DevilsTurkeyBaster


























  1. You can lose energy by collision with another gas molecule or by losing an IR photon, not both. Energy must be conserved, i.e. Energy in = Energy out.

  2. When a molecule is excited by a photon it increases it's vibration rate and transfers heat to nearby molecules. When it releases a photon the molecule has already lost energy and so the emitted photon is of a longer wavelength. Energy is conserved.

  3. Can you be more specific and quantitative?

  4. In the early universe everything was closer together. A shock wave may be needed now owing to reduced gas density.

  5. Except warming is an issue, and a pretty big one. I accept there have been long term warming and cooling periods in the past but they all correlate to changes in atmospheric composition. I am not sure why you keep ignoring that when its addressed. What do you mean it is not important what the IPCC has concluded regarding CO2? Why did you link the report? Do you wish to just use it for your point and dismiss the rest? CO2 (and other GHG being the main point on wether human activity is driving climate change) I would actually argue that trying to limit the conversation to the physics of opacity of photons is a way of purposefully misunderstanding the broader picture. Here is a quote from the link you posted this time from scied.ucar.edu:

  6. Antarctic ice core samples have been analyzed for both past temperature and CO2 levels. What has been shown conclusively is that temperature rise has always preceded a rise in CO2. There is no doubt that people have caused some increase in the CO2 level but the human output is dwarfed by that of nature. You can prove that to yourself by looking up the numbers. Right now humans contribute ~2% above natural output. And as we know, natural output is increasing and it's outpacing the rise in human emissions. The reason for that is as the world warms more areas are giving up sequestered plant waste. So we have a situation, which has played out before in past warming as shown by the ice-cores, in which Earth came out of the LIA and began to warm thereby increasing the natural output of CO2. The difference between now and then is that we're in an industrial age. In the 1970s the concern was that particulates from industry were cooling the planet. Those particulate levels dropped and now we're being told that the subsequent warming is all due to industrial CO2. It doesn't matter what the problem is, industry will be blamed for it. That is the agenda.

  7. How is blaming Industry an agenda? in your view who is driving that? After all, those who hold the reins of industry also hold the power. So who is this other powerful group whose agenda is to take down industry?

  8. The pacing of the show is a turn-off. But it's necessary to see how the experience impacted the ladies as their future selves. Here's a spoiler though, if you continue to watch you'll be shocked.

  9. The search for dark matter is like the search for Big Foot. If you've found only one footprint you could pass it off as an anomaly. But if you have a whole path of prints you'd be convinced that something must be making them. So you hypothesize about what sort of creature it is and set your search accordingly.

  10. Come on down to the 1970s: nuclear war, rampant pollution, global cooling, garbage crisis, race riots, rising cancer rates. All that and a chance to win a new car!

  11. I read a comment on a german blog some time ago. It was about some russian scientist who made Sagan aware of the "runaway GHE" on Venus at a symposium in the 1960's or early 1970's. Worked out as intended, as it seems.

  12. Saint Carl is one of those two-faced media people who have always pissed me off. My big issue with him was over the Velikovsky affair where he, along with assholes like Asimov, broke all of the rules that he talks about in that video. Let's not forget that Sagan was part of the group that attacked Velikovsky in every medium, threatened universities that invited Velikovsky to speak, and fixed the only "allowed" debate so as disallow any questions by Velikovsky of the other presenters.

  13. Just in the last 2000 years Earth has gone through 2 extended periods of cooling and 3 periods of brief warming:

  14. So why not believe in climate change? You believe that drinking could cause liver cancer or sclerosis of the liver or that smoking could cause lung cancer. That’s an ecosystem that has damages wrought upon it. Why is it so difficult to understand that the planet, after having damages inflicted upon it, would thus become in some way ill and experience some sort of shift in its climate like that of a fever or a chill. Am I to think that by your rhetoric that you lack critical thinking skills because you are so quick to point the finger like some inept asshole? What’s the deal dude? Need some help with your critical thinking?

  15. I've read this thread. You get upset very quickly and you lash out. That's a demonstration of poor critical thinking. When confronted by an opposing view the critical thinker analyses the new information as well as his own opinion to see where those opinions agree or conflict.

  16. India's weather extremes are due to geography. The Himalayas block air flow making India and SE Asia the only areas that don't get winds from the north. ALL of the weather extremes from heavy rain to drought plus heat domes result from southern air building up before the mountains.

  17. ENSO has only been studied since 1950. There are only hypotheses about why/how it happens. We have no idea if there is any effect on ENSO from the current warming.

  18. The name itself is unfortunate as it causes confusion. What has been called "dark energy" is an unidentified force that seems to drive an accelerated expansion. It seems to be a force that leaves no trace other than the expansion rate. "Dark" implies "invisible" which is wrong since the effect can be seen though it's source and nature are unknown. We could call the observed force "unknown energy" and be closer to the mark. Don't confuse shorthand jargon for an actual and identified phenomenon.

  19. When I was a kid (I'm 65) the Doomsday Clock was brand new and it was ominous. The threat at the time it was created was nuclear war. Other doom factors were added and it seemed that at least once a week some doom story would send reporters to the Keepers Of The Clock and they would move the hands while flash bulbs lit the scene.

  20. Most of the web pages will give the broadly accepted view of the newest oil going back only as far as the Mezosoic. And that's fair since that's the classical view that most people are satisfied with. But, that's not where the research ends. Research has been done showing that

  21. Nearly all of the regulars here agree that humans have an impact on temperature to some degree. The general feeling, which I support, is that people have a great impact on local temperature through land use but that the CO2 effect is negligible.

  22. Prior to 1960 there was no XBT program measuring ocean temperature. The International Geophysical Year of 1957 had many objectives and ocean heat content was one of those. So we have no 2000m measures from prior to that; a poor record from the early days of the XBT program; and now some very good measures due to a complete XBT plus ARGO.

  23. Already, all over Canada, we're seeing immigrants creating their own cultural ghettos. We have black districts, Asian districts, Muslim districts, and so on. Immigrants who come from countries with cultures similar to Canada's get along just fine and integrate into our society well. Too many of those from the third-world barely scrape by.

  24. HadCrut3 did have issues. Over the years several very good analyses showed that the SST record was faulty and so CRU did an adjustment before issuing HadCrut4. That adjustment took 2 years to complete and was very well done. Throughout the process CRU invited input so as to get the best result possible. HadCrut4 ended up being the "go-to" database.

  25. "Freedom of the Press" seems to be a concept that did not exist prior to the US making it part of law. At the time newspapers like

  26. Thank you. Sincerely. Though you probably just got my brand new account banned.

  27. You do realize that concrete and blacktop are HUMAN CHANGES to the local CLIMATE? Humans are raising the global temperature in a variety of ways, not just CO2.

  28. Upvote for you. I'm an AGW skeptic of course but that applies only to the extreme temperature effects that have been thrown about. Yes, humans are causing heating and much of it is due to bricks, concrete, and even lawns. A major problem we have in determining the true extent of warming is urban heat islands confounding the temperature measurements.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin