Are Greenhouse Gases or AGW Real? (Split from, 'Climate Change')

[rangerx]

 

In case you didn't know, climatologists who were PAID to assert that there is proof of climate change when the direct cause is already known to be otherwise.

 

Already known to be otherwise? Unlike the usage of alternate facts, your assertion will require citation to have any credence in this discussion.

[Phi for All]

And by the way - Hawkings standard model of quantum theories and Charles Darwin's theories of evolution have been proven deeply flawed.

 

Whoa, we get it, you're the whole package, and a creationist to boot! We prefer you display your ignorance one subject at a time though. It's too tiring following multiple misunderstandings, and scientists can't allow tacit approval of wrongness and intellectually lazy explanations.

[iNow]

You can assert anything without the slightest idea what you're talking about. As you seem so capable of doing.

Ignoring your flame bait, the point I made is that you can assert anything you want so long as you can support it with evidence and adequately defend it against relevant reasonable criticisms and counterpoints.

 

The point about which you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant is that it doesn't matter who you are, what credentials you have, what letters you put in the suffix of your name, nor what you studied in school or where you studied it.

 

That's the beauty of science. Anyone can do it. Young or old. Male or female. Black or white. Rich or poor. Educated or not. What matters is the process and the truth, not what clubs you belong to or what family you were born into.

 

Now, if you feel I've asserted anything that's invalid, man up and state precisely what instead of bandying about these childish vague accusations. I'm happy to support everything and anything I've said or even concede if I cannot.

Edited January 25, 2017 by iNow

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

RiceAway,

 

As your posts have dragged the thread they came from away from the OP's specific questions, I am have moved them into their own thread. As you are positing your own ideas about climate change, the new thread will be placed in speculations. Please note that you are mandated to substantiate any non-claims you make.

 

Generally speaking, staff would appreciate if you could please stick to the topic, and keep the unsubstantiated and rather dubious claims related to your credentials, and comments about other completely unrelated areas of science out of your posts here and elsewhere.

 

[John Cuthber]

Since citing ones qualifications seems to be in fashion. I have to admit I never worked with a Nobel prize winner; but my mum taught one of the Spice Girls and, if you think about it, that's just as important.

 

I am a chemist and, as such, I know what latent heat is. Since there are no phase changes of oxygen, nitrogen and CO2 near normal atmospheric conditions, there is no latent heat.

The OP is simply factually incorrect.

 

Worse than that, because the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with heat content of the atmosphere, the whole tennet of his argument is flawed.

It's a straw man attack on a made up version of the greenhouse effect.

This whole tread counts as "not even wrong" so we might as well close it.

[Sensei]

And by the way - Hawkings standard model of quantum theories and (...)

I could swear I saw couple days ago somebody (Strange?) in other thread told you Hawking (not Hawkings, again the same error) is not the author of Standard Model,

and you again and again keep repeating the same erroneous information..

 

Wondering how can you have alleged IQ 145 if you can't even remember knowledge gained just a few days ago.. ?

 

I found it, and was right:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90604-why-quantum-physics-is-a-waste-of-time/?p=967344

 

Charles Darwin's theories of evolution have been proven deeply flawed.

Oh, really? In which way.. ?

Edited January 25, 2017 by Sensei

[swansont]

Following your lead give us a citation for the percentage of the Sun's emission are in the high absorption band of CO2.

Why is this my responsibility? I never claimed that CO2 absorbs in the sun's spectrum.

 

And demonstrate how the tiny percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere can have any effective increase in GMT.

GMT? That's Greenwich Mean Time to me.

 

It was not about Iceland because you made the claim that somehow the growth of the glaciers on Iceland were NOT universal. And in those article of Greenland it showed artifacts of human habitations before the expansion of the glaciers almost entirely in the little ice age.

It's funny, I thought this was widely understood, because one of the denialist claims has been that some glaciers are growing so it can't possibly be warming.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Some-Himalayan-glaciers-are-advancing-rather-than-melting-study-finds.html

 

Or do you simply make things up as you go along?

Didn't mean to horn in on your area.

 

As for the claim that there is a limit to how much water the atmosphere can contain - I'd really like a citation on that.

Oh, good grief. You've not heard of relative humidity? And understand that it can't exceed 100%?

 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/maximum-moisture-content-air-d_1403.html

 

e.g. at 20ºC the atmosphere is saturated with water when it contains 17.3 grams/m^3.

[Phi for All]

As for the claim that there is a limit to how much water the atmosphere can contain - I'd really like a citation on that.

 

And now you see the problem with exaggerating your credentials. You don't know what you don't know, which makes it obvious to those who do when you reveal ignorance on a basic level like this.

[iNow]

Someone needs to review the concept of a dew point, apparently.

[swansont]

Someone needs to review the concept of a dew point, apparently.

Well, it's complicated.

[StringJunky]

 

And now you see the problem with exaggerating your credentials. You don't know what you don't know, which makes it obvious to those who do when you reveal ignorance on a basic level like this.

This reminds me of: "When you open your mouth your brains are on parade."

[Manticore]

 

I worked on the first heart/lung machine.

From: www.thoughtco.com (other sources agree) Design of the first heart-lung machine began in the early 1930s. It was first used for open heart surgery in 1953.

Assuming you were 20 when you began working on it and that you were only involved for a short time (with the version first used on humans) right at the very end, that would make you - at minimum - 84 years old.

If you claim to have been involved from the beginning then you could be as much as 106 years old.

So congratulations, I guess.

 

Edit: Apparently, Maximilian von Frey had previously invented a heart-lung machine in 1885 (gismodo.com). If that is the one you worked on you must now be at least 150 years old - so double congratulations!

Edited March 8, 2017 by Manticore

[MigL]

The workings of greenhouse gases...

 

The Sun emits radiation, some of which strikes the Earth, centered in the visible light spectrum, because it acts like a black body of approx. 5500 deg. The radiation which strikes the Earth is absorbed by atmosphere, seas and land. Lower frequencies are absorbed by vibrating intramolecular bonds and higher ones by atomic orbital electrons possibly resulting in bond dissociation. Obviously when this absorbed radiation is re--emitted some of it is sent back into space. Ozone apparently provides this sort of shielding for UV radiation by dissociating O2 bonds.

 

The radiation that reaches the seas and land masses is also re-radiated, but since the Earth's black body spectrum is centered on a much lower temperature, the infrared range, it is absorbed by intramolecular bonds. Water, methane and CO2 are very efficient low infrared absorbers in the atnosphere. And just like before when this radiation is re-emitted, some of it goes back towards the source. But while CO2 absorbs very little of the Sun's incident radiation and so, re-emits an even smaller portion back into space, CO2 absorbs a lot of the infrared emitted by the Earth and re-emits a good portion back towards the Earth. Green house gases, in effect, provide a shield for the Earth's re-emitted radiation, keeping it from cooling. It is this sort of 'double baking' that accounts for the greenhouse gas effect, not latent, or other, heat.

 

( incidentally, my credentials are stated in my profile and enough information is provided should you wish to check, but I did find that exchange humorous )

Edited March 9, 2017 by MigL