Trumpet
Verified User
Another brilliant reply from brain dead Poop-PI
Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Another brilliant reply from brain dead Poop-PI
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
You will find out soon enough.
Find out that you know nothing? Hell, that has been apparent for quite a while.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well aren't you the fucking moron........can't tell the difference between a constitutionalist and a leftist...........but maybe that's because you idiot conservatives don't know what the constitution is
Arks&sparka
Verified User
Compelling argument.
"You are a poo poo head."
How convincing.
And so kind and inviting, that's how you win people over.
Good show. Keep up the high brow intellectual points.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
between the idiocy of liberals and the retardedness of conservatives, i've given up winning people over................so take what I said as a compliment because it should have been worse
Arks&sparka
Verified User
I don't think you're capable of it calling people names for not agreeing with you seems to be strictly emotional.
You may think you're making good points but all I see is a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.
Based on your level of maturity I don't think you were ever capable of it so I don't think it's possible for you have to have given up on it if you never tried.
All I can say is wallow in your rage. When you're tired of it when you're exhausted and you decide to be an adult we'll be here to talk about it.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I have many times but you just display your ignorance of physics and chemistry.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8837
How does temperature depend on CO2? Robert Rohde has produced a very nice animation of global temperatures as a function of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Of course it is designed for public relations purposes in order to show increasing CO2 causes warming. He even uses absolute temperatures which are not even directly measured. Here is my version of how temperature anomalies depend on CO2.
Fig 1. Land temperature (GHCN) and Global temperatures (HADCRUT4) plotted as a function of CO2 levels. GHCN-Daily agrees with Berkeley Earth Land temperatures. Normalised to 1961-1990 baseline. After a rather uncertain temperature rise from pre-industrial (280ppm) temperatures, there is a long period with no net warming between CO2 levels of 300 to 340 ppm, corresponding to the period ~1939 to ~1980. Warming afterwards continued as expected but then began tailing off towards a logarithmic dependency on CO2. Many people will often glibly inform you that the CO2 greenhouse effect produces logarithmic radiative forcing, and state that this can easily derived from simple physics. However, few can really explain to you why it should be logarithmic, and it turns out that there is no simple proof as to why it should be. The often quoted formula for radiative forcing:
can be traced back to a paper from 1998 in GRL (Myhre et al) This formula is in reality a fit to some rather complex line by line radiative transfer calculations by hundreds of vibrational excitation states of CO2 molecules for absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation . I have perviously described my own calculation of this radiative transfer and how you can fit a logarithmic dependency to it. The physical reason why increasing CO2 apparently produces a logarithmic forcing is that the central lines rapidly get saturated way up into the stratosphere, the strongest of which can then even cause cooling of the surface. Overall net warming is mostly due to strengthening of the weaker peripheral excitation levels of the 15 micron band.
Fig 2: Calculated IR spectra for 300ppm and 600ppm using Planck spectra. Also shown are the curves for 289K and 220K which roughly corresponds to the Stratosphere. The central peak is cooling the planet because it lies high up in the stratosphere where temperatures are rising. The net effect produces an apparent ‘logarithmic’ dependency, that I also calculated, and which is very similar to that of Myhre et al. Notice also how 3/4 of the “greenhouse” effect from CO2 kicks in from zero to 400ppm.
.
Figure 1: Logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on CO2 concentration up to 1000 ppm The effect of increasing CO2 is to raise the effective emission height for 15micron IR radiation photons. The atmosphere thins out with height according to barometric pressure, and eventually the air is so thin that IR photons escape directly to space, thereby releasing energy from the atmosphere. Some IR frequencies can escape directly to space from the surface (the IR window). Others escape from cloud tops or high altitude water vapour and ozone. The loss of energy from the top of the atmosphere drives convection and evaporation which is the primary heat loss from the surface. This process also drives the temperature lapse rate in the troposphere without which there could be no greenhouse effect. The overall energy balance between incoming solar insolation and the radiative losses to space determines the height of the tropopause and the earth’s average temperature. A small sudden increase in CO2 will slightly reduce the outgoing radiative loss to space, thereby creating an energy imbalance. This small energy imbalance is called “radiative forcing”. The surface will consequently warm slightly to compensate, thereby restoring the earth’s energy balance. This effect can be estimate from Stefan Boltzman’s law.
If you assume T is constant (the answer increases by 1% for 1C if you don’t) then
so with T = 288K andand an effective insolation area of the earth of
this then gives
A steeper slope would be expected with net positive feedbacks
Figure 2 shows HadCRUT4.6 and my version of GHCNV3/HadSST3 plotted versus CO2 and compared to a logarithmic Temperature Dependence.
HadCRUT4.6 and 3D-GHCNV3/HadSST3 plotted versus CO2. The orange and purple curves show logarithmic temperature dependencies. There is still a discrepancy in trends before CO2 reaches ~340ppm but thereafter temperatures follow a logarithmic increase with a scale factor of about 2.5. This implies a climate sensitivity (TCR) of about 1.7C .
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...mate-change-yes-problem-about-get-ncna1034521
https://www.wired.com/story/plane-contrails-surprising-effect-global-warming/
https://scitechdaily.com/it-turns-o...-are-bad-even-without-chemtrail-conspiracies/
cancel2 2022
Canceled
SmarterthanYou
rebel
LOL, whatever kid.
I don’t think that’s possible, but if he could it would be awesome.
Arks&sparka
Verified User
Oh that's a compelling argument. Well done.
Into the Night
Verified User
So just because CO2 happens to absorb infrared light emitted from the surface, you think that it's capable of adding the additional energy to Earth to warm it? Did you know that emitting light COOLS the surface? Did you know that CO2 also emits to space just like the rest of the atmosphere and the surface?
So you ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law. EVERYTHING that is above absolute zero radiates light. You ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You deny mathematics. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. There is nowhere near enough instrumentation to do either. Statistical summaries are required to publish the margin of error value along with the summary. You have not calculated this value. You have not declared and justified your variance. You have not used unbiased data. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant. These influences must be eliminated when collecting the data. The raw data must be published. Only raw data can be used in statistical math. Selection MUST be by randN. Normalization MUST be by paired randR. You cannot ignore the rules of statistical math.
You are quoting charts of random numbers.
Into the Night
Verified User
Quite right. Everyone alive is emitting carbon dioxide. As you walk and exercise, you emit more carbon dioxide.
They also require charging. Those charging stations are powered by coal, oil, and natural gas power plants, nuclear power plants, or hydroelectric power. Energy has to come from somewhere, even for the electric car. Worse, it takes a long time to refuel an electric car while it only takes a few minutes to refuel a gasoline car.
Quite true. Can't blame 'em, since the Democrats want to shut down and destroy their industry.
Correct again. I call electric cars 'coal fired cars' because of where they get the power to charge them.
Into the Night
Verified User
It is quite possible for someone to deny science. They do it by denying theories of science such as the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I've seen people deny Newton's law of motion, Einstein's theory of relativity and his theory of special relativity, Kepler's laws of orbital trajectory, Plank's laws, Wien's law, Ohm's law, etc.
These laws are all theories of science. None are proven correct. That's not possible. But they are existing theories that have so far withstood tests against them. They can't just be discarded. Yet the religious nuts of the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green routinely discard these theories, and science along with it.
Arks&sparka
Verified User
I don't think anybody denies such things they just misunderstand them.
Into the Night
Verified User
Socialism doesn't work. Fascism doesn't work.
Into the Night
Verified User
One first has to define 'pollution'. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and necessary gas in the atmosphere.
Soot from improperly burning coal (or any other carbon based fuel) is still fuel. It can be burned.
Sulfur dioxide can be easily scrubbed from the air going up the stack. You get sulfur out of it when you do. That's a saleable product. It's valuable.
Arks&sparka
Verified User
Electric cars have been around longer than internal combustion engine cars they lost favor with the Advent of the internal combustion engine and they never regained their hold since.
The problem is battery life and charging cycles. If they could figure out how to charge it quickly without it catching on fire I mean within a span of five or ten minutes, and it be able to go a thousand miles on a charge then it might come into it someone again but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
One idea I saw is the way around this is the car has a removable battery and there would be charging stations where they remove the depleted battery and put in a charged one. But such an idea would need a vast amount of infrastructure, and such stations would be an enormous fire hazard. And of course we also have the problem of the life cycle of the battery.