Look what I just received in my work mailbox -- from the Heartland Institute

What science course does not include math proofs?

 

The math are proofs....not the scientific theory. What scientific principle has been proven?

 

I find your use of consensus strange is all. normally we are dealing with humans that actually interface with each other.

 

What the hell? I took my fair share of science courses and always they had math proofs.

 

Actually most doctors and other scientists get their information from people they have never seen

 

Is my question invisible? Just name one.

 

You are trying to teach a person who was consumed by my love of Physics and maths. Chemistry was fine but not really what i reached for. I do however recall enough Chemistry to keep up my end.

 

Good comparison. I remember the tobacco companies pretending that the link to lung cancer wasn't proven.
I just don't get why people suddenly think they know more than scientists.

 

I guess my question is invisible....or that you just can't answer it

 

Regardless of the source or how it got there or who produced it -% CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically over the last 50 or so years. This has led to at least part of the warming.

I do not know the altitude required - and have no interest in looking it up. It is not like climate scientists are making stuff up when they talk about the ability of CO2 or Methane (CH4) to trap heat. The heat trapping ability of Methane has been quantified as something like 20 x that of CO2.

 

Not really. Galileo was a scientist. Those are charlatans.

 

Winds in North and South America vary by latitude - in upper latitudes the prevailing winds are west to east - but nearer the tropics, the winds are east to west - just follow hurricane paths - the disturbances start in Africa and travel west toward the Caribbean.
It is fact. In the age of sailing ships the easterlies and westerlies were well known.

The recent record rains in Calif aren't a fist? Record drought, then flood? The fact that ships can traverse the "northwest passage" in the Arctic ocean ice-free isn't a fist?

Whether you believe the majority of climate scientists are convinced of man-made climate change is immaterial - the fact is they do. Only America has a significant % of deniers. We also have an embarrassing % of people who deny evolution.

 

And people who actually argue (with straight face) that the Global Flood actually happened as described in the Bible - which puts the flood around 2200-2300 BC.

 

Yet it took nearly a decade to debunk Piltdown man, more than that to deal with the English antivac doctor, and more than that to deal with other scientific frauds. The fields of medicine and nutrition are so rife with fraud it's ridiculous. The problem alarmist propaganda in climate isn't that it empowers scientists but that thus far all the solutions seem to empower government, and government already has more power than rational people should trust it with.

 

It wasn't a record drought. The longest, was a little more than a decade late twenties to late thirties, S,Ca. Is semi arid at best has been since the megafauna went extent around 11k years ago, semi arid in case you didn't know essentially guarantees prolonged periods of drought. Because it is also coastal it is prone to occasional flooding when those prevailing westerlies carry in very moist air from the central pacific basin. This last drought was the product at least in part of the largest El Nino in recent times.

 

Instead you will indoctrinate them on the government approved narrative.

 

Peer review is not the scientific method. It is in fact little more than an attempt to insure that the proper protocols were followed. It is a goog thing but it isn

 

Really? That doesn't seem correct. The oxygen concentration is 525 times the concentration of CO2 in earths atmosphere. I don't think the temperature of the molecules has anything to do with it. The lower altitude of CO2 has to do with its source location and the fact that CO2 is 20% heavier than O2

 

Gee if you were correct we would have all died since we can't breath in a CO2 concentrated environment

 

What have I told you about the value of quoting ancient journal articles??

 

Well, it is not something I made up, it is based on the kinetic theory of gases. Maybe look it up, it is very interesting. The kinetic energy of gas molecules at room temperature is the reason that gases fill the container made available to them and don't sink to the ground. In fact, if the temperature was reduced to near 0 K, all gas molecules would just sink to the ground and there would be no atmosphere, since the molecules wouldn't have enough kinetic energy to overcome gravity.

No, I don't, I teach intro chem and biophysical chemistry. Those topics don't include atmospheric science. As I have said before, I don't talk about policy in the classroom.

I will, however, answer questions based on fact, if a student asks me about, say the spectroscopic properties of CO2 and how they relate to the greenhouse effect.

 

Heartland is still trying to get its reputation back after a series of scandals showing it for what it is

Remember this advert?

 

Sweetie you are talking to Trump supporters science is something only liberals believe in apparently

 

Sure, but I think its more probable the higher concentrations of CO2 at low altitude has to do with diffusion from the production source. CO2 is an extremely tiny portion of our atmosphere. There is virtually no way, .04% has any green house effect what so ever. The assertion is ridiculous. I will agree MARS has a green house effect, and the 90% CO2 concentration in its atmosphere is probably the reason for its relatively high temperatures. Still cold by earth standards, but warmer than it should be based on solar radiation alone.

The real cause of global warming is an ever increasing population of humans on the planet, and their effect on our planets natural state. Specifically deforestation, and the application of an ever increasing amount of asphalt and concrete, which hold heat from solar radiation, when compared to plant matter.