quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Could our lack of scientific literacy doom us as a species? Sadly, it could. Under a dictatorship things are simple. You convince the dictator who is hopefully educated and capable of reason and your job is done. The dictator tells the people what to think. In a democracy, people have to be able to think for themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The irony that you of all people are complaining of scientific illiteracy is stunning. Or the birth of self-awareness that might lead to your acquiring a real understanding of the Natural Sciences? An intimidating job from where you now are, but you Might pull it off? Best wishes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The irony that you of all people are complaining of scientific illiteracy is stunning. Or the birth of self-awareness that might lead to your acquiring a real understanding of the Natural Sciences? An intimidating job from where you now are, but you Might pull it off? Best wishes.

I am not an ordinary person; hence, your prejudices do not apply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I like to hear the beanie wearers try to tell people that; "heat gets trapped deep in the oceans."
Isn't it one of the basic rules of thermodynamics that "heat rises?"
If it can rise out of the earth in the form of a volcano it can certainly rise out of the ocean much easier.
Listening to the tin foil hat warming crew is like trying to question a sociopath. You catch them on one thing and they cover it up and go onto the next.
Like playing "whack a mole."
Engaging in "Political Correctness" or trying to preach "Global Warming" should be misdemeanors.

I like to hear the scientifically ignorant who don't know that water has one of the highest heat storage capacities per gram of any naturally occurring substance.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

Liquid Ammonia, Liquid Helium and Liquid Hydrogen are higher but I think you'll admit that most folk are unlikely to encounter them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I like to hear the beanie wearers try to tell people that; "heat gets trapped deep in the oceans."
Isn't it one of the basic rules of thermodynamics that "heat rises?"
If it can rise out of the earth in the form of a volcano it can certainly rise out of the ocean much easier.
Listening to the tin foil hat warming crew is like trying to question a sociopath. You catch them on one thing and they cover it up and go onto the next.
Like playing "whack a mole."
Engaging in "Political Correctness" or trying to preach "Global Warming" should be misdemeanors.

I like to hear the scientifically ignorant who don't know that water has one of the highest heat storage capacities per gram of any naturally occurring substance.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

Liquid Ammonia, Liquid Helium and Liquid Hydrogen are higher but I think you'll admit that most folk are unlikely to encounter them.

Hill, if that's true then water would rise even faster. Or if it were in some type of container.
Warm water isn't going to stay on the bottom especially when cold water is sinking and pushing it up.
How could it even get to the bottom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

are you bored with only having 4 paddles Bene? The only reason I can see for this thread is to gain a 5th paddle ( if that actually exists) or that you are really really bored and have clicked on some republican climate change 101 site and thought you could have a go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

My goal is to present the material in an unbiased fashion. If I appear biased do try to look past it.

As a first approximation I thought of the following question: If the earth's atmosphere were compressed to the same density as liquid water how deep would it be?

Changes in the amount of carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. If it were one meter thick, one part per million would correspond to a layer that is one micron thick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_wrap "Common plastic wrap is roughly 0.5 mils, or 12.5 µm, thick"

In other words the layer would be less than 1/12th the thickness of common plastic wrap.

It is not my intention to make a point per se. Understanding how the blanket works is involved because it isn't plastic wrap. The atmosophere has no surfaces so the notions of reflectivity and such don't make complete sense. Thinking about how thick it is helps.

I suspect many here are not especially well educated on the topic yet have a great deal to say on it. They defer to the experts, but that is an appeal to authority which is fallacious. Technically speaking, at the present time there are no experts on the topic. There are people who earn a living at it, but they are like experts in astrology. They know something about the motions of the planets, but how it relates to the weather remains unclear.

But clearly there is science behind it. What makes a one micron layer or one that is a hundred microns thick matter so much? If the layers had surfaces, it would make a difference because it would be like wrapping the planet in a hundred blanks, but the atmosphere has no surfaces and the carbon dioxide is diffuse.

Let's face it no one has explained any of this stuff to us. So it is up to us to figure it out for ourselves. Unfortunately, many feel that how they feel about it emotionally is sufficient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Benevolent, I got something out of this thread too.
It just bolsters my opinion that the global warmers (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) are crazier than shithouse rats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The irony that you of all people are complaining of scientific illiteracy is stunning. Or the birth of self-awareness that might lead to your acquiring a real understanding of the Natural Sciences? An intimidating job from where you now are, but you Might pull it off? Best wishes.

I am not an ordinary person; hence, your prejudices do not apply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

My goal is to present the material in an unbiased fashion. If I appear biased do try to look past it.

As a first approximation I thought of the following question: If the earth's atmosphere were compressed to the same density as liquid water how deep would it be?

Changes in the amount of carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. If it were one meter thick, one part per million would correspond to a layer that is one micron thick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_wrap "Common plastic wrap is roughly 0.5 mils, or 12.5 µm, thick"

In other words the layer would be less than 1/12th the thickness of common plastic wrap.

It is not my intention to make a point per se. Understanding how the blanket works is involved because it isn't plastic wrap. The atmosophere has no surfaces so the notions of reflectivity and such don't make complete sense. Thinking about how thick it is helps.

I suspect many here are not especially well educated on the topic yet have a great deal to say on it. They defer to the experts, but that is an appeal to authority which is fallacious. Technically speaking, at the present time there are no experts on the topic. There are people who earn a living at it, but they are like experts in astrology. They know something about the motions of the planets, but how it relates to the weather remains unclear.

But clearly there is science behind it. What makes a one micron layer or one that is a hundred microns thick matter so much? If the layers had surfaces, it would make a difference because it would be like wrapping the planet in a hundred blanks, but the atmosphere has no surfaces and the carbon dioxide is diffuse.

Let's face it no one has explained any of this stuff to us. So it is up to us to figure it out for ourselves. Unfortunately, many feel that how they feel about it emotionally is sufficient.

Well, some one just did. In black and white (and a few colors).

Hope you read the entire post:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

Fascinating stuff!

Forceful stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I like to hear the beanie wearers try to tell people that; "heat gets trapped deep in the oceans."
Isn't it one of the basic rules of thermodynamics that "heat rises?"
If it can rise out of the earth in the form of a volcano it can certainly rise out of the ocean much easier.
Listening to the tin foil hat warming crew is like trying to question a sociopath. You catch them on one thing and they cover it up and go onto the next.
Like playing "whack a mole."
Engaging in "Political Correctness" or trying to preach "Global Warming" should be misdemeanors.

I like to hear the scientifically ignorant who don't know that water has one of the highest heat storage capacities per gram of any naturally occurring substance.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

Liquid Ammonia, Liquid Helium and Liquid Hydrogen are higher but I think you'll admit that most folk are unlikely to encounter them.

Hill, if that's true then water would rise even faster. Or if it were in some type of container.
Warm water isn't going to stay on the bottom especially when cold water is sinking and pushing it up.
How could it even get to the bottom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

DomKen, I've heard of tides and currents and they wouldn't be pushing trillions of tons of warmer water into the deep ocean thus bypassing the laws of thermodynamics just because the Pope of Global Warming needs to sell 100k more tickets to his lectures @ $75 a pop because he wants to buy a mansion on the beach in S. Calif. and doesn't care if the "oceans will be rising."

quote:


The emissivity of Earth's atmosphere varies according to cloud cover and the concentration of gases that absorb and emit energy in the thermal infrared (i.e., wavelengths around 8 to 14 micrometres). These gases are often called greenhouse gases, from their role in the greenhouse effect. The main naturally-occurring greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. The major constituents of the atmosphere, N2 and O2, do not absorb or emit in the thermal infrared.

quote:


One of the first to recognize that heat radiation is related to light was the English astronomer William Herschel, who noticed in 1800 that if a thermometer was moved from one end of a prism produced spectrum to the other, the highest temperatures would register below the red band, where no light was visible. Because of this position, this form of radiation is called infrared (infra being the Latin word for below or within). Sometimes this kind of radiation is called "heat waves" but this is a misnomer. Recall that heat is the transfer of internal energy from one region to another. As all forms of electromagnetic radiation transfer internal energy, they could be called heat.

quote:


Heat radiation (as opposed to particle radiation) is the transfer of internal energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. For most bodies on the earth, this radiation lies in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:


Heat radiation (as opposed to particle radiation) is the transfer of internal energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. For most bodies on the earth, this radiation lies in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

http://physics.info/radiation/

Why is this true for most bodies on the earth? Is the region different on other planets? If so, why?