Conquer Club

I just realized this the other day. People keep saying "OMG, you don't believe in Global Warming??" I realized an appropriate response would be "OMG, you don't believe in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior??". (I don't believe in either by the way...but that's not my point).

My point is this. As religion has become "unpopular" people have been looking for something to believe in and have faith in. It's not popular to be catholic...those priests molest boys. It's not popular to be Muslim...those people are terrorist. Religion is falling out of place, out of style. So these people have taken up Global Warming as their next great faith. They believe in it like it's a God. Not like it's a fact like the sky is blue. It's a belief, not a fact. Their "Proof" is so full of holes and impossible to prove, it might as well be the bible.

Now before you try to attack me, just because I don't believe in JC doesn't mean I think we should kill each other and steal. And just cause I don't believe in GW doesn't mean I think we should dump oil in the ocean and light tire fires. Those are all bad ideas.

And yet religion is still the bugaboo of acceptance and scientific advancement. When are people going to wake up and realize religion means nothing in terms of either acceptance or scientific advancement? Do you know that Roe v. Wade was decided in 1971? 1971!!!! That means it's been law for almost 40 years. That means RELIGION HAS NO EFFECT ON ABORTION RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY.

Well said bedub. Same goes for atheism and secularism. So the state IS endorsing a religion when people force the government to be secular.

greek, Roe v Wade is NOT law, it's interpretation. There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.

to help stop this global warming that you all believe in...stop building golf courses............what a waste of water and land

Night Strike wrote:There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.

Why would there be? Don't laws usually forbid something rather than grant something?

StiffMittens wrote:

Night Strike wrote:There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.

Why would there be? Don't laws usually forbid something rather than grant something?

I'm pretty sure the $700 billion dollar TARP bill and the $787 billion "stimulus" bill were definitely granting something: money we don't have.

What an incredibly ignorant view of the history of global warming.

The thermodynamic properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses was first observed (not theorised, actually tested) in the late 19th Century, which is the time when it was realised that those gasses could change our climate and that it was first suggested that human emissions of those gasses were having an impact on the climate (not going to have an impact in the future, actually having an impact).

The experiments done to test the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and other gasses are exceptionally easy - you could probably do them at home by yourself.

It's not a debate amongst anybody as to whether CO2 captures heat.


The first observations of the rapidly increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere were made in the late 1960s. At that time CO2 concentrations observed in the atmosphere were at about 315 parts per million. Today they are at around 385 parts per million. That's an increase of over 20% of a gas we know has a high ability to capture heat in only 50 years.

These facts aren't based on interpreting ice cores or dendrochronology or other such interpretive techniques - they are observed facts.


Now it may be true that many people accept climate change without having effective evidence, and do so on faith, but it's also true that the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown that global warming is occurring due to rising anthropogentic CO2 emissions and it's shown this for 50 years now, so any claim that fear of climate change is a response to present day trends, rather than objective scientific evidence, is ignorant of the facts.

Night Strike wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

Night Strike wrote:There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.

Why would there be? Don't laws usually forbid something rather than grant something?

I'm pretty sure the $700 billion dollar TARP bill and the $787 billion "stimulus" bill were definitely granting something: money we don't have.

True, but the point is that there is no law granting people the right to not get knifed in an alley. Instead, there is a law forbidding people to knife someone in an alley.

owheelj wrote:What an incredibly ignorant view of the history of global warming.

The thermodynamic properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses was first observed (not theorised, actually tested) in the late 19th Century, which is the time when it was realised that those gasses could change our climate and that it was first suggested that human emissions of those gasses were having an impact on the climate (not going to have an impact in the future, actually having an impact).

The experiments done to test the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and other gasses are exceptionally easy - you could probably do them at home by yourself.

It's not a debate amongst anybody as to whether CO2 captures heat.


The first observations of the rapidly increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere were made in the late 1960s. At that time CO2 concentrations observed in the atmosphere were at about 315 parts per million. Today they are at around 385 parts per million. That's an increase of over 20% of a gas we know has a high ability to capture heat in only 50 years.

These facts aren't based on interpreting ice cores or dendrochronology or other such interpretive techniques - they are observed facts.


Now it may be true that many people accept climate change without having effective evidence, and do so on faith, but it's also true that the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown that global warming is occurring due to rising anthropogentic CO2 emissions and it's shown this for 50 years now, so any claim that fear of climate change is a response to present day trends, rather than objective scientific evidence, is ignorant of the facts.

What a pompus prick you are. Don't you know that plants respire with CO2 the same way that you suck up all the hot air in a room to pump up your bloated self image? Don't you actually know that the globe is actually cooling now? Don't you realize that THEY have changed the term from global warming to Climate change for the sole purpose to tax the shit out of every breathing creature on the planet? Its bad enough that we have been robbed fucking blind by the global bankers in the last 6 months. They are actually going to tax us for fucking breathing, farting and making kids..

... Mods, somebody merge this thread with the hundred or so others on the topic, please.

...

Don't you know that plants respire with CO2 the same way that you suck up all the hot air in a room to pump up your bloated self image?

I don't understand what this has to do with climate change. I do note that it's a logical fallacy to attack the person making an argument, rather than their argument, and it usually comes about when the person doesn't have a response to the argument.

Don't you actually know that the globe is actually cooling now?

No it's not. Obviously yearly temperature variance is greater than the amount of warming occurring, and the things that effect yearly temperature have a greater magnitude than the things that effect changes to the climate. Never the less, the average global temperature last year was still warmer than every year on record before 1990, and local temperature records were still broken around the world. We also understand the climatology responsible for a cooler year (especially the La Nina cycle in the Pacific). It's important to remember that the global rise in temperature attributed to anthropogenic global warming is about 1 degree so far, so that's not enough to really notice looking at short term records. However the evidence of long term records and things like trends in animal behaviour paints a much stronger picture.

Here is a graph of the temperatures of the last 160 years. Tell me again that the globe is cooling.

Don't you realize that THEY have changed the term from global warming to Climate change for the sole purpose to tax the shit out of every breathing creature on the planet?

The change in terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" too place because an advisor to George W Bush told him that to use the term "Climate Change" because it sounds less scary.

The reality is that our climate is changing because our atmosphere is trapping more heat. The thermal properties of CO2 vary significantly based on the humidity, and the local climate has many mitigating factors, so we won't expect to see uniform warming, but obviously the amount of solar energy trapped by the atmosphere is rising, so the Earth as a whole is rising in temperature.

Its bad enough that we have been robbed fucking blind by the global bankers in the last 6 months. They are actually going to tax us for fucking breathing, farting and making kids..

About 190 countries in the world manage to produce less CO2 emissions per person than your country without taxing people for breathing or farting. Some of those countries also have greater wealth, higher life expectancies and greater standards of living. The rest of the world doesn't really care what measures you take to address climate change, just so long as you do something, since your nation has contributed to the problem vastly more than any other country in the world.

owheelj wrote:What an incredibly ignorant view of the history of global warming.

The thermodynamic properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses was first observed (not theorised, actually tested) in the late 19th Century, which is the time when it was realised that those gasses could change our climate and that it was first suggested that human emissions of those gasses were having an impact on the climate (not going to have an impact in the future, actually having an impact).

The experiments done to test the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and other gasses are exceptionally easy - you could probably do them at home by yourself.

It's not a debate amongst anybody as to whether CO2 captures heat.


The first observations of the rapidly increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere were made in the late 1960s. At that time CO2 concentrations observed in the atmosphere were at about 315 parts per million. Today they are at around 385 parts per million. That's an increase of over 20% of a gas we know has a high ability to capture heat in only 50 years.

These facts aren't based on interpreting ice cores or dendrochronology or other such interpretive techniques - they are observed facts.


Now it may be true that many people accept climate change without having effective evidence, and do so on faith, but it's also true that the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown that global warming is occurring due to rising anthropogentic CO2 emissions and it's shown this for 50 years now, so any claim that fear of climate change is a response to present day trends, rather than objective scientific evidence, is ignorant of the facts.

High ability to capture heat?

compared to what?

nitrogen? nope
water vapor? nope
oxygen? nope

the specific heat of CO2 is lower than the 3 previously mentioned gasses at every temperature.

The argument is that the specific heat of CO2 is higher at 11 C than it is at 500 C.

Big deal, when is CO2 ever at 500 C and even at 11C its specific heat is still lower than Nitrogen, water vapor and Oxygen.

owheelj wrote:

Don't you know that plants respire with CO2 the same way that you suck up all the hot air in a room to pump up your bloated self image?

I don't understand what this has to do with climate change. I do note that it's a logical fallacy to attack the person making an argument, rather than their argument, and it usually comes about when the person doesn't have a response to the argument.

Don't you actually know that the globe is actually cooling now?

No it's not. Obviously yearly temperature variance is greater than the amount of warming occurring, and the things that effect yearly temperature have a greater magnitude than the things that effect changes to the climate. Never the less, the average global temperature last year was still warmer than every year on record before 1990, and local temperature records were still broken around the world. We also understand the climatology responsible for a cooler year (especially the La Nina cycle in the Pacific). It's important to remember that the global rise in temperature attributed to anthropogenic global warming is about 1 degree so far, so that's not enough to really notice looking at short term records. However the evidence of long term records and things like trends in animal behaviour paints a much stronger picture.

Here is a graph of the temperatures of the last 160 years. Tell me again that the globe is cooling.

Don't you realize that THEY have changed the term from global warming to Climate change for the sole purpose to tax the shit out of every breathing creature on the planet?

The change in terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" too place because an advisor to George W Bush told him that to use the term "Climate Change" because it sounds less scary.

The reality is that our climate is changing because our atmosphere is trapping more heat. The thermal properties of CO2 vary significantly based on the humidity, and the local climate has many mitigating factors, so we won't expect to see uniform warming, but obviously the amount of solar energy trapped by the atmosphere is rising, so the Earth as a whole is rising in temperature.

Its bad enough that we have been robbed fucking blind by the global bankers in the last 6 months. They are actually going to tax us for fucking breathing, farting and making kids..

About 190 countries in the world manage to produce less CO2 emissions per person than your country without taxing people for breathing or farting. Some of those countries also have greater wealth, higher life expectancies and greater standards of living. The rest of the world doesn't really care what measures you take to address climate change, just so long as you do something, since your nation has contributed to the problem vastly more than any other country in the world.

That would be the little bit at the end... where the trend is going down.

I'd love to see you post a scientific source to back up the claim you've just made that nitrogen and oxygen capture more heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

I agree about water vapour, except that the main cause of water vapour is temperature, so it's a feedback loop created by atmospheric changes - ie. rising amounts of water vapour are a cause of rising temperatures caused by human induced CO2 emissions.

I don't really understand what gasses you're talking about when you talk about nitrogen and oxygen. Those are only found in the atmosphere as parts of molecules, not as individual atoms. Admittedly N2, O2 and O3 are present, and in fairly large quantities. N2 and 02 make up around 99% of the atmosphere and have very little heat capturing abilities. 03 is at best 0.000007% of the atmosphere.

captain.crazy wrote:
That would be the little bit at the end... where the trend is going down.

But it's still obviously far warmer than it has been in the past and we can also see other short term variability in the past, which demonstrates the fact that global temperatures are not static.

Indeed 20% of climate models predict short term cooling despite long term warming trends.

It's important to also note that many places in the world are still warming despite the overall average temperatures. In particular polar and alpine regions have been experiencing the greatest increases in temperature. The global average warming has only been 1 degree, but in the Arctic the average has been around 6 degrees.

owheelj wrote:I'd love to see you post a scientific source to back up the claim you've just made that nitrogen and oxygen capture more heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

I agree about water vapour, except that the main cause of water vapour is temperature, so it's a feedback loop created by atmospheric changes - ie. rising amounts of water vapour are a cause of rising temperatures caused by human induced CO2 emissions.

I don't really understand what gasses you're talking about when you talk about nitrogen and oxygen. Those are only found in the atmosphere as parts of molecules, not as individual atoms. Admittedly N2, O2 and O3 are present, and in fairly large quantities. N2 and 02 make up around 99% of the atmosphere and have very little heat capturing abilities. 03 is at best 0.000007% of the atmosphere.

For arguments sake I will say Air instead of nitrogen and oxygen...


The heat capacity (Cp) of dry air is 1.0 J/K

The heat capacity of CO2 is .84 J/K

As far as your claim that Nitrogen and Oxygen have little heat capturing abilities, all I can say is WRONG AGAIN...

heat capacity of Nitrogen = 1.04 J/K
heat capacity of Oxygen = .918 J/K

What does all of this mean?

a couple of things...

1. The same amount of Air can hold more heat energy then the same amount of CO2 but

2. It takes less heat energy to raise the temperature of CO2 (less heat removal) then it does to raise the temp of Air.

Q= M * Cp * delta T (deg F)

If I want to raise the temp of 100 pounds of CO2 100 deg F it will take 8,400 BTU's

If I want to raise the temp of 100 pounds of Air 100 deg F it will take 10,000 BTU's

owheelj wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:
That would be the little bit at the end... where the trend is going down.

But it's still obviously far warmer than it has been in the past and we can also see other short term variability in the past, which demonstrates the fact that global temperatures are not static.

Indeed 20% of climate models predict short term cooling despite long term warming trends.

It's important to also note that many places in the world are still warming despite the overall average temperatures. In particular polar and alpine regions have been experiencing the greatest increases in temperature. The global average warming has only been 1 degree, but in the Arctic the average has been around 6 degrees.

You do realize that the surface temp has been MUCH warmer in the past, right? Please tell me that you actually do realize that the global tempreature has been much warmer than it is now. You know... before cars and billion people populations.

Demonfork - please provide sources for your claims.


Captain Crazy - what were the reasons for it being so hot in the past? Also what does that have to do with your claim that temperatures are falling?

owheelj wrote:Demonfork - please provide sources for your claims.


Captain Crazy - what were the reasons for it being so hot in the past? Also what does that have to do with your claim that temperatures are falling?

umm... I don't know what the causes were back then... we are talking about the 11th century. It was probably solar activity, like today. And my "claim" of falling tempreatures are evident in the chart that you posted... I don't think you bothered to study it before you posted it... It is the same chart that I looked at before I made my "claim" of global cooling.

I believe, as do many scientists, that "global warming" is caused by exceptional solar activity, as is evident by rising surfaces tempreatures of our planetary neighbors. Feel free to look those key words up.

owheelj wrote:Demonfork - please provide sources for your claims.


Captain Crazy - what were the reasons for it being so hot in the past? Also what does that have to do with your claim that temperatures are falling?

Look it up.

Material properties are common knowledge.

There are a million places you could find the data.

Ive got a stack of engineering reference books & manuals that contain this information, don't you? Or were you just talking out of your neck until someone that knows a thing or two about thermodynamics came along to call you on your bullshit.

Contact a place that sells the shit, like Praxair, and ask them for a material properties data sheet.

Go buy "Modern Refrigeration and Air Conditioning" or
"Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual" Hell I think even the "Machinist Handbook" has this information in it.

Crazy;

NASA has conclusively proven that solar energy is not responsible for Earth's warming. If it were then we'd expect the outer atmosphere to be warmed most, since that would be getting the energy first. If global warming was caused by changes in the atmosphere, the out atmosphere would actually be cooling because energy bouncing of the Earth would be trapped by the lower atmosphere before it got to the outer atmosphere.

Unsurprisingly the outer atmosphere is cooling rather than warming, while the lower atmosphere is warming. This is completely consistent with global warming and completely contradicts solar warming.

The 11th Century "heat wave" is a good thing to bring up, because the evidence shows that the global temperature at that time was still half a degree colder than it is now.

Previous exceptionally warm temperatures, such as those seen at the Permian extinction were caused by huge amounts of green house gasses in the atmosphere and it wiped out about 90% of all life.

Demonfork; What was the specific source you used in that post, or did you just know all those numbers off the top of your head?

Although not ideal, this is a fairly good account of the typical scientific view of greenhouse gasses, and I'm pretty sure the same information is in the IPCC reports, which are reports on peer reviewed scientific literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse ... hropogenic

Night Strike wrote:Well said bedub. Same goes for atheism and secularism. So the state IS endorsing a religion when people force the government to be secular.

greek, Roe v Wade is NOT law, it's interpretation. There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.

Yawn

Not believing in fairies is not a religion, not liking baseball is not a religion , not believing in a paricular/or any God is not a religion......whats so hard to comprehend

Night Strike wrote:Well said bedub. Same goes for atheism and secularism. So the state IS endorsing a religion when people force the government to be secular.

greek, Roe v Wade is NOT law, it's interpretation. There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.

Uhm...night strike....that's just a horribly flawed understanding of the legal system....

Snorri1234 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Well said bedub. Same goes for atheism and secularism. So the state IS endorsing a religion when people force the government to be secular.

greek, Roe v Wade is NOT law, it's interpretation. There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.

Uhm...night strike....that's just a horribly flawed understanding of the legal system....

Not to get too involved, because I don't want to hijack the thread, but the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is actually the law. Until the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade or an amendment is made to the Constitution, Roe v. Wade is the highest interpretation in the land, and is therefore law.

captain.crazy wrote:That would be the little bit at the end... where the trend is going down.

Small fluctuations do not mean there isn't a trend.