So.. what moron said...

So.. what moron said... (Full Version)

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

Message

Phydeaux -> So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:02:57 PM)
quote: I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school and college, some aspects of science or physics can be tough – chemistry. But this is not tough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this. Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet. How many things can you find wrong, hmmm?

Aylee -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:11:09 PM)
The same twit that called the Hedbo attack "understandable."

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:17:14 PM)
1. The CO2 isn't a "thin layer" - it is dispersed in throughout our atmosphere - which is more than 10 miles deep. 2. If CO2 were a layer - it would be about 4000 feet thick. 3. CO2 at the edge of the atmoshere cools the planet, by reradiating energy to space - this is why solar flux at the edge of the atmosphere is 1360 or so W/m2, and at the ground is 1050 or so. 4. The CO2 thats actually most effective at trapping heat is in the lower atmosphere - not the upper atmosphere. But he got one thing right. Chemistry for him, is hard. Apparently so is physics. Who is this idiot? John Kerry. Secretary of State. Speaking at a climate conference Feb, 2014. http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:28:28 PM)
Every so often someone will ask me how can I be so sure that CO2 increases will not result in increased global warming; if I am in a peckish mood I will answer "Because the IPCC says so." To which point I get rather incredulous looks. TAR3, Chapter 6: Radiative Forcing. Section 6.3.4 The ability of any greenhouse gas to increase temperatures decreases logarythmically. The gold standard on this kinds of calculation is the modtran program at the University of Chicago. Even if CO2 concentrations were to go to 1000 ppm - the total effect on temperature would be less than .2 C. Pretty pictures to follow, since I know no one will actually bother to read the actual TAR.

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:29:54 PM)
Picture 1... [image]local://upfiles/11137/62FD1373242C4C6C9485F082CB80F64B.jpg[/image]

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:30:55 PM)
Pretty picture 2

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:48:00 PM)
And here's the link to the IPCC statement: (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC (1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.) https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html paragraph 12.

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 8:56:55 PM)
Mean % increase No. of studies Barley 41.5 15 Sweet Cherries 59.8 8 Rice 34.3 137 Strawberries 42.8 4 Wheat 33.0 214 Tomatoes 31.9 35 Green Beans 64.3 17 Black cottonwood 124 5 Soybeans 47.6 162 Red maple 44.2 13 White Potatoes 29.5 33 Northern red oak 53.3 7 Sweet Potatoes 33.7 6 Loblolly pine 61.9 65 Corn 21.3 20 Carrots 77.8 5 James Hansen said all life ends at 1000 ppm CO2 - and yet commercial growers run greenhouses at 1000ppm. You can read more http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Past-and-Future-of-Climate.pdf

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/13/2016 9:13:46 PM)
we have either a well read winner - or someone that can actually use google. Congratulations, you are obviously not a liberal.

DominantWrestler -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 7:07:20 AM)
So consistent climate change is just the earth going through its normal fluctuations. How many records have broken? Warmest winters, biggest hurricane, some of the worst blizzards. It's not so much the temperature that is directly harmful. It's the drop in marine life due to rising co2, it's the storms, it's poisoning people and the environment. Climate change is occurring, attributing how much to people is the true question. But people knew climate change was occurring, and because it was happening slow enough you couldn't see it very easily within a decade, republicans just didn't care because it would interfere with big business. How can you defend companies like DuPont?

Tkman117 -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 7:38:04 AM)
Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him.

bounty44 -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 7:47:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him. the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it.

Tkman117 -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 8:11:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him. the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it. So I'm a fool for speaking the truth? I've learned and understood the science, not the politics. The right wing is notorious for being anti-science, and if the liberals began doing the same then I would be against them too. In fact there are liberal groups that mislead science for political purposes; vegans, anti-vaxers, anti-GMO people, etc. I completely disagree with misleading people with false science, just as Phydeaux is doing himself.

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 2:34:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler So consistent climate change is just the earth going through its normal fluctuations. How many records have broken? Warmest winters, biggest hurricane, some of the worst blizzards. It's not so much the temperature that is directly harmful. It's the drop in marine life due to rising co2, it's the storms, it's poisoning people and the environment. Climate change is occurring, attributing how much to people is the true question. But people knew climate change was occurring, and because it was happening slow enough you couldn't see it very easily within a decade, republicans just didn't care because it would interfere with big business. How can you defend companies like DuPont? Nice try, trying to link a company that does teflon pans to mythical global warming. Tell you what - since you're telling me how many records have been broken - why don't you do your own homework - and quote a source that says how many record highs compared to record lows - and then we'll talk about it then. Because otherwise you're just talking.

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 2:38:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him. What was that eleanor roosevelt quote? Oh yes, I remember. quote: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html#ztDOzkz48AZcA6wU.99

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 2:44:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him. the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it. So I'm a fool for speaking the truth? I've learned and understood the science, not the politics. The right wing is notorious for being anti-science, and if the liberals began doing the same then I would be against them too. In fact there are liberal groups that mislead science for political purposes; vegans, anti-vaxers, anti-GMO people, etc. I completely disagree with misleading people with false science, just as Phydeaux is doing himself. False Science, hmm? So you're saying that Svenmark or Cern has been refuted? Really?? Please provide the citation. Or that the Rostek ice cores don't say that temperatures LEAD co2 concentration? Really? Provide the quote? Or that temperatures weren't warmer in various other interglacials? Really? Evidence, please mate. Or - tell you what - why don't you show me where any of HadCrut4 temperatures match the IPCC projects. Of course, to be true science it should be well correlated. But hey - if you can provide evidence that the IPCC actually predicted ONE year right it would be something. I'm looking forward to those cites.

DominantWrestler -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 4:27:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler So consistent climate change is just the earth going through its normal fluctuations. How many records have broken? Warmest winters, biggest hurricane, some of the worst blizzards. It's not so much the temperature that is directly harmful. It's the drop in marine life due to rising co2, it's the storms, it's poisoning people and the environment. Climate change is occurring, attributing how much to people is the true question. But people knew climate change was occurring, and because it was happening slow enough you couldn't see it very easily within a decade, republicans just didn't care because it would interfere with big business. How can you defend companies like DuPont? Nice try, trying to link a company that does teflon pans to mythical global warming. Tell you what - since you're telling me how many records have been broken - why don't you do your own homework - and quote a source that says how many record highs compared to record lows - and then we'll talk about it then. Because otherwise you're just talking. Ironic you ask today. I believe it was today, might have been yesterday, that Hurricane Alex was upgraded from a tropical storm. Second ever recorded in the region in history. Hurrican Patricia last year broke several records including highest sustained winds ever recorded on earth, over 200 mph. Boston had the most snow ever recorded in a season at over 108 inches, almost all of which occurred in 3 weeks or so last winter I coule keep going but it's redundant. Just like extremes in politics, extremes in weather are damaging. The energy from heat is not the biggest problem. It is the electro magnetic atmospheric potential energy, it is the disparities in rain fall from year to year, it is the fact that the north is feeling most of this and the energy will eventually be converted to a phase change in water at the pole. It is poisons like DDT and cover ups like DuPont. Climate change is just the tip of the iceberg of ecological problems, and republicans have preventing ecological knowledge to protect profit margins I do not cite things like hurricane Patricia because it is public knowledge. I use easily verifiable information when at all possible because it is truth that can be tried and tested. Extremes are generally damaging, ecologically, economically or politically Basically it comes down to no, veganism wont solve all health issues just like every adult owning a gun wouldn't end terrorism

MrRodgers -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 4:43:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And here's the link to the IPCC statement: (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC (1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.) https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html paragraph 12. Explain this then. Mercury: 35 million miles from the sun, average surface temp. 332.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Mercury's very thin atmosphere holds little heat. Venus: 67 million miles from the sun, average surface temp. 860 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere is 95-96% CO2. Earth: 93 million miles form the sun. Average surface temp is 61 degrees Fahrenheit. Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases with 1-2% CO2 The search for The Ice ages, cause and end. The Cold war, national security and The 'Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect' If you want an objective read, read the whole thing. It's not short but it started out as a search for the cause of the Ice Age and why it ended. The 'mother' of all climate change. BUT NOT Global warming as it is described today. HERE

Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 5:56:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And here's the link to the IPCC statement: (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC (1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.) https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html paragraph 12. Explain this then. Mercury: 35 million miles from the sun, average surface temp. 332.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Mercury's very thin atmosphere holds little heat. Venus: 67 million miles from the sun, average surface temp. 860 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere is 95-96% CO2. Earth: 93 million miles form the sun. Average surface temp is 61 degrees Fahrenheit. Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases with 1-2% CO2 The search for The Ice ages, cause and end. The Cold war, national security and The 'Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect' If you want an objective read, read the whole thing. It's not short but it started out as a search for the cause of the Ice Age and why it ended. The 'mother' of all climate change. BUT NOT Global warming as it is described today. HERE deleting snippy comment Venus: No one doubts that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. No one doubts that CO2 raises temperatures. Reread my comment and look at the pretty picture till you understand it. Read about 1/2 your (very log cite) nothing new in it so far, will finish later.

thishereboi -> RE: So.. what moron said... (1/14/2016 6:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him. the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it. So I'm a fool for speaking the truth? I've learned and understood the science, not the politics. The right wing is notorious for being anti-science, and if the liberals began doing the same then I would be against them too. In fact there are liberal groups that mislead science for political purposes; vegans, anti-vaxers, anti-GMO people, etc. I completely disagree with misleading people with false science, just as Phydeaux is doing himself. I wouldn't say you were a fool but I would say you are just as much as a partisan hack as he is and it's funny as hell to watch you piss and moan about it.

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

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1875