Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2643 Feb 19, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
... they are magazine and print what sells. How many of those magazines if they were back in the seventies would of been printing articles about a global ice age. Popular Science was and so was Popular Mechanics and Omni. Even Newsweek was and they were not a science magazine. Magazines in the end are a business and will do what it takes to survive...
It's true that magazines need to sell copy. But Scientific American is a very old publication, & they know full well that if they print lies & distortions, they'll eventually be discovered.

The truth ALWAYS comes out in science. It may take months, years, decades or centuries, but because science must by repeatable by others, deception is ALWAYS discovered. Reputable science magazines like Sci Amer wouldn't print lies like you imply.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2644 Feb 19, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Venus is hotter because it has an atmosphere period. It would not matter if Venus had CO2, CH4, or O2. The atmosphere allows heat to be more evenly distributed.
http://www.space.com/18645-mercury-temperatur...
I was wondering how your credible looking citation would have it backwards about the atmosphere being the cause instead of its CO2 atmosphere.

So I pulled it up. And of course, it doesn't mention why Venus is hotter than Venus.

Your Rush Limbaugh Dittohead credentials are showing.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2645 Feb 19, 2013
was typing too fast-- CORRECTED
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Venus is hotter because it has an atmosphere period. It would not matter if Venus had CO2, CH4, or O2. The atmosphere allows heat to be more evenly distributed.

http://www.space.com/18645-mercury-temperatur... .
I was wondering how your credible looking citation would have it backwards about the atmosphere being the cause instead of its CO2 atmosphere.

So I pulled it up. And of course, it doesn't mention why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Your Rush Limbaugh Dittohead credentials are showing.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2646 Feb 20, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
was typing too fast-- CORRECTED

I was wondering how your credible looking citation would have it backwards about the atmosphere being the cause instead of its CO2 atmosphere.
So I pulled it up. And of course, it doesn't mention why Venus is hotter than Mercury.
Your Rush Limbaugh Dittohead credentials are showing.
Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has an atmosphere, else its not hotter than the day side temperature of Mercury, the maximum: 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees Fahrenheit).

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2647 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has an atmosphere, else its not hotter than the day side temperature of Mercury, the maximum: 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees Fahrenheit).
Wow, you guys make it up. Well since you don't like science.. let's use a thought experiment.

the pressure under Earth's oceans is greater than the atmospheric air pressure on Venus...

So if it was just pressure, we would expect lower levels of the ocean to be a lot warmer, no?

<<The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 910 metres below the surface of the ocean. The atmosphere has a mass of 4.8◊1020 kg, about 93 times the mass of the Earth's total atmosphere. The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth.

>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Ve...

The Mariana Trench (the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean) has a vertical pressure bar equal to 1000 X the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level -- ie 10 times more than Venus' average.

AND
--as one descends lower in the ocean (where pressure increases), the temperature DECREASES not increases.

-- in the Mariana Trench the water temperature ranges from 34-39 degrees F (1-4 degrees C).[At the bottom of the trench the water column above exerts a pressure of 1,086 bars (15,750 psi), over one thousand times the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#2648 Feb 20, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Thatís what I find so FUNNY and pathetic about this whole CO2 melting the planet emergency because with the Internet, you hysterical panickers can copy and paste to your heartís delight. The Internet is a source of finding opinions that are presented as fact just because someone pushed enter enough times. Marshal McLuhan is rolling in his grave as his global village has turned out be nothing more than village idiots.(just a phrase, no personal insult intended, ok?)
Progressive liberals play a valuable role in our society by doubting, questioning and challenging authority at ALL levels, not just Exxonís. Corporate media is the source of the worldís longest emergency called global warming.
CO2 is going to destroy our planet after billions of years of evolution? You canít be serious. If so, itís funny.
Kudos Meme, you are at the top of your game.
Sincerely,
-koolaid
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#2649 Feb 20, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Some Silly GW Headlines:
Planting trees 'contributes to global warming
Northern Forests May Increase Temperatures by 10 Degrees by 2100, New Study Says; Deforestation Could Cool the Planet
No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature By Richar...
Trees to offset the carbon footprint
Love & Music? Yes. Carbon? No.
Is "Climate Change" Really About the Temperature?
$100 MILLION FUND Endowment created for global-warming studies To scientists: Donít stifle dissent
"What we have here is failure... to communicate"- a consensus.
-Coolhand Luke

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2650 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You've tried to say this kind of thing before. If you have peer-reviewed science that "disproves" AGW/CC theory, by all means, enlighten us. Post the links.
Sure I post one or two to get you started. As for the rest, there is now thousand of studies if you care to look. Yes I know the third is a blog but it has the titles and authors of seven studies and 37 citations which you can use as a starting point for the research. All valid sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists...

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.p...

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/10/sev...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2651 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It's true that magazines need to sell copy. But Scientific American is a very old publication, & they know full well that if they print lies & distortions, they'll eventually be discovered.
The truth ALWAYS comes out in science. It may take months, years, decades or centuries, but because science must by repeatable by others, deception is ALWAYS discovered. Reputable science magazines like Sci Amer wouldn't print lies like you imply.
Will they be discovered and what if they are discovered. Just print a retraction that hardly anyone will notice. As for old publications, there is the Old Famer's Almanac, a very old publication that has a history of weather prediction going back a couple of centuries now. They have published stories about climate and they would be in far more trouble if they printed lies and distortions since some people depend on what is printed for their livelyhood unlike Scientific America.

The fact is that if you were to look up old copies of Scientific American on microfiche from the seventies that they were onboard the global ice age band wagon. Then again they were not the only scientific magazine that was making that prediction or even the only magazine for that matter. Even NASA believed it was true at one point. They even said "the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere", that according to NASA at the time that CO2 had a cooling effect. Notice the NASA Offical on the first page.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/13...

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/Envir...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2652 Feb 21, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was wondering how your credible looking citation would have it backwards about the atmosphere being the cause instead of its CO2 atmosphere.
So I pulled it up. And of course, it doesn't mention why Venus is hotter than Venus.
Your Rush Limbaugh Dittohead credentials are showing.
You really need to read what you are posting. Notice that you said that venus is hotter than venus. How can venus be hotter than venus. They are the same planet. Nor do I believe you bothered to do more than quickly skim the source I provided. Otherwise you would of known that it stated the reason why venus is hotter than mercury was that venus had an atmosphere and mercury did not.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2653 Feb 21, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
"What we have here is failure.......
What "Dont drink the koolaid" failed at is a mathematics & science degree. Also, it has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, which it might not have either.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2654 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I post one or two to get you started. As for the rest, there is now thousand of studies if you care to look. Yes I know the third is a blog but it has the titles and authors of seven studies and 37 citations which you can use as a starting point for the research. All valid sources.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists...
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.p...
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/10/sev...
The Telegraph is a tabloid rag that doesn't have journalistic standards as "high" as the National Enquirer, & hockeystick is a denier blog. Puh-leeeze, Tina, this is cr*p. You have to post links to peer-reviewed science.

The middle link is to a paper published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is a fringe science publication of highly questionable reliability. The author of the paper is an (alleged) emeritus academic in chemistry & biochem from the Univ of Sciences in Philly. Of course the USP is primarily a PHARMACY & health sciences school. Does that sound like someone you can trust WRT climatology?

Uh, NO!

Sure enough, look at a passage of his on p 729:

"If the AGW Hypothesis is correct, the CO2 in the atmosphere must absorb infrared radiation from the Earthís surface. This increases the amplitude of molecular vibration, another way of saying that the CO2 molecules warm up. Any such vibration would be communicated and shared with all the other gas molecules in the air. If this happened, the warmer air could warm the surface by
reradiating infrared or by convection/conduction."

He does NOT understand the physics of radiative forcing, the mechanism by which GHGs further warm the earth. The air does NOT have to be warmer, & it does NOT warm the earth by convection or conduction (which, BTW, are 2 different things, not one, as he tries to imply), it warms the earth by (re-)radiation.

The sun warms the earth by visible light, which passes thru the atmosphere unobstructed. The earth radiates in the infrared. Some of that heat is convected back into space, but some is absorbed & reradiated in all directions by greenhouse gases. Some of that reradiated IR is directed back toward the earth, further warming it.

Sorry, Tina, your links are CLUELESS.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2655 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has an atmosphere, else its not hotter than the day side temperature of Mercury, the maximum: 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees Fahrenheit).
Which means that there is not much difference between the mid afternoon temperature (427 C) on Mercury and Venus. Also, given the atmospheric density of Venus has more to do with the temperature than the actual gas at ninty times the pressure of earth.

Also the orginal link actually pointed out that the reason why Mercury's temperatures are not higher is because it lacks the atmosphere.

maybe you should take the time to and do the actual research instead of rushing around making mistakes. It also tells others that your not taking the time to think before you post.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/OlesyaNis...

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/GeorgeRya...

http://www.space.com/18645-mercury-temperatur...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2656 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that if you were to look up old copies of Scientific American on microfiche from the seventies that they were onboard the global ice age band wagon. Then again they were not the only scientific magazine that was making that prediction or even the only magazine for that matter.
No. Scientific America never said that.

You appear to enjoy making things up.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Even NASA believed it was true at one point. They even said "the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere", that according to NASA at the time that CO2 had a cooling effect. Notice the NASA Offical on the first page.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/13...
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/Envir...
You've scrambled everything up again.

For "the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" is a true statement.

Here, it's probably lost on you, but maybe someone else will get it.

: It's not the CO2 that's feared to create the catastrophic warming, it's the FEEDBACKS!

#1 Warming associated with CO2 is logarithmic, that means each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller increases in temperature.

That's right I said SMALLER.

#2 It is the INDIRECT effects of CO2 warming (ie the FEEDBACKS) that worry scientists -- including 97% of climatologists and virtually ALL of the world respected science organizations.

--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)

-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts to reflect sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth, when the ice has fully melted.

--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.

-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2657 Feb 22, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Wow, you guys make it up. Well since you don't like science.. let's use a thought experiment.
the pressure under Earth's oceans is greater than the atmospheric air pressure on Venus...
So if it was just pressure, we would expect lower levels of the ocean to be a lot warmer, no?
<<The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 910 metres below the surface of the ocean. The atmosphere has a mass of 4.8◊1020 kg, about 93 times the mass of the Earth's total atmosphere. The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth.
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Ve...
The Mariana Trench (the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean) has a vertical pressure bar equal to 1000 X the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level -- ie 10 times more than Venus' average.
AND
--as one descends lower in the ocean (where pressure increases), the temperature DECREASES not increases.
-- in the Mariana Trench the water temperature ranges from 34-39 degrees F (1-4 degrees C).[At the bottom of the trench the water column above exerts a pressure of 1,086 bars (15,750 psi), over one thousand times the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench
The dayside of Mercury is hotter than the dayside of Venus because Mercury is closer to the Sun.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2658 Feb 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The dayside of Mercury is hotter than the dayside of Venus because Mercury is closer to the Sun.
"The closest planet to the sun, Mercury, is not the hottest. Venus is. The surface temperature of Venus is 870 F (740 K), hot enough to melt lead. The planet's thick carbon dioxide atmosphere traps solar heat, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. On Venus, global warming has run amok."

Source: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...

I think I'll trust NASA over you. Thanks.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2659 Feb 22, 2013
I should add. Be sure and explain to me why you think something you state without ANY source is more credible than NASA.

If you can...
PHD

Overton, TX

#2660 Feb 23, 2013
Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2661 Feb 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
Yes, let's look at Roy Spencer's actual temperatures. What do you think? Are they rising overall?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upload...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2662 Feb 23, 2013
phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
Dr. Roy Spencer,
"phud fetid feces face fiend" using a discredited report, made by an oft discredited scientist, shows that "phud fetid feces face fiend" has no science or mathematics degrees, & has a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa..... if it has that.

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
Hottest November On Record 19 min DonPanic 29
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 41 min Brian_G 1,786
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 44 min Brian_G 27,952
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 2,655
The anthropogenic global climate warming is an ... 1 hr IBdaMann 68
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr kal 49,174
The Real Outcome of Global Warming Talks in Lim... 3 hr Earthling-1 1