Climate change has run it's course...

#31
Pax. Unless you are a PhD level statistician with access to the raw data, and completely disinterested in the outcome of the research, there is no way to really know whether or not the models were ever sound. You can bet your bottom dollar that those "97% climate scientists", a number frequently debunked anyway had a financial interest in man-made change being "real". (River City's problem is pool, and the only solution is a boys' band a la The Music Man.) Their models have now proven to be false. Always reasonable to conserve energy and resources as best we can, and I'll bet most of us here do that.

Never have we needed more to just "Buy the world a Coke".
 
Last edited:

Rob Allen

Active Member
#32
Climate change will have no affect on Washington's salmon and steelhead populations. Why? Because they'll be extinct before and large climate change occurs. Why? Because there is little we can do to restore our runs abd even that we aren't doing
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#33
I don't give a flying F*** what turns people off. The truth is the truth, even if they don't like it.... Climate change is real, it's man-caused, and humanity is acting stupidly by not attacking the human-caused sources.
Either your knowledge is deeper than anyone else or you've just demonstrated you believe you are god. Ignorance resides LARGE in your mind.
 
Last edited:

plaegreid

Saved by the buoyancy of citrus
#34
We all know heat rises in the troposphere. We also agree we're talking about surface temps, not temps 10 miles into the atmosphere. We all know where the heat goes when we're sitting next to a campfire, "up, out and up". Heat does not radiate down from the atmosphere above, heat moves upward toward cooler air, it always goes up and cools at it does. This is not debatable. The atmosphere never radiates heat back down to the surface. Heat escapes up at night and heat escapes up during a fire. Without an actual surface there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Without the barrier of a surface film the air is always rising when it's warming. Heat never re-radiates back down to the surface, the energy of the warmer air column below disallows it. Simple
Klick, are... are you saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?
 

HBB

Active Member
#35
Klick, are... are you saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?
It sounds like he's suggesting that heat in the upper atmosphere freely radiates into space.

This is a theory of atmospheric transmission and atmospheric circulation I have not encountered before. I suppose if he's right, astronomers everywhere will be thrilled, because that would mean we could stop sending observational equipment into orbit.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#36
Klick, are... are you saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?
Yes, or sort of yes. A greenhouse is designed to retain the solar energy (heat) as much as reasonably possible, without the barriers the heat does slip up and away. So there are greenhouses that utilize the greenhouse effect but without a greenhouse there is no green house effect. Adding heat to parcels or columns of air reduces their density because they expand when heated, therefore they rise and are displaced by cooler heavier air. Lots of the wind we experience in the mid Columbia area is caused by differential heating, hot air rises and cooler air rushes in to fill the void, =wind. Heat cools as it rises due to it's search for equilibrium.

The CO2 heating theory just doesn't work, forcing or feedback theory doesn't recognize the fact cooler objects (air parcels) cannot add heat to warmer objects (air parcels). If they absorb heat they will release it upward regardless of the wavelength. The physics of this is well known. Warmer molecules expand and therefore become less dense and therefore rise.

It sounds like he's suggesting that heat in the upper atmosphere freely radiates into space...
Yes, the higher you go the fewer molecules of anything exist so the space increases and cooling results. Solar energy heats all molecules but where fewer molecules exist less heat is absorbed. The upper atmosphere doesn't absorb much heat because there aren't many molecules to absorb the heat. Adiabatic cooling in the troposphere is a well known and well understood principle. aGW is about temps at the earths surface, not in space.
 

Porter

Active Member
#38
Now the next question...is that what life made of? Don’t throw religion in this argument..... Mother Nature answers to no god other than what we do to her.... she answers by killing of species ...hope you get that last line?
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#39
..... Mother Nature answers to no god other than what we do to her.... she answers by killing of species ...hope you get that last line?
Seems like you're saying mother nature answers to humans, could that be where we divide? Why would mother nature destroy selected species while not destroying humans? No use in destroying anything if it's not the problem.
 
Last edited:

jwg

Active Member
#41
Here is a recent plot of the mass loss of the continent of Antarctica, due to losing ice mass.
I think this is something that can be measured and tracked accurately.
Looks like something is accelerating.

708329abe.png


j
 
#42
Now the next question...is that what life made of? Don’t throw religion in this argument..... Mother Nature answers to no god other than what we do to her.... she answers by killing of species ...hope you get that last line?
Well, no, sorry, but there were ice ages and thaws, mass extinctions and change in climate long before there were man-made influences.
 

HBB

Active Member
#43
The CO2 heating theory just doesn't work, forcing or feedback theory doesn't recognize the fact cooler objects (air parcels) cannot add heat to warmer objects (air parcels). If they absorb heat they will release it upward regardless of the wavelength. The physics of this is well known. Warmer molecules expand and therefore become less dense and therefore rise.
Interesting. This is another new theory for me, I was not previously aware that the propagation of thermal radiation from gas molocules was so directional. How do the molecules of CO2 know which direction to aim their thermal radiation?
 

plaegreid

Saved by the buoyancy of citrus
#44
Yes, or sort of yes. A greenhouse is designed to retain the solar energy (heat) as much as reasonably possible, without the barriers the heat does slip up and away. So there are greenhouses that utilize the greenhouse effect but without a greenhouse there is no green house effect. Adding heat to parcels or columns of air reduces their density because they expand when heated, therefore they rise and are displaced by cooler heavier air. Lots of the wind we experience in the mid Columbia area is caused by differential heating, hot air rises and cooler air rushes in to fill the void, =wind. Heat cools as it rises due to it's search for equilibrium.

The CO2 heating theory just doesn't work, forcing or feedback theory doesn't recognize the fact cooler objects (air parcels) cannot add heat to warmer objects (air parcels). If they absorb heat they will release it upward regardless of the wavelength. The physics of this is well known. Warmer molecules expand and therefore become less dense and therefore rise.
So if the heat is just going up and away, why doesn't the temperature drop more rapidly at night when there's no solar radiation to keep things warm?
 

HBB

Active Member
#45
The more I read this thread, the more confused I get. Sorry for the additional questions, but I am hoping we can clear up a few things.

We all know where the heat goes when we're sitting next to a campfire, "up, out and up". Heat does not radiate down from the atmosphere above, heat moves upward toward cooler air, it always goes up and cools at it does. This is not debatable.
When I am sitting next to a campfire, I get warm. How is that possible if heat only moves upward?

cooler objects (air parcels) cannot add heat to warmer objects (air parcels).
When I go inside my house during the winter, I am warmer than I was when I was outside. If cooler objects cannot add heat to warmer objects, then how can the 67 degree air in my house warm my 98.6 degree body?