potholer54 asked:
A basic look at how climate scientists infer that man-made carbon gases are changing the climate, and how this view is contradicted by other climate scientists who are skeptics. I am a former science correspondent with an interest in reporting the facts, not the media hype. My thanks to 9thgate for checking my script for errors.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
**by your standards, that child is now a paleontologist for having done so**
No,the baby needs to be in the field digging up bones to be a paleontologist/anthropologits which is why I deplore Armchair Evolution theorist that have never handled fossils like “Lucy” and thus can’t see how thin the theory of Macro Evolution or inter-special mutations actually is
Micro Evolution or trait mutations within a species is Observable and Confirmed
**So you “build lasers” in much the same way a twelve year old boy assembles a balsa wood dinosaur kit from a museum gift shop?**
No I actually built them the same way Obama said he “fixed the Economy” yesterday or Paton ‘won the war”…I defer my “weak points” to flunkies in the form of assistants
I said I needed a laser and asked Cespanar (Ses-Pan-Nar) to work on the details for the dsired efdfect…it’s why I did say I honestly don’t know the technical specs of the Lasers “I Built”
So you “build lasers” in much the same way a twelve year old boy assembles a balsa wood dinosaur kit from a museum gift shop?
Except by your standards, that child is now a paleontologist for having done so.
**This is called the Planck relation and it’s unlikely you’d build a laser without ever having heard of it.**
Sing-a-long
The Power source is connected to the Plasma tube(bone),the The gas inflow is connected to the plasma tube via the high pressure cylynder(bone), the plasma tube is covered by the water jacket(bone)
Oh,buckle my soul….lol
Hardly rocket science or anything to do with having to know E = h * c /(lambada, congo, macerena…whatever)
Math is not a substitute for hands on
**So either you’re admitting you’ve committed to staying in the fantasy world, or you’re trying to accuse me of staying in a false reality and you just totally botched a movie reference**
I totally botched a movie reference…lol
My bad
It’s likely that COngress will pass simular Emmisions standards to California’s which demand Co2 be less then 15% of emmisions (average 9%-12% currently)
With cap and trade coming a reality there is going to be a few IPCC members testfying against it
*Define “forced.” Carbon monoxide will spontaneously oxidizes in air and form salts when in contact with certain metals. Carbon dioxide is completely inert*
A device called the Catalyst converter used to chemically force the second atom on to carbon monoxide to make carbon dioxide pre-1994 when CO was “evil” and Co2 was “harmless”
Now that Co2 is “evil” there is the Emmisions control box that catches the bulk of carbon gunk comming out of the engine thus why the Mythbuster’s cat Co2 is 3%
“Don’t forget to take your red pill ”
You realize it was the red pill that freed you from the Matrix and let you see ‘the truth’ and the BLUE pill that allowed you to stay in the false reality?
So either you’re admitting you’ve committed to staying in the fantasy world, or you’re trying to accuse me of staying in a false reality and you just totally botched a movie reference.
“I said I suck at math”
So much so that you can’t multiply three numbers together? That’s all the math required to do the problem I proposed! The fact is you didn’t even know where to start in answering the problem.
E = h * c / (lambda)
This is called the Planck relation and it’s unlikely you’d build a laser without ever having heard of it.
You claimed to understand the absorption and emission of radiation by atoms, and yet you failed even the most fundamental of tests in that subject.
**one can only conclude you are delusional or a troll.
Please pick one so I can stop wasting everyone’s time.**
I’m Dellusional
Don’t forget to take your red pill
“Carbon Monoxide is chemically stable and will not take on another O atom unless forced”
Define “forced.” Carbon monoxide will spontaneously oxidizes in air and form salts when in contact with certain metals. Carbon dioxide is completely inert.
**So you are openly claiming that it’s a conspiracy, now**
What. My crack about Environut Teachers teaching children nonsense nowadays.
No, they are thankfully limited, and education should always begin at home first
**Combined with your earlier statement that there is a conspiracy to suppress your own research**
What?
I saved my project but was “no longer needed”
They are trying to “Reverse Engineer” MING at Groom Lake AATF cause they forgot to ask me for the Cryptogram key..lol
So you are openly claiming that it’s a conspiracy, now?
Combined with your earlier statement that there is a conspiracy to suppress your own research (despite having admitted you can’t and won’t do basic math!) one can only conclude you are delusional or a troll.
Please pick one so I can stop wasting everyone’s time.
**By your own admission you don’t know how atoms and molecules absorb EM waves**
I said I suck at math
Em waves vibrate the atoms/molucules as they pass into/through matter of any kind
Microwaves and UV rays causes enough agitation to cause thermal heat generation in most matter though not gases like that in the atmosphere that easily don’t rub up against each other to cause thermal heat generation
**How can you prove this so-called “GHG theory” is corrupt?**
Read svante’s work
“Again how does c6 c12,and c8 (oops I said c7,earlier my bad) magically emmit c13 co2?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “c13 co2.” You can’t have carbon dioxide with more than one carbon atom per molecule, but you seem to be implying that it has 13 carbon atoms. Please clarify.
So let me see if I got this right.
You claim that burning fossil fuels doe not release CO2, then link to a video showing that cars (which burn fossil fuels) emits CO2. A video which, I might add, you also attack the validity of your own source in the comments.
The reaction formula I posted is the ideal result. The inside of an engine is not always an ideal reactor, so there is often incomplete combustion (soot, CO). That’s why cars have catalytic converters to complete the reaction.
**Yes, really. We’ve spent the past week discovering that you do not know…radiative heat transfer**
Well considering I learned my Science from the pre-liberal infiltration of the Education system maybe I am just a “neanderthal” in thinking Heat and IR are separate and disimalar forms of energy that just happens to accompany each other thus your and your kind’s confusion now..lol
**CO2 does absorb some bands of IR radiation:**
Duh
But it doesn’t “create heat”from asorbing IR related to %
**Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons, the majority of which is C8H18 (”Octane” – sound familiar?)**
chemical formulas between C6H14 and C12H26, but a good “average” compound is C8H18
Again how does c6 c12,and c8 (oops I said c7,earlier my bad) magically emmit c13 co2?
Elfin Magic?
It must be to get pass the Emmisions control box and oxidize past Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide considering Carbon Monoxide is chemically stable and will not take on another O atom unless forced
**(C8H18) + 25(O2) -> 16(CO2) + 18(H2O)**
No, 70%ish of the gasoline mist is wasted as exothermic heat while 21%ish of it does create enough force to drive the piston whith the rest caremelized in that mist
Funny that this Mythbusters clip shows only 3% Co2 by volume, and the Mythbusters say that a car emmiting more then 15% Co2 by volume has something wrong with it
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs
Pure co2 and water,my ass.
Yes, really. We’ve spent the past week discovering that you do not know even the most basic principles at play with radiative heat transfer. Do you really want to go there? CO2 does absorb some bands of IR radiation: 2.7, 4.3, and 15-17 microns, specifically.
Again, go read a book about Psychrometrics as to why a humid night feels warmer than a dry night. You might also try a thermometer to accurately measure the air temperature instead of simply relying on your senses.
*A Meteorologist knows that, a Atmospheric Physicist” doesn’t even include it in his/her “model”*
And that is the crux of the AGW COnsenses v.s. the Skeptics
A Geophysicists in a University weather Station IS NOT a Geologist in the field
A Atmospheric Physicist working at NASA IS NOT a Meteorologist working for NOAA
A Ecological Physicist teaching at Cambridge is Not a Ecologist studying in the field
*What are you proving again?*
They never say Co2 is a driving source they blame the sun
*Since CO2 absorbs thermal radiation from the ground**
Really?
Then explain why a no humidity night with a warm ground in the desert is freexing cold if CO2 asorbs the thermal radiation
**Unless you want to argue that the air heats up solely by conduction and convection**
It’s via the evaporation/precipitation cycle that thermal heat travels from surface to air relative to humidity.
.A Meteorologist knows that, a Atmospheric Physicist” doesn’t even include it in his/her “model”
The first video explains how winds are the result of varying air pressure across global regions due to temperature differences. Since CO2 absorbs thermal radiation from the ground, such local temperatures would be increases as CO2 concentrations increased. This, in turn, would drive winds. (Unless you want to argue that the air heats up solely by conduction and convection, which is wrong.)
The second video mentions wind only in passing, and the third one not at all. What are you proving again?
You spout all this unmitigated BS and you want *me* to cite studies supporting fundamental chemistry and conservation of mass? You’re unhinged.
Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons, the majority of which is C8H18 (”Octane” – sound familiar?)
2(C8H18) + 25(O2) -> 16(CO2) + 18(H2O)
So you’ve failed high school physics and you’re already moving on to failing high school chemistry?
What’s the punchline here? When are you going to say I’m ‘educated dumb’ and post a link to the Time Cube website?
“No, that is just a fucken recital of Corrupted GHG theor. ”
By your own admission you don’t know how atoms and molecules absorb EM waves. How can you prove this so-called “GHG theory” is corrupt?
“debunked … “GHGs” as the driver of heat that therefore wind,weather,and climate for over 100 years”
I’m not sure GHG really have anything to do with winds – nor aware anyone claimed they did.
Please explain, in your own words, how wind occurs.
Odd there is no mention of CO2 as a driver of wind,weather, or climate in these videos
watch?v=wUiwtVSkUwQ
watch?v=95TtXYjOEv4
watch?v=MZbsMlr9WRI