UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[_sabotage_]

I would like to visit your planet one day Mets. See, here on Earth, the monopoly on greenhouse gases is held by water vapor. And it does allow for a slow passage of energy through it, but doesn't as you say "trap it" because in this universe thermodynamics means that it is constantly trying to return to equilibrium at each possible moment. This is not a theory, it's a law. And those predominantly water vapor greenhouse atmospheric warmth is whisked away at all possible moments by the more conductive materials present in the atmosphere, of which 99.96% is not CO2. Carbon being warmed by infrared rays reflecting from a monkeys ass are still subject to these same laws, still make up that meager percentage and are still surrounded by other particles whose physical properties state that they must drain them of their energy in an environment that encourages transfers.

You are perhaps misguided in thinking that since double-paned windows help "trap" heat inside a house and these are filled with greenhouse gases, then greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can have the same effect like your pretty picture shows. But double-paned windows are double-paned for a reason, they are trapping the movement of the greenhouse gases at a specific width since any other width would decrease their qualities because the movement would allow too much thermal loss to the glass. That is, your idea only works in a vacuum. As soon as it hits the greater environment, it's gone with the wind.

Let's see if you can answer a question:
505,000km3 of evaporation occurs at 600 cal per gram, what amount of carbon dioxide is required in the atmosphere to "trap" 1% of that energy through the greenhouse effect?

If you study physics, then you will see that math doesn't lie.

[PLAYER57832]

If you study physics, then you will see that math doesn't lie.

Math doesn't lie, not in any form. However, people often try to use it to justify their lies.. and rely upon other's poor understanding to make the lies stick.


The statement "more people die in bed than anywhere else"is likely true. However, that is not enough to prove that beds are dangerous.

[Metsfanmax]

I would like to visit your planet one day Mets. See, here on Earth, the monopoly on greenhouse gases is held by water vapor. And it does allow for a slow passage of energy through it, but doesn't as you say "trap it" because in this universe thermodynamics means that it is constantly trying to return to equilibrium at each possible moment.

Yes, the system wants to come into a natural equilibrium between the energy leaving the system (infrared radiation from the Earth's surface) and the energy entering the system (incident solar radiation). The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would just radiate all that extra heat away into space eventually, if the Sun weren't constantly feeding energy into the Earth's thermal system. Since it is doing so, there is an extra source of heat that is always effectively trapped. Emissivity being unequal to one requires this. You basically agreed as much when you posted earlier that the effect of carbon dioxide and water is to raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth by more than 30 degrees. And this is true -- if we didn't have all that water in the atmosphere, it would be a lot colder on Earth. If you agree with that, why is it difficult to believe that adding more of the greenhouse gases results in even more warming?

Your argument seems to be a mixture of "the greenhouse effect doesn't work" (trust me, it does, or none of us would be alive) and "carbon dioxide doesn't contribute that much to it" and/or "carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect works differently than water." I'd appreciate if you could clarify which of these positions you're taking.

Let's see if you can answer a question:
505,000km3 of evaporation occurs at 600 cal per gram, what amount of carbon dioxide is required in the atmosphere to "trap" 1% of that energy through the greenhouse effect?

A quick calculation indicates, to me, that the evaporation of water releases 540 calories per gram. If we assume that your volume of water vapor is at STP, then the water vapor occupies one liter for every 0.8 grams. There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter, so the mass of that water is 4 x 10^17 g. Therefore the energy released in that process is approximately 9 x 10^20 J. 1% of that is 9 x 10^18 J. Now, an individual carbon dioxide molecule will absorb at a wavelength of roughly 10 microns, and when this is converted to a photon energy we're talking 4.59 x 10^38 CO2 molecules needed, if I make the absurd assumption that every molecule absorbs exactly one such infrared photon. Now, the number of molecules in the atmosphere is 10^44 (I cheated on this one and Googled it since I didn't feel like doing another calculation). This means that we'd need a concentration of 5 parts-per-million to trap that energy (compare to the current concentration of about 400 ppm). We'd need more in reality, since the heat released by the vaporization wouldn't all be emitted at the CO2 transition wavelengths, but that's harder to calculate. I also cheated a little because the typically cited ppm is with respect to volume and not number density, but whatever, I'm tired of this calculation.

If you study physics, then you will see that math doesn't lie.

One of the things you learn when studying physics, as I have, is that an answer is meaningless if you're not asking the right question. I have no idea why you asked me the above question -- i.e. what significance 505,000 km3 has.

[_sabotage_]

I'm asking you to answer the question to let you show yourself how little you understand, because when I say it, you don't hear me.

The emissivity of clouds is 1, that is they catch and reradiate all their heat, and yet in your equation you state that clouds decrease emissivity, which is true, but probably not in the way you think because the thing which makes it true is the very thing which makes global warming false. The clouds absorb all the incidence and it is then wicked away through entropy. That means that even though it adds to the emissivity of a two dimensional view of the earths surface, we live in a 3d world and it doesn't reach us and we instead count the shadow it leaves behind. But what does this tell us? That atmospheric entropy can negate the effects of much larger systems that CO2 can ever hope to represent.

But I would like to ask you a question about these special wavelengths that you know so much about. I'll take for granted that CO2 takes in the special wave length that would otherwise pass through it, that entropy wouldn't then wick that heat away, and that the amount of carbon present has a chance of creating such insulation. What about frequencies of a higher wavelength? CO2 has a very low emissivity, almost as low as aluminum, which they have been using to reflect solar incidence, how much solar incidence does it reflect compared to what it absorbs as infrared and what does that mean in real numbers, ie rise/fall in global average temperature?

You see you made a big error in your calculation, you took the volume of vapor, not water. That is you made water 1000 g per liter and made it 0.8 grams per liter, meaning you were of by a factor of 1250 in your calculation, perhaps you would like to try again.

Player, if you are suggesting ongoing man made climate change spanning the last few million years, I'm all ears, until then, I will say it was all natural.

Ah and to clarify, what I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect does work but not in the way you think it does and that carbon dioxide is of negligible importance. Entropy is the common goal and external energy can create a balance against it being achieved. But it is similar to how old layers of skin rise to the top as new layers grow underneath, that is, the dead layer is going to be lost to entropy no matter what, it's a question if the new skin is ready to meet the surface, has enough energy been added to mitigate the loses? If space ship Earth suddenly went warp speed we would quickly lose the last layer of suspended warmth and freeze, because the heat is not trapped, but merely suspended in objects. As I have said before, you seem to think that carbon dioxide has a massive effect on this huge system it is a part of, when there is little difference in it that what we find in massive related systems and is subject to the same laws as they are while possessing no special qualities to verify your position. Even if it does absorb infrared light at a higher rate than it reflects incoming solar incidence, it still is highly conductive and would allow that excess heat, which in the scale of things is tiny, to dissipate as does the black body radiation in clouds and not be included as the clouds are not.

The atmosphere is a barrier against entropy but a pretty poor one, and that is why why we are able to absorb so much heat from the sun without overheating. And a little carbon dioxide isn't going to make it much more of a barrier, if at all.

[Dukasaur]

I would like to visit your planet one day Mets. See, here on Earth, the monopoly on greenhouse gases is held by water vapor. And it does allow for a slow passage of energy through it, but doesn't as you say "trap it" because in this universe thermodynamics means that it is constantly trying to return to equilibrium at each possible moment. This is not a theory, it's a law. And those predominantly water vapor greenhouse atmospheric warmth is whisked away at all possible moments by the more conductive materials present in the atmosphere, of which 99.96% is not CO2. Carbon being warmed by infrared rays reflecting from a monkeys ass are still subject to these same laws, still make up that meager percentage and are still surrounded by other particles whose physical properties state that they must drain them of their energy in an environment that encourages transfers.

Actually, gasses of all types have piss-poor conductivity. And piss-poor as it already is, it gets even worse as pressure drops. So while at sea level you can still talk about significant effects due to conductivity in the atmosphere, in the upper atmosphere it becomes completely negligible. So negligible, for instance, that although parts of the ionosphere have temperatures in the hundreds of degrees, they would not feel warm to the touch if you could touch them, because the rate of transfer would be too low for us to perceive.

Conductivity varies with pressure, and as the air pressure drops toward zero at higher altitudes, the conductivity drops with it. It gives up completely, of course, as you approach open space. The only thing that conducts any energy from earth to space is the occasional hyper-excited ion that breaks free of the atmosphere.

In effect, then, with respect to conductivity you can treat the Earth as a closed system. You can basically think of the earth as a giant Thermos bottle, where we are the stuff inside the glass part and the vacuum of space is like the vacuum between the two layers of glass.

The only meaningful transfers to and from the Earth are through radiation. Broad-spectrum sunlight (and small amounts of light from other heavenly bodies) enters, but little of it escapes. Most of the energy that escapes is infrared only. So, a broad spectrum is coming in, a narrow spectrum is going out. If you can block the narrow part of the spectrum, you can trap heat.

Elemental gasses (O2 and N2, for instance) are pretty transparent to both the wide and the narrow spectrum. They therefore don't change the balance either way.

Water is relatively opaque to both the broad and the narrow spectrum. Clouds of water vapour block both incoming and outgoing radiation. A cloudy day is colder than a sunny day because the clouds are keeping some of the sunlight out, but a cloudy night is warmer than a starry night because the clouds are keeping some of the infrared in. Thus, the net effect of water vapour is essentially neutral, just like the elemental gasses but for different reasons.

That leaves the gasses that are not elemental and not water -- CO, CO2, NH3, and CH4, for the most part. These gasses have a very selective absorption spectrum. All of them are mostly transparent to visible and ultraviolet light, but relatively opaque to infrared light. Thus, they skew the balance, because they allow (broad spectrum) radiation in, but they reflect the infrared which is trying to get out.

It really is that simple.

[_sabotage_]

I'm sorry you received such a poor education, Duke.

Water has many unique qualities, and one of these are strong adhesive forces. This means that water sticks together. If you visits the tropics on a very humid day, you can see the walls covered with condensation, or if you visit Seattle, you can see something called rain.

On the other hand, you can take as high a concentration of CO2 as you like and it will not. What this means is that water has the inherent ability to decrease its surface area to volume ration, while CO2 does not. The smaller the surface area to volume, the greater the resistance to entropy. Water's is good, CO2's is non existent in a gas form.

So CO2 cannot clump. You may have noticed something called wind. It's created along thermal gradients. The best thermal gradient is water vapor in a decent sized clump acting on the colder air below it and creating a force. This force then stirs everything together.

If your theory is correct, then A. CO2 must have a protective barrier against entropy, such as clumping, which it does not, B. This clumping would creating thermal gradients, which it does not, C. These thermal gradients would then disperse the excess energy until they were in equilibrium. Meaning, even if it did, it would simply be a temporary depository which would reach a saturation point and be exhausted.

How then does CO2 work? It is widely dispersed in small molecular packages surrounded by much more abundant molecules that will happily suck the heat dry. Because another law of thermodynamics, law mind you, not theory, states that heat always goes from hot to cold. That means any heating caused by infrared reradiated light which is absorbed by the 0.04% of carbon dioxide present in separate molecules surrounded by a 99.96% of other material would nearly instantly lose that heat to the surrounding material. This would create a tiny lag in the disperse meant of heat, but not a significant one.

Could this tiny lag suspend enough heat for long enough to through the global temperature off balance? No, because there are much bigger systems that would overcome it.

[Metsfanmax]

The emissivity of clouds is 1, that is they catch and reradiate all their heat,

False. The empirically measured emissivity of clouds is more like one half. Emissivity is not a statement about how much of the energy is re-radiated. All of the energy is re-radiated if you're in an equilibrium system, for example; otherwise, the energy content is constantly rising. Emissivity is a statement about how you re-radiate that energy relative to a blackbody of the same temperature. The basic physics here is that an object with emissivity < 1 will initially absorb all of the Sun's energy and then re-radiate some fraction of it, with the rest staying in the system. Since there is extra energy, the system heats up. But a hotter object emits more total thermal power. So there will be an adjustment happening until we're releasing enough energy (at the inefficiency represented by the emissivity) to compensate for what the Sun is giving to us. The net effect is that we still catch and re-radiate all of the heat the Sun is giving to us, but that the surface of the Earth must be hotter to make this happen. This is how you can demonstrate the physics of global warming in a single equation, using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

and yet in your equation you state that clouds decrease emissivity, which is true, but probably not in the way you think because the thing which makes it true is the very thing which makes global warming false. The clouds absorb all the incidence and it is then wicked away through entropy.

Clouds absorb very little of the incident solar radiation. In fact, clouds are largely responsible for increasing the albedo of the Earth (the amount of sunlight reflected instead of absorbed). Therefore clouds have the potential to contribute negative climate forcing, although there are other cloud effects that may negate this.

That means that even though it adds to the emissivity of a two dimensional view of the earths surface, we live in a 3d world and it doesn't reach us and we instead count the shadow it leaves behind. But what does this tell us? That atmospheric entropy can negate the effects of much larger systems that CO2 can ever hope to represent.

This has nothing to do with entropy. Please stop using that term like it's meaningful here, unless you're going to discuss convection. Entropy is not a physical mechanism; it's just a useful way of understanding why some heat transfers work the way they do.

But I would like to ask you a question about these special wavelengths that you know so much about.

If you don't understand the importance of infrared wavelengths, I urge you to read more about the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Infrared radiation (heat, essentially) is fundamentally the same as visible light -- it just has a longer wavelength so we can't see it. But that's what night vision goggles do, for example.

I'll take for granted that CO2 takes in the special wave length that would otherwise pass through it,

Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. The information is widely available.

that entropy wouldn't then wick that heat away, and that the amount of carbon present has a chance of creating such insulation. What about frequencies of a higher wavelength? CO2 has a very low emissivity, almost as low as aluminum, which they have been using to reflect solar incidence, how much solar incidence does it reflect compared to what it absorbs as infrared and what does that mean in real numbers, ie rise/fall in global average temperature?

The longer wavelength is the infrared radiation. On that chart above, you can see that carbon dioxide does nothing to radiation intensity in the visible wavelength region (between 0.4 and 0.7 microns, roughly). Almost all of the Sun's energy is in the visible part of the spectrum, so that light passes through the atmosphere easily. When it's absorbed and re-radiated at longer wavelengths, that's when carbon dioxide becomes important.

You see you made a big error in your calculation, you took the volume of vapor, not water. That is you made water 1000 g per liter and made it 0.8 grams per liter, meaning you were of by a factor of 1250 in your calculation, perhaps you would like to try again.

It can't be an "error" if the question was vague enough to permit such a choice. I interpreted "505,000 km^3 of evaporation" to mean "505,000 km^3 of water vapor." If that's not what you meant, that's ok, but I'm not your calculator. If you have a point to make, please make it.

Ah and to clarify, what I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect does work but not in the way you think it does and that carbon dioxide is of negligible importance. Entropy is the common goal and external energy can create a balance against it being achieved. But it is similar to how old layers of skin rise to the top as new layers grow underneath, that is, the dead layer is going to be lost to entropy no matter what, it's a question if the new skin is ready to meet the surface, has enough energy been added to mitigate the loses?

Let's clarify this one step at a time. Do you agree that the Earth has a higher temperature because of the water in the atmosphere than it would have, without that water?

[Metsfanmax]

Water has many unique qualities, and one of these are strong adhesive forces. This means that water sticks together. If you visits the tropics on a very humid day, you can see the walls covered with condensation, or if you visit Seattle, you can see something called rain.

On the other hand, you can take as high a concentration of CO2 as you like and it will not. What this means is that water has the inherent ability to decrease its surface area to volume ration, while CO2 does not. The smaller the surface area to volume, the greater the resistance to entropy. Water's is good, CO2's is non existent in a gas form.

This is like comparing apples and orange juice. Liquids of all kinds have strong cohesive forces, simply because they are liquid. If they evaporate and become a gas, that effect disappears. So comparing a liquid to a gas here is literally meaningless.

I'm sorry you received such a poor education, Duke.

A word about this. I have a master's degree in physics and my doctoral dissertation work is in computational fluid dynamics. So while I'm far from an expert on atmospheric science, I know a little about the basic physics. Enough to know that Dukasaur has an idea of what he's talking about here. If you want to have a serious conversation with people, it would help to stop implying that people with far more education than you on this subject, are uneducated. I have no desire to continue this conversation until you apologize for that comment. He's just trying to help you understand the science, and you're treating him awfully in response.

[_sabotage_]

Water gives the earth a higher temperature than it would have otherwise, due to it's unique properties and massive quantities present in all three physical forms.

CO2 has no where near the massive quanties, and does not enjoy water's unique physical properties.

I looked up the emissivity of CO2, the range of answers that I found differed by a factor of 5, and this is from the same source, but were all at the extremely low end.So let's compare this to water which is a blackbody. As a blackbody it fully absorbs incoming incidence and outgoing infrared. It is adhesive creating a entropic barrier and it is in mass quantities. CO2 acts as a white body, as does aluminum. According to geoengineering, as a white body, it will reflect incoming solar incidence, but apparently CO2 does not, but it of course would also reflect infrared light which otherwise would be lost to space. So, it's reflection of incoming solar incidence most provide a greater energy reflection than its relfection of infrared energy back to Earth causes for it to have a cooling effect. Somehow, while being a whitebody, CO2 apparently lacks other whitebodies ability to offset it's infrared heat increase by it's ability to reflect incoming solar radiation to the extent that it cools, but CO2 does not. I will grant you this magically quality. But unfortunately, this effect is on a minute scale and subject to the same laws of entropy which would drain that energy almost as quickly as if had never been captured.

Let's look at a barrier to entropy. Water is adhesive forming clouds. This provides clouds with an infinitely less surface to volume ratio than each individual molecule would have if separate. Carbon also possesses the ability to be bonded to form smaller surface to volume ratios than each individual atom, in liquid and solid form. Now let's go back to the forest. The trees have a much lower surface to volume ratio than the carbon atoms in it would if unbound. This means that the energy coming into it stays a while. If we then free the carbon atoms, we increase their surface area to infinity and it loses it's ability to restrain the lose of heat. But you have down another thing as well, you have exposed the air which had been shielded by the trees to nature's entropic forces. You took off the cover of the pot and it will cool. But you say, the principle of conservation of energy.

The energy still exists, but it is being lost to space. If you burnt every tree on earth, that is stuffed the air with as much possible carbon dioxide as you could, you would not get global warming, you would get global cooling. Carbon creates more of a entropic lag when in the form of a tree than in the form of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You are confusing the greenhouse effect with an actual greenhouse and its effect. A greenhouse attempts to store solar heat through solid barriers that allows heat in and creates a lag on its release long enough to have a useful effect. The average greenhouse uses 6,000 litres of oil to heat because it can't gain enough of a storage while allowing for the necessary air exchange which wicks the solar gain away. There are five methods of dealing with this so that oil is not needed. The Chinese design: this design is mainly constrained by the amount of energy that can be collected while allowing for the necessary air exchanges. It is small, oriented to the winter sun and makes use of moderately insulating materials. The thermal mass solar greenhouse makes use of a black bodies ability to store energy for later, so it is similar to a Chinese greenhouse, but can be larger because the materials used in its construction are better at storing heat. The earth transfer system which uses aluminum to transfer rising heat into the soil below, the thermal coupling greenhouse which couples the building to the thermal gradient in the land below, and the an air exchanger which works like the ETS but merely recycles the heat back into the air of the room rather than the ground below.

Everyone of these system has the common focus, entropic lag and making best use of it. CO2 possesses none of these lags and is in fact utterly exposed and poor at defending against entropy.

It does not form a strong hermetic barrier like glass, it does not stick together and thermal gradients would disperse any concentration of heat from it. It does not recycle heat in any meaningful way. It is not coupled to a good storage system, And the air exchanges it does undergo are all done at a thermal loss. Many things have been done to create a lag in greenhouses, but filling them with CO2 will never be one of them, because the plants would be long dead before any functional thermal gain was seen.

If I take Mets answer as correct other than being off by a factor of 1250 due to my poor communication skills, I would see that for CO2 to have even 1% of water's thermal influence just in the atmosphere, it would have to be at least 14 times higher than it is in the earth's atmosphere, today and we would have to discount the energy absorbed while in the atmosphere.

My physics professor never said a word against climate change, never even hinted at it, but he did teach us how to prove it is wrong, without telling us what he was proving. In fact he, like so many other scientists/researchers/educators, has allowed his course to be lauded and umbrellaed under the theme of climate change because he has many concerns which he hopes will have some positive impact through the climate change agenda and it helps him keep his job, while teaching the truth.

For people in his position, geoengineering would be a massive litmus test and that is why they haven't opened it to debate or put anything about it in the media except strawman chemtrail theories designed to make the proponents appear off their rockers. He would look at CO2, compare it to aluminum and say, what the f*ck, this is nothing more than a plan to poison the land so that food is under stricter control and people die more easily. A plan which they discreetly admit to, only to say it works and has severe negative side effects (see previous sentence).

Are 95% of climate change scientists right? yes, if CO2 is not reflecting more incidence than heat than it is absorbing from the infrared rays, then it generates a miniscule lag that is subject to all the same laws of other lags in miniscule amounts. There are thousands of ways of counter-attacking this lag, (though all data indicates we are headed into a long cold period and may not want to), which would decrease the pollution in our environment. One of the few correct and useful things that Player has said (most of what she says is correct, often in a misleading way, but without significant consequence), is that we need to fix our water, ie stop dumping all kinds of shit in it and let it take care of itself.

To see the world headed towards a more sustainable future is a great goal. Living in a house that doesn't off-gas, cuts your energy use in half, will be there for dynasties, is fireproof, mold resistant and has good acoustics makes perfect sense to me.

Halifax had a housing contract bid for low income housing, since probably the same contractor who won the bid put up such poor housing win they won thirty years ago that there was more work to be had. The houses were molded and infested, I helped one tenant move out, after taking part in a protest. The government then gave the winning contractor 20% of the bid and a guaranteed profit off it. The contractor went to the bank and turned that 20% from the government into a loan for the remainder. The bank then asked him for a list of expenses and contracts from suppliers to prove where the money was going. Contractor calls back the same or same type of businesses that sold him the shitty materials 30 years back and gets equally shitty made in China materials for the project ordered. He takes the order to the bank and the bank grants the loan. The contractor then hires up to 27 different types of specialists to put these made in China pieces together. The new places are built and sold at the guaranteed profit. Investment from the contractor, 0. The occupant then moves in and pays an average heating bill of $2400 dollars a year in polluting energy. Or doesn't and occasionally and as is frequently the case, burns down the house. If not burnt down, then in another 30 years, it will be torn down due to, again, mold and infestation.

Meanwhile, the more than 50,000 acres of hemp straw is going to waste in Canada each year. That represents 50,000 acres that could of CO2 material that could be used as a carbon sink instead being fed back into the environment, and build 50,000 1,200 sqf homes a year, requiring only 7 specialists, from Canadian material that costs cheaper and leaves a house which will stand in good repair for hundreds of years, cut the cost of heating to at most $1200 a year, overcomes the fire hazard, infestation problem and mold.

The contractor can keep his investment to 0, get his promised profit, but not the return business in 30 years. The bank probably wouldn't back the loan, and the housing minister's importance would gradually fade. You can see that as, oh no what about our economy, or good, we will have less shit to do and more time for things we enjoy or need to focus on.

Instead of your boring mindless mantra of oh no CO2, global warming, we're fucked, when someone says CO2 oh shit you should say, yes so support thorium, support hempcrete, petition Gates to make the patent that students created and he bought up, labelled as the silver bullet to living off grid, available, petition BP's to make the biodiesel they patented on algae available. Do not hand over your ability to support change to the goveernment, hand it over to people who are actually doing something.

And I will apologize as soon as he stops being a cheerleader for those poisoning us and my apology will be thus: I'm sorry you were a cheerleaders for those assholes and I'm glad that you have stopped.

[Neoteny]

You are looking for the cohesive property of liquid water. Also, you believe in something with no scientific basis (chemtrails), but flail wildly about something demonstrated scientifically (CO2 is a significant factor in climate forcing). How do you reconcile these things, other than "everyone is out to get you" stance?

[_sabotage_]

According to the IPCC:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

SRM means solar radiation management, chemtrails. To which there is a patent, are easily observable, but have no legal basis and therefore are unregulated.

That which is before your eyes, you are blinded to.

If you put CO2 in extremely high concentrations, in a hermetically sealed container, it can be shown to absorb heat. If you put a feather in a vacuum it will fall as fast as an ingot of gold. Perhaps we should worry about birds molting in the sky and the falling feathers impaling pedestrians?

I give your CO2 theory as much credence as my feather idea.

When the scientists input their theory into computer models, perhaps they should be a bit less biased and they might get more accurate results. For example, in their models, they say when the earth is warmer, it emits the same amount of infrared radiation, ie CO2 absorbs it and it stays in our atmosphere, but this has been scientifically proven wrong.. The infrared radiation increases when the earth is warmer. Why don't they add that scientifically proven data to their climate models and see what they get?

One great thing about climate scientists is that they can't lose. If it gets warmer, they get smug, and when it gets colder, they say it was predicted by them.

So let me try. It will get colder. It will get warmer. It will stay the same. Now my predictions are equivalent to theirs, and with as much scientific backing.

I'm not sure who wrote the report from Iron Mountain or why, but just like when you say the truth, or anyone says the truth, it is still the truth. I'm not saying that everything in it is true, but from what I've read, I can say that it provides the truth from a certain perspective.

Let's see what they published in 1967:

an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principle apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at the first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from the present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.”

Please do not get into its authenticity, I wouldn't even reply, all I care about is whether it's true or not. I don't need you to authorize it as:

Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith said, “As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservations relate only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.”

And the only authority that you offer is to say you believe it or don't, the same as any of us have.

While we know that pollution was going on, it specifically states that the air and water supply were being poisoned prior to the writing of the report and should be increased. That should be easy to confirm.

In fact it is well recorded. The petrochemical industry leading to and during WWII was exceptionally active and well funded. They developed a flurry of chemicals of varying degrees of deadliness and used them for the purpose of war to this day. They also changed the cosmetic, agricultural, and food industries. While these chemicals have in some cases been proven deadly, and in many countries been banned, they are most heavily used in their native country, the USA. These chemicals are responsible for killing our pollinators, making our water undrinkable, cancer, destruction of land, etc.

They are not a conspiracy theory, they are a conspiracy. Monsanto is the most well-known participant and most obviously protected by the government. In fact, government is like a vacation home to them, if you get bored from the business side, you can take a break by being a regulator to that very business. Their history is lockstep with the history described above, starting by chemical weapons, branching into food, agriculture and other household chemicals, being proven to cause cancer and pollute everything they touch. Agent Orange was theirs, DDT, and now they have a protection act.

So, it would appear that the allegation of poisoning the food supply was well advanced by 1967 seems truthful.

"However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented rather than developed from unknown conditions."

One must be found or invented, possibly gross pollution of our environment that is already underway.

Wow a universal threat, that brings the people of the world together displacing the nation state.

Agenda 21

In 1992, that generation had passed and the proposal was presented to combat this new universal threat.

To be honest, I agree with most of the things presented. I agree that without the artificial demand created by strategies tension and manifested wars, that there would be social disintegration. But social disintegration is what has kept the underclass serving the ruling class for all of history, the belief that they were creating a society in which they and their descendants can be free of rule. It will not be anarchy, it will be self-sufficiency combined with a platform for the wide and quick dispersal of ideas.

I disagree that rule by those who willingly poison us to create an artificial threat to maintain their rule is something to be perpetuated.

Believe what you like.

[Metsfanmax]

According to the IPCC:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

SRM means solar radiation management, chemtrails. To which there is a patent, are easily observable, but have no legal basis and therefore are unregulated.

That which is before your eyes, you are blinded to.

Cherrypicking sentences out of scientific documents to make a point? Perhaps this should be avoided. Let's take a look the entire paragraph from which that sentence comes (emphasis mine):

Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. {6.5, 7.7}

So, read in context, that sentence actually says that if Solar Radiation Management were occurring, and we stopped it, the temperature would quickly rise to the levels they would have in the scenario where we didn't do SRM.

[Neoteny]

Caught in a lie. Typical.

[Phatscotty]

We are in the dark ages of climate change science, and the Progressives have built themselves a Church

[Phatscotty]

We are in the dark ages of climate change science, and the Progressives have built themselves a Church of force

[_sabotage_]

Caught in a lie?

Let's see what you have said: geoengineering has no scientific basis.

IPCC, the international scientific body for climate change says, it does.

Hmm, who's lying?

Just like the climate change scientist assumed that outgoing radiation would be the same during warmer temperatures and then refuse to change their models when it is proven wrong. How would this data effect the models?

If the data were entered correctly, then the current expanding rate of CO2 being put into our atmosphere would show an increase in temperature of 0.5 C in 130 years.

Why don't they input the actual data? They have data of their own of CO2 in a hermetically sealed system that they prefer instead. If you want to cherry pick data to try to prove a point, then they've given you a prime example, that you unwittingly support.

I am deeply saddened that someone with a degree in fluid dynamics would lend his/her support to this theory, or this "scientific" use of data.

A climate change example of fluid dynamics is the thermohaline effect in the oceans. Slight temperature and compositional gradients combine to drive heat to cold. Why this wouldn't be happening in the atmosphere, the assumption of the climate change extremists, is beyond me. But that it is happening, is consistent with the data on outgoing radiation.

So the scientific law of entropy, the real world data showing it occurring and comparable examples should all be ignored for what happens in only laboratory existent circumstances?

I never let my schooling interfere with my education, did you?

[Metsfanmax]

Caught in a lie?

Let's see what you have said: geoengineering has no scientific basis.

IPCC, the international scientific body for climate change says, it does.

Hmm, who's lying?

Just like the climate change scientist assumed that outgoing radiation would be the same during warmer temperatures and then refuse to change their models when it is proven wrong. How would this data effect the models?

If the data were entered correctly, then the current expanding rate of CO2 being put into our atmosphere would show an increase in temperature of 0.5 C in 130 years.

Why don't they input the actual data? They have data of their own of CO2 in a hermetically sealed system that they prefer instead. If you want to cherry pick data to try to prove a point, then they've given you a prime example, that you unwittingly support.

I am deeply saddened that someone with a degree in fluid dynamics would lend his/her support to this theory, or this "scientific" use of data.

A climate change example of fluid dynamics is the thermohaline effect in the oceans. Slight temperature and compositional gradients combine to drive heat to cold. Why this wouldn't be happening in the atmosphere, the assumption of the climate change extremists, is beyond me. But that it is happening, is consistent with the data on outgoing radiation.

So the scientific law of entropy, the real world data showing it occurring and comparable examples should all be ignored for what happens in only laboratory existent circumstances?

I never let my schooling interfere with my education, did you?

I tried to be patient with you, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The comments you are making about climate science and climate modelling either A) have no basis in scientific fact or B) are simply incorrect assertions about what climate scientists do. If you are really interested in learning about the subject, then it might be wise to listen to someone who actually knows about fluid dynamics and thermodynamics and pay attention when you are told that you are wrong. If you instead discard everything they say, it demonstrates that you aren't willing to learn -- you just want to score points in an internet debate. I'll come back to this discussion if and when you are ready to actually converse.

[_sabotage_]

I hate those guys. I mean, using scientific data to dispel popular misconception in the face of being told they're wrong?

I think they failed to make a clear enough example out of Galileo. Gives some of these upstarts the idea that fact can overcome propaganda. If it were me, I would have silenced him for good. I mean his unwillingness to learn from those around him was outright scandalous. How are we to get ahead with people like him throwing truth around so persistently?

Your plea to authority, Mets, has fallen on deaf ears. If you had, like I did with your scientific data, discuss and show its correlating effect within the larger system in which it exists, then you could claim some understanding. But you have displayed how isolated your knowledge is from the larger system in which it is taking place. You have ignored scientific law for theory, proven data for laboratory data, and made way too many pleas to authority and majority to be taken seriously.

In the words of Bob, you can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Enforcing your deliberate ignorance will cause you cognitive dissidence. That is, about this point in my post, you should be feeling an anger which is not based on my words, but based on your reaction to them.

[Metsfanmax]

I hate those guys. I mean, using scientific data to dispel popular misconception in the face of being told they're wrong?

I think they failed to make a clear enough example out of Galileo. Gives some of these upstarts the idea that fact can overcome propaganda. If it were me, I would have silenced him for good. I mean his unwillingness to learn from those around him was outright scandalous. How are we to get ahead with people like him throwing truth around so persistently?

Your plea to authority, Mets, has fallen on deaf ears. If you had, like I did with your scientific data, discuss and show its correlating effect within the larger system in which it exists, then you could claim some understanding. But you have displayed how isolated your knowledge is from the larger system in which it is taking place. You have ignored scientific law for theory, proven data for laboratory data, and made way too many pleas to authority and majority to be taken seriously.

In the words of Bob, you can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Enforcing your deliberate ignorance will cause you cognitive dissidence. That is, about this point in my post, you should be feeling an anger which is not based on my words, but based on your reaction to them.

I have no anger. Only disappointment that I have failed to educate. It's possible that you're the next Galileo or Einstein and you understand something that the rest of us do not... but I'm not betting on it.

[_sabotage_]

I am not claiming to have discovered the law of entropy, or even claiming to understand better than most. I'm merely claiming to take it into account, something which you are failing to do.

You are building a house of cards inside a lab and then saying that the same qualities will translate to the wider environment. Unfortunately, in that wider environment, 505,000 billion km3 of water vapor is present, 99.96% of other atmospheric ingredients are present, and increased solar radiation when the earth is warmer is present, things which could not be present were your theory correct, since then entropy would be present.

For those who do not quite get what entropy is, it is: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. What this means, is that if CO2 heats up, then everything around it will steal that heat. That heat can be stolen more slowly if the object has a low surface to volume area, it is isolated and the more energy it contains.

CO2 possesses none of these qualities, that is, it has little resistance to heat loss and since it is so little in comparison to other factors, that slight resistance becomes meaningless.

Therefore, is CO2 subject to scientific laws? Utterly. Is this law being taken into consideration by the global warming people? Not at all. In fact when data correlates with this law it is ignored...just as Mets ignores it.

Does him ignoring it make it go away? No, but ignoring me might.

[Metsfanmax]

For those who do not quite get what entropy is, it is: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

That's not what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of disorder, or information content, in a system. What you're trying to discuss is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy increases in any irreversible process.

[_sabotage_]

Let's see if I follow you...

Emissivity doesn't matter. Well it does, but only insomuch as it means CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation. But it doesn't matter for how much is reflected. It doesn't matter fr the real world data of increased emissivity from the planet on warmer days. As such, it should be ignored in climate models since I would mean that your theory is wrong. That the emissivity of CO2 is only known within a range of a factor of 5 doesn't matter.

Solar incidence doesn't matter. Well it does, but only in regards to kick starting the CO2 feedback loop. That this feedback loop mysteriously ends doesn't matter. Solar incidence on water vapor which is 4000 times more prevalent in the atmosphere and other atmospheric gases which are 2500 times more prevalent doesn't matter.

Physics textbooks, professors and dictionaries don't matter, since they all give the definition of entropy as I stated, which is wrong, and therefore doesn't matter. The fact that it explains the entire system doesn't matter.

CO2 merely does increase temperature in laboratory conditions and only that matters.

The solutions which are long tested and widely available don't matter. That the climate change scientists conclusions state that temperature could rise, fall or stay the same, doesn't matter.

The fact that all literature calls for population stabilization, destroying the middle class and dictating how resources are allotted doesn't matter because you have never taken it into consideration.

The sun, how heat is transferred, CO2's ability to absorb heat all don't matter, now let's kill everyone who disagrees, can't afford to have a voice, or agrees but isn't in the club.

Is this your viewpoint? Please remember that you have already written most of these things and changing them now would threaten your credibility, but not changing them will irrevocably destroy your credibility.

I understand that you have an ideological commitment to these ideas, but atonement is a gift to embrace. Perhaps you had been unwittingly following a good marketing campaign whose intentions you didn't fully understand, whose science you didn't fully consider, but felt was appropriate to many ongoing ecological problems. At this point perhaps you will consider whether A, the science is sound, B the intent behind the campaign, C. Solutions which are available but not mentioned and D. If you do come to the conclusion that you being mislead, how deliberate it has been.

If you knowingly intend to destroy the middle class, rid the planet of its population and control all resources, you should know that you are doing so without any moral authority which the falsely presented data intends to provide. Know that you are an enemy to the people. Know that you had no intent to better the planet, such as lending your support to permaculture would do, feed triple the current population while eliminating pollutants, but that you believe merely in your own rightness and therefore think the "wrong" should suffer in a biblical way.

[Metsfanmax]

Physics textbooks, professors and dictionaries don't matter, since they all give the definition of entropy as I stated, which is wrong, and therefore doesn't matter. The fact that it explains the entire system doesn't matter.

How about this, let's make a bet. If you can find a single well-known physics textbook that defines entropy (not any properties of systems with entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics) as "the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity," I will concede the discussion. If you can't, then admit that your knowledge of physics is cursory at best, and listen carefully to the people who have studied it carefully.

[_sabotage_]

Don't be shy, Google won't hurt you, I got that from an online textbook, which I the same as in my textbook, but I couldn't be bothered to transcribe, just copy pasted and the same as described by the Head of the Physics department at Dalhousie University and the University of Ohio.

It is a physics law which has many quantifying formulas related to it.

On the other hand, I don't have the same intention as you, that is I don't want to use confusing principles to appear knowledgeable, and have where ever possible tried to relate the laws to real life well understood applications, such as how a greenhouse works, ho forests work compared to barren land, but I will provide one more.

The down in a jacket insulates the wearer quite simple by providing a standing layer of air between the body and environment. This is not merely BC of the individual properties of down, but in the unified barrier it creates. That is, if the son were separated into a trillion pieces which then were held in place around your body, the unified barrier, as exists in a hermetically sealed environment, disappears and the protection that the down provided when it had a unified barrier ceases to exist and the body is then subjected to the cold of the environment. Same as if you beak ass the windows in a greenhouse, the glass still let's in the solar incidence and taps the outgoing in fared, but it has no barrier and would not provide a lag to escaping heat.

CO2 does not possess e qualities of a hermetically sealed barrier, but of the shattered glass which offers no protection against the vastly more abundant external elements. This is verified and quantified.

[Metsfanmax]

Don't be shy, Google won't hurt you, I got that from an online textbook, which I the same as in my textbook, but I couldn't be bothered to transcribe, just copy pasted and the same as described by the Head of the Physics department at Dalhousie University and the University of Ohio.

OK, provide me the name of the textbook and I'll look it up for myself. Or links for either of these other sources you're providing.

On the other hand, I don't have the same intention as you, that is I don't want to use confusing principles to appear knowledgeable

The only thing you need to do to appear knowledgeable is to avoid making statements that are blatantly false.

Same as if you beak ass the windows in a greenhouse, the glass still let's in the solar incidence and taps the outgoing in fared, but it has no barrier and would not provide a lag to escaping heat.

The comparison between carbon dioxide and the glass of a greenhouse is very valid when it comes to the heating effect. You are correct to say that a greenhouse cannot stay warm forever; eventually it will cool off at night. This is because the room it's in will eventually transfer its heat to the glass, raising its temperature, and the glass will then transfer its heat to the outside air (by conduction, say). The comparison breaks down when you realize that there is no air outside the atmosphere to transfer heat to. So the only way for the atmosphere to cool off after the greenhouse effect is to radiate that energy back into space. But that is a very inefficient mode of heat transfer, and the Sun keeps pumping heat into the system every day, so the atmosphere never has a chance to cool off.

Again, the analogy with water bears repeating. The greenhouse effect of water is what is responsible for the Earth's temperature being high enough for life as we know it to exist. You have admitted this. The only difference between carbon dioxide and water, in this respect, is that there's more water, and it absorbs in different wavelength ranges. But the property is still the same, so your "hermetically sealed barrier" argument breaks down if you admit that water does the same thing that carbon dioxide does.