Warming crowd fears real debate

[Fun Facts]

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Since your obviously cleverer then me (the point about satellites was my own, I thought it up by myself, I didn't crib it off a website) could you answer my question why do they put IR telescopes in space? or you could continue to abuse me in an infantile fashion, that really helps your cause.

Are you talking about infrared telescopes? Infrared telescopes measure heat in a specific spectrum that the human eye doesn't perceive.

I am interested how this impacts global warming.

[Fun Facts]

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Even though it is present in small amounts CO2 blocks IR in certain wavebands you can see it doing it on a spectrograph whether you believe it or not it clearly does have an effect. I thought we had been over this before. thanks for telling me that CO2 levels and temperature don't correlate I however think you are wrong.
You also use lots of unnecessary adjectives and seem to be emotional about this issue.

CO2 levels and temperatures do not correlate.

Infrared radiation is absorbed in our atmosphere primarily by water vapor. CO2 can also absorb infrared radiation.

CO2 levels are very low when compared to the total atmosphere.

Imagine, you have a city of 1,000,000 people. If CO2 in the atmosphere is 383 ppm that would be like 383 people out of 1,000,000. 95% of all CO2 is naturally produced. So out of 383 people, 364 people represent the amount of CO2 naturally produced in our atmosphere. That leaves 19 people out of 1,000,000 who represent the amount of human produced CO2 in our atmosphere.

The skeptics argument is that 19 people out of 1,000,000 is not enough to impact our climate. Measured data supports this.

There has been no significant temperature increase over the historical record whereas there has been an increase in the CO2 levels.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
mind is like a parachute useless unless its open
if you cant think outside the realclimate crap then your pretty retarded

TheWorldAsWeDontKnowIt has an open mind. In fact it is so open that the brains have leaked out..

[LessHypeMoreFact]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
yeah the point is hypo deluded you ignore the vast quantity of science and scientists that prove you are wrong

I have no problem with checking any legitimate skeptic claims. You can start anytime. I've been waiting years for just ONE claims that doesn't fall apart on closer inspection.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
CO2 levels and temperatures do not correlate.

True but misleading. No claim that CO2 was the ONLY factor was ever made so this amounts to a straw man claim.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Infrared radiation is absorbed in our atmosphere primarily by water vapor. CO2 can also absorb infrared radiation.

Which is why they both contribute to the greenhouse effect. That said, water is a feedback because it is temperature sensitive so its level is determined by the temperature, not emissions. It can only 'amplify' warming from permanent GHGs like CO2. Remove all the other GHGs and water would freeze out ( see snowball earth) leading to no greenhouse effect at all.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
CO2 levels are very low when compared to the total atmosphere.

And not an issue. Botulism toxin is very small in relation to body size. That does not stop it from killing the body.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Imagine, you have a city of 1,000,000 people...

Fun facts but meaningless. CO2 levels in the atmosophere have increased by about 40% and this has a significant effect on the greenhouse effect level. And yes, isotopic studies show that the increase was caused by our fossil fuel consumption.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
The skeptics argument is that 19 people out of 1,000,000 is not enough to impact our climate. Measured data supports this.

No. It doesn't. And the argument about the small amount of GHGs does not equate to their EFFECT.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
There has been no significant temperature increase over the historical record whereas there has been an increase in the CO2 levels.

False. The science shows a clear rise in global temperature from solar/aerosol and GHGs. Solar is a cycle that has limited effect. Aerosols are limited by the refusal of people to put up with 'killer smogs'. Only GHGs have a postive and accumulating level.

[theworldasweknow it]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
TheWorldAsWeDontKnowIt has an open mind. In fact it is so open that the brains have leaked out..

at least I have brains sorry to say you dont

[theworldasweknow it]

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Since your obviously cleverer then me (the point about satellites was my own, I thought it up by myself, I didn't crib it off a website) could you answer my question why do they put IR telescopes in space? or you could continue to abuse me in an infantile fashion, that really helps your cause.

so in other words you cannot explain how a miniscule gas is meant to have an effect far greater than its size

[Fun Facts]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>

False. The science shows a clear rise in global temperature from solar/aerosol and GHGs. Solar is a cycle that has limited effect. Aerosols are limited by the refusal of people to put up with 'killer smogs'. Only GHGs have a postive and accumulating level.

No it doesn't. Science does not show a global increase in temperatures except over a short period of time. This is the problem. If you look at temperatures over a long period of time, no significant increase in warming is shown.

If you compare today to the past 30 years, you will see warming. That is the conundrum of numbers. As a thinking individual, you can make numbers dance and sing to any tune you want to play.

Why are the AGW graphs compiled as deviations from the average temperature of the 1960 to 1990 time period? Who decided that those three decades represented the average temperature of the earth? Why?

Why are graphs not compiled using the actual temperature values? Why not just show the real raw data? Surprise surprise, when you look at just the raw data temperatures, you do not see global warming.

[Fun Facts]

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't see what you just typed and logic have in common. If the atmosphere doesen't effect IR why are IR telescopes on satellites above the atmosphere?

Infrared telescopes are placed above the atmosphere so we can "see" the infrared light, heat energy. After the infrared light enters the atmosphere is absorbed by the water vapor in our atmosphere. CO2 can absorb infrared light/heat/energy but the majority is absorbed by water vapor. Yes, both water vapor and CO2 absorb and reemit the infrared energy in every direction, some at the earth, some back into space.

[Waz]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Infrared telescopes are placed above the atmosphere so we can "see" the infrared light, heat energy. After the infrared light enters the atmosphere is absorbed by the water vapor in our atmosphere. CO2 can absorb infrared light/heat/energy but the majority is absorbed by water vapor. Yes, both water vapor and CO2 absorb and reemit the infrared energy in every direction, some at the earth, some back into space.

I know that you know that;
Could you tell worldasweknowit that please.
Then we could get to the next point.

[Fun Facts]

What is the next point?

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesn't. No. No. NO. NO!
Waaahhhhh

Sorry to upset you Mr Fun. It may be time for your afternoon nap?

[JRS]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
True but misleading. No claim that CO2 was the ONLY factor was ever made so this amounts to a straw man claim.
<quoted text>
Which is why they both contribute to the greenhouse effect. That said, water is a feedback because it is temperature sensitive so its level is determined by the temperature, not emissions. It can only 'amplify' warming from permanent GHGs like CO2. Remove all the other GHGs and water would freeze out ( see snowball earth) leading to no greenhouse effect at all.
<quoted text>
And not an issue. Botulism toxin is very small in relation to body size. That does not stop it from killing the body.
<quoted text>
Fun facts but meaningless. CO2 levels in the atmosophere have increased by about 40% and this has a significant effect on the greenhouse effect level. And yes, isotopic studies show that the increase was caused by our fossil fuel consumption.
<quoted text>
No. It doesn't. And the argument about the small amount of GHGs does not equate to their EFFECT.
<quoted text>
False. The science shows a clear rise in global temperature from solar/aerosol and GHGs. Solar is a cycle that has limited effect. Aerosols are limited by the refusal of people to put up with 'killer smogs'. Only GHGs have a postive and accumulating level.

I love the AGW crisis. It allows me to pretend that I know everything about everything. Signed LessFactAllHype

[LessHypeMoreFact]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
I love the AGW crisis. It allows me to pretend that I know everything about everything. Signed LessFactAllHype

Dear Mr.'LessFactAllHype" (is this an alternate alias?)

Well, certainly it allows some people to pretend that they know something, but in your case it just allows you to post meaningless noise.

[Adrian Godsafe MSc]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
THINK RATIONALLY WILL YOU - ON A PURE LEVEL OF LOGIC - can CO2 expand its size? can it reflect more than it can block? at 400ppm - and thats being generous it can only have 400ppm maximum effect on the atmospheric warming if indeed it does any. And tell me are C02 molecules flat? and are they angled as reflectors? And do they have reflective properties to light? Because otherwise the AGW hoax in theory doesnt even hold up let alone in observation where temps and co2 do not correlate.

CO2 actually a linear molecule with double bonds

structure O=C=O

with absobtion of IR the following...
O==C==O or OCO or O=C==O

and also with those molecular vibration modes also add the ones where the C ends up out of plane with the O or the O out of plane with the CO.

Plenty of vibration certainly. 13CO2 and 14CO2 are even more prone to molecular absorbtion and re radiation.

The tiny amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is enough to raise the temperature above the non greenhouse blackbody ambient, & enough to keep the bulk of H2O on the surface liquid.

That bit IS important, as while H2O is an excepionally good greenhouse gas, it has the nasty habit of dropping out of the sky as condensate,(liquid & solid) and the solid form of H2O although able to also absorb IR is extremely reflective and has an exceptionally large heat capacity, which means it stays solid for a long time & will absorb & re radiate IR while remaining solid making it a pretty good IR mirror in the solid state.

With liquid H2O the extra input of greenhouse gas alters the ambient temperature of the store of liquid H2O, and that change is permanent, explaining the upward temperature increase over the last century.

Without CO2 input by human activity the trend with liquid H2O on the planet surface is a gradual rise to an ambient.

With extra CO2 input the rate of heating to the ambient is faster. The big bit however is CFC from 1950-90s white goods (which are soluble in water at low concentration & being heavy are now floating around in the ocean). That is the main cause of the oceanic temperature spike as a result of their effect being rather better then CO2 as a greenhouse heater, ie. CFC rather than CO2 is the root cause of the "Hockey stick" which is the atmospheric response to oceanic warming as a result of the atmosphere being a shell on top of the high heat capacity store of H2O which is currently warming.

Have a nice day: Ag

ps. I did chemistry as a subsidiary degree 1985-86 for Geology in 1987, so I know about the molecular bonding & IR.
Lists of molecular frequencies (analysed in PhD dating to the 50s) however are hard to find in literature, CO2 & H2O bands do overlap and the re radiated IR spectrum is a narrow bell curve rather than a laser sharp line.

[Brad II]

“GENEVA (Reuters)- Obesity contributes to global warming, too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idU...

In their model, the researchers pegged 40 percent of the global population as obese with a body mass index of near 30. Many nations are fast approaching or have surpassed this level, Edwards said.
BMI is a calculation of height to weight, and the normal range is usually considered to be 18 to 25, with more than 25 considered overweight and above 30 obese.”

Now we know the real reason for anthropogenic global warming. Everyone with a BMI over 22 will be sent to Carbon Neutral Weight Loss AGW Indoctrination Camp where they can learn to eat properly, learn that walking will be the desired mode of transportation and of course learn to think the AGW way. There will be night time emission monitors, if your emissions are too high from consuming too many raw vegetables then it will cost you extra carbon credits which can be purchased from the Al Gore store. I wonder what Al Gores’ BMI is? It seems to be growing very rapidly if not exponentially.

[Fun Facts]

Brad II wrote:

“GENEVA (Reuters)- Obesity contributes to global warming, too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idU...
In their model, the researchers pegged 40 percent of the global population as obese with a body mass index of near 30. Many nations are fast approaching or have surpassed this level, Edwards said.
BMI is a calculation of height to weight, and the normal range is usually considered to be 18 to 25, with more than 25 considered overweight and above 30 obese.”
Now we know the real reason for anthropogenic global warming. Everyone with a BMI over 22 will be sent to Carbon Neutral Weight Loss AGW Indoctrination Camp where they can learn to eat properly, learn that walking will be the desired mode of transportation and of course learn to think the AGW way. There will be night time emission monitors, if your emissions are too high from consuming too many raw vegetables then it will cost you extra carbon credits which can be purchased from the Al Gore store. I wonder what Al Gores’ BMI is? It seems to be growing very rapidly if not exponentially.

You think he's kidding? Google "first of thirty" Kyoto is the first of Al Gore's thirty steps.

[Brad Jenks]

Brad II wrote:

“GENEVA (Reuters)- Obesity contributes to global warming, too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idU...
In their model, the researchers pegged 40 percent of the global population as obese with a body mass index of near 30. Many nations are fast approaching or have surpassed this level, Edwards said.
BMI is a calculation of height to weight, and the normal range is usually considered to be 18 to 25, with more than 25 considered overweight and above 30 obese.”
Now we know the real reason for anthropogenic global warming. Everyone with a BMI over 22 will be sent to Carbon Neutral Weight Loss AGW Indoctrination Camp where they can learn to eat properly, learn that walking will be the desired mode of transportation and of course learn to think the AGW way. There will be night time emission monitors, if your emissions are too high from consuming too many raw vegetables then it will cost you extra carbon credits which can be purchased from the Al Gore store. I wonder what Al Gores’ BMI is? It seems to be growing very rapidly if not exponentially.

Yeah Brad II, but you left out one important thing. The other night I was watching Channel 3 out of Sacramento and the commercial said, "the subprime housing crisis causing people to get fat....news at 11."

So the housing crisis is causing us to get fat and that is causing Glow Bill Warm Man.....

[Brad II]

In the following clip substitute Al Gore for Tommy and AGW for Holiday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Devils Advct]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
True but misleading. No claim that CO2 was the ONLY factor was ever made so this amounts to a straw man claim.
<quoted text>
Which is why they both contribute to the greenhouse effect. That said, water is a feedback because it is temperature sensitive so its level is determined by the temperature, not emissions. It can only 'amplify' warming from permanent GHGs like CO2. Remove all the other GHGs and water would freeze out ( see snowball earth) leading to no greenhouse effect at all.
<quoted text>
And not an issue. Botulism toxin is very small in relation to body size. That does not stop it from killing the body.
<quoted text>
Fun facts but meaningless. CO2 levels in the atmosophere have increased by about 40% and this has a significant effect on the greenhouse effect level. And yes, isotopic studies show that the increase was caused by our fossil fuel consumption.
<quoted text>
No. It doesn't. And the argument about the small amount of GHGs does not equate to their EFFECT.
<quoted text>
False. The science shows a clear rise in global temperature from solar/aerosol and GHGs. Solar is a cycle that has limited effect. Aerosols are limited by the refusal of people to put up with 'killer smogs'. Only GHGs have a postive and accumulating level.

Gee Less. You yourself seem to fail at offering any unargueable points. Man-made emissions of CO2 IS the only arguement. It is what is blamed on AGW (hence the name), and tell us, if you light a match in a room in your house, does your air conditioner kick-on?