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

They identified you from your supermarket shopping card buying habits which include lots of cheese puffs, Sweet Ray's barbeque sauce, and non-organic everything. A true believer wouldn't be buying kabob skewers.

 

Someone who doesn't understand the kinetic theory of gas disputed the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

How convincing eh?

 

Peer review is not part of the scientific process it is little more than an attempt to insure that the proper methodology, and processes were used. It is not always successful. It took almost a decade to discover that piltdown man was a fraud, and longer than that for the british anti vac jackass to be proven a fraud and there are a lot of lesser known frauds that took even longer. And please peer review maybe the gold standard but the fact is that a hell of a lot of scientific work never gets peer reviewed simply because there aren't enough people interested in that sort of work, in the more esoteric field there may not be enough fully qualified people to do a decent peer review.

 

Not what he said.

 

Your first example happened back int he 1912 and I am not sure there WAS peer review then - your second, which I suspect is the MMR vaccine controversy - yes it was a few years (6 to partial retraction but the news media's response was very much to blame in that as well

And that is only two examples you could find out of hundreds of thousands of papers published each year

 

Believe me I have debated this before and the poster IS convinced that CO2 levels are different in different areas of the atmosphere

 

How thick is the shivering on the back of a mirror in relation to the glass of the mirror??? Does the silver at the back have to be as thick as the glass to reflect light?

 

Then answer this question: Why doesn't oxygen fall to the ground?

Second, the argument that CO2 cannot possibly have any ill effects on climate because it is present at low concentration is absolutely ludicrous. The issue is not the low concentration, but that the concentration nearly doubled in the last 100 years. The dose makes the poison. Lethal dose of TTX, for example is 8 μg per kg. Should we conclude that it is not dangerous, just because it is present at very low concentrations? Should we conclude that doubling a sublethal dose of 4 μg per kg is not dangerous, because of the low concentration? Of course not!

 

a mirror doesn't even have to be made of glass.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of difference between earths atmosphere and that of Mars.

Mars' atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide.
Earth's atmosphere is .04% carbon dioxide.

Your argument is silly.

Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth’'s surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth’s surface.

The left handed idiots will soon claim water vapor is pollution, and force moronic democrats to outlaw the oceans of the world....

 

Oxygen is every where. It does fall to the ground. It also floats to the stratosphere. If there was no atmospheric mixing our atmosphere would be layered based on density. This can actually be seen in very general sense. The ozone layer for instance.

 

I don't even know why you want this discussion. It has 0 to do with global warming, it just shows your total lack of interest in actually learning something about how gases behave, but you rather contradict my posts because you perceive me as a liberal. This has nothing to do with the science.

I am not wasting anymore time clarifying your misconceptions about how gases behave.

 

I thought we were having a discussion. That's why I quoted NASA about water vapor being the most important source for the green house effect.

I merely contend your assertion, a insignificant fluctuation in the tiny percentage of CO2 in earths atmosphere is responsible for global warming, is false.

I'm not trolling you.

 

Fair enough.

I didn't dispute that water vapor has an important green house effect.

I also didn't make the argument that CO2 is responsible for global warming in this thread, although I DID state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, based on spectroscopic properties.

And I don't know what that has to do with the distribution of oxygen and CO2 in the atmosphere, which are all well established data and based on our understanding of the molecular properties of gases.

My point was actually rather on the ridiculousness of propaganda sent out in the disguise of a textbook by the Heartland institute. Do they really think professors will use that book in their class?

 

The first part is an insane statement. The second one, fortunately, contradicts and corrects it.

The Pildown man was a prop for the press. The scientific community was not even allowed to analyze it. So all there was was Dawson's word. The hype fooled some scientists, and influenced their focus. But it didn't fool Science. Science never had a say in the matter. And most scientists just kept going in their research finding evidence that contradicted Dawson's word. It was a very important moment in the evolution of the Scientific Method. It showed us that peer-reviewed studies, not somebody's word, is what should show where the focus in Science is preferable. But it doesn't undermine the scientific process in the least bit.

If you're going to attack science, that's a very poor example. There are examples of actual blunders in science. Like Einstein's Cosmological Constant, for example. There are even good examples of bad peer-review. Like the Sokal affair. Our epistemological learning has been improved by those errors.

Point is that the ability to self-correct is part of the Scientific Method. And it ensures that, in the end, we not only get the real story. But we learn how to make the method better. That's how it has worked at least for the last 400 years.

And there is scientific work that doesn't undergo experimentation. And there are full-fledged Sciences that haven't even proven that their area of expertise even exists.

There are many nuances in Science. But we are not talking about an esoteric Science. We're talking about Global Warming.

 

Tried to read up a bit on this discussion, but I don't understand your point/ Is it that climatologists don't know the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that they don't know how to read NASA reports and are therefore clueless about the importance of water vapor in the green house effect?... But that you could educate them?

I'm just asking if that's your point.

 

For today, let me offer you this knowing you think you know it all and need not watch, but posters here will watch. So stay in the dark if you must.

I keep giving you scientist upon scientist that are not alarmed and scared as you are.

Oh and in the audience, you find well dressed people not easily fooled. Your side has teens running around screaming the world is ending. We attend meetings dressed appropriately as were it a business meeting. You are insulting all those audiences and the speakers.

 

My point is simply a tiny fluctuation in CO2 levels isn't the cause of Global Warming.

The current percentage of CO2 in Earths atmosphere is .04% and its up from .0375%.

The CO2 concentration on Mars is the cause of warming on Mars. The CO2 concentration on Mars is 96%.

Water vapor on earth plays a much larger role in the green house gas effect as it applies to warming.

Where MARS is a much more arid environment.

My hypothesis centers around Human activities cutting down forests, enlarging cities, covering the ground with black top etc which hold more heat than foliage.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042845/abstract

 

I love to watch on youtube a Canadian show called Just for Laughs. It amazes me how they keep it fresh.

But they have this one bit where they hook a small dog to a car using the leash. And unknown to people passing by, several adult men are inside the car which has a huge piece of the floor removed. The car is a small light car that no dog can tow, but the skit gives the appearance the tiny dog pulls the car. The men inside really are the movers.

Carbon Dioxide is that small dog. You looked and accepted it towed the car. But other forces moved the car.

 

First, I do not believe even one of us (insulted as deniers) claims Earth is now cooling.
We are discussing causes.

I have long believed there is such a trace amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere that until they showed me evidence that Carbon Dioxide is magic, that I did not blame Carbon Dioxide. I agree and have posited in the past, the effect of more than humans, but their animals. They have animals adding a lot to warming. As populations increase, the vast number of heat islands expands. But his nonsense we must fear carbon dioxide is getting old.

 

I was certain from day one that for you, it is pure politics. I am equally certain you really don't understand science.

Now that we traded barbs, back to the science.

Why can't you get it how tiny amounts of the trace gas Carbon Dioxide is not to blame and seek other explanations?

My suspicions were confirmed by one scientific fact.

Carbon Dioxide amounts in the atmosphere keep rising. Temperatures on Earth do not match this. They vary from up to down. While you cite the arctic is melting, I cite that Antarctic is colder and has much more ice.

See, in science where there is a cause, we can find some equation. If I add 2 to the number 2, we get 4. We do not see it 4 one day and 3 the next day. The math for carbon dioxide simply is not working. Varying temperatures prove the carbon dioxide blamers got it wrong. Carbon Dioxide is going up and up. Temperatures stagnated in the 90s. That is not possible were Carbon Dioxide the cause.

Even Nerd must admit that if you add a gas to a container and get an effect, when you do not get the effect though you added gas, something is wrong. This is not rocket science.

 

I watched it. Thanks for posting !!

 

This is a valid scientific point. I have kept clinging to the idea that there may be a huge amount of Carbon Dioxide next to planet Earth, when you talk of the greenhouse effect, that is discussing gases at high altitudes as I see this. At least their examples show gasses at a high altitude.
Today i posted a scientific video showing the earth is getting greener. This I can easily blame on Carbon Dioxide. That is the effect I expect from Carbon Dioxide. I pointed to looking in Deserts for evidence but none of the alleged scientific geniuses here were able to discuss this at all. They blanked out. They could not comprehend why this matters.
But of course they must be Democrats if @Bowerbird is correct that it is politics. I do think it is politics.

But the politics is not what one might presume. It is the politics of control.

The left realized decades back that to control humans, the mind must be controlled. You are not to discuss or think. You are told what to think and must obey Democrats or what some refer to as Left wingers.

I watched last evening an over hour long presentation where the pro carbon dioxide crowd faced off with the anti carbon dioxide crowd.

The audience was to vote. They voted on science as if it is politics.

And the crowd was loaded with the carbon dioxide blamers. We know this due to how they voted prior to the lectures and proofs.

They took the word of the Democrats.

I saw the game.

The debate was the Oxford type of debate. While it is a cool way to debate, when it is science, FACTS matter, not opinion.

This same debate group also had a different set of debaters, among which was Dr. Richard Lindzen and he won his debate. So the two audiences contradicted each other.

 

Don't fall for the snake oil peddled in these presentations given to financiers. There is a reason they all wear nice suits. The nicer the suit, the less I trust them. You won't see a lot of nice suits in Science departments.

Their point is that CO2 makes plants grow. Of course it does. However, this argument is uninformed on two fronts:

1) The plant CO2 fixation mechanism is almost saturated at current CO2 levels. Higher CO2 will only result in marginally higher CO2 fixation rates.

2) The CO2 supplement in greenhouses is a bogus argument. Greenhouses are an isolated system. CO2 supplementation prevents CO2 depletion in the greenhouse and, thus, prevents plants becoming starved of CO2. Plants in the atmosphere are not in a isolated greenhouse. Thus, there is no CO2 depletion. The argument is comparing apples with oranges.

You have to look at the science and stop looking for arguments that look good on first glance in supporting you political view, but don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

For the sake of doing exposing yourself to something different, find the movie "Chasing Ice".

https://chasingice.com