What role do you think humans play in...
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#13041 May 19, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Science means nothing to a doofus. When you get an education come back.
On the contrary, "neither (the truth) of science NOR education" means anything to you bozo! That is obvious.......... when it relates to the (myth) of the (so-called) Global Warming Greenhouse effect!

Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse. This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air. It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13043 Jun 2, 2018
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>

On the contrary, "neither (the truth) of science NOR education" means anything to you bozo! That is obvious.......... when it relates to the (myth) of the (so-called) Global Warming Greenhouse effect!

Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse. This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air. It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.
You are right, a greenhouse prevents convection of the hot air inside much like the Earth's atmosphere does not convect to space. A greenhouse however loses some heat due to conduction through the glass but the atmosphere does not conduct to space. However the glass slows the radiation of IR much like the CO2 does in the atmosphere. Not a perfect comparison but close enough for horseshoes.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13044 Jun 3, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
You are right, a greenhouse prevents convection of the hot air inside much like the Earth's atmosphere does not convect to space.
Actually, it kind of does.

Convection, distributes thermal energy through the atmosphere. All of the atmosphere, like the surface itself, radiates into space.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
A greenhouse however loses some heat due to conduction through the glass
You finally admitting this, or are you arguing one side of an old paradox again?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
but the atmosphere does not conduct to space.
It effectively does, since it distributes thermal energy throughout itself via convection, conduction, and radiance.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
However the glass slows the radiation of IR much like the CO2 does in the atmosphere.
You can't slow radiance, Bozo. CO2 absorption of IR does not warm the Earth. It's just another way to cool the surface by distributing some thermal energy to the atmosphere. Both the atmosphere and the surface radiate to space.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Not a perfect comparison but close enough for horseshoes.
Ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Bozo.

You can't reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time.

You can't decrease entropy in any system. You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.

The Earth doesn't have a 'lid'. Greenhouses do. The Earth doesn't have walls to stop air from redistributing thermal energy. Greenhouses do. Air is more than a vertical column.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13045 Jun 3, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it kind of does.

Convection, distributes thermal energy through the atmosphere. All of the atmosphere, like the surface itself, radiates into space.
<quoted text>
You finally admitting this, or are you arguing one side of an old paradox again?
<quoted text>
It effectively does, since it distributes thermal energy throughout itself via convection, conduction, and radiance.
<quoted text>
You can't slow radiance, Bozo. CO2 absorption of IR does not warm the Earth. It's just another way to cool the surface by distributing some thermal energy to the atmosphere. Both the atmosphere and the surface radiate to space.
<quoted text>
Ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Bozo.

You can't reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time.

You can't decrease entropy in any system. You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.

The Earth doesn't have a 'lid'. Greenhouses do. The Earth doesn't have walls to stop air from redistributing thermal energy. Greenhouses do. Air is more than a vertical column.
Again you show how little you understand science. Conduction transfers heat via direct molecular collision.(vibrating molecules bump into other molecules transferring some of their kinetic energy directly) Since there are very very few molecules in space for the atmospheric molecules to collide with the conduction of heat from the Earth to space is infinitesimal. Heat is transferred to space through radiation. And yes the atmosphere has a boundary.

When you say that *all* of the atmosphere transfers thermal energy to space you now present a condition where S.B. fails. Stefan-Boltzmann law: the total radiant heat energy emitted from a *surface* is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations.

You see, the atmosphere is not a surface.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13046 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
...deleted unrelated detail...
When you say that *all* of the atmosphere transfers thermal energy to space you now present a condition where S.B. fails. Stefan-Boltzmann law: the total radiant heat energy emitted from a *surface* is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations.

You see, the atmosphere is not a surface.
The atmosphere has a surface. It is mass, Bozo.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13047 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>

The atmosphere has a surface. It is mass, Bozo.
Make up your mind you old fraud. You say that the atmosphere has no boundary like a greenhouse now you say it has a surface. Also much of the radiation is not from the surface of the atmosphere but from deep within. It all is just your attempt to apply the S.B. improperly. So, it has mass. What is your point?

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13048 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Make up your mind you old fraud. You say that the atmosphere has no boundary like a greenhouse now you say it has a surface.
It has definite upper boundary. It does have a surface. It is mass.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Also much of the radiation is not from the surface of the atmosphere but from deep within.
Welcome to your new paradox, Bozo. The 'surface' of the atmosphere is all throughout the atmosphere, including deep within.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It all is just your attempt to apply the S.B. improperly.
Nope. It is YOUR attempt to ignore it completely.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
So, it has mass. What is your point?
Mass has a surface to radiate and absorb energy from, even if the mass is a gas.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13049 Jun 4, 2018
Correction: It has NO definite upper boundary.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13050 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
Correction: It has NO definite upper boundary.
Make up your mind you old fraud! If it has a surface it must have a boundary, doofus.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13051 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Make up your mind you old fraud! If it has a surface it must have a boundary, doofus.
Nope. No boundary needed, Bozo.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13052 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>

Nope. No boundary needed, Bozo.
Where is the surface of the atmosphere? If it has no surface or boundary then S.B. does not hold. If your definition is the point where no more atmospheric molecules exist then the ocean has no surface because there are water molecules above the ocean.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13053 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Where is the surface of the atmosphere?
Throughout the atmosphere.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
If it has no surface or boundary then S.B. does not hold.
It has a surface area. S.B.does hold. It holds for all bodies and all mass.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
If your definition is the point where no more atmospheric molecules exist
If no molecules exist, there is no atmosphere, is there?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
then the ocean has no surface because there are water molecules above the ocean.
Not talking about the ocean. I am talking about the air.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13054 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>
Throughout the atmosphere.
<quoted text>
It has a surface area. S.B.does hold. It holds for all bodies and all mass.
<quoted text>
If no molecules exist, there is no atmosphere, is there?
<quoted text>
Not talking about the ocean. I am talking about the air.
Senseless gobbledygoup by a doofus..

Since: Sep 17

Location hidden

#13055 Jun 8, 2018
ALL you retards have some delusion of this and that of Global Warming...SO WHAT...

What are YOU and other humans DOING NOW to eliminate the causes of unhealthy anything on a global scale..be it trash...energy waste with obsolete fuels...plastics +++

Where is the discussion of desalination...solar...wind... +++ countless other ways to innovate a GREEN and SAFE engineered existence ? COMPLAIN...and ARGUE with meaningless options for resolution..GO to HELL MORONS...you deserve this polluted nightmare that is festering
..........ALL TALK ..NO ACTION....
hojo

Rock Island, IL

#13056 Jun 10, 2018
Wisdom of Ages wrote:
ALL you retards have some delusion of this and that of Global Warming...SO WHAT...

What are YOU and other humans DOING NOW to eliminate the causes of unhealthy anything on a global scale..be it trash...energy waste with obsolete fuels...plastics +++

Where is the discussion of desalination...solar...wind... +++ countless other ways to innovate a GREEN and SAFE engineered existence ? COMPLAIN...and ARGUE with meaningless options for resolution..GO to HELL MORONS...you deserve this polluted nightmare that is festering
..........ALL TALK ..NO ACTION....
No pollution nightmare, means NO ACTION ,necessary!!!
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#13060 Sep 29, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Science means nothing to a doofus. When you get an education come back .
We all know what "your kind of science" is bozo! Political-Political and more Political all initiated by the Leftist Liberals:

The "peer reviewed" papers that claim "global warming-Overheating of the Planet-(man-made) climate change to be scientifically (computer modeled) and factually true, have been audited, critiqued, examined and investigated by over 455 of the leading Atmospheric, climatologists, Earth, Physicists, and Engineering Scientists!(who have been silenced by the Government and the liberal mainstream media are now "speaking out"!!

Their conclusions are as follows:

quote::The UNIPCC, NASA, CRU, NOAA, and The National Academy of Science have been given the license and the freedom to use what-ever methods necessary to provide evidence that CO2 increases were harming the climate, even if it involves manipulation, omission and the altering of dubious climate data, using peoples opinions, instead of science, to prove their case for the Overheating of the Planet"!!!!

further: "This is how their science research works! In order to promote the CO2 global warming overheating of the planet frenzy, the UNIPCC, NASA, CRU, NOAA, and the National Academy of Science ----(start at the end point of climate science---drawing conclusions--picking numbers and then work backwards to justify the results! They previously decide that there will be a 0.6 degree of global warming at this time, even though satellite and ground measurements show cooling due to increase precipitation and clouds which reflect away solar energy....There is no way to trace down the logic of this type because (there is none) Computer models are used and they have no relation to objective reality. The closest thing to logic is a (scheme) called an "energy budget"! These budgets schemes show arrows pointing to the sky and then back to the ground, tracing a "supposed flow of energy of myriad of origin! These estimates show that there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide in creating this man-made global warming hoax!!

The questions are scientific, but the so-called ( science research answers are "political"! The global warming-man-made climate change is not about climate science, but a "whipped up" global frenzy about political science"!!!!!!!
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#13063 Friday Oct 19
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Science means nothing to a doofus. When you get an education come back.
NASA, NOAA and all 34 National Academy of Sciences caught manipulating science climate data
.
The average global surface temperatures calculated by NASA, were to most people, the hottest temperatures ever “recorded”! That would imply that quality controlled thermometers registered higher readings during the past year than had ever occurred before. If you believe that this is what NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) means by hottest temperatures ever “recorded,” then you are wrong.

Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA and NASA are only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.

Doctoring real-world temperature data is as much a part of the alarmist playbook as is calling skeptical scientists at Harvard, Princeton,Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc.,“anti-science.” Faced with the embarrassing fact that real-world temperature readings don’t show any U.S. warming during the past 80 years, the alarmists who oversee the collection and reporting of the data simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place. If this shocks you, you are not alone.

The bureaucracy at NOAA and NASA who report the U.S. temperature data undertake what they term “correcting” the raw data. These corrections are not just one-time affairs, either. As time goes by, older temperature readings are systematically and repeatedly made cooler, and then cooler still, and then cooler still, while more recent temperature readings are made warmer, and then warmer still, and then warmer still.

Posted temperature comparison charts (available) showing just how dramatically the NOAA and NASA bureaucrats have doctored the U.S. temperature data during the past several decades. As the before-and-after temperature charts show, government bureaucrats with power and funding at stake have turned a striking long-term temperature decline (as revealed by the real-world data), into a striking long-term temperature increase. Political Science has replaced the Scientific method, using manipulated climate data, required by the Government liberals, in order to show that Global Warming exists, when in fact is DOES NOT EXIST!...Global Cooling Pseudoscience (hoax) and the "freezing of the planet" in the 20th century predicted by Paul Erhlich, NASA, the NOAA and 34 National Academy of Sciences, has been replaced by the man-made Global Warming (scam) and the "overheating of the planet" by Michael Mann, Al Gore, NASA, the NOAA and all 34 Academy of Sciences now in the 21st century!.........Same rhetoric! Same slogan! Same Government hoax!! "If we don't first succeed.....DENY.....LIE.....a nd......TRY...again!!........W e now have a new generation of "sheeple" to dupe, deceive and hoodwink into another Government hoax, scam and fraud!!!
PantsOnFire

United States

#13064 Friday Oct 19
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>

NASA, NOAA and all 34 National Academy of Sciences caught manipulating science climate data
.
The average global surface temperatures calculated by NASA, were to most people, the hottest temperatures ever “recorded”! That would imply that quality controlled thermometers registered higher readings during the past year than had ever occurred before. If you believe that this is what NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) means by hottest temperatures ever “recorded,” then you are wrong.

Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA and NASA are only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.

Doctoring real-world temperature data is as much a part of the alarmist playbook as is calling skeptical scientists at Harvard, Princeton,Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc.,“anti-science.” Faced with the embarrassing fact that real-world temperature readings don’t show any U.S. warming during the past 80 years, the alarmists who oversee the collection and reporting of the data simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place. If this shocks you, you are not alone.

The bureaucracy at NOAA and NASA who report the U.S. temperature data undertake what they term “correcting” the raw data. These corrections are not just one-time affairs, either. As time goes by, older temperature readings are systematically and repeatedly made cooler, and then cooler still, and then cooler still, while more recent temperature readings are made warmer, and then warmer still, and then warmer still.

Posted temperature comparison charts (available) showing just how dramatically the NOAA and NASA bureaucrats have doctored the U.S. temperature data during the past several decades. As the before-and-after temperature charts show, government bureaucrats with power and funding at stake have turned a striking long-term temperature decline (as revealed by the real-world data), into a striking long-term temperature increase. Political Science has replaced the Scientific method, using manipulated climate data, required by the Government liberals, in order to show that Global Warming exists, when in fact is DOES NOT EXIST!...Global Cooling Pseudoscience (hoax) and the "freezing of the planet" in the 20th century predicted by Paul Erhlich, NASA, the NOAA and 34 National Academy of Sciences, has been replaced by the man-made Global Warming (scam) and the "overheating of the planet" by Michael Mann, Al Gore, NASA, the NOAA and all 34 Academy of Sciences now in the 21st century!.........Same rhetoric! Same slogan! Same Government hoax!! "If we don't first succeed.....DENY.....LIE.....a nd......TRY...again!!........W e now have a new generation of "sheeple" to dupe, deceive and hoodwink into another Government hoax, scam and fraud!!!
Since Trump is the biggest liar to ever hold the office of President, you're probably right.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13065 Sunday Oct 21
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>

We all know what "your kind of science" is bozo! Political-Political and more Political all initiated by the Leftist Liberals:

The "peer reviewed" papers that claim "global warming-Overheating of the Planet-(man-made) climate change to be scientifically (computer modeled) and factually true, have been audited, critiqued, examined and investigated by over 455 of the leading Atmospheric, climatologists, Earth, Physicists, and Engineering Scientists!(who have been silenced by the Government and the liberal mainstream media are now "speaking out"!!

Their conclusions are as follows:

quote::The UNIPCC, NASA, CRU, NOAA, and The National Academy of Science have been given the license and the freedom to use what-ever methods necessary to provide evidence that CO2 increases were harming the climate, even if it involves manipulation, omission and the altering of dubious climate data, using peoples opinions, instead of science, to prove their case for the Overheating of the Planet"!!!!

further: "This is how their science research works! In order to promote the CO2 global warming overheating of the planet frenzy, the UNIPCC, NASA, CRU, NOAA, and the National Academy of Science ----(start at the end point of climate science---drawing conclusions--picking numbers and then work backwards to justify the results! They previously decide that there will be a 0.6 degree of global warming at this time, even though satellite and ground measurements show cooling due to increase precipitation and clouds which reflect away solar energy....There is no way to trace down the logic of this type because (there is none) Computer models are used and they have no relation to objective reality. The closest thing to logic is a (scheme) called an "energy budget"! These budgets schemes show arrows pointing to the sky and then back to the ground, tracing a "supposed flow of energy of myriad of origin! These estimates show that there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide in creating this man-made global warming hoax!!

The questions are scientific, but the so-called ( science research answers are "political"! The global warming-man-made climate change is not about climate science, but a "whipped up" global frenzy about political science"!!!!!!!
CO2 is a GHG, that has been established through spectrography for over a hundred years.
Burning carbon based fuels produces CO2 as a product of combustion. That has been established for over a hundred years.
CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of these.
It has been established through both direct and indirect measurements that the Earth is warming.
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#13067 Monday Oct 22
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

CO2 is a GHG, that has been established through spectrography for over a hundred years.
Burning carbon based fuels produces CO2 as a product of combustion. That has been established for over a hundred years.
CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of these.
It has been established through both direct and indirect measurements that the Earth is warming.
Your pseudoscience opinions are not based upon facts, since global warming has no basis of absolute proof....only speculative theories!.........

Deny THIS, bozo! This Global warming "hoax, scam and fraud game" of yours and every other left wing socialist Marxist One World Government "commie" is over!

:

NASA and NOAA proven to have been manipulating Climate Date in order to (falsely prove) that Global warming exists

How NOAA/NASA Doctored Temperature Data To Get Record Warm ...
https://principia-scientific.org/how-noaa-nas... ...

How NOAA/NASA Doctored Temperature Data To Get Record Warm Years | PSI Intl
The topic of how the US temperature record has been massively altered in recent years has been well covered by T...

Jan 23, 2018 - The topic of how the US temperature record has been massively altered in recent years has been well covered by Tony Heller, myself, and ...
Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/.../doctored-data-not-...

Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year
James Taylor

Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today....

Jun 13, 2012 - The bureaucracy at NOAA and NASA who report the U.S. temperature data undertake what they term “correcting” the raw data.
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate ...
https://science.house.gov/.../former-noaa-sci... ...

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded t...

Feb 5, 2017 - Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate ... retired principal scientist at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, the ...
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering | The ...

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering | The Deplorable Climat...
https://realclimatescience.com/.../100-of-us-... 28, 2016 - NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data.... Gavin Schmidt at NASAexplains very clearly why the US temperature record does not ...
NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data | The Deplorable Climate ...
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-n...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 2 hr hojo 5,751
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr hojo 41,911
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 6,638
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming (Mar '18) 11 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 471
News Skyscrapers may have worsened Hurricane Harvey ... Sat Traveler 1
News How 'miniature suns' could provide cheap, clean... Nov 16 Solarman 1
Global Cooling (Apr '15) Nov 15 Into The Night 2,654