layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:54 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I am also capable of understanding scientific literature


Wonderful, Ollie. Care to answer the questions I posed in the last post--the one starting out with:

Quote:
Tell, me Ollie, do you claim to know more than him?
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:54 am
Sixty scientists . . . wow. What was it that Anatole France said about that kind of logical fallacy?

"Si cinquante millions de gens disent une sottise, ça n'en reste pas moins une sottise.”

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is, nevertheless, a foolish thing."

layman
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:57 am
@Setanta,
And exactly what do you know, blowhard, about science that those distinguished scientists don't? How are you qualified to judge them as "foolish?"

Did you read EVEN ONE single paper they published?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:02 am
@layman,
Quote:
Tell, me Ollie, do you claim to know more than him?

Depends on what. Do you understand the concept of domain of competance?

If you're asking about physics, he knows much more than I do.

If you're asking about climate change, I can take him any day.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:07 am
@layman,
Ah, name calling, that certainly clinches your position.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:07 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
If you're asking about climate change, I can take him any day.


Hahahaha.

Quite typical of your extreme arrogance, Ollie. I, and others, have quoted a number of your revered "climatologists in this thread, including some lead writers for the IPCC itself. Seems you reject their answers too.

Where do you get your superior knowledge on these things? Or should I ask from whom? Chairman Mao?
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:11 am
@Olivier5,

Quote:
Depends on what. Do you understand the concept of domain of competance?


Do you? I notice you didn't respond to this, eh?

Quote:
Got any comment on his allegations about corruption, fraud, and "trilions of dollars," etc.? Wait, he's only a physicist that was a member of American Physical Society for 67 years. What the hell would HE know about APS, eh?

Let me guess, eh? No more than a garbage collector and MUCH LESS than you know, right?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:12 am
@layman,
You have quoted people without understanding what they said. Try and stop running around for a second and focus on ONE quote, understand it, then move on tot he next. Try and put your head back on your shoulders too, if you can.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:19 am
@Olivier5,
Just answer the damn question, eh, Ollie?
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:24 am
@layman,
What damn question, layboy?
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:29 am
@Olivier5,
The ones I've asked twice, Dollie.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:35 am
@layman,
Ask thrice honey, if it's not to hard on you.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 04:36 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Ask thrice honey, if it's not to hard on you.


Learn to read, Sweetie Pie.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 05:02 am
Anyone the least bit interested in any view other than the false "consensus" might find the following video to be worthwhile. It is a presentation by Patrick Moore, a "passionate environmentalist" and a scientist with a doctorate degree in ecology, who founded "Greenpeace." It chronicles his days of confronting whaling ships in a rubber raft (to save whales), throwing his body over baby seals about to be clubbed, getting arrested for it, etc.

He says he eventually had to quit his position as Chairman of Greenpeace because the "board" became pseudo-scientific in the name of "activism."

Here he denounces the so-called scientific "consensus" on global warming, and explains why we need MORE (not less) CO2 in the atmosphere.

"I fear for the end of the enlightenment" -Patrick Moore


Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 05:58 am
@layman,
Learn to listen, glory hole.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 08:17 am
@layman,
Moore presents a lot of information pertaining to periods consisting of many millions of years. This guy had dedicated his academic training and his entire life to studying and learning such "information." I am in no position to assess just how accurate any of it is.

But it sounds plausible, and his basic points are easy enough to understand. For one thing he says (and I have seen many other experts make the same claim) that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging, not a leading, indicator of rising or lowering temperatures. If it gets warmer, you may get more CO2, and there may be a relationship between the two. But CO2 doesn't "cause" the increased temperatures (although it may enhance the effect). Something else causes the increased temperatures FIRST.

I have seen many other factors, such as solar activity and the position of the earth in it's eccentric orbit, ocean currents, water cycles, cloud formation, etc., being asserted by experts as having a much greater affect on global temperatures than the amount of "human-caused" CO2 in the atmosphere.

I can't pretend to know the answer. Moore quotes the IPCC itself as saying the factors are too complex to be amenable to predictability, and I have my self quoted IPCC lead writers (and others) who assert that there is a high degree of uncertainty about it all. I can't help but believe that much.

So where does all this putative "settled science" come from? I already cited a peer reviewed paper which examined the data and the math underlying the commonly referred to "97% of all scientists agree" claim. That paper said that, when properly calculated, it was not 97%. It wasn't 10%. It wasn't 5%. It wasn't even 1%. It was less than 1/3 of 1%.

So again, one has to ask--why are we always hearing about this great consensus pertaining to the alarmist propaganda? What it the source of this, and what is the motive behind asserting it?
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 10:16 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
The fact that a mixture of air with higher concentrations of CO2 retains more heat has been shown scientifically for over 100 years.

Not just scientifically, agriculturally too. Remember, this is called "the greenhouse effect" because farmers have been using it, profitably, in their greenhouses for that long. So if Baldimo is right about the effect of CO2 on heat retention being in doubt, all those farmers could have been wasting a lot of money over all this time. Baldimo should advise them to stop pumping CO2 into their greenhouses' glass walls and see what happens. I'm sure American farmers will be eternally grateful to Baldimo for disabusing them of their delusions about the greehnouse effect (NOT).
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 10:23 am
@layman,
Quote:
So where does all this putative "settled science" come from? I already cited a peer reviewed paper which examined the data and the math underlying the commonly referred to "97% of all scientists agree" claim. That paper said that, when properly calculated, it was not 97%. It wasn't 10%. It wasn't 5%. It wasn't even 1%. It was less than 1/3 of 1%.


I gave a link to the paper in an earlier cite, and it's been a while since I've read it. But, as I recall, the biggest problem was imputing claims to others which they didn't make.

The original figure came from a climate activist who claimed to have reviewed something like 40,000 published papers. As it turned out, only about 50 of those papers made statements agreeing with some aspect of the IPCC claims. But the guy just pretended that anybody who didn't explicitly disagree therefore agreed. That's how he got 97%. It was a little more complicated than that--anybody who cares can read it for themselves if they want more details.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 10:52 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
So if Baldimo is right about the effect of CO2 on heat retention being in doubt,


According to this guy, CO2 does not retain or trap heat:
Quote:

Global warming advocates claim that CO2 rises up in the atmosphere and traps and retains heat. It does the opposite of both claims. My career of using the physics of gas measurement to solve real-world problems at our factories makes it easy for me to see through this junk science....

Proponents point to scientist John Tyndall for postulating what we now call global warming in his 1861 paper published in "Philosophical Transactions."...Tyndall leaps a bit with this concept when he hypothesizes the affect on our atmosphere by stating, "to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times" – which we attribute to global warming.

Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? Gas measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings can burn, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.

Does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite.

The affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled.

By JAMES MOODEY / Laguna Hills resident and author of “Media Canards”


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/heat-337566-gas-gases.html

I don't know if this guy is right, but he claims to have made a "career of using the physics of gas measurement to solve real-world problems." A more elaborate explanation of how CO2 affect heat is provided here:

Quote:
The mechanism by which carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect." Stated very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. As such, it allows incoming solar radiation from the sun to pass through it and warm the earth's surface. The earth's surface, in turn, emits a portion of this energy upwards toward space as longer wavelength or thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere's CO2 molecules back toward earth's surface, providing an additional source of heat energy. Without water vapor, CO2, and other radiatively-active trace gases in the air, the planet's average temperature would be about 34°C cooler than it is at present.


http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/greenhouse.php

I take that to be saying it reflects heat back toward earth, rather than trapping or retaining it.

The video I posted shows why CO2 is pumped into greenhouses. It is not to preserve heat. It is to enhance plant growth. A greenhouse lets light and heat in, but does not let it out. That's what causes a rise in temperature:

Quote:
The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

parados
 
  5  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2015 07:32 am
@layman,
Quote:


According to this guy, CO2 does not retain or trap heat:


Gosh. You failed to mention according to some guy the earth is flat.

When CO2 cools more slowly it raises temperature. There is no denying it. Every 12 hours or so we have this thing called the sun that pumps energy into the earth's atmosphere. When that energy can't escape as fast as it used to it causes temperature to rise. This is some pretty simple physics.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 08:19:49