Dr.Peter Langdon Ward Debunks Global Warming
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 05:41
VIEWED: 5906
PAGE 1 of 1
And he addressed the drought in American southwest.
Hearing him on Coast2coast. Seems plenty of info on the web from him.
ETA:
Looks like my title was imprecise.
He seems to be pointing out that Climate Change does exist, and has existed for millennia, but not caused by Greenhouse Gasses.
The CFCs were implemented widely quickly, and the damage to the Ozone was also very quick. Then the damage was discovered, the CFC usage was ended quickly, but the damage takes a long time to repair.
The show spent some time in grand generalizations, before finally getting to the details of what separated him from Climate Nazis.
He points out the Climate Commissions were not created to investigate or find solutions to Climate Change, but to assume, support, and propagandize that Climate Change is Man-made.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And once again, no linkies.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And he addressed the drought in American southwest.
Hearing him on Coast2coast. Seems plenty of info on the web from him.
Yanno, I really DO look into evidence that global warming is not anthropogenic. There are a few lines of evidence - microfossils in sediment, gas concentrations in ice caps, the waxing and waning of polar caps on Mars, for example - that I find interesting. But I can't evaluate what he posits unless I know what it is.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Climate Book You Didn’t Know You Need:
The Physics of Climate Change
by Lawrence Krauss
reviewed by Sabine Hossenfelder
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-climate-book-you-didnt-kn
ow-you-need.html
Quote:Free Download of the book from the mirrors at
Think about the last dozen or so news reports on climate change you’ve read. Earliest cherry blossom bloom in Japan, ice still melting in Antarctica, Greta Thunberg doesn’t want to travel to Glasgow in November. Did one of those actually explain how scientists know that climate change is man-made? I suspect not. Are you sure you understand it? Would you be comfortable explaining it to a climate change skeptic?
If not, then Lawrence Krauss’ new book “The Physics of Climate Change” is for you. It’s a well-curated collection of facts and data with explanations that are just about technical enough to understand the science without getting bogged down in details. The book covers historical and contemporary records of carbon dioxide levels and temperature, greenhouse gases and how their atmospheric concentrations change the energy balance, how we can tell one cause of climate change from another, and impacts we have seen and can expect to see, from sea level rise to tipping points.
To me, learning some climate science has been a series of realizations that it’s more difficult than it looks at first sight. Remember, for example, the explanation for the greenhouse effect we all learned in school? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lets incoming sunlight through, but prevents infrared light from escaping into space, hence raising the temperature. Alas, a climate change skeptic might point out, the absorption of infrared light is saturated at carbon dioxide levels well below the current ones. So, burning fossil fuels can’t possible make any difference, right?
No, wrong. But explaining just why is not so simple...
https://libgen.unblockit.onl/search.php?req=Physics+of+Climate+Change+
Lawrence+Krauss
www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Change-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/1642938165
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Curated facts" is, by definition, propagnada. A narrative stripped of all of those messy questions and frustrating details.
If people have evidence-based countervailing arguments, they should be addressed, not ignored.
It is a physical fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Its absorption across the infrared spectrum has been a matter of record for almost a century. It is also a matter of record that geologic periods of high CO2 have also been geologic periods of high temperature. However, is one sufficient to explain the other?
Of the countervailing points that I mentioned, only one has been examined in detail, which is the "gases in ice cores" evidence. Gases get trapped in ice as the ice is formed, along with contemporaneous measurements of temperature (by isotopic measurements of the ice itself) and what this sshows is that atmopsheric concentrations LAG temperature changes.
The PhD with the microfossil evidence has never been fully written about, much less examined or explained or rebutted. The Martian ice caps theory has never been fleshed out.
It's true that the world is warming and that our climate is becoming unstable. It's quite possible, even probable, that this is due to anthropogenic CO2. But countervailing arguments that have actual evidence behind them need to be fully examined and explained, because that's how science and policy are supposed to work.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Law in Physics is something that States something that happens mathematically in our physical world, for example Newton’s 3rd law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...you may not think it but this Law is True, a hypothesis is a kind of guess made by an observer this observer can be a scientist or a stoned drugged up spaced out hippie, whereas a 'scientific-theory' is a tested fact developed by the researcher, “Facts” are something that state the reality of our world, Water is Wet, Grass is Green, Fire is Hot...it might not always be scientifically necessary to test already know Facts.
I think they typically call it 'Climate Change' these days because by dumping tons of stuff into our air and water not all parts of the planet may 'warm' some get hot, some hotter an some cool, according to computer models might get more rain, some parts might get more Hurricane and Storms, some parts might actually 'cool'
There was also talk about a Cooler Sun, a Warmer Sun and talk that almost bordered on conspiracy truther talk with the 'Little Ice Age'
Blame our Sun?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-des
pite-a-cold-sun/
Getting hit by a Big Asteroid, a big krakatoa sized Volcano Eruption or a the tail end of a 10,000 milankovitch cycle is probably going to change the climate a lot more than Man is currently doing.
Politically I think there was a mistake in Taxing Carbon, the political elite they scam the system by trading credits with each other and its not just a Carbon Molecule that causes Climate Change there are also TWO OXYGEN Atoms in CO 2 so why did they blame it all on that Carbon guy? There is also a thing produced by mankind called 'Nitrous oxide' used in RaceCars, Rockets and Laughing Gas, it is an extremely powerful Global Warming Gas but does not get Taxed as it has no Carbon Atom. There were also these things called CFCs’ which may have caused atmosphere changes due to destructive reaction with O-zone particles. Mankind also typically produces these things called Aerosols which can contribute to Global Cooling, the effects much like an 'Antigreenhouse Effect' you see on Saturn's Moon Titan, the mix of hydro carbon with a rain of sulfur aerosols that you find on other exotic planet systems.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Hearing him on Coast2coast.
This is a credible radio station... ???
The Bigfoot, Ouija board, LochNess Monster, UFO radio station channel?
I never heard of him, I stopped following a lot of climate 'news' once it got political. Personally Coast2coast would not be my 'Go-To' Radio Station for accurate reports on Weather or Scientific News. For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume he's some kind of weather planetary ocean scientist and his 'debunking' wont be a total waste of my time??
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And once again, no linkies.
People are asking for a credible link to read
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Snopes already ruined any credibility in my mind for anybody who claims to debunk anything.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have not heard of reported UFOs from Navy, Law Enforcement, commercial aviation pilots, government? C2C has been at the forefront of these reports for decades.
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:Quote:This is a credible radio station... ???
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Hearing him on Coast2coast.
The Bigfoot, Ouija board, LochNess Monster, UFO radio station channel?
I never heard of him, I stopped following a lot of climate 'news' once it got political. Personally Coast2coast would not be my 'Go-To' Radio Station for accurate reports on Weather or Scientific News. For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume he's some kind of weather planetary ocean scientist and his 'debunking' wont be a total waste of my time??
Do you still believe that Sol orbits Terra?
C2C spent decades covering the existence of Area 51 while the government denied it existed. Do you also still deny it existed?
C2C also has covered Technical Remote Viewing, and other activities known as Extra Sensory Perception. Do you deny that all of that does not exist?
The JFK Assassination theories that Oswald was not a Loner Gunman.
Are you just trying to boast that you have a severely limited and narrow mind?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are correct in observing that, yet again, i was unable to post linkys last night.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:And once again, no linkies.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And he addressed the drought in American southwest.
Hearing him on Coast2coast. Seems plenty of info on the web from him.
Yanno, I really DO look into evidence that global warming is not anthropogenic. There are a few lines of evidence - microfossils in sediment, gas concentrations in ice caps, the waxing and waning of polar caps on Mars, for example - that I find interesting. But I can't evaluate what he posits unless I know what it is.
However, I did not want to forget about the subject, so I started the thread.
A few things:
Yes, many times I am unable to post linkys, unless very simple and brief.
I didn't want to forget about this topic.
My thread title seems to be imprecise. The interview had a lot of grand generalizations in the beginning, and by the time it got to the details which differentiate him from the Climate Nazis, I had run out of time.
Key points:
Ozone damage was caused by CFCs. Damage was quick from CFCs, and now with the end of CFC usage, repair of ozone is slow.
Greenhouse gasses cannot cause Global Warming.
AS Sigs has pointed out here already, greenhouse gas density LAGS Climate Change in the geological record.
I wasn't able to listen to the entire interview as intently as I wished. But I had not heard his points made before, IIRC.
Here are some linkys. I might add them to the OP, once I've had time to dissect them.
https://whyclimatechanges.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Langdon_Ward
I hope you won't hold my failures against him or the hypothesis.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I went to his webpage, and clicked on a link:
We have already solved the climate crisis
https://whyclimatechanges.com/already.pdf
And I looked at his very first claim that Global Warming is already over. In support of that he posts a chart that only goes to 2016, when there was a brief pause in increase. (I'm pretty sure if I looked into it, it would be related to volcanic activity in 2015.) But since 2016 there have been years that that have set global warming records, then broken them, then broken them again.
His claim that global warming is over, that he 'proved' using a cherry-picked chart?
BS.
I stopped right there.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile:
Carbon dioxide levels hit 50% higher than preindustrial time
https://apnews.com/article/business-climate-change-science-environment
-and-nature-e4ec631e48aa939e3524d192c0457e62
CO2 Reaches Its Highest Level in More Than 4 Million Years
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-07/co-reaches-its-high
est-level-in-more-than-4-million-years?srnd=premium
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, the evidence is compelling that global warming exists. IMO the evidence is compelling that there's plenty of inertia in the system (including ocean temperatures) and that it'll continue well into the future.
What's still being resolved are the positive and negative feedback loops, and the possibilities for mitigating them, that'll ultimately determine the planet's fate.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2021/06/07/britain-climate-models-tre
e-rings/5711622840890/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The planet will be fine.
Can't say the same for the overpopulated human race that made huge gains in 2020 despite all the fake Covid numbers.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Posting this now, will read and review later.
Earth’s atmosphere is clearly warmed daily by conduction and by dissociation but not by greenhouse gasesDr. Peter Langdon Ward United States Geological Survey retiredChief Scientist, Science Is Never Settled Inc.CO2impossible@gmail.com
Global average surface temperatures have risen 0.9 degreesCelsius (1.6 degreesFahrenheit)since 1950. What caused this warming? How much of this warming was caused by humans?Will Earth continue to warm? What actions should we take?
To answer these questions, we need to revisit a number of direct observations of what is physically happening in the world around us. After all, direct observations of Nature, that do not depend on some theory to understand, are the closest things to truth in science.
Warming by conduction in the troposphere is relatively constant at any location year after year: Every day, air touching Earth’s sun-heated surface is warmed by conduction just like air above a hot frypan. Warmed air rises into cooler air above because it has lower density. In this way, temperature differences lead to convection of air from hot regions to cooler regions both vertically and from the tropics toward the poles . These convection cells drive weather systems throughout the troposphere, the lowermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere. Warming by conduction varies by latitude, season, and by concentrations of clouds, aerosols, smoke, and other particles in the atmosphere, but on average, is relatively constant at any location year after year. Changes over time in solar radiation reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere appear to be less than one percent.
The top of the troposphere, known as the tropopause, is the most important boundary in the atmosphere. The tropopause is the surface between air in the troposphere warmed from below by Earth’s sun-heated surface and air in the stratosphere warmed from above by absorbing solar ultraviolet radiation.
The tropopause forms at altitudes up to 18 kilometers (11 miles) in the tropics and mid-latitudes, but only 6 kilometers (4 miles) in polar regions during winter. Annual averageglobal temperatures typicallydecrease linearly from around 15 oC (59 oF) near Earth’s surface to minus 51 oC (-60oF) at the tropopause.
2
Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere is even more constant year after year: Above the tropopause, in the stratosphere, temperatures rise approximately 36 degrees to become close to -15oC (5 oF) at the stratopause, the top of the stratosphere at an altitude of 50 to 55 kilometers (31 to 34 miles).
To understand this warming, we need to look at the atomic level, where the atmosphere consists of atoms and molecules of various gases moving at high velocities through space—frequently colliding with each other. Molecules consist of atoms held together by molecular bonds. Molecular bonds are thought to result from electrodynamic forces of attraction between opposite charges and electrodynamic forces of repulsion between same charges.Therefore, these bonds are not rigid. They are observed to oscillate back and forth at frequencies of oscillation measured in trillions of cycles per second (1012 cycles per second) and amplitudes of oscillation measured in picometers (10-12 meters). The bonds oscillate much like two masses connected by a spring, except at much higher frequencies of oscillation, at much shorter amplitudes of oscillation, and without any friction.
When a molecule of oxygen absorbs ultraviolet-C radiation from Sun in the frequency range of 1237 trillion cycles per second, the bond holding the two atoms of oxygen together breaks—comes apart—is dissociated. The two atoms fly apart at very high velocity, much like the ends of a rubber band when it breaks.
Temperature of a gas is well-known to be proportional to the average kinetic energy of motion thr
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno - what the heck.
I had a whole post where I pointed out some serious errors of fact. But neither you JSF nor Jack would learn from it.
So I erased it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But maybe you'll learn something from here, and see how Langdon, among other things, mixes up what different energies do.
https://www.quora.com/Does-all-light-energy-produce-thermal-energy?
The answer to this is, no.
Sunlight contains a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. In space the major components by energy in each band is 51% infrared, 37% visible light and 12% ultraviolet. These have been rounded up as a small percentage is radio wave, microwave,and soft x-rays.
Infrared radiation is directly thermal, being the result of proton deceleration at the emitter and producing proton acceleration upon absorption. Proton motion, or average kinetic energy of the atom’s nucleus is essentially the atomic or molecular motion we associate with temperature. Interacting matter spontaneously produces radiation that is from the inelastic collision of atoms and molecules (ionised atoms in the solar photosphere). Upon absorption the absorbing atom or molecule is accelerated. The only proviso is that the atom or molecule has to be involved, as in interacting with another atom or molecule to cancel its momentum change which has to net to near zero. This being because the momentum of the photon was near zero.
Extreme ultraviolet photons behave in a similar manner when interacting with diatomic nitrogen and oxygen in the mesosphere and stratosphere. These photons individually have sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds and dissociate the molecules into excited atomic states. The resultant atomic pairs are ejected in opposite directions to conserve the near zero photon momentum. In the case of oxygen, the free radicals often attach themselves to oxygen pairs to produce ozone, which is itself unstable to other ultraviolet bands. The net effect of absorption of ultraviolet by photolysis is directly thermal as the production produces products with higher mean kinetic energy. The thermal response to heating of this type is muted by gravitational containment as the higher temperature products store significant energy in expanding against the containment gravity field. Thus some of this thermal energy is then stored as potential energy.
Visible light is born of electron energy level transition. A cool atom will have electrons fall into ground states which occupy first. As we add energy to the atom some electrons might be excited to higher energy levels upon absorption of a quantum of energy that matches that transition. Absorption of a visible light photon does this; the electron moves to a higher energy state within the atom. Above a certain threshold the electron in certain materials might be ejected completely as in the photoelectric effect.
However, for the sake of this answer, the absorption of a visible light photon in raising an electron to a higher energy level within an atom or molecule is not thermal. It does not increase the mean kinetic energy of the absorber. it is what happens to the excited electron afterwards that determines whether any heat is produced. The electron could have been ejected in which case the energy could be in the form of electric current. The electron can fall back to its original rest state and emit an identical photon. It might have been raised several levels and drop back down in several steps emitting a photon at each juncture relavent to the transition energy. Or under certain circumstances the energy can be passed on to the motion of the atom or molecule by radiationless transition. This latter allows under certain circumstances for the visible light absorbed to become thermal but again requires that the near zero momentum of the absorbed photon is conserved.
Most of us have witnessed the progression of visible light sources over the past few decades. Tungsten bulbs were often said to be 90% heat, so they were inefficient light sources. Fluorescent tubes largely addressed this issue becoming warm to the touch whilst producing visible light, with heat production at about 25% of the electrical energy drawn. Today with almost totally cold, high visible light o
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From Chapter 8, "Some Like It Hot" of the book you didn't open, but did say was propaganda: "Pre-industrial carbon abundance in the atmosphere was about 600 billion tons. We have added about 500 billion tons to that amount to date. If emissions continue at the current rate till 2100, we will have added by that time an additional 2.2 trillion tons to the atmosphere."
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"Curated facts" is, by definition, propagnada. A narrative stripped of all of those messy questions and frustrating details.
If people have evidence-based countervailing arguments, they should be addressed, not ignored.
. . .
It's true that the world is warming and that our climate is becoming unstable. It's quite possible, even probable, that this is due to anthropogenic CO2. But countervailing arguments that have actual evidence behind them need to be fully examined and explained, because that's how science and policy are supposed to work.
What we've got is a 2.2 trillion tons waste problem. That's not propaganda, but the people with your so-called "countervailing arguments" use those arguments to justify NOT PAYING for reburying 2.2 trillion tons of waste. They are the same people who used "countervailing arguments" to justify NOT PAYING for properly disposing of liquid wastes from industry dumped into the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay. It required decades of court cases, fines and protests to get Texas industry to pay for fixing its liquid waste problem. It will probably require decades to get Texas industry to pay for its CO2 waste problem. Why does it take so long to stop? Because dumping waste into the ocean and atmosphere is free and easy while properly reburying waste is expensive and complicated.
Free Download of the book Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence Krauss
from the mirrors at
https://libgen.unblockit.onl/search.php?req=Physics+of+Climate+Change+
Lawrence+Krauss
www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Change-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/1642938165
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SIGNYM:
"Curated facts" is, by definition, propagnada. A narrative stripped of all of those messy questions and frustrating details.
If people have evidence-based countervailing arguments, they should be addressed, not ignored.
. . .
It's true that the world is warming and that our climate is becoming unstable. It's quite possible, even probable, that this is due to anthropogenic CO2. But countervailing arguments that have actual evidence behind them need to be fully examined and explained, because that's how science and policy are supposed to work.
SECONDRATE: From Chapter 8, "Some Like It Hot" of the book you didn't open, but did say was propaganda: "Pre-industrial carbon abundance in the atmosphere was about 600 billion tons. We have added about 500 billion tons to that amount to date. If emissions continue at the current rate till 2100, we will have added by that time an additional 2.2 trillion tons to the atmosphere."
What we've got is a 2.2 trillion tons waste problem. That's not propaganda,
I don't know if the book contains propaganda but your statement does. It's of the
"truth followed by a lie", or a least a "truth followed by an unsupported claim".
The truth is that we have added so many bilions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmopshere, which sounds scary. The unsupported claim is that this is a PROBLEM. I could, for example, come up with very scary-sounding numbers for the billions of tons of water we've added to the atmosphere, and then claim THAT is a "problem" but .... is it?
You are claiming a fact ("problem") which has yet to be established (at least, by you).
Hate to be such a stickler but...
Nah, I don't. I just like showing how illogical you are.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Too bad. I would have been interested in reading it.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Yanno - what the heck.
I had a whole post where I pointed out some serious errors of fact. But neither you JSF nor Jack would learn from it.
So I erased it.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, let's see if I can unpack what looks like word salad
Quote:First thing to note: Dr Langdon is NOT disputing global warming. So for all of you global climate change deniers out there, you will be disappointed in what he has to say.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Posting this now, will read and review later.
*****
Earth’s atmosphere is clearly warmed daily by conduction and by dissociation but not by greenhouse gasesDr. Peter Langdon Ward United States Geological Survey retiredChief Scientist, Science Is Never Settled Inc.CO2impossible@gmail.comGlobal average surface temperatures have risen 0.9 degreesCelsius (1.6 degreesFahrenheit)since 1950.
Quote:I do not think this is true. The earth's albedo, or reflectiveness to visible light, has changed dramatically with the deposition of fine carbon particles - products of combustion - across our ice fields, and the disappearence of ice from across large swaths of the ocean.
What caused this warming? How much of this warming was caused by humans? Will Earth continue to warm? What actions should we take?
To answer these questions, we need to revisit a number of direct observations of what is physically happening in the world around us. After all, direct observations of Nature, that do not depend on some theory to understand, are the closest things to truth in science. Warming by conduction in the troposphere is relatively constant at any location year after year:
Quote:warmed, as KIKI points out, by visible light and infrared
Every day, air touching Earth’s sun-heated surface
Quote:No
is warmed by conduction just like air above a hot frypan. Warmed air rises into cooler air above because it has lower density. In this way, temperature differences lead to convection of air from hot regions to cooler regions both vertically and from the tropics toward the poles . These convection cells drive weather systems throughout the troposphere, the lowermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere. Warming by conduction varies by latitude, season, and by concentrations of clouds, aerosols, smoke, and other particles in the atmosphere, but on average, is relatively constant at any location year after year.
Quote:Apparently he alos disposes of the "solar fluctuation" theory of global warming as well. I persoanlly hae no knowledge how solar radiation changes over time.
Changes over time in solar radiation reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere appear to be less than one percent.
*****
Quote:
The top of the troposphere, known as the tropopause, is the most important boundary in the atmosphere. The tropopause is the surface between air in the troposphere warmed from below by Earth’s sun-heated surface and air in the stratosphere warmed from above by absorbing solar ultraviolet radiation. The tropopause forms at altitudes up to 18 kilometers (11 miles) in the tropics and mid-latitudes, but only 6 kilometers (4 miles) in polar regions during winter. Annual average global temperatures typically decrease linearly from around 15 oC (59 oF) near Earth’s surface to minus 51 oC (-60oF) at the tropopause.
2 Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere is even more constant year after year: Above the tropopause, in the stratosphere, temperatures rise approximately 36 degrees to become close to -15oC (5 oF) at the stratopause, the top of the stratosphere at an altitude of 50 to 55 kilometers (31 to 34 miles). To understand this warming, we need to look at the atomic level, where the atmosphere consists of atoms and molecules of various gases moving at high velocities through space—frequently colliding with each other. Molecules consist of atoms held together by molecular bonds. Molecular bonds are thought to result from electrodynamic forces of attraction between opposite charges and electrodynamic forces of repulsion between same charges.Therefore, these bonds are notNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, to collapse his argument into something more understandable ....
What he is saying, I believe, is that the most efficient transmitters of heat to the Earth's surface are high-frquency (short wavelength) electromagnetic waves. The reason why he believes this is so is because high frequency/short wavelength photons/EM waves contain the most energy.
However, when we talk about global WARMING we're talking about HEAT, not total energy. Not all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum are converted efficiently to heat. For example, X-rays are high-energy, but when you get your teeth x-rayed, do they explode from the heat? Or, if you believe that the total amount of X-rays used is too small to produce sensible heat, I'll give you an example of someone I knew from work: A technician working on an old-style X-ray spectrometer was exposed to an intense beam of x-rays when servicing an instrument in which the safety interlocks had been disabled. He didn't feel a thing, and only knew something was wrong when his exposure badge came back black and the flesh of his arm- including bone- died, turned black, and sloughed off a week later.
UV rays, ANOTHER energetic wavelength, also does NOT produce heat. People exposed to UV radiation get suburned, but they don't get hot. There was an incident in which a whole group of families attending a school athletic event were exposed to UV rays from improperly-manufactured fluorescent light, and THEY didn't feel warm, but they got sunburned. Same with tanning booths.
So the whole notion that the more energy a wavelength has the more HEAT it can impart is just wrong. These energetic beams do OTHER things: destroy DNA, rip molecules apart, cause electrons to bounce up and down, etc but they do not produce heat.
However, VISIBLE light ... the kind that reaches the earth's surface ... is efficiently turned to heat by dark surfaces. Infrared (also produced by the sun)... like the heat lamps that they use in restaurants to keep your food warm ... also heats surfaces efficiently. And microwaves ... what we use to heat food ... are actually on the LOWER end of the energy spectrum, below visible light and below radiated heat (infrared). So it's the LOWER energy part of the spectrum that is converted to heat most efficiently.
Now, the earth can simply reflect a portion of visible light back into space, keeping the surface from warming. This happens with (uncontaminated) snowfields, clouds, and the bright white sulfur dioxide aerosols caused by volcanoes.
But once the earth's surface (including water) is heated, it can redistribute that heat by moving air and water around, but the ONLY way it can actually GET RID of heat is by re-radiating it into space as infrared (heat) electromagnetic radiation.
But just as our atmosphere isn't transparent to UV rays and visible light ... being blocked by oxygen and clouds and dust and so forth ... our atmosphere isn't perfectly transparent to re-radiated infrared rays either. Some molecules, like water, are efficienty absorbers of some frequencies of infrared, so even as the earth's surface is radiating infrared outward into space (even at night), some atmospheric molecules are busy aborbing them and heating up. It's almost as if our system was designed to trap heat.
There are only a few "windows" of frequency that allow infrared to pass into space, and one of those frequencies is the one occupied by carbon dioxide. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less infrared can be radiated back into space.
I hope I've explained the basic physics well enough.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your very thorough reply contains 1 of my objections that I used as examples of his misrepresentation of simple physics and chemistry.
And that is his misrepresentation of 'temperature' as vibrations within atoms/ molecules. Temperature is a measure of the average 'kinetic' energy of the atoms/ molecules; and by 'kinetic' energy is meant 'translational' energy, and by THAT is meant movement --- a thing moves from point A to point B in space - it translates through space.
Unfortunately while one can find definitions of temperature online, they are for the most part too technical. But to delve into the physics of atomic/ molecular kinetic energy at bit, I'm going to explain some of the ideas behind temperature. And one of those ideas is the idea of a 'point mass'. A 'point mass' is simply the concept of 'center of gravity' of an item. That's how objects move through space - for example the International Space Station in orbit. It doesn't matter how much it tumbles, or spins, or rolls, (pitch, yaw, roll) or even if it was to stretch and contract like a slinky. What moves through space in orbit that needs to be dealt with to make sure it stays in obit is the speed of its center of gravity. And that's what temperature addresses, in a very technical way. It addresses the movement of the center of the nucleus, where virtually the entire mass of an atom is found, through space.
But the very first thing that had me dumbfounded was his claim that when oxygen breaks apart it RELEASES energy. And that's a claim he repeats several times, despite the fact that he also states - several times - that oxygen has to ABSORB energy in order to be broken apart.
Here's one example where he says that oxygen breaking apart RELEASES energy: "Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere is even more constant year after year ...";
and his counter statement that it absorbs energy: "When a molecule of oxygen absorbs ultraviolet-C radiation from Sun in the frequency range of 1237 trillion cycles per second, the bond holding the two atoms of oxygen together breaks—comes apart—is dissociated."
He seems very confused about the fact that there's a difference between releasing energy and absorbing energy.
I kind of feel sorry for him. He seems confused about really basic stuff. And that's sad to see in anyone, but especially in someone who might have had a clear understanding at one time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He's confusing ozone formation with ozone destruction.
The troposphere (tropo= mixing, bc air close to the earth is mixed by both vertical and horizontal turbulence) is mostly heated by the heated earth surface (also by absorption of visible light by suspended carbon particles and absorption of the infrared spectrum by water, CO2, methane etc)
The stratosphere (strato = stratified, layered, well above the turbulent mixing of the troposphere) is heated by absorption of UV rays BY OZONE, O3 (not oxygen, O2).
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, he has a lot to say about oxygen and ozone, but the very first thing that gave me pause was his inability to differentiate that the process of simply separating the oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen radicals doesn't both net suck up AND release energy at the same time. It's one or the other - not both.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quoting this above version of this post, after deletions. The post explained to those of us unwashed masses that kiki has her very own hocum version of science which she must distribute.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Yanno - what the heck.
I had a whole post where I pointed out some serious errors of fact. But neither you JSF nor Jack would learn from it.
So I erased it.
She claimed that when the unfiltered radiant energy from the Sun breaks apart oxygen molecules, this creates a LOSS OF HEAT, a REDUCTION OF TEMPERATURE, a COOLING EFFECT. According to this hocum version of kiki science, the fact that Dr. Ward explained that this atomic breakup caused heat was the reason that kiki proclaimed that the Dr. had failed chemistry.
For some reason, she deleted that post, where she claimed that breaking apart oxygen molecules with the Sun's UV light caused COOLING of the stratosphere.
She also tried to confuse an example of Sun radiation being unable to pass through the stratosphere because it is opaque, just like cats can warm themselves because they are opaque, and dirt gets warm because it is opaque (and often black or dark brown) - or maybe she was saying that stratosphere, cats, and dirt are all non-opaque, she was unclear in her confusion.
Just after deleting that hocum science post, she posted this following post, which is in direct opposition to her hogwash science. This newer post follows science, as evidenced by the fact that it agrees with Dr. Ward, and points out that when unfiltered Sol radiant energy in the UV spectrum breaks apart oxygen molecules, it generates a net HEATING effect in this level of stratosphere, or troposphere, which Dr. Ward does explain, but kiki seemed to get confused about.
Because kiki tried to mix her facts and fiction together, I have added proper editing to show what was quoted (and agrees with Dr. Ward).
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
But maybe you'll learn something from here, and see how Langdon, among other things, mixes up what different energies do.
https://www.quora.com/Does-all-light-energy-produce-thermal-energy?Quote:
The answer to this is, no.
Sunlight contains a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. In space the major components by energy in each band is 51% infrared, 37% visible light and 12% ultraviolet. These have been rounded up as a small percentage is radio wave, microwave,and soft x-rays.
Infrared radiation is directly thermal, being the result of proton deceleration at the emitter and producing proton acceleration upon absorption. Proton motion, or average kinetic energy of the atom’s nucleus is essentially the atomic or molecular motion we associate with temperature. Interacting matter spontaneously produces radiation that is from the inelastic collision of atoms and molecules (ionised atoms in the solar photosphere). Upon absorption the absorbing atom or molecule is accelerated. The only proviso is that the atom or molecule has to be involved, as in interacting with another atom or molecule to cancel its momentum change which has to net to near zero. This being because the momentum of the photon was near zero.
Extreme ultraviolet photons behave in a similar manner when interacting with diatomic nitrogen and oxygen in the mesosphere and stratosphere. These photons individually have sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds and dissociate the molecules into excited atomic states. The resultant atomic pairs are ejected in opposite directions to conserve the near zero photon momentum. In the case of oxygen, the free radicals often attach themselves to oxygen pairs to produce ozone, which is itself unstable to other ultraviolet bands. The net effect of absorption of ultraviolet by photolysis is directly thermal as the production produces products with higher mean kinetic energy. The thermal response to heating of thisNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And ... quote me where I post what you claim I posted. Otherwise, the contents of your post get ignored.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?
At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.
You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.
In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey part
Quote:
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm
I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.
Why is this important?
Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.
He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Yanno - what the heck.
I had a whole post where I pointed out some serious errors of fact. But neither you JSF nor Jack would learn from it.
So I erased it.
Me?
I've made two posts in here.
The first one was saying I don't believe anybody when they claim they're debunking anything after fact checkers like Snopes ruined that idea by somehow convincing the internet that their biased bullshit is the defacto standard for what is and isn't true.
The second one was saying that the planet is going to be fine.
Didn't say nothing about humans being fine. The planet is just going to shrug us off eventually.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your problem, Kiki, is that your criteria for "evidence" is flawed.
You believe what you want to believe when you want to believe it. Just like pretty much everybody else does.
You ain't no different. You're not special. You don't get to come in here and pretend like you're the Snopes of the RWED and tell everybody what is and isn't true.
I mean, it's a free country and we're posting on one of the freest boards still left on the internet, so do your thing girl.
Just don't expect people to react nicely when you go around always pretending like you're smarter than everybody else because you used to wear a lab coat before you retired.
P.S. All that covid bullshit is looking a lot like I was right on the money. The longer time drags on the more I'm going to be right about it too.
Feel free at any time to go back through our post history and see how much you've already been wrong about because you were "following the science" or whatever.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That was pretty much in my original post to JSF except I used technical terms like 'bond energy' - which I then explained. But that was one of the 2 particulars I posted. So I'll just reiterate it to you in terms I know you'll understand, even though nobody else probably will. The simple step of breaking apart an oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen radicals is endothermic, not exothermic. Langdon claimed it was exothermic, which was wrong. And that's why I bailed on his explanation making sense.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?
At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.
You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.
In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey partQuote:
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm
I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.
Why is this important?
Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.
He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I actually try to VERIFY my information. I go to many countries, many news services but especially foreign ones, many scientific organizations and original research ... and so on.
Your problem, Kiki, is that your criteria for "evidence" is flawed.
You believe what you want to believe when you want to believe it. Just like pretty much everybody else does.
I don't start out with the idea that everybody is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That would be ridiculously naive of me. I ALSO don't think the entire planet is colluding together to fool me with a cohesive narrative. That would be irrationally paranoid.
So, for example, if I see that Brazil and China and Russia and Iran and Venezuela ... and the US and England ... and Sweden and Norway ... have COVID-19 deaths, I don't assume they're ALL lying that COVID-19 kills people, especially because these are countries with different and even opposing philosophies, economies, and approaches to COVID-19. I understand that some may want to maximize the numbers for political reasons ... just as someone may want to minimize the numbers for political reasons (like for example not wanting public unrest, or not wanting to appear weak to an enemy). So I take all numbers with a grain of salt.
But the FACT of people dying from COVID-19 is inescapable. So I would never make a statement like - 'nobody dies of COVID'. Because there is ample and well verified EVIDENCE that people actually - you know - die of COVID-19.
You and JSF OTOH have no problem throwing out a planetfull of evidence when it doesn't suit your emotions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nobody died of covid that wasn't already going to die.
Except for the Flu.
The Flu died of covid.
And at this point, Keeks, the pathetic death numbers being thrown out there that were bumped up to crazy fake highs by throwing every single non-covid death out there as a covid are insignificant. They can't even fake scary numbers. The birthrate since last April pissed all over the made-up covid death rate.
Covid was a big nothingburger from the start.
You've been played.
And every single day as more so-called "alt-right conspiracy theories" unravel now that Trump isn't President it looks more and more like I was right about everything since day one.
Grand social experiment.
And as a society, we failed.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We are ALL going to die, SIX. The only question is when. If Covid pushes up the timetable, then Covid is the cause of death.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nobody died of covid that wasn't already going to die.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:We are ALL going to die, SIX. The only question is when. If Covid pushes up the timetable, then Covid is the cause of death.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nobody died of covid that wasn't already going to die.
Nope.
Not if you had the flu and were already going to die of the flu. Not if you had stage 4 cancer and were already going to die of stage four cancer. Not if you were in your 80's or 90's and ate McDonalds every day your whole life.
Covid, at most, played a role in these people's deaths.
You're arguing that it cleaned the slate completely and became the cause of death.
That's bullshit. And you know it.
And now we're giving an untested and unapproved vaccine to little kids who had a zero percent chance of death related to covid because your fear allowed us to.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's not how it works SIX. Not medically, legally, or physically.
People live with all sorts of health conditions, and they can live that way for a long, long time. Let's take the elderly for example. Many of their systems are marginal. Heart, kidneys, brain, immune system tend to deteriorate over time.
But let's say someone gets a bad infection (not necessarily Covid) and their immunesystem goes haywire, their blood presure plummets and their kidneys start to shut down.
All that extra fluid puts a strain on their heart. Their lungs start to fill with fluid which puts a further strain on their heart, and eventually their heart gives out.
The cause of death isn't listed as "being old and frail" it would be listed as sepsis because it was the sepsis that pushed them over the edge.
Now, I realize that some people die with Covid if they die of an unrelated cause: car accident, house fire, suicide etc. But if your systems are still functional, albeit marginal, and then you get Covid and die, Covid is the cause is death.
The only medical deaths that I might accept as dying "with" Covid ... and even then, Covid might be a contributing factor... are people who've been dxd with a terminal illnesses and been predicted to die within six months or less. I know that you're in deep denial about this and I don't expect to get to thru.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're right.
It's not going to get through.
Because it's bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OK, whatever.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You're right.
It's not going to get through.
Because it's bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I forgot to mention, the day after I posted this, I did again search for some linkys to post.
The 3rd search result on Yahoo was this very thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?
At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.
You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.
In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey partQuote:of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm
I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.
Why is this important?
Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.
He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We now know that when she gets caught in her fake science, she just deletes her post and claims it was never posted.
Although she deleted her post, here are 3 more posts where she drags through her continued claim that separating oxygen molecules causes a COOLING instead of a thermal heating.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?
At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.
You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.
In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey partQuote:
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm
I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.
Why is this important?
Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.
He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
That was pretty much in my original post to JSF except I used technical terms like 'bond energy' - which I then explained. But that was one of the 2 particulars I posted. So I'll just reiterate it to you in terms I know you'll understand, even though nobody else probably will. The simple step of breaking apart an oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen radicals is endothermic, not exothermic. Langdon claimed it was exothermic, which was wrong. And that's why I bailed on his explanation making sense.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Well, he has a lot to say about oxygen and ozone, but the very first thing that gave me pause was his inability to differentiate that the process of simply separating the oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen radicals doesn't both net suck up AND release energy at the same time. It's one or the other - not both.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Your very thorough reply contains 1 of my objections that I used as examples of his misrepresentation of simple phyNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?
At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.
You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.
In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey partQuote:of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm
I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.
Why is this important?
Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.
He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
Somewhere in this thread the separation of oxygen molecules is described as "ejected" - which doesn't sound like moseying.
Of the internet descriptions of separating oxygen molecules, all seem to express a high-speed motion of atoms resulting. Only you and kiki seem to be claiming that the result is atoms hardly moving. Or having a net cooling effect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Meanwhile:
Carbon dioxide levels hit 50% higher than preindustrial time
https://apnews.com/article/business-climate-change-science-environment
-and-nature-e4ec631e48aa939e3524d192c0457e62
CO2 Reaches Its Highest Level in More Than 4 Million Years
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-07/co-reaches-its-high
est-level-in-more-than-4-million-years?srnd=premium
At first thought, It seemed that this was good news for flora.
But at second thought, I don't recall if I've ever known the accurate answer.
I recall that excessive O2 levels are bad for humans. When our gas monitors measure something like only a percent increase of oxygen (of total air volume), we are required to evacuate. The window of acceptable percentage of oxygen in the air is much smaller than I had previously imagined.
But I don't recall if the same problem exists for plants. I had just assumed that the more CO2, the more plants can consume.
IIRC, photosynthesis has a trigger of sunlight, which causes plants to convert CO2 to O2. Perhaps a byproduct of this activity is the aspiration of water from the "leaves" to the air, which causes the core of the tree to suck water into the roots.
So, does excess CO2 cause a problem for flora? Does flora just find it easier to access the CO2 then? Is the photosynthesis more efficient?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?
At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.
You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.
In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey partQuote:of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm
I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.
Why is this important?
Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.
He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
Somewhere in this thread the separation of oxygen molecules is described as "ejected" - which doesn't sound like moseying.
Of the internet descriptions of separating oxygen molecules, all seem to express a high-speed motion of atoms resulting.
LINKS PLEASE
I spent some time trying to find the speed of resulting atoms from oxygen dissociation in the stratosphere. Various searches keep coming up with the result that the increased temperature IN THE STRATOSPHERE results from absorption of UV rays BY OZONE. Since the increased temperature only NEGLIGIBLY results from oxygen, I can only conclude that absorption of UV by oxygen and subsequent dissociation doesn't result in fast-moving atoms.
In any case, Dr Ward is trying to analogize the heat- production by absorption of UV rays BY OZONE IN THE STRATOSPHERE to absorption of UV rays BY OZONE IN THE TROPOSPHERE.
Since the "ejection" of oxygen atoms seems to be irrelevant to his main point, I think we can safely ignore it.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jack:
If a 16 y/o female is busy texting w/ her friends and hits a utility pole and dies, the cause of death is the car crash. If a 36 y/o female with a perfect driving record is broadsided by a cement truck running a light and dies in the crash, the cause of death is the car crash. One might argue that the 16 y/o was young, inexperienced, and careless. And all that may be true. But the cause of death isn't listed and being young and dumb. Just like the cause of death of the 36 y/o isn't listed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Following along so far?
If a 17 y/o man dies of a heart attack, the cause of death is the heart attack. If a 71 y/o man dies of a heart attack, the cause of death is the heart attack. Now, one may argue that the 17 y/o was an extremely young heart attack victim, but that doesn't mean his cause of death gets listed as too young to die that way. It was still the heart attack that did him in, so that's what gets listed as the cause of death. Similarly, one might argue that time allowed the older man to accumulate more plaque, that his respiratory system wasn't as efficient, and that his internal reserves that might have carried him through were diminished. It was still the heart attack that pushed him into death, not bad kidneys, or gout and arthritis, or 'age'. And that heart attack gets listed as the cause of death.
It doesn't matter if it's a 16 y/o meth head male who's died from a heart attach, or a 36 y/o female with no known medical conditions, or a 76 y/o HIV positive tranny. The listed cause of death, the thing that killed them off - heart attack - is still the same.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:why would this be?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Meanwhile:
Carbon dioxide levels hit 50% higher than preindustrial time
https://apnews.com/article/business-climate-change-science-environment
-and-nature-e4ec631e48aa939e3524d192c0457e62
CO2 Reaches Its Highest Level in More Than 4 Million Years
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-07/co-reaches-its-high
est-level-in-more-than-4-million-years?srnd=premium
At first thought, It seemed that this was good news for flora.
But at second thought, I don't recall if I've ever known the accurate answer.
I recall that excessive O2 levels are bad for humans. When our gas monitors measure something like only a percent increase of oxygen (of total air volume), we are required to evacuate.
I looked it up and while people on oxygen therapy CAN get too much oxygen, you can enrich oxygen up to 31pct and still be safe.
(
Quote:
Safe upper limits for oxygen enrichment of room air at high altitude
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11252698/
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Jack:
If a 16 y/o female is busy texting w/ her friends and hits a utility pole and dies, the cause of death is the car crash. If a 36 y/o female with a perfect driving record is broadsided by a cement truck running a light and dies in the crash, the cause of death is the car crash. One might argue that the 16 y/o was young, inexperienced, and careless. And all that may be true. But the cause of death isn't listed and being young and dumb. Just like the cause of death of the 36 y/o isn't listed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Following along so far?
If a 17 y/o man dies of a heart attack, the cause of death is the heart attack. If a 71 y/o man dies of a heart attack, the cause of death is the heart attack. Now, one may argue that the 17 y/o was an extremely young heart attack victim, but that doesn't mean his cause of death gets listed as too young to die that way. It was still the heart attack that did him in, so that's what gets listed as the cause of death. Similarly, one might argue that time allowed the older man to accumulate more plaque, that his respiratory system wasn't as efficient, and that his internal reserves that might have carried him through were diminished. It was still the heart attack that pushed him into death, not bad kidneys, or gout and arthritis, or 'age'. And that heart attack gets listed as the cause of death.
It doesn't matter if it's a 16 y/o meth head male who's died from a heart attach, or a 36 y/o female with no known medical conditions, or a 76 y/o HIV positive tranny. The listed cause of death, the thing that killed them off - heart attack - is still the same.
Not interested in your circular logic.
The fact is, even if I were ever to change my mind on the Covid deaths, they were insignificant.
Meaningless.
Almost non-existant.
But those numbers aren't real. They just stole the other causes of death for people who were going to die anyways.
RIP Flu.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe evacuation w/ xs O2 has to do with fire/ explosion risk?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd be more worried about the fact that the birth rate in the US has dropped 7 years straight by 2% and doubled to 4% in 2020 if the number of people who are alive means so much to you.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me quote Signy.
"Whatever."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Come to think of it - I'm going to take one more stab at addressing COVID-19.
Jack, maybe you read in the 'Garden' thread that Signy's hubby was diagnosed - again - with bacterial pneumonia. How did they figure out it was pneumonia at all, instead of appendicitis or tonsillitis? And how did they figure out it was bacterial pneumonia and not influenza pneumonia , or SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia? Or chemical pneumonia ... or fungal pneumonia ... or mycoplasma pneumonia? (I bet you never knew there were so many types of pneumonia!) ... or cancer? ... or a collapsed lung? or ...
Well, they use a variety of tools to figure out if it's pneumonia, including checking your temperature and doing blood work to check for infection, oxygen levels in the blood to check the lungs' ability to pass oxygen through the alveoli into the blood, and X-rays to see if the lungs are inflated and filled with air, or if they're collapsed and/ or filled with fluid. This is just a sampling, because they could use other tests as well just to look for pneumonia.
And if they think it's pneumonia, they do tests for what kind - they check for bacteria (and which kind), generic influenza virus, and SARS-CoV-2 in the lung, because none of them should be there at all. And they will nearly always find one or the other, but not a combination, and not 'none of the above'.
So that's how they diagnose pneumonia, and that's how they figure out which kind it is.
BTW, if you're going to get pneumonia, the kind to get is bacterial, because unless it's multiply drug resistant, at least it can be cured with the right antibiotics.
If they can't fix viral pneumonia like influenza or SARS-CoV-2, why would they care to find out if it's either? Because the potential outcomes are different, and the treatments are different.
Anyway, so somebody with serious enough influenza or SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia gets admitted to the hospital, then transferred to the ICU, and put on a ventilator. But despite appropriate treatment, they have continuously dropping blood oxygen levels that can't be fixed with more oxygen at higher pressure, and they pass away.
What do YOU think killed them? Was it a car accident? Burns? Electrocution? A bullet to the brain? What should be listed as the cause of death?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
What do YOU think killed them? Was it a car accident? Burns? Electrocution? A bullet to the brain? What should be listed as the cause of death?
If they died of car accidents, burns, electrocution or a bullet to the brain, they should have fucking said that it was then.
When everybody dies of covid, nobody dies of covid.
You're making an old argument here. You need to convince me why the low numbers that they pumped up are something to even be concerned about IN THE SLIGHTEST.
They never were. They never will be.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to my question: A is person diagnosed with viral pneumonia, and they later die because their lungs gave out ... any guesses what their cause of death should be listed as?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Texas Republican asks: can we fix the moon’s orbit to fight climate change?
The Texas Republican congressman Louie Gohmert has asked a senior US government official if changing the moon’s orbit around the Earth, or the Earth’s orbit around the sun, might be a solution for climate change. Though he seemed to be entirely earnest, some observers have posited that Gohmert was seeking to express a belief that climate change was a phenomenon of natural changes in the orbits of celestial bodies, and so any other efforts to address it would be futile. - www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/09/texas-republican-louie-gohmert
-climate-change
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
To get back to my question: A is person diagnosed with viral pneumonia, and they later die because their lungs gave out ... any guesses what their cause of death should be listed as?
If the year in question is 2020, Covid-19.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't specify what kind of virus. And the answer is pneumonia, no matter what the year.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The 'science-y sounding' reasons most politicians use to reject climate change are not primarily due to lack of education or knowledge," Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist and co-director of the Climate Center at Texas Tech University, wrote on Twitter. "No: they are deliberately manufactured and offered as palatable excuses to hide the real problem: solution aversion. They don't want to fix it." -
www.cnn.com/2021/06/09/politics/louie-gohmert-climate-change-fact-chec
k/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I didn't specify what kind of virus. And the answer is pneumonia, no matter what the year.
You didn't need to. If you died in a car crash in 2020 you died of Covid-19.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pollster's private message to GOP: Win on climate
Conservative lawmakers are urged to a) talk more about climate change, because voters care about it, and b) not actually do anything about climate change, because fossil oligarchs don't like it.
"When a Republican talks about the environment, it's a man-bites-dog-type story. All of a sudden it's 'Oh, he's not talking about abortion or a tax cut. Wow, this person must be a decent human being.' The type the middle wants to vote for."
www.eenews.net/stories/1063734411
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How's Joe* doing on climate?
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Maybe evacuation w/ xs O2 has to do with fire/ explosion risk?
The OSHA confined space standard is 29 CFR 1910.146
Sorry I was not specific about application.
The numbers I recall for 02 were 19.5-23.5% - which was a larger window that what I stated. But still less than I had previously assumed.
Bottom of the 2nd page:
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/confinedspace.pdf
Our use was for toxic gases. We were required to be fully conscious at all times in the confined space. One confined space was plenums which collected diesel exhaust. Another was a chamber which had just run atmo through it at fastest speed for 2 or more days, so it should in theory be stabilized atmo - but OSHA requires the toxic gas detector/monitor at all times when inside.
I didn't mean to imply mass-evacuation.
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.14
6
"Oxygen enriched atmosphere" means an atmosphere containing more than 23.5 percent oxygen by volume.
Hydrogen sulfide has a PEL of 20 parts per million (PPM) and an LEL of 4.0%. Carbon monoxide has a PEL of 50 PPM and an LEL of 12.5%.
CO2 was another monitored gas.
Anyhow, we can skip the 23.5% figure, let's go with that other one mentioned, something like 31%.
If 31% is too much for humans, and presumably animals, then what is the upper limit of CO2 which is harmful to plants? All plants, or just trees, or just flowers, or just fruit, or what?
Recently somebody posted about corn growing, with a detailed description of carbon and minerals/nutrients in the soil. Don't recall which factor increased the harvest yield. The story was about sustainable energy credits, IIRC.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Somewhere in this thread the separation of oxygen molecules is described as "ejected" - which doesn't sound like moseying.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?
At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.
You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.
In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey partQuote:of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm
I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.
Why is this important?
Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.
He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
Of the internet descriptions of separating oxygen molecules, all seem to express a high-speed motion of atoms resulting.
LINKS PLEASE
I spent some time trying to find the speed of resulting atoms from oxygen dissociation in the stratosphere. Various searches keep coming up with the result that the increased temperature IN THE STRATOSPHERE results from absorption of UV rays BY OZONE. Since the increased temperature only NEGLIGIBLY results from oxygen, I can only conclude that absorption of UV by oxygen and subsequent dissociation doesn't result in fast-moving atoms.
In any case, Dr Ward is trying to analogize the heat- production by absorption of UV rays BY OZONE IN THE STRATOSPHERE to absorption of UV rays BY OZONE IN THE TROPOSPHERE.
Since the "ejection" of oxygen atoms seems to be irrelevant to his main point, I think we can safely ignore it.
Quoted for readability.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I didn't specify what kind of virus. And the answer is pneumonia, no matter what the year.
Quote:How did the doctors who sign death certificates manage to manufacture 370K EXTRA deaths in 2020? And how is it that a lot more people died of heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s, chronic liver disease, stroke and high blood pressure in 2020 than before, (suicides dropped), and not COVID-19?
You didn't need to. If you died in a car crash in 2020 you died of Covid-19.
BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This seems to be confusing consensus with science.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:No, I actually try to VERIFY my information. I go to many countries, many news services but especially foreign ones, many scientific organizations and original research ... and so on.
Your problem, Kiki, is that your criteria for "evidence" is flawed.
You believe what you want to believe when you want to believe it. Just like pretty much everybody else does.
I don't start out with the idea that everybody is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That would be ridiculously naive of me. I ALSO don't think the entire planet is colluding together to fool me with a cohesive narrative. That would be irrationally paranoid.
So, for example, if I see that Brazil and China and Russia and Iran and Venezuela ... and the US and England ... and Sweden and Norway ... have COVID-19 deaths, I don't assume they're ALL lying that COVID-19 kills people, especially because these are countries with different and even opposing philosophies, economies, and approaches to COVID-19. I understand that some may want to maximize the numbers for political reasons ... just as someone may want to minimize the numbers for political reasons (like for example not wanting public unrest, or not wanting to appear weak to an enemy). So I take all numbers with a grain of salt.
But the FACT of people dying from COVID-19 is inescapable. So I would never make a statement like - 'nobody dies of COVID'. Because there is ample and well verified EVIDENCE that people actually - you know - die of COVID-19.
You and JSF OTOH have no problem throwing out a planetfull of evidence when it doesn't suit your emotions.
When EVERYBODY KNEW for a FACT that the world was Flat, except for those who wished their bodies be removed from their heads, that was consensus - good enough science for kiki.
And when EVERYBODY KNEW for a FACT that the Sun orbited the Earth, except those who wished their bodies be removed from their heads, that was consensus - good enough science for kiki.
ETA:
The Piri Reis Map of the entire world, with exacting detail of the coastlines (including Pacific coastlines of the Americas, and Antarctica), which was copied from the Maps that Columbus used to sail across the Atlantic (before the Americas or "Antarctica" had been discovered or mapped, dating before 1492) - were dated 1513.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/esp_atlantida_23.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map
The Church insisted that the Earth was Flat, based upon Scripture. The Old Testament specified the 4 corners of the earth and the Arch - which the Church insisted must be only Flat Earth.
The Church insisted that the Sun orbited the Earth because it was specified in Scripture.
Philolaus (of Croton), 470-385 BC. (heliocentrism, Earth is not the center of the Universe)
Aristotle, 384-322 BC. (Earth is a globe, but center of the Universe)
Aristarchus of Samos, 310-230 BC (Earth and other planets orbit Sun, specified sequence order of planets from the Sun.)
Erdapfel made 1492 (with no presentation of the New World)
Christopher Columbus, 1451-1506.
Nicholas Copernicus, 1473-1543. Published 1543.
Johannes Kepler, 1571-1630. (Published Mysterium Cosmographicum in 1596, later introduced elliptical orbits. Established Mars had elliptical orbit by 1601.)
Telescope invented 1608.
Yes, this means that kiki would prefer to wade through 2,000 years of "consensus" facts before allowing science truth to intrude upon her beliefs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uhhmmm ... the Popes didn't care if you thought the world was flat or a globe. So that's a misstatement on your part. What they cared about was if you thought the sun went around the earth, or the earth went around the sun. And the evidence they had at the time pointed to the sun going around the earth because - just look at it!.
But then new equipment like the telescope provided evidence that the earth - she still moved. (And Newton later provided the formulas to show that they both went around a common center of gravity.)
I follow evidence and change my understanding with the evidence.
What do you follow?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?
Because he's still alive.
And now it's 2021, so it's moot.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:SIX, you're so stupid. Do you think they dx people after they die???
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?
Because he's still alive.
And now it's 2021, so it's moot.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Biden looks at financial rules to deprive oil of capital, shift country on climate
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
How's Joe* doing on climate?
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
The Biden administration, facing a Congress unlikely to take significant action on climate change, is considering reaching beyond environmental law to establish tough, new financial regulations that raise the capital costs of the nation’s fossil fuel industries.
To accomplish the president’s agenda of dramatically lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Treasury Department are in various stages of rulemaking to encourage the nation’s banks, institutional investors and other financial players to invest more heavily in clean energy, mirroring efforts underway in the European Union.
The strategy threatens to accelerate the shift of investment away from the oil and gas companies that dominate the Houston and Texas economies, depriving them of the capital they need to launch drilling projects, expand and hire workers, analysts and policy experts said. It would only add pressure on an industry that has fallen out favor with investors after years of high costs and low returns and uncertainty over its future in a low-carbon world.
“The SEC is where the money that goes into the ground gets regulated, so it’s a big deal for them to get into the climate game, not to mention all these other financial regulators moving at the same time” said Kevin Book, managing director at the research firm ClearView Energy Partners. “Nobody who assesses the health of these (publicly traded) entities will be able to say (emissions) don’t matter anymore.”
The process is still in the early stages. Furthest along is the SEC, which is still collecting comments on how greenhouse gas emissions are reported.
The agency has not said what action it might take, but the examination signals an attempt to establish uniform reporting standards that would allow investors to make apples to apples comparisons between not only companies but entire industries, experts said.
Companies now report emissions through a variety of voluntary protocols — with varying standards — that allow companies to present themselves as cleaner than they are, a practice known as “greenwashing.”
Investors maintain that the lack of such reporting standards hinders their ability to determine how well positioned companies are for a low-carbon future. Were the SEC to require uniform data on climate exposure — the same way they do on profits and cash flow — investors would likely move money away from companies with the largest carbon footprints, experts said.
For the oil and gas industry, this could be particularly problematic, with as yet no viable way to capture the huge volumes of emissions that come out of vehicles’ tailpipes.
“If you have asset managers and financial institutions all with net zero targets and at some point those things all become real,” said Ben Cahill, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington “There is a risk of decapitalizing the (oil) industry just as you have industry starting to grow again, at a time the industry has been underinvesting for years.”
. . .
Earlier this year, the Bank Policy Institute, the financial industry’s largest lobbying group, said that it opposed measures such as testing how well banks perform under the stresses of climate change and depleting values for oil and other fossil fuels — already underway in the United Kingdom and Europe. But the trade group also says that financial institutions need better data, including standardized emissions tallies, if they are to effectively shift trillions of dollars in capital to less carbon intensive companies and sectors.
“Disclosure is a relatively politically acceptable argument,” said Book, of ClearView Energy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:SIX, you're so stupid. Do you think they dx people after they die???
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?
Because he's still alive.
And now it's 2021, so it's moot.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
I don't know what dx-ing people means.
ETA: Oh... Right. Diagnosing.
They were just making up shit on death certificates. If you died in 2020 you died of Covid-19.
Maybe there weren't any death certificates and the CDC and John's Hopkins were just making up numbers.
I want a full list of every single person that died in the US of Covid-19, since we started keeping score, along with the date of their death and their age.
Until I see that list, they're full of shit.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I posted the text in the 13th post of this thread, the paste/copy did not catch a lot of the paragraph separation.
I've finished cleaning that up now. But the linky website does include a bunch of graphs and images.
It also includes another linky:
www.physically-impossible.com
Sigs, do you dispute the points within that linky? Many of the points are handily numbered.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF, thanks for the link.
I re-scanned the article complete with graphs and pictures, and it's still faulty. I started taking notes as to where it was wrong but gave up because it was wrong in too many places to count. Also, I addressed these before.
1) Warming by earth's surfaceis constant year after year...
WRONG. Long-term changes in earth's reflectance of visible light (albedo) - by loss of icefields and depostion of carbon particles on ... everything ... cause more warming
2) Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere ...
Does not occur in significant quantities. (And BTW the bond energy holding oxygen together - ~5eV ... is low energy)
3) The dissociation (of ozone) in the stratosphere warms the stratosphere ...
Here, he contradicts himself as to exactly WHAT is warming the stratosphere, because first he says it's dissociation of oxygen, then he says it's dissociation of ozone
4) Montreal Protocol of 1987 stopped the increase in global warming
It did??? According to temperature measurements, it didn't
5) The absorption energy of CO2 is 50X less than the absorption of ozone at our level (troposphere)
But then ... the concentration of carbon dioxide is 4,000 (four THOUSAND) times the concentration of ozone at ground level. Mass counts for something! On top of that, there is a lot greater flux of infrared passing thru the troposphere than UV radiation.
etc etc etc
Sorry, I justcan't be bothered to go thru all of this again. Self-contradictory and wrong on so many points. Even back-of-envelope calculations show me that. It's an interesting idea and I'm sure he feels that he's reached a great insight but I can't find any data to back it up.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not stating an opinion here.
Just giving props to a good advertisement.
And finding it hilarious that I still have a YT ban on my zero video/zero influence channel by Susan with no explanation why, and this channel has 662k subscribers and the video's been seen 3.5 million times and they've still got a channel because of rightthink.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sounds like you are in the company of WI Senator Ron Johnson, who is also banned from BoobTube.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Not stating an opinion here.
Just giving props to a good advertisement.
And finding it hilarious that I still have a YT ban on my zero video/zero influence channel by Susan with no explanation why, and this channel has 662k subscribers and the video's been seen 3.5 million times and they've still got a channel because of rightthink.
When the founders envisioned the First Amendment portion dealing with Free
Speech, they must have intended for political speech such as President Trump and a current U.S. Senator to under this umbrella of Freedom and Protection.
No doubt the Era of Constitutional America has ended.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Posting the text here, so I can read it here.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When I posted the text in the 13th post of this thread, the paste/copy did not catch a lot of the paragraph separation.
I've finished cleaning that up now. But the linky website does include a bunch of graphs and images.
It also includes another linky:
www.physically-impossible.com
Sigs, do you dispute the points within that linky? Many of the points are handily numbered.
Greenhouse gases cannot physically cause observed global warming
The World Is Warming
All four major analyses of Earth’s average surface temperatures (NASA, NOAA, Hadcrut4, and Berkeley Earth) document global warming since 1950 of approximately 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit). There was very little change in temperature from 1950 to 1970. The world warmed 0.6 degrees from 1970 to 1998. There was very little change in temperature from 1998 through 2013. Then the world warmed an additional 0.3 degrees from 2013 to 2016, making 2016 the hottest year on record. Most climate scientists are convinced, based on greenhouse-warming theory, that this warming is caused primarily by increased burning of fossil fuels, causing increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, that are absorbing increasing amounts of infrared radiation emitted by Earth. Annual, average concentrations of carbon dioxide measured on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, have increased from 316 ppm in 1959 to 411 ppm in 2019 (30%). Most climate scientists are convinced that we must decrease burning of fossil fuels substantially and promptly in order to prevent dangerous overheating of Earth during the next few decades.
Why the Physics of Greenhouse-Warming Theory Appears to Be Mistaken
Greenhouse-warming theory, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, posits that greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3)
“absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by Earth’s surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers. … An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases increases the magnitude of this effect.”
Greenhouse-warming theory is thus based on the fundamental assumption described by Joseph Fourier in 1822 (Page 3) that the average temperature at Earth’s surface will increase if the net amount of terrestrial radiation reaching space becomes less than the net amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, often explained as the Earth-atmosphere energy balance, Earth’s energy budget, Earth’s radiation budget, tracking Earth’s energy, or Earth’s energy balance).
Since 1798, physicists have thought of heat as thermal energy in transfer—a flux through some surface measured in watts per square meter, where watts are the number of joules of energy passing through the surface each second. Climate scientists calculate radiative forcings, which are the net changes in flux (downward minus upward) caused by changes in concentrations in the atmosphere of each type of greenhouse gas, dust, black carbon soot, smoke from biomass burning, aerosols, volcanic aerosols, contrails, and such, or caused by any changes in radiation from Sun. They add these radiative forcings together to estimate changes in temperature.
Thus greenhouse-warming theory is based on the assumption that (1) radiative energy can be quantified by a single number of watts per square meter, (2) the assumption that these radiative forcings can be added together, and (3) the assumption that Earth’s surface temperature is proportional to the sum of all of these radiative forcings. A fundamentally new understanding of the physics of thermal energy and the physics of heat, described below, shows that all three assumptions are mistaken. There are other serious problems: (4) greenhouse gases absorb only a small part of the radiation emit
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Unless I missed it, I don't see where you addressed any of the 9 points he makes. In the text of the post I just made/copied.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF, thanks for the link.
I re-scanned the article complete with graphs and pictures, and it's still faulty. I started taking notes as to where it was wrong but gave up because it was wrong in too many places to count. Also, I addressed these before.
1) Warming by earth's surfaceis constant year after year...
WRONG. Long-term changes in earth's reflectance of visible light (albedo) - by loss of icefields and depostion of carbon particles on ... everything ... cause more warming
2) Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere ...
Does not occur in significant quantities. (And BTW the bond energy holding oxygen together - ~5eV ... is low energy)
3) The dissociation (of ozone) in the stratosphere warms the stratosphere ...
Here, he contradicts himself as to exactly WHAT is warming the stratosphere, because first he says it's dissociation of oxygen, then he says it's dissociation of ozone
4) Montreal Protocol of 1987 stopped the increase in global warming
It did??? According to temperature measurements, it didn't
5) The absorption energy of CO2 is 50X less than the absorption of ozone at our level (troposphere)
But then ... the concentration of carbon dioxide is 4,000 (four THOUSAND) times the concentration of ozone at ground level. Mass counts for something! On top of that, there is a lot greater flux of infrared passing thru the troposphere than UV radiation.
etc etc etc
Sorry, I justcan't be bothered to go thru all of this again. Self-contradictory and wrong on so many points. Even back-of-envelope calculations show me that. It's an interesting idea and I'm sure he feels that he's reached a great insight but I can't find any data to back it up.
Did you already?
Do you disagree with all 9 points?
Do you agree with any of the 9 points?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I read YOUR original post, and re-read YOUR original post as pdf with all the whips, whistles, and balloons attached.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Unless I missed it, I don't see where you addressed any of the 9 points he makes. In the text of the post I just made/copied.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF, thanks for the link.
I re-scanned the article complete with graphs and pictures, and it's still faulty. I started taking notes as to where it was wrong but gave up because it was wrong in too many places to count. Also, I addressed these before.
1) Warming by earth's surfaceis constant year after year...
WRONG. Long-term changes in earth's reflectance of visible light (albedo) - by loss of icefields and depostion of carbon particles on ... everything ... cause more warming
2) Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere ...
Does not occur in significant quantities. (And BTW the bond energy holding oxygen together - ~5eV ... is low energy)
3) The dissociation (of ozone) in the stratosphere warms the stratosphere ...
Here, he contradicts himself as to exactly WHAT is warming the stratosphere, because first he says it's dissociation of oxygen, then he says it's dissociation of ozone
4) Montreal Protocol of 1987 stopped the increase in global warming
It did??? According to temperature measurements, it didn't
5) The absorption energy of CO2 is 50X less than the absorption of ozone at our level (troposphere)
But then ... the concentration of carbon dioxide is 4,000 (four THOUSAND) times the concentration of ozone at ground level. Mass counts for something! On top of that, there is a lot greater flux of infrared passing thru the troposphere than UV radiation.
etc etc etc
Sorry, I justcan't be bothered to go thru all of this again. Self-contradictory and wrong on so many points. Even back-of-envelope calculations show me that. It's an interesting idea and I'm sure he feels that he's reached a great insight but I can't find any data to back it up.
Did you already?
Do you disagree with all 9 points?
Do you agree with any of the 9 points?
If you can't post the post that you want me to evaluate after three attempts, I can't be bothered to look at it. My time is too valuable to be wasted on long posts that you (in essence) retract, only to post something even longer later.
But I DID scan the first couple of paras, and it sounds like hogwash.
Here are a couple of points that I stumbled on:
Quote:It can be, altho it is difficult because you must measure energy levels at all frequencies. Saying that you "can't" quantify energy as a single measurement is like saying that you can't study thermodynamics. Energy is energy. Energy+matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.
Thus greenhouse-warming theory is based on the assumption that (1) radiative energy can be quantified by a single number of watts per square meter
Quote:Not all frequencies act the same way on the earth. Neutrinos, for example, zip right thru without interacting much. But the earth is a large body made up of a lot of different elements, and it will mostly absorb the energy impinging on it, in one way or another. For example, the earth's magnetosphere aborbs plasma.
(2) the assumption that these radiative forcings can be added together, and (3) the assumption that Earth’s surface temperature is proportional to the sum of all of these radiative forcings.
Quote:NEW! ALL NEW!
A fundamentally new understanding of the physics of thermal energy and the physics of heat, described below, shows that all three assumptions are mistaken.
Quote:The definition of "radiate" means "in all direct
There are other serious problems: (4) greenhouse gases absorb only a small part of the radiation emitted by Earth, (5) they can only reradiate what they absorb, (6) they do not reradiate in every direction as assumed
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, Sigs, thanks for your reply. I couldn't tell before where the confusion was.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME