General Climate Discussion

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by indy007
Yes. It's like calling a Democrat a liberal, when in fact most of their agenda is socialist. Popularity does not make it right. If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.




Depends what you define as open. Atmospheric gasses don't really block incoming radiation, and only delay outgoing radiation. Calling the atmosphere a greenhouse implies that it "traps heat". "Trapping heat" says that it can get in, but cannot get out. That's incorrect.

Hmmmm...."delays"  thermal radiation long enough to be -273.15 degrees C outside the atmosphere and an "average" of 17.0 degrees C inside the atmosphere... that's a pretty fair swing....and a pretty close description of the "effect" a greenhouse may cause, just not scientifically accurate in principle.  I'd call a swing of 290 degrees a fair amount of "trapping".

As well, I would remind you that heat is not "trapped" in a greenhouse, it may still radiate from the panes of glass, which are much less adept at transference than air molecules are.  If it could not radiate from the glass, it would not be hot to the touch.  (I dunno if any of you ever touched the outside of a greenhouse... it is generally not cold.)

[straffo]

Originally posted by indy007
Yes. It's like calling a Democrat a liberal, when in fact most of their agenda is socialist. Popularity does not make it right. If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.




Depends what you define as open. Atmospheric gasses don't really block incoming radiation, and only delay outgoing radiation. Calling the atmosphere a greenhouse implies that it "traps heat". "Trapping heat" says that it can get in, but cannot get out. That's incorrect.

But a greenhouse is not adiabatic you know ?

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by straffo
But a greenhouse is not adiabatic you know ?

adiabatic means "to create a barrier impassable to heat"  I just said that heat does transfer off the panes of glass in a greenhouse.... therefore I will say that a greenhouse is only partially adiabatic.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
adiabatic means "to create a barrier impassable to heat"  I just said that heat does transfer off the panes of glass in a greenhouse.... therefore I will say that a greenhouse is only partially adiabatic.

Is that like partially pregnant?

[lazs2]

no.. believing in computer models is  like believing you can be partially pregnant.

lazs

[indy007]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Hmmmm...."delays"  thermal radiation long enough to be -273.15 degrees C outside the atmosphere and an "average" of 17.0 degrees C inside the atmosphere... that's a pretty fair swing....and a pretty close description of the "effect" a greenhouse may cause, just not scientifically accurate in principle.  I'd call a swing of 290 degrees a fair amount of "trapping".

As well, I would remind you that heat is not "trapped" in a greenhouse, it may still radiate from the panes of glass, which are much less adept at transference than air molecules are.  If it could not radiate from the glass, it would not be hot to the touch.  (I dunno if any of you ever touched the outside of a greenhouse... it is generally not cold.)

Greenhouse accomplishes its goal through a blocking of convection. To cool it, you just open the upper & lower windows. The difference between an open system (atmosphere) and closed (greenhouse) is significant enough to argue that it's a misleading label. I've been in quite a few greenhouses, and have a small one. You can't open a window to cool the planet, and there is no phsyical barrier such as the pane of glass.

Oh, and after opening your windows, when you close them again, don't forget to bring the co2 levels back up to the ideal ppm to greatly increase your plants' yields!

[MadMan]

Anyone here from OK?  Bet you were wondering where all this global warming is when that Blizzard came through last week weren't you?  

I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere in the 39 pages here, but how about all the ice ages the earth has had... you know the one's before there were humans... were those Man Made?

What about the 1970's scientists who feared global cooling?

As far as the lovely arguments you hear from for us to prove man-made global warming does not exist.  The burdon of proof is on you, not us.  Also it's kind of hard to prove a negative, one of those great philosophical problems.

[indy007]

Originally posted by MadMan
I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere in the 39 pages here,

This is what you could call a "Threadnaught". Big, slow moving, and more or less useless.

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
no.. believing in computer models is  like believing you can be partially pregnant.

lazs

You're a AH player ,don't you

[wrag]

Here is a little more about someone ELSE saying the CO2 does NOT adding up

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319

hmmm............

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by MadMan
Anyone here from OK?  Bet you were wondering where all this global warming is when that Blizzard came through last week weren't you?  

I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere in the 39 pages here, but how about all the ice ages the earth has had... you know the one's before there were humans... were those Man Made?

What about the 1970's scientists who feared global cooling?

As far as the lovely arguments you hear from for us to prove man-made global warming does not exist.  The burdon of proof is on you, not us.  Also it's kind of hard to prove a negative, one of those great philosophical problems.

Madman...I'm just going to say, grab a book, and start reading.  Not an opinion laced OP-ED....just a science book and you make up your mind.  

An increase in precipitation, and henceforth blizzards, are seen as an indication of the effect of climate change.... (you consider it a "cold event", when actually it can be a very big sign of warming.)  No one ever said winter is going away.... and the climatologists have all said they are just going TO GET WORSE and MORE EXTREME as the planet balances, or attempts to balance, the energy it holds.

I will sit here and post answers to your questions, but honestly, I've already done that at least 15 times on this thread and... to be honest, it's gettin quite tired.

Ice ages....
Came about due to a regular shift in the inclination of the earth's orbit that makes us swing outside our "sweet spot" around the sun regularly, approximately every 20,000 years or so.  We are out of that shift, by approximately 10,000 years.

The 1970's fear of a new Ice Age is a BS take that the "disprovers" rely on to make things seem like no one has a clue.  It came about from a small group of scientists who postulated that CFC's cool the atmosphere and in a large amount could kick us back into an ice age.... when in their paper it is stated that the effect could and probably WOULD be overshadowed by an increase in carbon concentrations in the lower atmosphere.... a fact none of these idiots on here that use it to prove a point never look into. A couple of papers were published and then TIME magazine ran a story, followed by others... and suddenly eveyone thinks it is a scientific hypothesis.....  It has been WAY overexagerated, and it was NEVER a consensus among even the group of scientist that published.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Is that like partially pregnant?

Here we go again sir, with your idioms.  An idiot's idioms, one might postulate.

No... it's not like that. You cannot be "partially pregnant".  There can, however be something which is "partially adiabatic".  

I know you engineers like everything to be cut and dry, but don't change the definitions of terms to make it suit your needs.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
no.. believing in computer models is  like believing you can be partially pregnant.

lazs

LAZ...

Stop acting like computer models are the only things that climatologists use.  You prove with every statement that you are ignorant of the science behind any of it.

-Tree rings.
-Ice cores
-Habitat distribution
-Species isolation
-Ice cover
-Hydrology
-Limnology
-Botany

And another 15 or so disciplines are all pointing in the same direction.  Please, stop acting like it's Windows that's telling us what is going on in the world.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Here we go again sir, with your idioms.  An idiot's idioms, one might postulate.

No... it's not like that. You cannot be "partially pregnant".  There can, however be something which is "partially adiabatic".  
 

The definition of an adiabatic process is one for which no heat is gained or lost.  No heat transfer occurs.

If heat is gained or lost, then the process is not adiabatic.

I have a flaw in my character where I am compelled to point out stupid statements.

Yours qualified.

I predict you will attempt to defend your statement.  Let's see if my clairvoyant powers are still intact.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by MORAY37
The 1970's fear of a new Ice Age is a BS take that the "disprovers" rely on to make things seem like no one has a clue.  It came about from a small group of scientists who postulated that CFC's cool the atmosphere and in a large amount could kick us back into an ice age.... when in their paper it is stated that the effect could and probably WOULD be overshadowed by an increase in carbon concentrations in the lower atmosphere.... a fact none of these idiots on here that use it to prove a point never look into. A couple of papers were published and then TIME magazine ran a story, followed by others... and suddenly eveyone thinks it is a scientific hypothesis.....  It has been WAY overexagerated, and it was NEVER a consensus among even the group of scientist that published.

LMAO
You have just about described the trend in of the Global war..........ummmm Climate Change predictions, recants, readjusting, repredicitng, false data, changing again, reverifying then , falling off the wagon to date.
It has gotten to the point of hilarity in the scientific postering concerning the Iceage predictions in some scientific community statements that it is claimed there were never any published papers to begin with. ("Those calculations were never done by the scientific community. They may have been a group of scientist........errrr Ummmm nevermind. It never happened."

View the future of Global Warm..............errrrr Climate Change.

In the 1999 Reith Lecture, Anthony Giddens said that "only about 25 or so years ago, orthodox scientific opinion was that the world was in a phase of cooling. Much the same evidence that was deployed to support the hypothesis of global cooling is brought into play to bolster that of global warming - heat waves, cold spells, unusual types of weather."