Global Warming Standup Comedy

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#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

Eden Prairie, MN

#2648 Feb 20, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
That’s 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 heart’s 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 Exxon’s. Corporate media is the source of the world’s longest emergency called global warming.
CO2 is going to destroy our planet after billions of years of evolution? You can’t be serious. If so, it’s funny.
Kudos Meme, you are at the top of your game.
Sincerely,
-koolaid
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, 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: Don’t 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

Everett, 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 Earth’s 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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#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

Cibolo, 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

Everett, 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.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2665 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."
I showed you that his data was disproven, in earlier threads -- and the editor to Remote Systems that published his paper resigned when he saw the evidence.

(1) in the late 1990s, his UAH was used as a basis for FOX saying the Earth was cooling not warming. The other satellite system RSS wrote a paper showing he had sign errors. Spencer agreed and corrected his data set and VOILA -- suddenly was showing warming about the same as RSS and the weather stations. But FOX, etc never mentioned they had been using bad data. It took him something like until 2005 to admit he had an error. Then he insisted it was no big deal.

(2) Spencer's latest paper was published by Remote sensing and showed it wasn't warming up as much in the Tropics. Except oops NASA and NCAR scientists wrote a paper proving his numbers were wrong here. They used weather balloon data to prove it, so there really was no debate. Satellites estimate heat. Balloon data actually has thermometers aboard, so they have the real temperatures.
The editor of Remote Sensing resigned even though the journal does not "routinely deal with climate change"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment ...

Spencer is a super fundi and hard right Libertarian by the way -- has written he finds Evolution evil and Creationism a better explanation.

So I would agree with you he played an initial important role in satellite development. But he's in disgrace now... at least in the scientific community.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2667 Feb 26, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Scientific America never said that.
You appear to enjoy making things up.
<quoted text>
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.
Somehow I doubt you have looked at the microfitche copies of Scientific America. I would doubt you have even bothered to use Google before opening your mouth and declaring me wrong. That I scrambled everything up again. Nor have you bothered to think about what you posted from a sceintific standpoint. Little things like clouds reflect sunlight and the heat from it back into space. Where that methane being released from thawing perafrost orginated. And yes the ice caps are melting and have been since the end of the last ice age. If you had bothered to do the research you would know that during the ice age that the ice caps extended down to the lower 48. Since then they have been in retreat for most of those ten thousands years.

Your problem isn't that I am making things up. Your problem is I am telling you FACTS that you do not want to hear, or believe. If I was making things up you would find them far more acceptable. The fact is that much of what you are claiming as the truth isn't and what you claim are lies are not.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2668 Feb 26, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Somehow I doubt you have looked at the microfitche copies of Scientific America. I would doubt you have even bothered to use Google before opening your mouth and declaring me wrong. That I scrambled everything up again. Nor have you bothered to think about what you posted from a sceintific standpoint. Little things like clouds reflect sunlight and the heat from it back into space. Where that methane being released from thawing perafrost orginated. And yes the ice caps are melting and have been since the end of the last ice age. If you had bothered to do the research you would know that during the ice age that the ice caps extended down to the lower 48. Since then they have been in retreat for most of those ten thousands years.
Your problem isn't that I am making things up. Your problem is I am telling you FACTS that you do not want to hear, or believe. If I was making things up you would find them far more acceptable. The fact is that much of what you are claiming as the truth isn't and what you claim are lies are not.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the posts between us the only mistake I have seem to have made is disagreeing with your world view.
Just a quick list of mistakes.

(1) You said Mercury was hotter than Venus -- you ran off after I proved you wrong.

(2) You said it was Venus' atmospheric pressure not its CO2 atmosphere than made Venus abnormally warm. I showed you there is stronger pressure under Earth's oceans -- no warmth. You ran off

(3) You claimed volcanic eruptions should be warming the earth. It is well documented in the science literature it has a cooling effect.

(4) You proclaimed no one took global warming seriously anymore. I showed how virtually all the reputable world renown SCIENCE organizations have strong statements supporting the threat of manmade global warming.

You pretended to see only AAAS on the list and to proclaim it a lobbying organization. You ignore for example Britain's Royal Society -- knowing you, you probably don't know who they are.

(5) I showed you where NASA's official view was pro global warming and provided a link that showed a long list of evidence and asked you to respond: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

You gave me a whacky post on Spencer saying he was from NASA. I showed the paper you gave me on Spencer had such bad errors, that the editor of his journal that published it resigned in disgrace. You ran off.

(6) You came back insisting there were OTHER NASA websites that stated global warming was not valid. I challenged you for proof using a website with an official logo from NASA.

You ran off.

(7) So you suggested NASA was a liberal ideology site.

and more recently

(8) That your god, Rush Limbaugh could do just as good a job as putting a man on the moon as NASA.

Yeah, you're really and completely deranged.

:

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
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 17 min Another Damn Liberal 35,606
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 49 min Patriot AKA Bozo 2,068
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 3 hr Into The Night 135
News Warning against carbon tariffs (Jul '09) 12 hr Geezer files 6
News 1875: The Global Warming Solution 13 hr Earthling-1 1
Heat generated by 1 concrete 2 tarmac 3 glass 4... 14 hr Eugene 2
News Scientists Beg for Climate Action (Dec '07) Thu indict EXXON 1,863
More from around the web