Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
1 hour ago.
by Ohwiseone
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

harryanderson

And, as I understand it, here is how CO2 causes the earth to become warmer: Sunshine hits the earth. A certain amount of the heat from that sunshine reflects back into space, and another amount is absorbed by the earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere. When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, more heat is absorbed and less is radiated.

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

Sure, Tiredofit. Maybe the radiation won't pass through glass. But tell me why it matters HOW you heat the gasses. Seems to me the point is that CO2 in a gaseous atmosphere prevents heat from escaping. Do you deny that? Or will you refuse to answer that simple question?

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

Now I'm not an expert. I have neither the time nor the inclination to acquire the advanced education to completely understand this.

Since I'm not an expert, it seems reasonable to believe 97% of the most credible experts in the field, and they say that CO2 is preventing heat from radiating into space.

Tiredofit chooses not to believe the most-published and most-reviewed experts. That is his right. And his position is understandable, since he has written that it's a political discussion, not a scientific discussion.

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

First, Tiredofit had to go deep in the internet to an obscure Wordpress blog. On the other hand, many peer-reviewed scientific papers document the greenhouse gas effect. So 97% of the most-published scientists agree.

Second, the quote Tiredofit plagiarized doesn't deny that the jar with CO2 will heat up faster and hotter. It takes issue with method used to heat it up, but doesn't deny that CO2 makes it hotter. And if you do the experiment, your thermometer will tell you that COs does make it hotter. I guess the post is saying the gasses in the experiment heat up from convection through the glass.

No, Tiredofit's post doesn't say that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. But it doesn't say it isn't a heat-trapping gas, either.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

I'll be back later. Have a nice evening.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

I never once said it was valid now did I?

You asked about infared radiation and quoted from James R. Barrante, Ph.D. From the same article by him, I answered you truthfully and you won't admit you are wrong.

In response, I asked you a straight forward question, "Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behavior?" But you have not answered it yet.

I answered your question, now show some decency and answer mine.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

Wow...you just can't admit it when you are wrong can you?

I answered the question and the answer is yes and I quote, "near infrared, does pass through glass."

Why do you not accept information from the very article you copied from?

Now please answer my question, Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behavior?

Yes or No.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

"with the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2."

Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behvior?

Yes or No.

I already answered your question from the very article you were using. Now answer my question.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

"with the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2."

Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behvior?

Yes or No.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

"Now you arr showing your ignorance.."

Actually, I was quoting from the very article you were using but didn't cite...thus showing your ignorance on the very article itself. Read it again before you comment.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

Also, if you read the entire article you might have seen this, "As a final reminder, infrared radiation is a form of light, not heat."

Read the whole article before you decide to copy/paste and citations don't hurt either because it was very simple to tell that you didn't write that stuff.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

I do know what you mean though by thermal radiation and glass though. Oddly enough, Myth Busters tackled this a little when they were doing an episode about beating securrity alarms. The way one could beat the basic thermal scan was with a large sheet of glass between the person and the scanner. Not very practical but it worked.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

If you were intellectually honest you would have read the whole thing which includes, "...near infrared, does pass through glass."

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

"ht tps://climaterx.wordpress.c om/tag/infrared-light-and-glass"

You didn't understand a single thing in that copy/paste you put up there did you?

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

Do you have a point in making that list of heat?

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

"have you tried it?"

I don't require that experiment to understand the science behind the effects of CO2 on climate change. If I didn't, perhaps I would need to do the experiment.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

Read this: w w w.skepticalscience.c om/co2-temperature-correlation.h t m

What problems do you have with their findings and ideas.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

So instead of trying it, you dismiss it and want others to do it for you?

To what end? Even if someone did it for you, you wouldn't accept the results unless they go into your belief system.

Just admit that you are not open to ideas that do not revolve around your beliefs.

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

Sounds interesting. I'll check that out. Thanks.

Posted 170 days ago.

Kendall78

Too true. A little off topic but have you ever ventured to The Nizkor Project? It covers the history of Holocaust denial, debates tactics and things of that nature. Pretty interesting.

Posted 170 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or