RE: So climate change is a Joke?

RE: So climate change is a Joke? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 2:48:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia Exactly. There is NO EXPLICIT DEPENDENCY OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION IN THAT FORMULA! So, it is useless for our purpose. 2 points 1) You were the one who started taking Beer-Lambert. If it is useless in your opinion why bring it up? 2) In reality it is useful for determining how much solar energy is absorbed by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. In chemical analysis you don't know the concentration of the two gases so you use the formula to solve for those concentrations. However if the concentrations are known then you can solve the formula for amount of energy absorbed (pretty obvious and simple).

LookieNoNookie -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 4:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yourdarkdesire You guys have had an interesting discussion, but I want to interject with a couple of suggestions that I haven't seen mentioned yet. You have mentioned the amount of CO2 that people contribute. Have you taken into account the population explosion on this planet? As for a possible source of planetary heating, have you considered the effect of the depletion of the ozone layer. The UV rays are stronger. People burn faster. Is it not possible that people are not the only things heating up? As for the global warming vs climate change terminology. Yes, global warming sounds more dramatic. But that doesn't explain the more severe winters that some locations experience. That is why the terminology changed. Yes, overall, our average temperatures are showing an increase, but heating is not the only meterological phenomenon that is occurring. Like I said at the beginning, just a few thoughts. If you're a Bible thumper, the numbers won't matter (6,000 years), but if you believe in carbon dating, the earth has been through times (when humans occupied the planet) that C02 was vastly higher. Does that mean we aren't contributing to this current event? I'm not smart enough for that. Does it mean we can't do better? I think our own intelligence suggests we can....and should. Is global warming or climate change real? I don't think there's anyone with an IQ above a hot pocket that would debate that. But now the question is....what's causing it? And if we are....in even the smallest possible way....we can do better. Period.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 4:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia Exactly. There is NO EXPLICIT DEPENDENCY OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION IN THAT FORMULA! So, it is useless for our purpose. 2 points 1) You were the one who started taking Beer-Lambert. If it is useless in your opinion why bring it up? 2) In reality it is useful for determining how much solar energy is absorbed by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. In chemical analysis you don't know the concentration of the two gases so you use the formula to solve for those concentrations. However if the concentrations are known then you can solve the formula for amount of energy absorbed (pretty obvious and simple). Ken....no one on this planet is smart enough to solve this or even determine the reasoning behind it..... What we ARE smart enough to do here, on planet Earth is....with all of our new found genius is......to do better.

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 4:46:37 PM)
FR I quote from here: quote: The temperature of the surface of any planet is limited by gravity, atmospheric mass and solar input alone as per the Gas Laws and if any change in the composition of the planet or its atmosphere tries to increase that temperature then the atmospheric circulation simply reconfigures itself to eject the excess faster to space by a variety of radiative and non radiative processes.

ElChupa -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 4:54:44 PM)
The scientific method invites challenge and retesting. It is not about attacking doubters. But, this is the leftist way. Attack attack destroy destroy.

DomKen -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 5:18:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR I quote from here: quote: The temperature of the surface of any planet is limited by gravity, atmospheric mass and solar input alone as per the Gas Laws and if any change in the composition of the planet or its atmosphere tries to increase that temperature then the atmospheric circulation simply reconfigures itself to eject the excess faster to space by a variety of radiative and non radiative processes. Bullshit. The fact is that different atmospheric mixes can retain very different amounts of heat. Just compare Venus to Earth.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 5:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR I quote from here: quote: The temperature of the surface of any planet is limited by gravity, atmospheric mass and solar input alone as per the Gas Laws and if any change in the composition of the planet or its atmosphere tries to increase that temperature then the atmospheric circulation simply reconfigures itself to eject the excess faster to space by a variety of radiative and non radiative processes. Bullshit. The fact is that different atmospheric mixes can retain very different amounts of heat. Just compare Venus to Earth. Well, Ken, if we did....we'd all be (kinda) cooked). Kinda like comparing current mortgage rates with the tire width on SUV's versus a 10 speed. (Try again....as always).

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 5:32:48 PM)
Perhaps you ought to read the webpage that I linked to in my post, DomKen? [8D]

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 5:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR I quote from here: quote: The temperature of the surface of any planet is limited by gravity, atmospheric mass and solar input alone as per the Gas Laws and if any change in the composition of the planet or its atmosphere tries to increase that temperature then the atmospheric circulation simply reconfigures itself to eject the excess faster to space by a variety of radiative and non radiative processes. Bullshit. The fact is that different atmospheric mixes can retain very different amounts of heat. Just compare Venus to Earth. Mars: Carbondioxide = 95,9 % Mean temperature at Solid Surface = 186 to 268 K. Venus: Carbondioxide = 96,5 % The mean temperature on Venus is 726 K. So DomKen, according to you a difference of 0.6 % causes Venus to be about 500 Kelvin hotter than Mars? Then considering that Earth's atmosphere has about 0.04 % of carbondioxide, the temperature here ought to be far below absolute zero... "Throw another brick in the hearth, Honey: it is damned cold here!"

DomKen -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 6:01:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR I quote from here: quote: The temperature of the surface of any planet is limited by gravity, atmospheric mass and solar input alone as per the Gas Laws and if any change in the composition of the planet or its atmosphere tries to increase that temperature then the atmospheric circulation simply reconfigures itself to eject the excess faster to space by a variety of radiative and non radiative processes. Bullshit. The fact is that different atmospheric mixes can retain very different amounts of heat. Just compare Venus to Earth. Mars: Carbondioxide = 95,9 % Mean temperature at Solid Surface = 186 to 268 K. Venus: Carbondioxide = 96,5 % The mean temperature on Venus is 726 K. So DomKen, according to you a difference of 0.6 % causes Venus to be about 500 Kelvin hotter than Mars? Then considering that Earth's atmosphere has about 0.04 % of carbondioxide, the temperature here ought to be far below absolute zero... "Throw another brick in the hearth, Honey: it is damned cold here!" You left off atmospheric density, solar irradiance received and a couple of other factors. However the fact remains. Venus is hotter than it would be without the huge quantity of GHG in its atmosphere. Which completely disproves the liar you quoted.

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 6:29:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fact is that different atmospheric mixes can retain very different amounts of heat. Just compare Venus to Earth. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Mars: Carbondioxide = 95,9 % Mean temperature at Solid Surface = 186 to 268 K. Venus: Carbondioxide = 96,5 % The mean temperature on Venus is 726 K. So DomKen, according to you a difference of 0.6 % causes Venus to be about 500 Kelvin hotter than Mars? Then considering that Earth's atmosphere has about 0.04 % of carbondioxide, the temperature here ought to be far below absolute zero... You left off atmospheric density, solar irradiance received and a couple of other factors. No, I did not: you did. I was merely responding to what you did not left off. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Venus is hotter than it would be without the huge quantity of GHG in its atmosphere. I very much doubt that. There is rampant volcanism down there - and it ain't there because of the 96.5 % of carbondioxide in its atmosphere. It is there because the interior of that planet is boiling hot.

DomKen -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 8:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fact is that different atmospheric mixes can retain very different amounts of heat. Just compare Venus to Earth. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Mars: Carbondioxide = 95,9 % Mean temperature at Solid Surface = 186 to 268 K. Venus: Carbondioxide = 96,5 % The mean temperature on Venus is 726 K. So DomKen, according to you a difference of 0.6 % causes Venus to be about 500 Kelvin hotter than Mars? Then considering that Earth's atmosphere has about 0.04 % of carbondioxide, the temperature here ought to be far below absolute zero... You left off atmospheric density, solar irradiance received and a couple of other factors. No, I did not: you did. I was merely responding to what you did not left off. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Venus is hotter than it would be without the huge quantity of GHG in its atmosphere. I very much doubt that. There is rampant volcanism down there - and it ain't there because of the 96.5 % of carbondioxide in its atmosphere. It is there because the interior of that planet is boiling hot. Actually the era of widescale vulcanism on Venus is long past. There are at best 3 recently active volcanoes on the whole planet. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/science/space/10venus.html?_r=0 The core is not that hot and the source of the intense heat at the surface is the product of solar irreadiance and a very dense atmosphere composed primarily of GHG.

ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 8:24:36 PM)
There are TWO aspects of Lambert-Beer's Law, and you happily ignore that. In fact, the law is a combination of two separate historic laws, just as the Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT) is a combination of Boyle-Mariotte's Law relating pressure and volume at constant temperature and Guy-Lussac's Law describing relationship between temperature and pressure, at constant volume. Lambert's Law deals with energy absorption as a function of path way through a medium, with all concentrations kept constant. Beer's law deals with absorption through a medium where the pathway is kept constant, but the concentration of the species vary. The formula you posted was Lambert's Law. Not Beer's Law. Lambert's Law is irrelevant, as the pathway is not varied (although it certainly is quite complex for a mathematical calculation...). But we are interested in the energy effect of changing concentration, so Beer's Law is valid. Just about all those references you cited and asked me to check CONFIRM that they too think that Beer's law is observed! They even base their calculation of that fact, just as I did! And still: NO ONE has to this date shown me anything that even comes close to a calculation of the heating effect on our globe from various concentrations of carbon dioxide. ALL those that APPEAR to be doing so, are CALIBRATING THEIR DATA on the assumption that ALL the observed global warming is caused by greenhouse gases! This is logic that bites its own tail, and it is NOT proof of anything. I am still looking for that PROOF that carbon dioxide COULD cause at least the main part of the currently observed global warming - and you have not given it. I will even accept a calculated estimate that it is POSSIBLE.... But I know the challenge in this. Beer's law clearly shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE. So that proof/estimate would have to include an explanation of WHY Beer's law breaks down in the case of atmospheric carbon dioxide... And I understand: it is more important to you WHO is right than WHAT is right, and I spot no intention from your side in regards to explaining your point. This throwing references and formulas around with no explaining WHY they are relevant or HOW they support a certain case is quite tiring and not all doing anything to enlighten me, so I am throwing in the towel here - you can continue on your own - it isn't worth my time to check your responses.

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 8:47:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually the era of widescale vulcanism on Venus is long past. You are blathering about subjects that you do not know anything about: that one newspaper article that you linked to states that the surface of Venus is renewed every two and a half million years. In geological terms that is not 'long past'; it means that it is an actively continuing process. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There are at best 3 recently active volcanoes on the whole planet. You ought to read yourself the texts that you link to. They surveyed three of nine suspected geological formations. In every case they hit paydirt. Wanna bet that the other six areas also have active volcanoes? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The core is not that hot And you know that the core is not hot because you took its temperature, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen the source of the intense heat at the surface is the product of solar irradiance and a very dense atmosphere composed primarily of GHG. It does not have anything to do with Green House Gasses. Please stop doing your Cliff Clavin imitation.

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 8:51:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia And I understand: it is more important to you WHO is right than WHAT is right, and I spot no intention from your side in regards to explaining your point. This throwing references and formulas around with no explaining WHY they are relevant or HOW they support a certain case is quite tiring and not all doing anything to enlighten me, so I am throwing in the towel here - you can continue on your own - it isn't worth my time to check your responses. You are perceptive. [;)]

DomKen -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 8:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia There are TWO aspects of Lambert-Beer's Law, and you happily ignore that. In fact, the law is a combination of two separate historic laws, just as the Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT) is a combination of Boyle-Mariotte's Law relating pressure and volume at constant temperature and Guy-Lussac's Law describing relationship between temperature and pressure, at constant volume. Lambert's Law deals with energy absorption as a function of path way through a medium, with all concentrations kept constant. Beer's law deals with absorption through a medium where the pathway is kept constant, but the concentration of the species vary. The formula you posted was Lambert's Law. Not Beer's Law. Lambert's Law is irrelevant, as the pathway is not varied (although it certainly is quite complex for a mathematical calculation...). But we are interested in the energy effect of changing concentration, so Beer's Law is valid. Just about all those references you cited and asked me to check CONFIRM that they too think that Beer's law is observed! They even base their calculation of that fact, just as I did! And still: NO ONE has to this date shown me anything that even comes close to a calculation of the heating effect on our globe from various concentrations of carbon dioxide. ALL those that APPEAR to be doing so, are CALIBRATING THEIR DATA on the assumption that ALL the observed global warming is caused by greenhouse gases! This is logic that bites its own tail, and it is NOT proof of anything. I am still looking for that PROOF that carbon dioxide COULD cause at least the main part of the currently observed global warming - and you have not given it. I will even accept a calculated estimate that it is POSSIBLE.... But I know the challenge in this. Beer's law clearly shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE. So that proof/estimate would have to include an explanation of WHY Beer's law breaks down in the case of atmospheric carbon dioxide... And I understand: it is more important to you WHO is right than WHAT is right, and I spot no intention from your side in regards to explaining your point. This throwing references and formulas around with no explaining WHY they are relevant or HOW they support a certain case is quite tiring and not all doing anything to enlighten me, so I am throwing in the towel here - you can continue on your own - it isn't worth my time to check your responses. No. There is the Beer-Lambert law which defines absorbtion by a mixed gas in any circumstance. It is based on the earlier less useful rules but the equation I provided can be used to determine how much energy is absorbed by a column of air if you know the composition. What is actually true is that you ignored 4 different sources on the matter at hand ad fell back to a very simple rule which is nearly impossible to apply to the entire atrmosphere. You claim there is another source for the warming but have yet to produce a suspect. I will point out that there is none. Until you can actually discuss things rather than throwing otu claims and then deny making them I think this discussion is over.

DomKen -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 9:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually the era of widescale vulcanism on Venus is long past. You are blathering about subjects that you do not know anything about: that one newspaper article that you linked to states that the surface of Venus is renewed every two and a half million years. In geological terms that is not 'long past'; it means that it is an actively continuing process. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There are at best 3 recently active volcanoes on the whole planet. You ought to read yourself the texts that you link to. They surveyed three of nine suspected geological formations. In every case they hit paydirt. Wanna bet that the other six areas also have active volcanoes? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The core is not that hot And you know that the core is not hot because you took its temperature, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen the source of the intense heat at the surface is the product of solar irradiance and a very dense atmosphere composed primarily of GHG. It does not have anything to do with Green House Gasses. Please stop doing your Cliff Clavin imitation. You're claiming the core is so hot that it has kept the Venusian atmosphere at over 400C for the last several billion years. How exactly would basalt, melts at about 600C, be able to radiate enough heat to keep the dense atmosphere (93 times the atmosphereic pressure as Earth) heated to those temps and remain a solid?

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 9:21:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're claiming the core is so hot that it has kept the Venusian atmosphere at over 400C for the last several billion years. How exactly would basalt, melts at about 600C, be able to radiate enough heat to keep the dense atmosphere (93 times the atmosphereic pressure as Earth) heated to those temps and remain a solid? Umm, because? Because it is not basalt radiation that is the dominant process, but magma convection currents? quote: Cliff Clavin's Beer Talk: - It's a little known fact that the tan became popular in what is known as the Bronze Age.

DomKen -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 9:30:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're claiming the core is so hot that it has kept the Venusian atmosphere at over 400C for the last several billion years. How exactly would basalt, melts at about 600C, be able to radiate enough heat to keep the dense atmosphere (93 times the atmosphereic pressure as Earth) heated to those temps and remain a solid? Umm, because? Because it is not basalt radiation that is the dominant process, but magma convection currents? The basalt is the dominat surface material on Venus. If the core is heating the atmosphere it has to do it by heating the basalt which would heat the atmosphere by radiation. Magma convection would be part of the process by which the basalt is heated. So just how hot would the basalt need to be to keep the atmosphere over 400C?

Rule -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/7/2012 10:11:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen just how hot would the basalt need to be to keep the atmosphere over 400C? I dunno and I don't care.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.5302734