gcthomas
New member
Why don't you read the paper and find out what it is about? You posted the link after all. It'll save you from posting self-serving non sequiturs and embarrassing yourself.
Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Why don't you read the paper and find out what it is about? You posted the link after all. It'll save you from posting self-serving non sequiturs and embarrassing yourself.
brewmama
New member
I did. You offer no evidence of any kind to disagree with anything I've posted beyond your snarky "I know better". So why should anyone listen to you?
No it isn't! I've even seen it done in an aquarium on a kids science show several years ago! It's really easy to do. Carbon dioxide is dry ice. Put warm air in an aquarium and measure the heat escaping just above it. Then they took the vapors of dry ice and let them get to the same temperature of the aquarium. The heat didn't escape nearly as much. I'm not sure I've got the experiment right because I'm going by memory. And I'm unable to open this file....
http://www.aquarium.ucsd.edu/Exhibits/Feeling_the_Heat/fth_movies/fth_3min_sm.mov
But you can find it here I think. Just click on
Birch Aquarium at UCSD
http://museumplanner.org/climate-change-exhibitions/
gcthomas
New member
Because you keep posting links to material that isn't what you say it is. You apparently only understand just enough to crib from a single denialist blog without being able to critically analyse it, so you end up posting links hoping they say what the blogger hinted they say. But you have been taken in by the hype, and since it agrees with your preconceptions you give it all a free pass.
ClimateSanity
New member
They didnt show a temperature rise. The rest is just redirection.
Windows Media won't allow me to open the file.
All I can tell you about the experiment I saw on a kids science show was the instructor measured the heat escaping the aquarium before the gas was put on top. After the gas was placed, the temperature didn't escape nearly as much. It's actually elementary science.
ClimateSanity
New member
You mean the heat didn't escape nearly as much....well duh! Its an aquarium. All that shows is that co2 absorbs heat. A greenhouse traps heat and does so by blocking convection. No experiment has ever shown a rise in temperature of an enclosed gas with co2 in it compared with just regular air after both are subjected to infrared radiation. CO2 may absorb radiation but convection and conduction are much more prevalent in the atmosphere. Radiating heat is mostly reserved for the outer limit of the atmosphere. The absorption of radiation does not slow down either the convection process nor the conduction process and the absorbed radiation reaches outer space in exactly the same time.
You sound really smart. It's too bad a grammar school science experiment debunks you. What else would I expect from somebody in denial. The republicans have really made a fool of themselves on this issue. That's why they've been really silent on the issue. And you???
ClimateSanity
New member
Irony anyone? Your grammar school experiment is a simple hoax that fails to show any greenhouse effect. Its smoke and mirrors for simple minded fools. All it shows is that carbon dioxide absorbs heat radiation. Nobody disputes that. It is the simple minded fool who thinks that proves the misnamed greenhouse effect. It does not block convection nor does it trap heat, nor does it raise the temperature of the gas.
gcthomas
New member
Why are you mentioning blocking convection? :idunno:
ClimateSanity
New member
That is what a real greenhouse does. Quit calling your warming theory the greenhouse effect when it doesn't do what a greenhouse does. As far as I understand the current theory of warming, you guys are saying CO2 traps heat. It does no such thing. It absorbs it. So i suppose you call it a greenhouse because it supposedly keeps heat from escaping like a real greenhouse. My issue with disturbo is claiming a grade school experiment proves the greenhouse effect as you guys define it. The experiment momentarily slowed the release of heat. If that is all you guys are claiming.....it isnt much at all. The aquarium prevented the free flow of air and thereby slowed down the release of heat. The atmosphere does not restrict the flow of air and therefore will not slow down the release of heat like the aquarium. Its called misdirection. You are showing one thing very unlike the thing you are trying to prove and then calling it the same thing. The uncritically thinking masses will swallow it whole.
gcthomas
New member
So, the gas absorbs thermal radiation from the Earth's surface, then emits it later in all directions.
Don't you see what the effect of that must be? (clue: only half of what is absorbed is emitted out in the direction of space. Where do you think the other half goes?)
Last edited:
Not quite. Warm bodies emit photons (light) into space, causing them to lose energy and thus cool down. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation in a certain band. They then re-radiate this energy in all directions, including back toward the planet, as infrared radiation. The planet surface absorbs that infrared radiation that's directed back toward it, and heats up. And the process repeats. It's a feedback loop with infrared radiation. It doesn't directly trap heat.
Well, how do you think the Earth's atmosphere exchanges heat energy with space? Not by conduction or convection, because it's a near vacuum in space. The planet radiates the energy out into space in the form of photons. This is pretty analogous to building walls that partially block the heat-shedding processes in a greenhouse.
As do the walls of a greenhouse. They slow down the release of heat from the inside, which changes the thermal budget, which raises the temperature. It's true that the mechanism is different on a planetary scale, but now that that's been explained, what's the problem?
The planet doesn't release heat to space by convection. There's no air to speak of in space to convect with. The greenhouse effect blocks the mechanism that does exist, which is radiative heat loss.
Here's a demo of the process using soda bottles:
| Demo | |
The cool down may come on even faster.
You know what is really dumb, they should have just stayed with door number 1 and the "global cooling" from emissions. Then the foolish wouldn't see so easily through the hoax.
The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.
Since the early 1800s we have enjoyed healthy solar cycles and the rich agriculture and mild northern temperatures that they guarantee. During the Middle Ages, however, Earth felt the impact of four solar minimums over the course of 400 years..... The last Maunder Minimum and its accompanying mini-Ice Age saw the most consistent cold, continuing into the early 1800s.
Since the early 1800s we have enjoyed healthy solar cycles and the rich agriculture and mild northern temperatures that they guarantee. During the Middle Ages, however, Earth felt the impact of four solar minimums over the course of 400 years..... The last Maunder Minimum and its accompanying mini-Ice Age saw the most consistent cold, continuing into the early 1800s.
You know what is really dumb, they should have just stayed with door number 1 and the "global cooling" from emissions. Then the foolish wouldn't see so easily through the hoax.
In the 2009 "climategate scandal", e-mails and documents from IPCC-affiliated scientists were leaked that indicated they had manipulated data and reports to jibe with the AGW theory. References were made to "hiding the decline" through the use of "tricks". Then in 2012 Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and self-described whistle-blower, caught the NOAA changing temperature data from the 1930s to make the decade appear colder than it had been. Another whistle-blower, blogger Tony Heller, although clearly aligned with conservative groups like the Heartland Institute, has amassed impressive data. He claims that, since 1997, the world has actually been getting colder and Goddard and the NOAA are committing "climate fraud". The NOAA has declined to respond.
ClimateSanity
New member
No, I don't see that. The CO2 doesn't just sit still absorbing and emitting radiation. The molecule is moving and bumping into other molecules and being moved up in mass in convection. Hot air rises. Each molecule also vibrates is a number of different ways. All of these change the energy of the molecule. Each molecule only releases radiation in certain quanta. It is much more likely that heat transfer is occurring through convection and conduction. It is , therefore unlikely that half of the radiation absorbed, finds its way back to the surface. What ultimately counts is whether the absorption of radiation , or increase in absorption, slows down the amount of heat arriving at the top of the atmosphere. It doesn't get to the top of the atmosphere by radiation; but by conduction and convection. Any extra absorption of radiation will not slow down that process.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homophobes
[Al Gore explains why he’s optimistic about stopping global warming] "...Well, I think the most important part of it is winning the conversation. I remember as a boy when the conversation on civil rights was won in the South. I remember a time when one of my friends made a racist joke and another said, hey man, we don’t go for that anymore. The same thing happened on apartheid. The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition. A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We’re winning that conversation.
The conversation on global warming has been stalled because a shrinking group of denialists fly into a rage when it’s mentioned..." Full text: Al Gore explains why he’s optimistic about stopping global warming
"All left wing hysterias involve bigger government." :Commie: - Dennis Prager Ge 8:22
Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:
See:
Global Warming
Poverty of Nations
well if he wants to resort to insults as proof of his source of income that is his choice, why should he use facts when insults are so much easier. surely his false accusations support his agenda
You're missing the forest for the trees. Heat can conduct or convect only in the atmosphere. So while it's true that convection or conduction could potentially carry the heat higher in the atmosphere to some extent, the only way that it departs the atmosphere into space is by radiation. Without this mechanism, the atmosphere would get hotter and hotter and hotter without stopping. Incidentally, this is also how the energy from the Sun arrives at the planet in the first place. And since the entire atmosphere and planet emit radiation, not just the top of the atmosphere, whether that radiation is reabsorbed before it reaches space is quite relevant to the heat budget, and changing the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared radiation changes the temperature of the atmosphere.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
In much of the atmosphere, it does just that.
Only in the troposphere and mesosphere. The stratosphere has a reversed temperature gradient, getting hotter with altitude, which suppresses convection between 10 and 50 km altitude.
Conduction through 100 km of air? You gotta be kidding! And as above, no bulk convection in the stratosphere, which is why Concorde had such smooth flying conditions.
You are relying on half remembered high school science bolstered by skimming web sites - that is not a good way to ascertain how the atmosphere behaves.