They target America specifically due to our military involvement in the Middle East. Withdraw our troops, and the terrorists either give up their self destructive lifestyle, or go after those who are still oppressing them, like the autocratic House of Saud.
When did we go from "America the Beautiful" to "America the Butthurt"?
That is beside the point that we didn't need to be funding UNESCO in the first place, but to leave over something like this is just stupid. If you are going to leave, leave on principle, and leave all these unconstitutional organizations while you are at it. Withdraw from all the countries where we are not bound by treaty to be, and renegotiate the treaties binding our forces to those remaining nations as soon as possible. We can trade with anyone and everyone, but we don't need to wave guns in their faces while we do it. It is time the US stopped being a world paramilitary (no longer just police) force, and started being a world citizen again.
Do that, and terrorism against America will evaporate like a bad dream almost overnight.
Why do you idiots keep making this dumb argument? Where the fuck do you think heat capacity comes from? Go take a fucking physical chemistry class, then come back and apologize for being an ignorant douche.
You fail to take into account other gases in the atmosphere. CO2 has LESS "forcing" than regular air, and only slightly more than regular air absent water. Further, the concentration of CO2 is so low that it is less than a rounding error for the water in the atmosphere. Just because there is an equilibrium doesn't mean the concentration can't increase. Equilibria can be influenced and overwhelmed. If the half life of water in the atmosphere is three days, then it in fact doesn't just "fall out". The fact that we produce it CONTINUOUSLY, and at EVER GREATER concentrations could easily account for the heating we have seen. Hell, it could even account for the sudden stop in heating, as a rising China has increased particulate pollution increasing nucleation centers, increasing cloud formation.
Examine the phenomena of global dimming. This is likely caused by more water vapor along with more nucleation centers in the air forming more clouds.
All I want is an actual explanation as to HOW CO2 causes global warming. Arguments I have seen fail to account for the heat capacity of gases, and as such make no sense. I am not a climatologist, and can only present basic thermodynamic arguments, which not one single person has been able to refute to my satisfaction in over a year (admittedly, this is Slashdot, the land of amateur know it alls, but still, you'd think SOMEONE could come up with a strong argument). Further, I am serving the role of critic here. I am CRITICIZING the ASSUMPTIONS underlying these people's papers, not proposing some alternate theory. It is the role of the proponent of the hypothesis to defend it, but all I have seen from these proponents has been ad hominem and the occasional valid but weak argument.
I can see where I could be wrong. Perhaps they are arguing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is making it thicker, which would make at least some sense, but then I would want an analysis of atmospheric loss and its causes. No-one has made that argument yet, but I could see it as a valid one. They could also argue that any number of other atmospheric pollutants are the source of the warming, but that sort of blows holes in AGW, which DEMANDS that the source be CO2, so they can gain absolute power over the entirety of the world's economy. Any other source can be eliminated by scrubbing or better ignition. But not CO2, which is the basic electron dump for practically all chemical processes, including life as we know it.
Jesus, what is wrong with you. Put your questions in one post FFS.
CO2 has a (VERY slight) net cooling effect as its partial pressure increases. If the atmosphere were 100% diatomic gases, then increasing CO2 would warm the planet. But introduce bent structure tri-atomic gases in massive quantities, and the effect from the CO2 is drowned out.
Same answer as above, it is the same mechanism that causes the hottest desert to freeze at night, while the jungle at the same longitude is blazing hot no matter what time it is.
Light comes in, hits the gas molecules, gas molecules retain more heat. Light comes in, hits solid and liquid surfaces, radiates heat, heat is abosrbed and re-emited. This is why deserts are blazing hot in the day, and freezing cold at hight, while jungles are just damn hot no matter what time it is. Much higher heat capacity in the atmosphere around a jungle than over a desert.
Note that my argument is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas for that very reason. You are using circular logic here, by accepting that what I am arguing against is true, therefore I must be wrong.
The heat capacity doesn't change, but its relevance disappears. 0.0001+2=2 The contribution of CO2 in an environment full of water vapor is negligible. It might be important for some extremely ancient atmospheres where water is trapped in rocks, as it can retain enough heat to drive that water out of the rocks and into the atmosphere to give us an atmosphere that can support life. But once the water is out, it is out. Taking away the CO2 won't drive it back into said rocks.
Warmer air can hold more water vapor, yes. But when there isn't any water vapor to hold, there isn't any water vapor to hold. There is no water in the air above the Sahara (most of the time). All the heat in the world won't bring it. But insert a sprawling metropolis with watered lawns, little machines running around exhaling water vapor, CO2, CO, and other gases, and suddenly you get an island of humidity, a place where it now stays warm at night. Lots of little machines running around spewing water.
I appreciate your lack of ad hominem, but your arguments are circular. The fact that you acknowledge that water vapor increases heating, but refuse to consider it as a cause, preferring to blame a ppm gas with a heat capacity lower than the general atmosphere smacks of doublethink. I think you can come up with better arguments, though.
Actually, I didn't. Not only that, but most utilities aren't required to do anything but buy the power. Nice try on using the old "you are a slave who wants to end slavery, therefore accepting any goods from your master makes you a hypocrite" argument. You think I haven't seen that stupid crap before?
Not the production of new, but the production of old that was thrown in the trash can, as in engines blocks ruined and sent to the scrap heap. The more environmentally friendly course would have been to continue to use that vehicle until it could no longer be maintained cost effectively, and THEN buy a hybrid. But dumb governments interfered in the market and prevented that with their cash for clunkers BS.
It is only SIGNIFICANT in the absence of water vapor. In the presence of water vapor, the total forcing from CO2 falls within the noise of the day to day variation in water in the atmosphere.
It's like trying to tell me that capacitance has nothing to do with a capacitor, but that it is only the ability to separate charges that matters. THEY ARE THE SAME THING!
You clearly have no understanding of either article. The first states that a greenhouse gas absorbs and re-emits radiation. The heat capacity article defines that as the sum of the degrees of freedom, which are observed in the real world as peaks on Raman and IR spectra. As someone with a background in physical chemistry, I figured this out by myself, and did the basic calculations, and found that you are all a bunch of nutbags who's only possible response to a high level scientific argument against their axiomatic base is to post a couple of articles that you are incapable of understanding, and then dismissing the argument without addressing it in any way. This is why it is so frustrating to deal with you people. You are used to talking to rubes, and you can attack them by saying they aren't scientists, but I AM, and no amount of insult, ad hominem, or appeal to authority is going to make me abandon scientific principles to join your religion.
What? I use heat capacity as a proxy for the IR and Raman spectra, as the addition of the area under the peaks of those two spectra are proportional to it. Further, you seem to think that only some gases re-emit heat, which is a level of dumb I just don't know how to address.
O2 and N2 ARE greenhouse gases, just very poor ones. Only the noble gases fail to absorb IR (and ANYTHING that absorbs energy of any sort emits IR).
I would say that claiming that peaks in the IR spectrum are the same as being "opaque" to the entire IR spectrum is what will give you the wrong answer. Water vapor is much more "IR opaque" than CO2.
You should be, but not because of fudged data. You should be skeptical because Newton didn't get it right. Einstein was closer, and able to account for certain extreme phenomena, but not all. We STILL don't understand how gravity works, and you should be SKEPTICAL of anyone who says otherwise.
Yeah, and drug peddlers aren't all rich either, but there are plenty of super rich at the top. Perhaps more apropos is a comparison to religion, where the priests really believe what they are saying, and are quite poor, but the upper echelons are full of corrupt and unimaginably wealthy bastards.
Not really. I was already disinclined to believe anything coming out of Climate Science's ivory tower. With this revelation of the use of SOCIAL ENGINEERING by one or more of those gentleman, it throws anything they have ever said into question. You just can't trust them, because they have, beyond the shadow of a doubt, lied to the public. He said he was a skeptic, but he wasn't. That makes him a liar. And liars lie quite often.
More peaks in the absorption spectra (IR+Raman) is proportional to heat capacity, because one causes the other. CO2 has a few distinct peaks, while water has a giant "peak" that obliterates everything. Understanding of physical chemistry is sadly lacking among AGW proponents. If they had such an understanding, they could more easily disprove my shallow analysis of the subject, and maybe I would even start to believe them.
Where, exactly, do you think that "opacity" comes from? That material absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it. This slows heat loss of the system. This is the definition of heat capacity.
Every time I post this argument, the best that seems to come up against it is "U R N IDOT", or "That's not how greenhouse gases work". This shows that the proponents of AGW on slashdot know approximately shit about the mechanisms behind global warming. Of course, it says nothing about the hypothesis itself, sadly.
How do I know they aren't fudging the data again, like they have done here (nice chart that hides the ten year warming hiatus we are still in)?
What is needed to confirm it is a reduction in CO2 levels accompanied by a fall in temperature, then another rise, and another fall, then another rise, and another fall. The repetitions is the minimum for the data to be worth anything in my lab. Sadly, we can't make the same demands of the climate priests, lest we be called heretics and burned at the stake.
Slashdot Mirror
They target America specifically due to our military involvement in the Middle East. Withdraw our troops, and the terrorists either give up their self destructive lifestyle, or go after those who are still oppressing them, like the autocratic House of Saud.
When did we go from "America the Beautiful" to "America the Butthurt"?
That is beside the point that we didn't need to be funding UNESCO in the first place, but to leave over something like this is just stupid. If you are going to leave, leave on principle, and leave all these unconstitutional organizations while you are at it. Withdraw from all the countries where we are not bound by treaty to be, and renegotiate the treaties binding our forces to those remaining nations as soon as possible. We can trade with anyone and everyone, but we don't need to wave guns in their faces while we do it. It is time the US stopped being a world paramilitary (no longer just police) force, and started being a world citizen again.
Do that, and terrorism against America will evaporate like a bad dream almost overnight.
Examine the Church. QED.
Why do you idiots keep making this dumb argument? Where the fuck do you think heat capacity comes from? Go take a fucking physical chemistry class, then come back and apologize for being an ignorant douche.
You fail to take into account other gases in the atmosphere. CO2 has LESS "forcing" than regular air, and only slightly more than regular air absent water. Further, the concentration of CO2 is so low that it is less than a rounding error for the water in the atmosphere. Just because there is an equilibrium doesn't mean the concentration can't increase. Equilibria can be influenced and overwhelmed. If the half life of water in the atmosphere is three days, then it in fact doesn't just "fall out". The fact that we produce it CONTINUOUSLY, and at EVER GREATER concentrations could easily account for the heating we have seen. Hell, it could even account for the sudden stop in heating, as a rising China has increased particulate pollution increasing nucleation centers, increasing cloud formation.
Examine the phenomena of global dimming. This is likely caused by more water vapor along with more nucleation centers in the air forming more clouds.
All I want is an actual explanation as to HOW CO2 causes global warming. Arguments I have seen fail to account for the heat capacity of gases, and as such make no sense. I am not a climatologist, and can only present basic thermodynamic arguments, which not one single person has been able to refute to my satisfaction in over a year (admittedly, this is Slashdot, the land of amateur know it alls, but still, you'd think SOMEONE could come up with a strong argument). Further, I am serving the role of critic here. I am CRITICIZING the ASSUMPTIONS underlying these people's papers, not proposing some alternate theory. It is the role of the proponent of the hypothesis to defend it, but all I have seen from these proponents has been ad hominem and the occasional valid but weak argument.
I can see where I could be wrong. Perhaps they are arguing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is making it thicker, which would make at least some sense, but then I would want an analysis of atmospheric loss and its causes. No-one has made that argument yet, but I could see it as a valid one. They could also argue that any number of other atmospheric pollutants are the source of the warming, but that sort of blows holes in AGW, which DEMANDS that the source be CO2, so they can gain absolute power over the entirety of the world's economy. Any other source can be eliminated by scrubbing or better ignition. But not CO2, which is the basic electron dump for practically all chemical processes, including life as we know it.
Jesus, what is wrong with you. Put your questions in one post FFS.
CO2 has a (VERY slight) net cooling effect as its partial pressure increases. If the atmosphere were 100% diatomic gases, then increasing CO2 would warm the planet. But introduce bent structure tri-atomic gases in massive quantities, and the effect from the CO2 is drowned out.
Same answer as above, it is the same mechanism that causes the hottest desert to freeze at night, while the jungle at the same longitude is blazing hot no matter what time it is.
Light comes in, hits the gas molecules, gas molecules retain more heat. Light comes in, hits solid and liquid surfaces, radiates heat, heat is abosrbed and re-emited. This is why deserts are blazing hot in the day, and freezing cold at hight, while jungles are just damn hot no matter what time it is. Much higher heat capacity in the atmosphere around a jungle than over a desert.
*Implying there is a difference between Al Gore and George Bush Jr.
These guys are all the same, bought and paid for, largely by the same people.
Note that my argument is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas for that very reason. You are using circular logic here, by accepting that what I am arguing against is true, therefore I must be wrong.
The heat capacity doesn't change, but its relevance disappears. 0.0001+2=2 The contribution of CO2 in an environment full of water vapor is negligible. It might be important for some extremely ancient atmospheres where water is trapped in rocks, as it can retain enough heat to drive that water out of the rocks and into the atmosphere to give us an atmosphere that can support life. But once the water is out, it is out. Taking away the CO2 won't drive it back into said rocks.
Warmer air can hold more water vapor, yes. But when there isn't any water vapor to hold, there isn't any water vapor to hold. There is no water in the air above the Sahara (most of the time). All the heat in the world won't bring it. But insert a sprawling metropolis with watered lawns, little machines running around exhaling water vapor, CO2, CO, and other gases, and suddenly you get an island of humidity, a place where it now stays warm at night. Lots of little machines running around spewing water.
I appreciate your lack of ad hominem, but your arguments are circular. The fact that you acknowledge that water vapor increases heating, but refuse to consider it as a cause, preferring to blame a ppm gas with a heat capacity lower than the general atmosphere smacks of doublethink. I think you can come up with better arguments, though.
But not to IR+Raman. Sorry, I know a lot about spectroscopy :(
I believe that is the definition of ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Yup, it surely is.
Actually, I didn't. Not only that, but most utilities aren't required to do anything but buy the power. Nice try on using the old "you are a slave who wants to end slavery, therefore accepting any goods from your master makes you a hypocrite" argument. You think I haven't seen that stupid crap before?
Not the production of new, but the production of old that was thrown in the trash can, as in engines blocks ruined and sent to the scrap heap. The more environmentally friendly course would have been to continue to use that vehicle until it could no longer be maintained cost effectively, and THEN buy a hybrid. But dumb governments interfered in the market and prevented that with their cash for clunkers BS.
It is only SIGNIFICANT in the absence of water vapor. In the presence of water vapor, the total forcing from CO2 falls within the noise of the day to day variation in water in the atmosphere.
What do you think heat capacity is?
It's like trying to tell me that capacitance has nothing to do with a capacitor, but that it is only the ability to separate charges that matters. THEY ARE THE SAME THING!
You clearly have no understanding of either article. The first states that a greenhouse gas absorbs and re-emits radiation. The heat capacity article defines that as the sum of the degrees of freedom, which are observed in the real world as peaks on Raman and IR spectra. As someone with a background in physical chemistry, I figured this out by myself, and did the basic calculations, and found that you are all a bunch of nutbags who's only possible response to a high level scientific argument against their axiomatic base is to post a couple of articles that you are incapable of understanding, and then dismissing the argument without addressing it in any way. This is why it is so frustrating to deal with you people. You are used to talking to rubes, and you can attack them by saying they aren't scientists, but I AM, and no amount of insult, ad hominem, or appeal to authority is going to make me abandon scientific principles to join your religion.
What? I use heat capacity as a proxy for the IR and Raman spectra, as the addition of the area under the peaks of those two spectra are proportional to it. Further, you seem to think that only some gases re-emit heat, which is a level of dumb I just don't know how to address.
O2 and N2 ARE greenhouse gases, just very poor ones. Only the noble gases fail to absorb IR (and ANYTHING that absorbs energy of any sort emits IR).
I would say that claiming that peaks in the IR spectrum are the same as being "opaque" to the entire IR spectrum is what will give you the wrong answer. Water vapor is much more "IR opaque" than CO2.
You should be, but not because of fudged data. You should be skeptical because Newton didn't get it right. Einstein was closer, and able to account for certain extreme phenomena, but not all. We STILL don't understand how gravity works, and you should be SKEPTICAL of anyone who says otherwise.
Yeah, and drug peddlers aren't all rich either, but there are plenty of super rich at the top. Perhaps more apropos is a comparison to religion, where the priests really believe what they are saying, and are quite poor, but the upper echelons are full of corrupt and unimaginably wealthy bastards.
Not really. I was already disinclined to believe anything coming out of Climate Science's ivory tower. With this revelation of the use of SOCIAL ENGINEERING by one or more of those gentleman, it throws anything they have ever said into question. You just can't trust them, because they have, beyond the shadow of a doubt, lied to the public. He said he was a skeptic, but he wasn't. That makes him a liar. And liars lie quite often.
More peaks in the absorption spectra (IR+Raman) is proportional to heat capacity, because one causes the other. CO2 has a few distinct peaks, while water has a giant "peak" that obliterates everything. Understanding of physical chemistry is sadly lacking among AGW proponents. If they had such an understanding, they could more easily disprove my shallow analysis of the subject, and maybe I would even start to believe them.
Where, exactly, do you think that "opacity" comes from? That material absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it. This slows heat loss of the system. This is the definition of heat capacity.
Every time I post this argument, the best that seems to come up against it is "U R N IDOT", or "That's not how greenhouse gases work". This shows that the proponents of AGW on slashdot know approximately shit about the mechanisms behind global warming. Of course, it says nothing about the hypothesis itself, sadly.
How do I know they aren't fudging the data again, like they have done here (nice chart that hides the ten year warming hiatus we are still in)?
What is needed to confirm it is a reduction in CO2 levels accompanied by a fall in temperature, then another rise, and another fall, then another rise, and another fall. The repetitions is the minimum for the data to be worth anything in my lab. Sadly, we can't make the same demands of the climate priests, lest we be called heretics and burned at the stake.