Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho

ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
The earth surface receives 324 watts per square meter from downwelling atmospheric radiation. It emits 390 watts per square meter back into the atmosphere. The atmosphere cools the surface instead of warming it.

The green house gases do not trap radiation; they convert it into increases kinetic and potential energy.

Real green houses block convection. The atmospheric greenhouse supposedly blocks radiation. Its either ignorance or sheer dishonesty to claim they operate the same.

If co2 is warming the earth, it is not by downwelling radiation. You guys have to come up with another mechanism.
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Gore hosting 24-hour live climate webcast from Eiffel Tower
Feed cut after 5 hours; terror interrupted

2013053023gore.jpg
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
ClimateSanity said:
The earth surface receives 324 watts per square meter from downwelling atmospheric radiation. It emits 390 watts per square meter back into the atmosphere. The atmosphere cools the surface instead of warming it.
Click to expand...
I'd like a citation for that, since it doesn't match the data.

ClimateSanity said:
The green house gases do not trap radiation; they convert it into increases kinetic and potential energy.
Click to expand...
Correct, and no-one has said differently: the gases trap energy, or heat.

ClimateSanity said:
Real green houses block convection. The atmospheric greenhouse supposedly blocks radiation. Its either ignorance or sheer dishonesty to claim they operate the same.
Click to expand...
And again, if you could find a quote from a scientist that has said anything like that I'd be amazed. You are tilting at windmills here.

ClimateSanity said:
If co2 is warming the earth, it is not by downwelling radiation. You guys have to come up with another mechanism.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the mechanism proposed, so how would you judge a different one?
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
There is a greenhouse effect but it is not radiative in nature. It is pressure and gravity driven and it is derived from only using the first law of thermodynamics and the gas laws. It was developed by maxwell and preceded Arrhenius by 24 years. It makes no mention of greenhouse gases or radiative emissions. Nevertheless, it totally accounts for the 33 ° difference between the temperature of the earth with and without its atmosphere. This theory has been proven with experiment whereas Arrhenius's theory has not ;claims of it not withstanding.

For further explanation see:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
ClimateSanity said:
There is a greenhouse effect but it is not radiative in nature. It is pressure and gravity driven and it is derived from only using the first law of thermodynamics and the gas laws. It was developed by maxwell and preceded Arrhenius by 24 years. It makes no mention of greenhouse gases or radiative emissions. Nevertheless, it totally accounts for the 33 ° difference between the temperature of the earth with and without its atmosphere. This theory has been proven with experiment whereas Arrhenius's theory has not ;claims of it not withstanding.

For further explanation see:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
Click to expand...

A sample quote from your link should suffice:
The radiative greenhouse theory also makes the absurd assumption a cold body can make a hot body hotter, disproven by Pictet's experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck's law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics.


The article is scientifically uninformed. The cold body referred to is the upper atmosphere, above the warmer body of the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface. The error is that the allegedly colder body is thermally shielding the Earth from the even colder radiative 'body' of space, which at 3K is very cold. The cold atmosphere is hot in comparison, so the argument is bunk.

Lets have some quotes by proper atmospheric scientists instead of the standard crank engineer sources.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
gcthomas said:
A sample quote from your link should suffice:
The radiative greenhouse theory also makes the absurd assumption a cold body can make a hot body hotter, disproven by Pictet's experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck's law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics.


The article is scientifically uninformed. The cold body referred to is the upper atmosphere, above the warmer body of the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface. The error is that the allegedly colder body is thermally shielding the Earth from the even colder radiative 'body' of space, which at 3K is very cold. The cold atmosphere is hot in comparison, so the argument is bunk.

Lets have some quotes by proper atmospheric scientists instead of the standard crank engineer sources.
Click to expand...

Yet despite all your "scientific certainties", reality does not match up with your favored theory, which negates the basis of it out of hand.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
gcthomas said:
You have no answer but a bland denial - is that all you can offer other than quotes from crank blog posts?
Click to expand...

Plenty of scientists have been quoted as disavowing CAGW, yet you out of hand deny and ignore them all. And have the nerve to say I have bland denials!!
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
brewmama said:
Plenty of scientists have been quoted as disavowing CAGW, yet you out of hand deny ...
And have the nerve to say I have bland denials!!
Click to expand...

By plenty you must mean the insignificantly tiny minority of scientists that have both suitable expertise and a general disagreement with the consensus.

brewmama said:
and ignore them all.
Click to expand...

As you ignore vastly more scientists? When you come across, what is it that makes a firm denier ignore the firm consensus and go with the cranky tiny minority of dissenters? It can't be because you have learned enough to make a valid scientific judgement, so it must be some sort of beauty contest.

You just like the cut of the denialist jibs, don't you?
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
gcthomas said:
By plenty you must mean the insignificantly tiny minority of scientists that have both suitable expertise and a general disagreement with the consensus.
As you ignore vastly more scientists? When you come across, what is it that makes a firm denier ignore the firm consensus and go with the cranky tiny minority of dissenters? It can't be because you have learned enough to make a valid scientific judgement, so it must be some sort of beauty contest.

You just like the cut of the denialist jibs, don't you?
Click to expand...

By using such false statements and numbers (tiny minority, vastly more scientists, firm consensus, etc) while ignoring the proof that those numbers are incorrect and distorted, you lose all your credibility.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
brewmama said:
By using such false statements and numbers (tiny minority, vastly more scientists, firm consensus, etc) while ignoring the proof that those numbers are incorrect and distorted, you lose all your credibility.
Click to expand...

"The lady doth protest too much"

Please show me a well conducted survey that shows differently, then. Or else you are just hot air. Which is what 2015 seems to be full of also. :)
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
gcthomas said:
"The lady doth protest too much"

Please show me a well conducted survey that shows differently, then. Or else you are just hot air. Which is what 2015 seems to be full of also. :)
Click to expand...

I have already shown how false and distorted your claims are and you just ignore it. I don't have time to repeat myself all the time. Get out of your little bubble and educate yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top