Note: this topic is from . Thanks PROCON.
|
Posted on 05/30/2018 3:12:03 PM PDT by PROCON
Fill a balloon with CO2 and see where it goes. There’s your answer.
btt
There’s a lot of misleading information. If I understood right, it says that clouds don’t trap heat, but instead transfer it from the upper atmosphere. No, they pretty much trap heat by reflecting it back to the surface. I don’t doubt that the greenhouse effect is real, only that humans are a significant contribution, or that the effect of CO2 is as straight forwardly terrible as they’d have us believe.
Your theory is correct. That is why, according to the best, most scientifically awesome predictions since the first Earth Day in 1970....we all died 20 years ago.
I knew I felt a little sick.
“Potential” is the physics term for “volts”. Atoms can become ionized and thus can be short an electron or have an extra electron creating a physical need to equalize when in proximity. This creates pressure and depending on that pressure or potential electrons will flow producing watts aka work aka energy. You are saying that the gravity pulling a spacecraft towards earth is potential and the closer to the gravitonal source the greater the pull. Although there might be some kinetic energy due to the fact an object is in motion actually the weight of the object is a minor factor. The quantity of objects moving in relation to the conduit or conductor size is the calculable factor. A spacecraft coming into the atmosphere is not kinetic but potential energy because it is basically only 1 electron being pulled to the earth to equalize.
But like I said I’m not a physicist just an electrician so correction of clarification is welcome!
It is very clear that the Earth neither heats nor cools outside the sweet spot where life thrives.
Billions of years of evidence.
There is a system that cools when it is too hot, and a system that heats when it is too cool. I believe the answer could be shown by anyone with a reasonable intelligence that since water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and abouty 400 times more effective in heating or cooling the planet than CO2, we might look to the “easy” answer on this one.
DK
His context is correct.
Heat is the transfer of molecular kinetic energy.
Yes I think you’re correct to suggest water is a very dynamic factor which the experts with an agenda tend to overlook in their climate models. It’s as if they’re deer in the headlights of CO2, and can see nothing else. There are many other factors as well which I doubt they pay enough attention to. To make predictions without real experimental data is to go backward almost 400 years, before Galileo invented the scientific method.
The whole atom theory is gibberish. Come on. Have you ever seen an atom? Have you counted how many atoms are on the head of a pin?
Now angels on the head of a pin makes sense, as I have seen angel youtube videos.
While I applaud the effort, the article gets a lot of the basics flat out wrong.
Seriously.
No. His context is meant to dislead.
Man made global warming is not true. The science behind the post is worse. It is not worthy of reading.
Is heat energy? How does one measure that energy?
I'm not a scientist but have a little background in a lot of different topics - it seems that many here are jumping all over one of the most solid sets of statements in the article....
There is a recent TED talk about clouds being a climate “scientist’s” enemy. It was done by a pretend scientist, bemoaning how clouds muck their results.
A real scientist would welcome the realization of a phenomenon that mucks their result so they would have a better understanding of they way things work.
What climate “science” is now...is trying to get a few trillion dollars in transfer payments. That is a lot of opportunity for corruption.
DK
While I do not believe in the validity of the global warming computer models, and think they do not properly take into account the solar cycle, this guy is a fool who thinks himself wise.
A good way to think of the difference between temperature and heat content is the difference between water vapor and air. Hot air, of the same temperature that will burn you, is much less dangerous than steam which has more heat content. In the global warming context, measuring heat content of many disparate materials in the air is extremely difficult, much less modeling them. Clouds can reflect energy, store energy and dissipate energy and do so in ways that are easy to know...sun heat oceans forms clouds, clouds move and generate rain, eventually going back to oceans or being locked up in the earth.
Measuring that phemonenon and describing it accurately enough to make predictions...ask a “climatologist” for their predictive window, and they will say hundreds of years...ask a mathetician for their model limits given the accuracy of the data for a period time...satellite data accuracy ...say 70 years and the model may be predictable for 1/4 of that. We spend much more money modelling stock market trends and still have major surprises.
Climate science is settled science. In other words, they want your money, and hope they can convince people by repetition and taxation. It really is not successful by any measure of prediction in the past. But chicken little is a successful taxation strategy.
DK
Radiating energy to space absolutely means "losing heat".
Idiots make fighting the AGW scam more difficult.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks PROCON.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
