The Skeptics Fact Sheet - An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, 35 falsehoods in the film - update
tunderbar
falsehoods in the film - update
http://casualdoubter.blogspot.com/p/skecptics-fact-sheet.html
Dawlish
The ideas in the docufilm are so false that temperatures have
continued to increase since it was made. Amazingly enough, Al Gore
does not control global temperature, but he's very probably right
about the main cause of the warming. Picking holes in a politician's
arguments and presentations is hardly difficult, but doesn't actually
stop global temperatures from rising, does it?
tunderbar
35 falsehoods = unscientifc propaganda
Dawlish
He also pronounces "tomato" wrongly. Is that one? Given the choice of
believing someone with a basic premise that is likely to be correct
and someone like you with a basic premise that is extremely unlikley
to be correct, Al Gore wins over you every time tundy.
Claudius Denk
> On Mar 21, 5:57 pm, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Skeptics Fact Sheet - An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, 35
> > falsehoods in the film - update
>
> >http://casualdoubter.blogspot.com/p/skecptics-fact-sheet.html
>
> The ideas in the docufilm are so false that temperatures have
> continued to increase since it was made.
Number 36.
> Amazingly enough, Al Gore
> does not control global temperature, but he's very probably right
> about the main cause of the warming.
Why do you believe this?
> Picking holes in a politician's
> arguments and presentations is hardly difficult,
The assertions that he presented as facts in his presentation came
from scientists that refuse to discuss/debate their validity. Real
scientists don't need politicians to speak for them.
> but doesn't actually
> stop global temperatures from rising, does it?
True. It also doesn't stop space aliens from attacking earth.
James
news:d3f62e8e-7df8-424d...@s2g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>> On Mar 21, 5:57 pm, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Skeptics Fact Sheet - An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, 35
>>> falsehoods in the film - update
>>
>>> http://casualdoubter.blogspot.com/p/skecptics-fact-sheet.html
>>
>> The ideas in the docufilm are so false that temperatures have
>> continued to increase since it was made.
>
> Number 36.
>
>> Amazingly enough, Al Gore
>> does not control global temperature, but he's very probably right
>> about the main cause of the warming.
>
> Why do you believe this?
>
I think his only knowledge on climate is what big AL tells him. Pity.
Siobhan Medeiros
An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, 35 falsehoods in the film:
>Sea level to rise 6 meters (20 feet)
Since no time frame is given, we can't say this is true or not.
>Pacific Islands drowning
They are. Look up Tuvalu, a Pacific Island that will have be be
evacuated.
>Thermohaline circulation stopping
This was not stated as a fact, just a possibility.
>CO2 driving temperatures
They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
increases we've seen.
>Snows of Kilimanjaro melting
They are.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
>Lake Chad drying up
It is
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32555
>Hurricane Katrina man made
Hogwash, no one ever said that.
>Polar bears dying off
They are.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/faq
>Coral reefs bleaching
They are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
>100 ppmv of CO2 "melting mile-thick ice"
It is.
>Hurricane Caterina "manmade"
Nobody said that, moron.
>Japanese typhoons "a new record"
There was.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL022494.shtml
>Hurricanes "getting stronger"
They are.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0915_050915_hurricane_strength.html
>Big storm insurances losses "increasing"
Are you saying they aren't?
>Mumbai "flooding"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra_floods_of_2005
>Severe tornadoes "more frequent"
They are.
http://www.eoearth.org/image/Tornado_fatality_graph.gif
>The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"
You're saying something else does?
>Arctic "warming fastest"
I don't know if it's warming the fastest, but it's warming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/arctic-survey-ice-melting
>Greenland ice sheet "unstable"
I don't know if it's "unstable", but it's melting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
>Himalayan glacial melt waters "failing"
They are. They won't be gone by 2035, but they're still shrinking.
>Peruvian glaciers "disappearing"
They are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf5ZgVvLjfo
>Mountain glaciers worldwide "disappearing"
They are.
>Sahara desert "drying"
I don't know if it's drying, but it's growing.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Moroccos-Sahara-Desert&id=1446812
>West Antarctic ice sheet "unstable"
It is. See below.
>Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves "breaking up"
They are. Remember the Ross Ice shelf?
>Larsen B Ice Shelf "broke up because of 'global warming'"
Why else would it break up?
>Mosquitoes "climbing to higher altitudes"
I don't know about that, but it's a fact that mosquitoes like warm
climates.
>Many tropical diseases "spread through 'global warming'"
See above. If mosquitoes multiply, tropical diseases spread.
>West Nile virus in the US "spread through 'global warming'"
See above.
>Carbon dioxide is "pollution"
It is.
>The European heat wave of 2003 "killed 35,000"
Nope. It killed more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
>Pied flycatchers "cannot feed their young"
Not sure about that.
>Gore's bogus pictures and film footage
Cite?
>The Thames Barrier "closing more frequently"
It is.
http://thames-landscape-strategy.org.uk/news/134/thames-barrier-100th-closure
>"No fact...in dispute by anybody."
Techincally correct...there is always some retard willing to dispute
any fact, no matter how well established. That's why they have a flat
earth society.
Carbon Dioxide:
>Plant nutrient.
So?
>Non-toxic to humans and animals until levels reach over 4% of the atmosphere. -Link-
Nobody's claiming that people are gong to be poisoned, moron.
>Levels in the 1800's are alleged to have been steady at approx. 280 parts per million. That is false. -Link-
Nope, that is true.
>Levels today are at approx. 385 parts per million.
Both those numbers are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
>Only approx. 11.8 parts per million is from man made sources. (US Dept of Energy)
Hey, moron. It doesn't matter. You pour water into a bucket faster
than it can be taken out, the bucket gets fuller.
>Only approx. 1.18 one hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere is man made carbon dioxide.
Hey, why don't you mix yourself a cocktail that's 11.8 PPM cyanide and
drink that sucker down?
>Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperatures:
>Historically CO2 has always risen approx. 800 years AFTER temperatures have gone up, never before.
Doesn't mean shit.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Positive feedback cycle.
>CO2 has never led any rise in global temperatures, ever.
But it's doing it now.
>If CO2 causes any greenhouse effect, it is negligible or impossible to detect.
According to who, your demented ravings?
>CO2 greenhouse effect is logarithmic. Above 265 ppm, the additional greenhouse effect is zero. -Link-
Complete bullshit. If this were true, there would be no warming on
the planet Venus, whose atmosphere is largely CO2. Considering that
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being twice as far from the sun,
I'd say it's safe to say that CO2 is warming the planet.
Oh, as for the author of that report?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
>Climate:
>Climate changes. That is what it does. It has never stopped changing. Ever. Since the beginning of time.
Except now it's changing ten times faster than at any time in history.
>Global warming happens. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.
Bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>Global cooling happens. The Little Ice Age and the Glaciation period was colder than today.
Your point?
>The climate never stays the same. It changes. That is what it does.
But it has never changed this fast.
>Historically, warmer periods have been more prosperous for people.
Not when it's been changing this fast.
>Historically, cooler periods have been periods of hardship for people.
Tell it to Tuvalu.
>Science:
>There is no such a thing as a climatologist. No such higher learning dsignation or degree exists.
Riiiiiigggghhhhttttt...
tunderbar
> On Mar 21, 10:57 am, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Skeptics Fact Sheet - An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, 35
> > falsehoods in the film - update
>
> >http://casualdoubter.blogspot.com/p/skecptics-fact-sheet.html
>
> An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, 35 falsehoods in the film:
>
> >Sea level to rise 6 meters (20 feet)
>
> Since no time frame is given, we can't say this is true or not.
>
> >Pacific Islands drowning
>
> They are. Look up Tuvalu, a Pacific Island that will have be be
> evacuated.
>
> >Thermohaline circulation stopping
>
> This was not stated as a fact, just a possibility.
>
> >CO2 driving temperatures
>
> They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> increases we've seen.
>
> >Snows of Kilimanjaro melting
>
> They are.
>
>
> >Lake Chad drying up
>
> It is
>
> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32555
>
> >Hurricane Katrina man made
>
> Hogwash, no one ever said that.
>
> >Polar bears dying off
>
> They are.
>
> http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/faq
>
> >Coral reefs bleaching
>
> They are.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
>
> >100 ppmv of CO2 "melting mile-thick ice"
>
> It is.
>
> >Hurricane Caterina "manmade"
>
> Nobody said that, moron.
>
> >Japanese typhoons "a new record"
>
> There was.
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL022494.shtml
>
> >Hurricanes "getting stronger"
>
> They are.
>
>
> >Big storm insurances losses "increasing"
>
> Are you saying they aren't?
>
> >Mumbai "flooding"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra_floods_of_2005
>
> >Severe tornadoes "more frequent"
>
> They are.
>
> http://www.eoearth.org/image/Tornado_fatality_graph.gif
>
> >The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"
>
> You're saying something else does?
>
> >Arctic "warming fastest"
>
> I don't know if it's warming the fastest, but it's warming.
>
>
> >Climate:
> >Climate changes. That is what it does. It has never stopped changing. Ever. Since the beginning of time.
>
> Except now it's changing ten times faster than at any time in history.
>
> >Global warming happens. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.
>
> Bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>
> >Global cooling happens. The Little Ice Age and the Glaciation period was colder than today.
>
> Your point?
>
> >The climate never stays the same. It changes. That is what it does.
>
> But it has never changed this fast.
>
> >Historically, warmer periods have been more prosperous for people.
>
> Not when it's been changing this fast.
>
> >Historically, cooler periods have been periods of hardship for people.
>
> Tell it to Tuvalu.
>
> >Science:
> >There is no such a thing as a climatologist. No such higher learning dsignation or degree exists.
>
> Riiiiiigggghhhhttttt...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
It's a lie. No it's not.
You are not actually addressing the points are you.
Bo,,,ZN0
Siobhan Medeiros
You did see the citations I provided, did you not? Or is your head
too deep in the sand?
Siobhan Medeiros
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >CO2 driving temperatures
>
> > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> > increases we've seen.
>
> What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
Riiiiighhhhtttt...I provide over a dozen cites, you provide
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fuck, you're pathetic.
tunderbar
Citations? I saw links to news stories, wikipedia and youtube. Those
are not cites. Cites lead to peer reviewed science.
If you go to the blog in the OP, you will find a link to the original
list of 35 lies with CITES.
Siobhan Medeiros
Oh, I see. Those news sources are part of the "great scientific
conspiracy".
Guess what, those cites prove you wrong. Lake Chad not drying up?
Guess what, there's a source that says it is. Pacific Islands not
drowning? There's a news feed about the evacuation of Tuvalu.
I wonder how it is that rightard sources such as the National Review
and Fox News are considered valid and everyone else isn't.
> If you go to the blog in the OP, you will find a link to the original
> list of 35 lies with CITES.
Nope. No cites, just some blathering by some rightard with no
references except to a bunch of right-wing "think tanks" AKA lie
factories.
tunderbar
No you stupid shit. A cite is a scientific reference.
Are you the best of the best of the agw crowd? Pathetic.
Bruno Muscarelli
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:0cceq51ghj493uljv...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> You must err.
Now there is a scientific reply!
Bruno Muscarelli
> Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> > >CO2 driving temperatures
> >
> > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> > increases we've seen.
>
> What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
Yet you have no refutation of his post, just juvenile bullshit.
tunderbar
> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
>
> news:fcheq593jnvu2jk4m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
>
> > Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > >CO2 driving temperatures
>
> > > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> > > increases we've seen.
>
> > Take off your sunglasses, imbecile.
> > What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>
> Yet you have no refutation of his post, just juvenile bullshit.
One does not need to rebut the other persons theory. It is the
propagator of the theory that must provide proof of its validity.
That means it's your turn to provide a cite or cites to definitive
science that shows that CO2 is the primary drive behind global
warming.
Go.
Siobhan Medeiros
Well, guess what, moron. Most of my news sources quote scientific
studies. Same thing.
Meanwhile, this moron has provided no references, scientific or
otherwise.
>
> Are you the best of the best of the agw crowd? Pathetic.
>
Hardly. Still kicked your ass though, didn't I?
>
> > Guess what, those cites prove you wrong. Lake Chad not drying up?
> > Guess what, there's a source that says it is. Pacific Islands not
> > drowning? There's a news feed about the evacuation of Tuvalu.
<Crickets>
>
> > I wonder how it is that rightard sources such as the National Review
> > and Fox News are considered valid and everyone else isn't.
<crickets>
>
> > > If you go to the blog in the OP, you will find a link to the original
> > > list of 35 lies with CITES.
>
> > Nope. No cites, just some blathering by some rightard with no
> > references except to a bunch of right-wing "think tanks" AKA lie
> > factories.
<crickets>
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Mar 22, 3:00 pm, "Bruno Muscarelli" <B...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
>
> >news:fcheq593jnvu2jk4m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
>
> > > Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >CO2 driving temperatures
>
> > > > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> > > > increases we've seen.
>
> > > Take off your sunglasses, imbecile.
> > > What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>
> > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>
> > Yet you have no refutation of his post, just juvenile bullshit.
>
> One does not need to rebut the other persons theory. It is the
> propagator of the theory that must provide proof of its validity.
>
On what planet?
You better hope that your defence attorney doesn't share your
philosophy.
> That means it's your turn to provide a cite or cites to definitive
> science that shows that CO2 is the primary drive behind global
> warming.
> Go.
Done and done. See above.
Bruno Muscarelli
>
> This is your chance now to be the first worldwide.
>
Let me see, who should I believe, scientists in 130 countries, or Rush and
Peter?
Siobhan Medeiros
> >news:fcheq593jnvu2jk4m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> > > Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >CO2 driving temperatures
>
> > > > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> > > > increases we've seen.
>
> > > Take off your sunglasses, imbecile.
> > > What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>
> > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>
> > Yet you have no refutation of his post, just juvenile bullshit.
>
>
> This is your chance now to be the first worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Read it and weep, rightard.
Look at the planet Venus and you can see it in action.
Siobhan Medeiros
> >news:cilfq51418ll75j8e...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> > > "Bruno Muscarelli" <B...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
> > > >news:fcheq593jnvu2jk4m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> > > > > Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >CO2 driving temperatures
>
> > > > > > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> > > > > > increases we've seen.
>
> > > > > Take off your sunglasses, imbecile.
> > > > > What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>
> > > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>
> > > > Yet you have no refutation of his post, just juvenile bullshit.
>
> > > Maybe you want to show me the evidence for CO2 to temperature causation?
>
> > > This is your chance now to be the first worldwide.
>
> > Let me see, who should I believe, scientists in 130 countries, or Rush and
> > Peter?
>
> If you have it, post it.
> That's all I ask for.
Yeah, here are the rules:
1. Any cites must be from scientific sources which have been cleared
of any involvement with the Great Scientific Conspriracy. Such cites
must also include the scientist's home address plus the address of all
the peers selected for peer review, as well as a signed affidavit that
he is not part of the Great Scientific Conspiracy mentioned above.
2. News sources referencing said cites #1 are not applicable, no
matter how reliable, well-documented, or reputable.
3. Fox News, Newsmax, the National Review and publications from the
Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation are exempt from rules #1 and 2.
Also exempt are any rightard blogs put up by any unknown wanna-be
pundit.
You can follow a few simple rules, can't you?
Trawley Trash
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
> Look at the planet Venus and you can see it in action.
The planet Venus has an atmosphere of 95 percent carbon
dioxide. It also receives twice as much energy from
the sun as the earth does.
None of us doubt that an atmosphere of 95 percent
carbon dioxide would cause warming.
The question is whether an increase of 100 or 200 ppm
(0.0001 or 0.0002 percent) will have a disastrous effect.
A related question is how much the observed CO2 levels
are the result of human activity.
The AGW-ers have not done their homework on these questions.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > Look at the planet Venus and you can see it in action.
>
> The planet Venus has an atmosphere of 95 percent carbon
> dioxide. It also receives twice as much energy from
> the sun as the earth does.
>
> None of us doubt that an atmosphere of 95 percent
> carbon dioxide would cause warming.
> The question is whether an increase of 100 or 200 ppm
> (0.0001 or 0.0002 percent)
Actually, it's 0.01-0.02 percent. Learn some math, rightard.
>will have a disastrous effect.
Also, Venus gets 1/4 the energy of the sun that Mercury does.
Mercury's avg. temperature is 442K. Venus's is 732K, if it had no
atmosphere like Mercury, it would be around 110K. That's 620K of
warming. Still think it's nothing?
> A related question is how much the observed CO2 levels
> are the result of human activity.
>
Pretty much all of it. There is no other source that can account for
the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Also, analysis of the isotope composition shows that isotopes
generated by combustion have increased in proportion as opposed to
those generated by respiration.
> The AGW-ers have not done their homework on these questions.
We have. You haven't even gone to school.
Dawlish
> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
>
> news:fcheq593jnvu2jk4m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
>
> > Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > >CO2 driving temperatures
>
> > > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
> > > increases we've seen.
>
> > Take off your sunglasses, imbecile.
> > What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>
> Yet you have no refutation of his post, just juvenile bullshit.
It's true, he's given no refutation, but the above is how how Peter
reacts to question and criticism. He thinks it convinces people. There
are no other sources that in any way describe the temperature
increases we've seen over the past century, or so. There are lots of
reasons why atmospheric temperatures can change over time -
acknowledged by the IPCC and *everyone* working in climate science and
other related sciences - but there is nothing else which explains the
temperature changes seen over the last century. CO2 causes atmospheric
warming and the warming correlates well with the temperature increase,
but other influences mean that the warming cannot and will not be
linear.
Further warming is well modelled, but of course, there is a get out
for the denialists. There is no absolute certainty, as another factor,
as yet unknown, or quantified, could be at work. If someone wishes to
believe that, you are gambling at long odds - and it would be good if
you could argue your case for an alternative with the same vigour as
you can argue your case for something, anything, else.........but the
denialists can't. The proof there is in the lack of replies to my
question. Despite all the denialist "science" none of you can actually
explain why we are warming at this rate. The only thing you say is the
measurements must be wrong. All I need to say to that is UAH - and
again, no denialist has acknowledged the agreement between that
skeptic's measure and your favoured pariahs, Hadley, GISS and NASA.
Can anyone explain the warming from the denialist side? There's a
thread waiting if you can.
Siobhan Medeiros
> > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > Look at the planet Venus and you can see it in action.
>
> > > The planet Venus has an atmosphere of 95 percent carbon
> > > dioxide. It also receives twice as much energy from
> > > the sun as the earth does.
>
> > > None of us doubt that an atmosphere of 95 percent
> > > carbon dioxide would cause warming.
>
> > > The question is whether an increase of 100 or 200 ppm
> > > (0.0001 or 0.0002 percent)
>
> > Actually, it's 0.01-0.02 percent.
>
> 0.0001 or 0.0002 percent is correct.
That's right, but there are 100 percentage points, loser. You're off
by a factor of 100.
>
> >Learn some math, rightard.
>
> Do your math homework, leftard.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >will have a disastrous effect.
>
> > Also, Venus gets 1/4 the energy of the sun that Mercury does.
> > Mercury's avg. temperature is 442K. Venus's is 732K, if it had no
> > atmosphere like Mercury, it would be around 110K. That's 620K of
> > warming. Still think it's nothing?
>
> > > A related question is how much the observed CO2 levels
> > > are the result of human activity.
>
> > Pretty much all of it. There is no other source that can account for
> > the increase in atmospheric CO2.
>
> > Also, analysis of the isotope composition shows that isotopes
> > generated by combustion have increased in proportion as opposed to
> > those generated by respiration.
>
> > > The AGW-ers have not done their homework on these questions.
>
> > We have. You haven't even gone to school.
>
> So far for AGW math, apart from starting name-calling.
>
> Do all AGWs use your kind of math?
The right kind? Yes.
> This would explain a lot of AGW science crap.
That would explain why you can't understand it. Better get an eighth
grade science student to explain it to you.
Bill Ward
> On Mar 22, 8:00 pm, "Bruno Muscarelli" <B...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fcheq593jnvu2jk4m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
>>
>> > Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >CO2 driving temperatures
>>
>> > > They are. There is simply no other source for the temperature
>> > > increases we've seen.
>>
>> > Take off your sunglasses, imbecile.
>> > What a goofy argument from Voodoo-Dawlish.
>>
>> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>>
>> Yet you have no refutation of his post, just juvenile bullshit.
>
> It's true, he's given no refutation, but the above is how how Peter
> reacts to question and criticism. He thinks it convinces people. There
> are no other sources that in any way describe the temperature increases
> we've seen over the past century, or so. There are lots of reasons why
> atmospheric temperatures can change over time - acknowledged by the IPCC
> and *everyone* working in climate science and other related sciences -
> but there is nothing else which explains the temperature changes seen
> over the last century.
Apparently Dawlish believes he has come up with a way to make arguing
from ignorance a valid logical tool.
Maybe he could share it with us.
<snip erroneous conclusions>
tunderbar
I theorize that dinosaurs went extinct because of too much CO2 in the
atmosphere. Since there is no definitive evidence otherwise, I must be
right.
Trawley Trash
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
> Actually, it's 0.01-0.02 percent. Learn some math, rightard.
Yes, that is correct. The atmosphere of Venus is 95 percent
CO2, and we are arguing over a fraction of 0.0001-0.0002
which is 0.01 to 0.02 percent. This does not change my
point.
The insult is unnecessary.
> Also, Venus gets 1/4 the energy of the sun that Mercury does.
> Mercury's avg. temperature is 442K. Venus's is 732K, if it
> had no atmosphere like Mercury, it would be around 110K.
> That's 620K of warming. Still think it's nothing?
Venus and earth are similar planets. Mercury is not comparable
because of its composition, eccentric orbit, and the lock
between the planet's rotation and its orbit around the sun.
Average temperature is meaningless when there no atmosphere and
half the planet is in perpetual winter. The surface
temperature of Mercury varies between 80K and 700K.
Under these circumstances you must take in to account
the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the radiation
is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute
temperature. For the amount of insolation, Mercury is thus
cooler on average than than a planet like Venus where the
temperature is evenly distributed. This has nothing to do
with CO2 or greenhouse gasses.
Even using your numbers though, we would expect
roughly 620*0.0001/0.95 or 0.065K of warming from
a 100ppm increase of CO2. For all practical purposes,
this is nothing.
Trawley Trash
Peter Muehlbauer <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> ppm = parts per million
> 0.0001 or 0.0002 percent is correct.
Thank you, Peter. I was going to make that correction,
but I fell asleep.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > Actually, it's 0.01-0.02 percent. Learn some math, rightard.
>
> Yes, that is correct. The atmosphere of Venus is 95 percent
> CO2, and we are arguing over a fraction of 0.0001-0.0002
> which is 0.01 to 0.02 percent. This does not change my
> point.
>
> The insult is unnecessary.
>
> > Also, Venus gets 1/4 the energy of the sun that Mercury does.
> > Mercury's avg. temperature is 442K. Venus's is 732K, if it
> > had no atmosphere like Mercury, it would be around 110K.
> > That's 620K of warming. Still think it's nothing?
>
> Venus and earth are similar planets. Mercury is not comparable
> because of its composition, eccentric orbit, and the lock
> between the planet's rotation and its orbit around the sun.
Venus has a lock too, moron. And composition has no impact on how
much heat it receives from the sun.
> Average temperature is meaningless when there no atmosphere and
> half the planet is in perpetual winter. The surface
> temperature of Mercury varies between 80K and 700K.
> Under these circumstances you must take in to account
> the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the radiation
> is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute
> temperature. For the amount of insolation, Mercury is thus
> cooler on average than than a planet like Venus where the
> temperature is evenly distributed. This has nothing to do
> with CO2 or greenhouse gasses.
Actually, it does. Why do you think the temperature on Venus is
evenly distributed?
The fact is, Venus receives 1/4 the amount of energy Mercury does, and
it should be cooler. Instead, it's hotter. This has everything to do
with greenhouse gases.
>
> Even using your numbers though, we would expect
> roughly 620*0.0001/0.95 or 0.065K of warming from
> a 100ppm increase of CO2. For all practical purposes,
> this is nothing.
You can't just scale it like that, moron. Ask a real physcist what it
would be, forget your back-of-the-envelope stuff.
Siobhan Medeiros
It doesn't work that way, moron. We also have a huge amount of
evidence that it was an asteroid impact, so there, we have an
alternate solution.
I'll ask again, where's your alternate solution?
Siobhan Medeiros
No, arguing from ignorance is what the denialists do. And you just
proved it below.
>
> Maybe he could share it with us.
>
> <snip erroneous conclusions>
That's the typical denialist tactic; when you can't address a point,
refuse to acknowledge it.
<reposting facts removed by cowardly snipping>
Trawley Trash
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 11:43 am, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Venus and earth are similar planets. Mercury is not
> > comparable because of its composition, eccentric orbit,
> > and the lock between the planet's rotation and its orbit
> > around the sun.
>
> Venus has a lock too, moron. And composition has no impact
> on how much heat it receives from the sun.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 92 times as dense as
the earth's and so its atmosphere is more effective
in distributing heat around the planet. Mercury has no
atmosphere to speak of. It is the combination of day being
synchronized with the year plus the lack of atmosphere that
generates the temperature extremes.
> > Average temperature is meaningless when there no
> > atmosphere and half the planet is in perpetual winter.
> > The surface temperature of Mercury varies between 80K and
> > 700K. Under these circumstances you must take in to account
> > the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the radiation
> > is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute
> > temperature. For the amount of insolation, Mercury is thus
> > cooler on average than than a planet like Venus where the
> > temperature is evenly distributed. This has nothing to do
> > with CO2 or greenhouse gasses.
>
> Actually, it does. Why do you think the temperature on Venus
> is evenly distributed?
Because that is what has been measured. As wikipedia puts it:
! The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; it retains a
! constant temperature between day and night and between the
! equator and the poles
If you want references look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
> The fact is, Venus receives 1/4 the amount of energy Mercury
> does, and it should be cooler. Instead, it's hotter. This
> has everything to do with greenhouse gases.
Sorry. It is the Stefan-Boltzmann law that causes Mercury
to radiate far more energy into space that you would expect.
This causes it to be far cooler than it would be if the
temperature were evenly distributed the way it is on Venus.
> > Even using your numbers though, we would expect
> > roughly 620*0.0001/0.95 or 0.065K of warming from
> > a 100ppm increase of CO2. For all practical purposes,
> > this is nothing.
>
> You can't just scale it like that, moron. Ask a real
> physcist what it would be, forget your back-of-the-envelope
> stuff.
There you go with the insults again. You are wrong.
Admit it.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > On Mar 24, 11:43 am, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > Venus and earth are similar planets. Mercury is not
> > > comparable because of its composition, eccentric orbit,
> > > and the lock between the planet's rotation and its orbit
> > > around the sun.
>
> > Venus has a lock too, moron. And composition has no impact
> > on how much heat it receives from the sun.
>
> Venus has an atmosphere that is 92 times as dense as
> the earth's and so its atmosphere is more effective
> in distributing heat around the planet. Mercury has no
> atmosphere to speak of. It is the combination of day being
> synchronized with the year plus the lack of atmosphere that
> generates the temperature extremes.
True, but you don't need much of an atmosphere to distribute the
heat. Earth has relatively even temperatures, even Mars does.
Although, I will grant you that Venus, with the densest atmosphere is
far more uniform.
>
> > > Average temperature is meaningless when there no
> > > atmosphere and half the planet is in perpetual winter.
> > > The surface temperature of Mercury varies between 80K and
> > > 700K. Under these circumstances you must take in to account
> > > the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the radiation
> > > is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute
> > > temperature. For the amount of insolation, Mercury is thus
> > > cooler on average than than a planet like Venus where the
> > > temperature is evenly distributed. This has nothing to do
> > > with CO2 or greenhouse gasses.
>
> > Actually, it does. Why do you think the temperature on Venus
> > is evenly distributed?
>
> Because that is what has been measured. As wikipedia puts it:
>
And because it was measured that's why it happened? Yeah, right.
> ! The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; it retains a
> ! constant temperature between day and night and between the
> ! equator and the poles
>
> If you want references look here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
>
> > The fact is, Venus receives 1/4 the amount of energy Mercury
> > does, and it should be cooler. Instead, it's hotter. This
> > has everything to do with greenhouse gases.
>
> Sorry. It is the Stefan-Boltzmann law that causes Mercury
> to radiate far more energy into space that you would expect.
> This causes it to be far cooler than it would be if the
> temperature were evenly distributed the way it is on Venus.
>
> > > Even using your numbers though, we would expect
> > > roughly 620*0.0001/0.95 or 0.065K of warming from
> > > a 100ppm increase of CO2. For all practical purposes,
> > > this is nothing.
>
> > You can't just scale it like that, moron. Ask a real
> > physcist what it would be, forget your back-of-the-envelope
> > stuff.
>
> There you go with the insults again. You are wrong.
> Admit it.
Nope, I'm right. You are a moron.