Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which test puts the proverbial nail in the coffin that proves CO2 and other gas species do not warm the surface and atmosphere of a planet? And how does that test explain Earth's +33K deviation and Venus' +500K deviation from an idealized black-body emitter? In other words, if atmospheres do not trap heat then what is it that is trapping the heat?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which hypothesis are you denying? That Earth is warming or that our atmospheric composition is the cause? And which lines of evidence are you using to support that position?
     
  3. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    What would the global temperature of Mercury be if it didn't have it's atmosphere ripped to shreds?

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/mercury/
    :sun:
     
  4. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And here's another interesting fact about Venus. It's surface temperature is warmer than that of Mercury despite it receiving only 25% of the solar radiation. And even more oddly Venus' upper atmosphere is cooler than here on Earth despite it receiving 100% more solar radiation. This is the exact effect you would expect. Namely that atmospheres with greenhouse gas species trap the heat closer to the surface and keep the upper atmosphere relatively cool. This same effect is happening on Earth as well. The lower troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling as we increase the proportion of greenhouse gas species in the atmosphere. This is THE smoking gun evidence that CO2 and other GHGs are responsible because no other process can explain this vertical temperature profile behavior. And this fact comes (in part) from the guys running the UAH satellite dataset project which are well known climate change skeptics. If you deny that this is happening then you are a science denier...err...I mean anti-science ideologue.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
    tecoyah and Beer w/Straw like this.
  5. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but you'll have to rephrase your question. I won't play your game.
     
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which of the two primary hypothesis of AGW do you "deny". Note that I put deny in quotes because that was exactly the word you used. So if you had an issue with it then I trust you would have used a different word. But, so as to make the question less edgy let me make the final rephrasing this:

    Which of the two primary hypothesis of AGW do you reject? Is it the one about the Earth warming? Or is it the one about humans being primarily responsible?
     
  7. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry I won't play your game and let you label me a denier by accepting the premise of your question. If you'll notice I put the word in quotes in my previous post to draw attention to the fact that you label anyone who does not accept your hypothesis as a denier. Try again without playing games. Might I suggest asking what I find about your hypothesis to be false unproven and in fact a failure in real world test.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  8. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    You know Earth, Venus and Mercury were mentioned.

    Earth and Venus have dense enough atmospheres from gravity whereas Mercury is just to close to the Sun that it got torn apart by solar winds. Hence, Earth and Venus can still be counted as closed systems in this way, just not Mercury. So, your idea is wrong.

    Would you also like to talk about whether the universe, or just the the observable universe as an open or closed system?
     
  9. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s ooppokk''li
    This is real simple. You mention Yale just to what ? Legitimize your denial.
    Here is a one of many summaries of Yale on climate change.
    https://yibs.yale.edu/climate-change
    Just mention any accredited institute of higher learning and their position will be similar. It’s laughable that deniers think they are smarter then every institute of this type in the world.
    Think of it . There are no people in this entire world who have a degree from an accredited university that sides with deniers. Now just think of that. Even Trump, the biggest laughing stock of deniers, has a degree from an institution that stakes its reputation on the legitimate science of climate change.
    https://www.sustainability.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/Penn Climate Action Plan 2.0 - Executive Summary.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  10. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The percent of republicans who believe in man made climate change has increased by 19% in the last two years. Conservative deniers at some point will be an embarsssing minority in their own party.
     
  11. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you think earths atmosphere and all the things that go on with this planet are comparable to a mason jar experiment your idea is wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So in your opinion the mason jar experiment is conclusive and proves the AGW hypothesis. OK :lol:
     
  13. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow....the mason jar experiment.They is no reference and no proof of any of your gibberish. It’s unreadable and nonsensical and no one can make any connection between your post and Yale’s official positon on climate change is, which is all that matters.
    What point are you making ?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  14. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    It can be that simple you know. One kind of molecule, or even just one atom.

    Would the universe exist or be as it is without say, hydrogen?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  15. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earth is not comparable to a mason jar and no it can't be that simple.
     
  16. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you think that Yale based its conclusion on climate change one little demonstration ? Ha ha.
     
  17. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I agree that a mason jar is far simpler than the actual atmosphere the laws of physics still work the same in either setup. In other words, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics do not magically "stop" working only in the Earth's atmosphere. Plus, there are numerous chamber experiments that replicate the Earth's atmosphere more realistically so it's not like the entirety of AGW is based off a trivial DIY mason jar experiment.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that people on this forum think climate scientists are a bunch of know-nothing, pocket-protector wearing, beer pong playing, nerd glasses wearing, flatulent teenagers that play practical jokes on each other and then in their spare time they jerry rig experiments in their dormitory bathrooms and then run up and down the university hallways yelling "Eureka! I've figured global warming out" like a giddy child. Yeah, obviously I'm being obtuse. But, that's seriously how many of these posts on this forum come across sometimes.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  18. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deniers want to get everyone lost in the minutia of a discussion instead of looking at one simple fact. The simple fact is, they’re wrong. They’re just looking for anything to rationalize their continued ignorance. Well, they’re not finding it at Yale. It’s not just climate science that fosters and supports this view. It’s every related science field. Entomologists have long observed the migration of insects in response to climate change. Botanists have long studied the response of pant life for decades. We have looked to nature for the verification, and it’s there.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  19. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As I said a Creationist (who likes to evoke science) has exactly the same arguments and facts.

    I am not saying that such a Creationist can, but because of teaching of your beliefs instead of science in schools and colleges you cannot have any tools or knowledge to distinguish between science and religion or a set of personal beliefs.
     
  20. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You cannot know the difference between religion or a set of personal beliefs and science.

    Your beliefs are not science.

    For instance your belief in appearance of new species out of old ones has no more common and practical use than somebody’s belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster.
     
  21. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  22. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Professor you didn't provide a valuable link.

    It is not like your opponents would read it or understand it but let me do: http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/education/Global Warming In A Jar.pdf

    If then I may dare to ask you a few questions:

    What Sun in the night, professor?

    :wall:

    What Sun in the night, professor?

    :wall:

    Professor, why they don’t use CO2 to heat greenhouse, but only to promote the growths of plants?

    Professor, why don’t we make a 2’ thick glass dome and make it heat everything underneath of it and make $billions?

    Professor, what scientific paper did publish this experiment showing heating properties of CO2?

    What Sun in the night, professor?

    :wall:

    But thank you anyway for showing that all climate scientists are child abusers and perverts actively grooming minors for their perverted needs.

    And, professor, do you understand that if you invented an experiment where CO2 absorbs more heat from the Sun during the day than it emits to the dead cold Cosmos during the night you would be richer than Microsoft, Apple and Amazon altogether?

    Professor, all this CO2 thing is a total hoax designed for totally illiterate and brainwashed and you have posted an example of total illiteracy for the purpose of brainwashing.
     
  23. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ….Uh.….Yes you can and do. It is referred to as an "experiment" and involves using physical items to see how they work with each other.
     
  24. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Religion requires faith......do you know what faith is ?
    Science requires evidence. They are contradictory.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2018
  25. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    I wasn't going to respond to the thread from the title, but CO2 is a pollutant:
    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/june...urning-rice-and-fish-into-junk-food-1.4696123

    See, smoking is bad for you!
     

Share This Page