms does not have a thermal effect, as it does not give the atoms and molecules momentum (there is a case when the frequency of the incident light is slight higher or lower than the spectral lines of the atoms, it will be absorbed but only if the momentum of the atoms, doppler shifts the light, when the light is emitted, it will change the momentum of the atoms - but there has been no net creation of energy in the process - energy is conserved.)

This is utterly wrong. You appear to have confused electronic, vibrational and rotational transitions. Later you also confuse vibrational transitions with thermal effects.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're on about. I could try to piece together what's going on in your imagination, but it's probably the Laws of Physics for the land of Narnia. Or is it Star Trek physics - beam me up Scotty.

Temperature is a measure of the average thermal energy of a substance. It is definetly not a measure of particle momentum, and temperature is not clearly defined for all systems. Pick up a standard undergraduate university physics book. Young & Freedman is a good place to start.

Please don't give me nonsense about undergraduate university physics texts.

You think CO2 has some magical power to stay in the atmosphere, when the the carbon cycle is in science books aimed at children. Don't give me the university texts, you need to start with the children's books and work your way up.

This person is a pure crank and should be blocked to stop this pointless nonsense.

That's what they said about Galileo. "Oh course you have to be a loony not to know the sun orbits the earth. Lock up this dangerous mad man. Stop this nonsense, shut his mouth. What he's saying is ridiculous. The Sun orbits Rome, God makes it so. What he is saying is a sinful heresy, we must shut his mouth or God will punish us....God will make average temperatures rise by 2 degrees.....Shut him up or God will punish us with run away temperatures....Shut his mouth, I'm afraid ...I'm afraid....reality is melting, God does exist, the earth orbits Rome.....I'm afraid.....God will punish us, run away temperatures. "

The irony of the crank posting about Cognitive dissonance is not lost on me.

No, you, and everyone else who has disagreed with me are exhibiting classic signs of cognitive dissonance.

I've been called a Crank, and Insane troll. I was shut up for a few days, locked up in the Loony bin. Okay I will admit to being a thoroughly unpleasant person - that is truthful - even my mother hates me. But the reason you are so hopped up is not because you think I'm crazy. Or making up lies.

With cognitive dissonance, the person experiencing it wants to get away from the information making them feel unpleasant - that's why you want me banned - shut up for good. If I was "wrong" about any other scientific fact, you wouldn't have a problem. If I had krank ideas about Special Relativity, or cold fusion, chemitrails, you wouldn't demand I be shut up. But this subject frightens you. And you'd feel a real fool if you had to face up to the fact you'd been believing fairy and ghost stories.

You want me shut up, because you're afraid what I'm saying is true.

Fear is a terrible thing. And sometimes the truth is terrible too.

I'm sorry. In a perfect world we all be happy and nice to each other, and there would be no fear. The world is just not perfect. Nature isn't even in harmony - it's dissonant.

djpbarry

Lbeard wrote: »

You want me shut up, because you're afraid what I'm saying is true.

You've actually said very little. You've demanded plenty of explaining from others, but have done precious little yourself.

For example, you've yet to offer any physical explanation for your claim that heating of the atmosphere by the sun is significant relative to heating of the Earth's surface.

Owdetojoy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We own the nitrogen cycle. Humans fix more nitrogen than any other species.
We are responsible for most of the ozone hole.

You can argue about the CO2 from us vs. nature, but if you take into account desertification and desertification and changing the vegetation in most arable and many grassland areas andthe draining of bogs and clearing land by burning it's clear we are involved in other ways besides industrial emissions.

Even if you argue that the underlying cycle is natural we are the storm surge at high tide.

Yes volcanoes could out do us, but volcanoes can create mass extinctions so not really saying much,

Yes I agree. The destruction of mother earth by humans is the worry, not the production of co2. CO2 is an essential gas for life and growth of plants. In facts pristine forests are being mowed down to grow palm oil which is said to be green and to displace fossil fuel, when in fact fossil fuel is being used to plant and grow the palm.

Capt'n Midnight

Owdetojoy wrote: »

Yes I agree. The destruction of mother earth by humans is the worry, not the production of co2. CO2 is an essential gas for life and growth of plants. In facts pristine forests are being mowed down to grow palm oil which is said to be green and to displace fossil fuel, when in fact fossil fuel is being used to plant and grow the palm.

There's also the bit that draining swamps for palm oil releases as much CO2 as the palm oil might save in a century

Owdetojoy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's also the bit that draining swamps for palm oil releases as much CO2 as the palm oil might save in a century

Ya, it seems to be a case of react, do something, whether it actually can do some good is beside the point. Strangely those who agree with the warming theory seem to always be left wing socialists and those who disagree with the idea of man made climate change seem to be mostly conservative and right of centre. I can't figure out why that should be so.