Phred said -> [Light causes the ground to heat up. (light becomes heat) ]
Actually, light has potential energy and when it strikes the earth, this potential energy is changed into kinetic energy. This is like a car going 90 mph, hitting a concrete barrier. The car isn't converted into energy but the potential energy of the car's velocity and mass ... is converted into kinetic energy.
Phred-> [The ground radiates that heat into the atmosphere.]
Yes. It does so by emitting light in the spectrum of infrared ... which we can't see with our eyes but can feel on our skin. This is the type of heat we feel when we walk close to a large rock exposed to direct sunlight. Even though we don't touch the rock with our body ... we can feel it "radiating" heat.
Phred->[The more Co2 there is in the atmosphere the more heat it will trap within.
CO2 doesn't trap any heat; it ABSORBS heat. Just like a frying pan on a burner ... the pan will seemingly stop the radiated heat from the burner -for a time- while it is absorbing heat ... but then the pan gets hot and radiates heat just like the burner did before the pan was put on top of it. CO2 works exactly the same way. Where our own atmospheric gases of Nitrogen and oxygen DON'T absorb infrared radiation coming off the ground -(they let it pass through untouched) ... CO2 does ... and it warms up ... and then it radiates the heat it absorbs, just like a frying pan on a burner.
Phred->[Venus wasn't always an atmosphere of sulphuric acid. Light still penetrates it even though the clouds completely cover it. And now it doesn't take much to heat it up.]
Very little light gets down to the surface of Venus; it's really dark on the surface. Most of the sun's light is reflected off the sulfurous clouds surrounding the planet's upper atmosphere -- which is why we can see Venus in the sky as a very bright "star". And so ... it doesn't receive much heat from the sun at all. I don't know why you say that "it doesn't take much to heat it up" because the planet is shielded from the sun by a reflective cover ... and then a heavy insulation blanket underneath that.
If you put a reflective coating -like tinfoil- over a blanket of insulation ... you can stand behind that barrier in front of a raging fire ... and get no heat from the fire on your skin. That's Venus for you. So where DOES it get all of its heat FROM? It's hotter than Mercury and Mercury is closer to the sun. How can that be ... unless there's a heating source INSIDE of the planet of Venus?
Furthermore, the sun only strikes Venus on a single side at any given time. On the other hand, Venus is radiating as much heat outward as can manage to penetrate inward. Insulation and reflection work exactly the same in both directions. BUT .... Venus radiates whatever limited amount can get through its barriers ... IN ALL DIRECTIONS ... whereas the sun's rays are only striking it on one side. The net effect of that is that Venus should be cooling down faster than it can be warming up from the sun's rays.
First, I explained it very clearly in my own words. Along with explaining why you're a fool in my own words.
You're not actually explaining it -- you're stuck on square 1 where you simply repeat the basic overview of what your beliefs are, but when you are presented with problems with your beliefs, you never address the actual issues, you simply keep going back to repeating the claims of what it is you believe in, over and over again.
It's like bringing up problems with sin for example, and going over how it doesn't make sense and how ridiculous it is that someone had to die so that God could forgive you for something that you were born with. When you present believers with the problems of that belief, they never really explain what sin actually is or how the blood of Christ cleans that sin, they simply keep repeating what the belief is over and over again and confuse that with an actual explanation. (while they themselves don't really understand it -- it's simply based upon faith in the end that must not be questioned)
There is a difference between explaining something and simply repeating what it is that you believe in over and over again. ('CO2 did it' is not an explanation -- remember how you guys beat up on creationists for saying "god did it" - and yet, you do the same things yourselves ) And that is a reflection of your own attitude towards science that you have as you believe that others that are much smarter than you, are doing things that are way beyond your capacity to comprehend the claims and so, you believe that you don't have the capacity to understand the theory. People that have that kind of attitude will not educate themselves about climate change and logic, since they believe they are not smart enough to understand what it is about -- they will simply keep restating what their beliefs are. In the end, it's all about faith in things that you believe are beyond your ability to comprehend. (climate change works in mysterious ways that only scientists can understand)
But you are not going to put the icecaps and glaciers back by making up numbers and their effects.
That's true -- you cannot put icecaps and glaciers back by making up numbers and effects; but at the same time, you're also not going to melt them by making up numbers and effects either.
They are melting. Permafrost is melting.
There is nothing unnatural about the melting process. 1/3rd of the earth at one time was covered by ice and it wasn't a thin blanket either. Some of that ice was up to 2km thick. And guess what -- most of that ice from 20k years ago has melted and the earth didn't end. In fact, the very opposite happened -- all that ice melting turned out to be beneficial for the earth. It allowed for life to flourish. And the ice that has melted recently is small peanuts compared to what had melted since the ice age. Global warming has been a great benefit for our planet -- not a doomsday process.
There seems to be a direct corollary to man's burning of fossil fuels.
The key word here is it "seems" -- have you ever heard the saying... things are not always as they seem? Today, it seems that man is warming the earth, a few decades ago, you guys were claiming that man was cooling the earth. But, in order to make your beliefs work, you have to discard data and interpret other data in a way to make it fit your beliefs, and sprinkle it with wild assumptions. But, when you look into earths history itself, you discover that earth is always going through climate change. The earth has a history of warming up and cooling down.
You don't think so? Then you tell ME why everything is melting. Because there can be no doubt that it is.
If your home is broken into, there may indeed be no doubt that it's been broken into, but can there be doubt that Santa or Bill Clinton did it?
Why have glaciers been melting for thousands of years? Probably because earth is always going through climate change. At any given moment, earth has been heating up and cooling down. What drives that process of warming the earth? We don't fully know or understand how the system works and in what fractions, but from what we have observed on Venus and our own planet -- it is a combination of the sun and the heat from the core of the earth. Neither of which the two systems is ever really stable and constant. This is why we see it cool down during the night while on Venus where it is dark all the time, it can be hot on the surface because of the core.
Sun. Light. Heats earth.
Heat radiates into atmosphere.
Atmosphere absorbs heat. CO2 absorbs more heat.
I strongly recommend you take a high-school science course because you have little to no understanding of heat, gases and the geological record.
The atmosphere actually does a horrible job at absorbing heat. (IR) The atmosphere is mostly made up of Nitrogen and oxygen. 78% oxygen and 21% nitrogen. Now yes indeed, certain gases in the atmosphere do have the property of absorbing IR, but oxygen and nitrogen are diatomic gases -- that do not absorb infrared radiation. What that means is that about 98 - 99% of the atmosphere cannot absorb heat, let alone trap it as you seem to believe. 2/3rds of solar energy that hits the earth is absorbed by the earth itself, and the rest (as IR) is bounced back into space -- not enough is absorbed in the atmosphere to heat up the earth to dangerous levels where life could potential come to an end.
But you believe that the heat becomes trapped -- not realizing that during the night, the earth is emitting heat back into space, including the C02 molecules that have absorbed the suns energy. Co2 will absorb heat, but is also emits it back into space as well. Not trapping it inside the earth, like you believe. Have you never really asked yourself why it's cooler during the night or have you just never noticed that before? Or maybe you have gone to bed early your whole life and have always been asleep when it was dark and thus, not ever noticing that it gets cooler without the sun in the sky.
I'm starting to wonder if 'global warming' is for airheads since the atmosphere has trouble absorbing heat and warmists have trouble absorbing knowledge.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in preindustrial times was at 280 ppm. It is now at 392ppm. That's a significant increase.
When you look at earths history of climate change and co2 levels, it's really not that significant enough to become paranoid about. Earth has shown that it's had C02 levels far greater than that of today. C02 levels on earth are never fixed. Take a look at the cambrian era -- the c02 levels at that time were between 4 to 7k ppm. CO2 levels have been less than 400 PPM in only the Carboniferous period and the present. What that means is that for about 70 percent of the last 600 million years, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been above 1000 PPM.
We are still well below the average of the past 600 millions years, the sky did not fall, life did not come to an end, the ecosystem adapted, and the oceans did not "turn" into acid and dissolve all marine life, and you are freaking out over the low levels we have today? Even at 7000 PPM it didn't cause life to end. Nobody even knows what levels of c02 would pose a threat and if we are to learn from earths history and add into that the factor of how life evolves to climate change itself, we are nowhere even close to C02 levels posing a threat to the earth.
In fact, all that C02 from the past 600+ million years has been nothing but good for the earth since plants need C02 to live. But instead, you idiots treat it like it's a poisonous and toxic gas and you panic over something that plants "breath" which gives you oxygen so you can breath yourself. Morons!
While you are taking those high-school science courses, I recommend you pay attention to the photosynthesis section.
FYI, volcanic activity is responsible for less than 1% of what human activity pumps in to the air.
I was talking about the volcanoes on Venus, not the ones on earth.
In 2008, 8.67 gigatons of carbon (31.8 gigatons of CO2) were released from fossil fuels worldwide, compared to 6.14 gigatons in 1990. In addition, land use change contributed 1.20 gigatons in 2008, compared to 1.64 gigatons in 1990. In the period 1751 to 1900 about 12 gigatons of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatons. I know you like your little .00000 nonsense. But a gigaton is 1,000,000,000 tons. In 2008 31,800,000,000 tons of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. That's a lot of CO2.
Oh yes -- those do indeed seem like "big" numbers but most of the C02 being put into the air comes from natural sources. 8.67 gigatons of carbon "seems" like it's going to end life on earth to some people, but then when you consider that decay of organic material alone puts 220 gigatonnes of carbon into the air each year, and the ocean puts out another 330 gigs, and when you factor in other natural sources -- nature is putting out over 700 gigatonnes of carbon each year.
But, what happens when more and more C02 gets pumped into the atmosphere -- It turns out that plants make use of it! It doesn't just sit there like that trapped IR of yours in the sky. It becomes easier for plants to acquire the CO2 they need to make oxygen for us to breath. And here is the kicker -- with more C02 in the air, it was not only discovered that plants and trees grow bigger, but they grow faster too! Because at .038% Co2 -- that's not a lot for plants to work with. And looking at earths history, plants have has much more to work with in the past.
But to put things into perspective: this isn't to say that we are on the right path and should not change our ways. Warmists believe that the only way to care about the earth is to believe in their beliefs. (which makes no real sense -- was it then impossible to care about the earth when you guys were promoting global cooling?) The very opposite is true. Mankind does indeed need to get off his/her dependence on fossil fuels, but this doesn't mean that all of a sudden, every little claim of a catastrophe/doomsday prediction is true and should be treated as such. Most of the nonsense from the global warming community is stuff that is vastly unproven, untested, and is based on computer models that have so many times turned out to be wrong, because it's based on a limited understanding of the world we live in. And from what we have seen, mans effects on the climate are vastly exaggerated as it is based on hype. Even if man was capable of changing the climate to the levels you claim, it wouldn't be from C02. You really need to find another explanation. This is more about fear mongering driven paranoia meant to scare people into accepting carbon taxes.
At the same time, if these scientists are indeed our gods that have super-computer brains that can comprehend things that are beyond our understanding -- they should have come up with new technology in the last 50 years to get us off of oil. But yet we see again, that people are not as smart as you think they are. (more hype than reality?) What we have today is still stone-age science, with a stone-age understanding of the Universe and our world and how it works. And, stone-age man needed something to worship.
You remain submissive and ignorant, the very type of attitude that our planet needs to get rid of that has contributed to the problems our planet is having today. The whole ignorance of your claims will one day be regarded by science as a joke. Just like how today, we laugh at the idea that people once believed that you could sail off the edge of the earth if you sailed out too far.
Just because you can't sail off the edge of the earth, doesn't mean that you should be reckless at sea either. It's all about proper perspective. Although global warmists have mentally sailed over the edge a long time ago, on their melting glaciers.
I'd just like to add a comment on something that struck me from reading that ...
Warmists are so thrilled with putting up the numbers for the "dramatic increase" of CO2 levels which ... appear to look like the blade end of a hockey stick when put onto a graph.
When you look at those numbers realistically what do they actually represent?
CO2 levels have "shot up" from .00034 to .00038 in the last 60 years!!
Well such changes are absolutely miniscule and irrelevant when it comes to anything else. We often see things like a measuring device being accurate to within .1% ... which we consider to be virtually flawless.
Do we ever see scientists getting hyper excited over fluctuations of oxygen in the atmosphere going from .20034 to .2004? Good heavens no. We'd think they were INSANE if they started to quibble over parts per million change of oxygen in the air!
Yet, all of the oxygen in the air is derived from CO2!
If there's such a "huge" change of CO2 in the air ... why is it of no concern to see the same kind of fluctuations in the level of oxygen?
Of course the CO2 levels before oxygen generating plants took over the world were higher. Who gives a flying fuck? We're not talking about whether rocks can survive. We're talking about whether human civilization can survive. And I assure you dipshit, CO2 levels as high as they were back then would mean the end of us.
The absolute stupidity of dipshits like you just continues to astound me. I laid out for you in tiny little words exactly how the cycle works. Not how I believe it works but how it works. Facts. And you still give me this "you believe" bullshit. No, it's not what I believe. It's a fact. Do you have any idea what a fact even is?
I doubt it. You don't like facts. They mess with your worldview.
Plants don't just make use of it. Most of it gets stored in the oceans and they can't do it forever. The permafrost is full of methane from rotting organic material that is being kept from rotting by being cold. Once it melts that will burst forth and we're in deep shit.
Yeah, it's all just natural. And anyone with a brain is a fool for bothering to learn.
You know, I actually hope you're right. I hope that all this crap we're pumping into the atmosphere isn't harming us at all. I hope that these figures and such are just imaginary.
If the planets were -at one time- swirling clouds of gas which then cooled, shrank and consolidated and then solidified into planets ...
Where was all the CO2 at THAT time? How did the planets manage to cool down enough to have solid crusts ... if all that CO2 was, as yet, not stored away in hydrocarbons, the ocean ... or changed to Oxygen by plant life?
Just because you hold an opinion on something doesn't mean you know what you are on about
Yup, the quick-let-us-destroy-what-we-don't-understand-before-it-destroys-us-and-ask-questions-later-if-at-all attitude all over again.
I'd say science goofed when it claimed Neanderthal Man went extinct.
Anyway ... those who have no idea what they are on about are usually those also not familiar with a little principle that goes something like this:
If what is explicitly posed is true, then what it infers or implies must or should be true as well. If not, then there's something amiss with the explicitly posed.
If this see-oh-too stuff is indeed such a menace, then how come those running greeneries pump loads of the stuff into the greeneries to make plants thrive. ( wtf!? the global warming alarmist will go - because they have never heard of this neat little trick, affirming how well informed they are on the subject and the actual nature of see-oh-too )
So, when we want to turn these 'global warming' alarmists into stuttering wrecks and display them for the Einsteins they are, all we have to do is mention the p-word. Great fun I tells ya.
The annoying part of all this, of course, is that those running the show are aces in turning solutions into problems and make the world believe it. Then again, who can blame them, it's how they secure their positions.
The logician: 'here are the demonstrable facts, what conclusion can we draw from them?' The believer: 'here is the conclusion, what alleged facts can we conjure to justify it?'
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability - it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true everything else ... mere BS -
New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability
This message has been edited by JVH on Jul 3, 2012 1:59 PM This message has been edited by JVH on Jul 3, 2012 2:37 AM This message has been edited by JVH on Jul 3, 2012 2:26 AM This message has been edited by JVH on Jul 3, 2012 2:22 AM
Ok, seriously, do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
June 29 2012, 3:26 PM
Arguing semantics? Potential energy and kinetic energy? You're saying the same things I'm saying with different words. Why? Is there some point to what you're doing?
CO2 STOPS heat from being radiated into space as it would if the gas were not there. You made all sorts of claims before that this didn't work that way. That the sun didn't work that way. So I explained it to you. And now you're saying the same things I said in different words.
Ok, Venus. Light DOES get through the clouds.
That's a picture of the surface of Venus. I don't know where you get your ideas that it's dark there, but it's not.
It's quite bright.
The temperature on Venus is fueled by the sun...
You see, the atmosphere began to warm up because of all that input of solar energy. Temperatures started to increase.
Higher temperatures meant the atmosphere would be capable of holding more water vapor. And if there were oceans the water begin to evaporate.
Water vapor--a greenhouse gas--absorbs heat energy--->leading to an increase in atmospheric water vapor--->leading to an increase in atmospheric temperature.
This increase in atmospheric temperature leads to the atmosphere being able to hold more water vapor--->oceans evaporate.
And so on.....--->Runaway Greenhouse.
The system would stabilize once all of the surface water was absorbed and the temperature was very high.
This scenario is in fact what has happened to Venus.
Oh, and Venus does NOT always face the same way. It rotates, just slowly.
And since you pointed out that greenhouse gases ABSORB heat earlier, shouldn't you have taken that into account later?
Re: Ok, seriously, do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
June 29 2012, 10:14 PM
Phred-> [Arguing semantics? Potential energy and kinetic energy? You're saying the same things I'm saying with different words. Why? Is there some point to what you're doing?]
Yes, there's a point to me doing it because exact understanding of physical dynamics is necessary in order to "see the picture clearly". For instance, you keep talking about CO2 in the atmosphere "trapping heat" ... which is technically incorrect and totally misleading when it comes to what ACTUALLY occurs with CO2 in the atmosphere. While it's true that CO2 in a 100% dense blanket over the surface covering WILL act as an insulator and trap heat ... it's quite impossible for that to occur with .00038 CO2 content in the sky.
Light from the sun coming through the atmosphere and striking the earth's surface ... causes the EARTH to warm up. It's then the EARTH emitting infrared, which goes back out through the sky to space -a particular band of infrared frequency- which is captured by CO2 molecules, causing those molecules to warm up and then radiate their heat in all directions.
What's important to note here is that sunlight COMES IN through our atmosphere and CO2 isn't warmed up by the incoming rays (according to the global warming theory). It's the EARTH sending OUT infrared at particular frequency bands ... that's then captured by the CO2 molecules, causing them to warm up. (Whether this is totally accurate, I do not know but it's how the warmist scientists explain it. This is the heart of the "anthropogenic warming" theory. It gives them a "one way valve" to support heat coming in and then not being able to get back out into space.)
If we're going to prove or disprove the anthropogenic warming theory ... we have to stick precisely to THEIR explanation in order to rationally, reasonably and logically embrace or refute it.
The "fine" point I was differentiating is that -according to the anthropogenic theory- it is the EARTH warming up the CO2 molecules in the sky via the special spectrum infrared rays ... and NOT the sun. So, to be technically accurate here, the sunlight doesn't "become heat" and it's not the sun heating the CO2 molecules; it is the EARTH. Sunlight heats the earth but it's the EARTH which emits the IR that is then captured by CO2 molecules in the sky.
Again ... you might think this is quibbling but it's not. The second law of thermodynamics states that heat may be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body ... but not from a cooler body to a warmer body. If you think about a staircase ... an object can fall downstairs in steps and then stop on one of the steps. That object is now at a LOWER potential energy than it was when it was at the top of the stairs. That object can fall to a lower step or steps ... but it can never fall UP the steps.
Same thing is true for energy from sunlight. It hits the earth and falls to a lower energy level. the earth then emits heat at a lower energy level than it received from the sun. (The earth's emitted infrared can NOT go back to the sun and warm the sun ... right?)
Ok, so it's the EARTH heating the CO2 molecules in the sky via emitted earth infrared rays.
So now ... if the earth is warming the CO2 molecules, the CO2 molecules can NOT turn around and warm the earth because the earth is the source of the emitted heat. Heat can always ONLY be transferred to a cooler body.
Phred-> [CO2 STOPS heat from being radiated into space as it would if the gas were not there. ]
If it "stops heat" ... what happens to it? Is the sky warm? Can we see infrared radiation coming out of the sky ... even with special sensitive equipment? No. It's pitch black at night.
Phred-> [Ok, Venus. Light DOES get through the clouds.]
You need to be aware that these images aren't your ordinary camera point-and-shoot shots. They've been painstakingly reconstructed, enhanced, sharpened, brightened ... etc. As a photo manipulator ... you'll appreciate how that's possible to do ... to take an extremely dark picture and get the details out of it and even make it look almost normal.
When Venus was being mapped by orbiters ... they had to use microwave frequencies to be able to penetrate the atmosphere. It's impossible to look down to the surface in the visible light frequencies -ie, our eyes or a normal camera.
Phred-> [This increase in atmospheric temperature leads to the atmosphere being able to hold more water vapor--->oceans evaporate.
And so on.....--->Runaway Greenhouse. ]
It's not possible to get runaway greenhouse effect if the sun's rays become so heavily reflected by sulfurous gases in the atmosphere.
Remember the second law of thermodynamics: heat can only transfer from a warmer object to a cooler object. The heavy CO2 atmosphere can't heat the planet; it can only insulate the planet to keep it from cooling down as fast as it would with a clear sky. Remember the thermos bottle: the vacuum insulation can only preserve heat already inside the bottle. It can't HEAT the coffee any hotter than it was when poured in.
Phred-> [Oh, and Venus does NOT always face the same way. It rotates, just slowly. ]
I know. I never said it always faced the same way.
Phred->[And since you pointed out that greenhouse gases ABSORB heat earlier, shouldn't you have taken that into account later?]
I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
Yes, greenhouse gases absorb heat ... just like a frying pan on a burner absorbs heat. Once the gases are warming up, they emit the heat they absorb, just like a frying pan gets hot and then emits the heat it has absorbed. This is all infrared dynamics.
Ok, seriously, do you have any idea how productive it is
July 4 2012, 12:08 AM
... to point out to someone (deemed) stupid how stupid (s)he is?
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
trapping implies a situation from which there is no escape. If CO2 traps heat, it implies that the heat it traps never escapes from the entrapment and consequently, heat will keep building and building, resulting in incredibly high temperatures.
A sponge absorbs water until it's saturated and then it absorbs no more.
CO2 absorbs heat from certain wavelengths of infrared radiation that strike it and warms up itself. Even while it's warming up, it's releasing heat via radiation of a different wavelength than it received.
This might sound a bit complicated but think of it this way ...
You have a burner on a stove glowing cherry red. It's emitting infrared at a fairly high frequency and short wave length. You put a cold frying pan on the burner and it "traps" heat for a while ... but then it heats up and begins to radiate heat at a lower infrared frequency with a longer wavelength. (short wavelengths are "brighter" light; long wavelengths are dimmer light ... sort of. It's the color that makes the wavelength difference though). Over time ... the pan emits exactly as much heat as it receives ... via infrared radiation.
... would you say that the pan absorbing heat is exactly the same thing as saying the pan traps heat?
In your "cold frying pan" scenario...
The pan does not "trap" heat at all.
It's an example of "heat transferance"...
-- Through "thermal conduction".
However, when the pan reaches the same temperature as the burner...
The pan will begin to emit the same amount of heat as the burner itself.
And, for all intents and purposes...
The heat from the burner...
Simply passes straight through the pan.
I'd say that's pretty much the same as...
Putting a sponge under a running faucet.
When the sponge absorbs it's capacity...
For all intents and purposes...
The water from the faucet...
Flows right through the sponge.
I still don't see one heckuvva lot of difference there.
In the meantime...
How deep do you think the Water's going to be...
When the Sea Slugs...
Have Finished Feasting on...
-- Our Oceans' Sponges...?
President Barrack Hussein Obama
-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --
"If you suddenly think Stephen Colbert is truly right wing, that's when I would worry."
-- Neuropsychologist Katherine Rankin.
The same thing happens with greenhouse gases. However, BECAUSE the object (gas molecules) radiate in all directions -just like a hot pan- they claim that about 50% of that accumulated heat in the greenhouse gas ... radiates BACK to earth! ... and HEATS the earth!
Well, that's pretty much like the frying pan heating the burner from which it got its heat in the first place. It's impossible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.