Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Orator on 1 Sep 2006 20:26 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > SNIP > Wienie....wienie.....wienie > > Man you spend a lot of time Who the hell is "you"? Don't people in this group know how to leave attribution lines alone so others know who you are referring to, or who has written what.
From: Orator on 1 Sep 2006 20:28 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: Welcome to the Bozo bin, hope you enjoy the company! -plonk-
From: Orator on 1 Sep 2006 20:32 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <hm7Jg.20128$rP1.4962(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>>As for your "where has all the CO2 humans produce gone?", you have to >>>>first be able to calculate what that is. It cannot be calculated so you >>>>have no question to put in the first place! >>> >>>Yes it is. It's known. >> >>Wrong, it is impossible to know. > > > Google it; you'll find people do know it. I asked Y-O-U nobody else to provide the following: > >>You do not have the data to work with. >>But let us test this claim of yours. This is your opportunity to shine >>and show off your knowledge! >> >>IF you have the data, you can tell me how much fuel was burned in per >>head of population in India. Know how many people there were in India at >>the time. Know the type fuels they burned. You need only give an annual >>figures for the decades 1870 to 1890. >> >>If you can't answer those questions, you are admitting to having >>resorted to fiction once again. Your admission of having resorted to fiction is noted. You do not have the data, and cannot have the data either.
From: Orator on 1 Sep 2006 20:46 Hoggle wrote: > Retief wrote: > >>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:32:55 GMT, "Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms" >><Exxon_Serial_Killers(a)RacketeersR.US> wrote: >> >> >>>CO2 & H2O will block some outgoing IR radiation. That's all that needs to >>>happen to make Global Warming. >> >>If it _blocks_ "some outgoing IR radiation", then the Earth will >>eventually heat until all hell breaks loose (i.e. molten brimstone, as >>that energy was "blocked"). Thus, as usual, you are wrong. >> >>One notes that any heating in the atmosphere will also increase the >>rate at which heat is radiated out into space (as that rate depends on >>the temperature difference). It is not a simple linear equation... > > > Excellent example of a straw man argument. Well done. > > You are attributing a false argument to your opponent that he did not > make in order to score points. Blocking _some_ radiation will not cause > runaway heating and nothing in WFHCS's post suggests that it will. > Fact is if any radiation is blocked at all (no allowed to escape), it will eventually result in that effect as they claim a cumulative effect. It is not "strawman", it is the inevitable consequence of the claim made. Why that is so is that the effect on incoming radiation is never considered by the GW religion - it brings things back to a balance, when it IS considered.
From: Phil. on 1 Sep 2006 22:06
Orator wrote: > Hoggle wrote: > > > Retief wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:32:55 GMT, "Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms" > >><Exxon_Serial_Killers(a)RacketeersR.US> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>CO2 & H2O will block some outgoing IR radiation. That's all that needs to > >>>happen to make Global Warming. > >> > >>If it _blocks_ "some outgoing IR radiation", then the Earth will > >>eventually heat until all hell breaks loose (i.e. molten brimstone, as > >>that energy was "blocked"). Thus, as usual, you are wrong. > >> > >>One notes that any heating in the atmosphere will also increase the > >>rate at which heat is radiated out into space (as that rate depends on > >>the temperature difference). It is not a simple linear equation... > > > > > > Excellent example of a straw man argument. Well done. > > > > You are attributing a false argument to your opponent that he did not > > make in order to score points. Blocking _some_ radiation will not cause > > runaway heating and nothing in WFHCS's post suggests that it will. > > > > Fact is if any radiation is blocked at all (no allowed to escape), it > will eventually result in that effect as they claim a cumulative effect. > It is not "strawman", it is the inevitable consequence of the claim made. > > Why that is so is that the effect on incoming radiation is never > considered by the GW religion - it brings things back to a balance, when > it IS considered. Except as you've been told many times before it is considered, incoming IR is not blocked it is absorbed. |