Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

climate change

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lbeard wrote: »
    Because it traps heat in a localised space - that of a greenhouse. So, the "gas" (the air) doesn't reach thermal equilibrium with the "gas" outside the greenhouse (the air in your back garden).
    But if the air in the greenhouse and the air in the garden are both being heated directly by the sun, then why are they not in thermal equilibrium?
    Lbeard wrote: »
    DJ, what you're saying, is honestly, like saying "well, why do people have glass in their windows and double glazing?".
    Slightly different, because houses tend to have central heating, whereas a greenhouse obviously does not.


  • Options
    #93
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But if the air in the greenhouse and the air in the garden are both being heated directly by the sun, then why are they not in thermal equilibrium?

    Because the glass stops the particles of warm air escaping. They literally bounce back off the glass. If there was no glass they'd keep traveling, colliding with other particles and the randomness of the collisions would distribute their energy relatively evenly. Glass lets the light in, but doesn't let the air out.
    Slightly different, because houses tend to have central heating, whereas a greenhouse obviously does not.

    Okay, say if it's winter, and you have your central heating on......Would you leave your windows open, or would you close them?

    Why do people put insulation in their attics?

    Why do people wear woolly jumpers?

    Is there anything else you would like to know? Like why you can see through a pane of glass, but you can't see through a brick?


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lbeard wrote: »
    Because the glass stops the particles of warm air escaping.
    It also stops warm air entering the greenhouse. You're claiming that the sun heats all of the atmosphere directly. So why is the atmosphere in the greenhouse heated more than the atmosphere outside the greenhouse?


  • Options
    #95
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But if the air in the greenhouse and the air in the garden are both being heated directly by the sun, then why are they not in thermal equilibrium?

    Because the glass stops the particles of warm air escaping. They literally bounce back off the glass. If there was no glass they'd keep traveling, colliding with other particles and the randomness of the collisions would distribute their energy relatively evenly. Glass lets the light in, but doesn't let the air out.
    Slightly different, because houses tend to have central heating, whereas a greenhouse obviously does not.

    Okay, say if it's winter, and you have your central heating on......Would you leave your windows open, or would you close them?

    Why do people put insulation in their attics?

    Why do people wear woolly jumpers?

    Is there anything else you would like to know? Like why you can see through a pane of glass, but you can't see through a brick?


  • Options
    #96
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lbeard wrote: »
    Because the glass stops the particles of warm air escaping.
    But you haven't explained why the air in the greenhouse is warmer than the air outside in the first place? If the sun is heating all of the atmosphere directly, there shouldn't be a temperature differential, should there? If I erect a greenhouse in my garden right now, initially, the air in the greenhouse will be the same temperature as the air outside. The sun doesn't then preferentially heat the air in the greenhouse, does it? So why does the greenhouse become warmer than the exterior?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But you haven't explained why the air in the greenhouse is warmer than the air outside in the first place? If the sun is heating all of the atmosphere directly, there shouldn't be a temperature differential, should there?

    If I erect a greenhouse in my garden right now, initially, the air in the greenhouse will be the same temperature as the air outside. The sun doesn't then preferentially heat the air in the greenhouse, does it? So why does the greenhouse become warmer than the exterior?


    DJ, if you didn't have windows and a ceiling on your greenhouse, the warm air would escape, and cold air could enter and mix with the greenhouse air.

    The air outside the greenhouse is getting just as much energy as the air in the greenhouse. Just the air outside can move more - that's how you get wind, clouds, rain, weather.

    How did you think a greenhouse worked?


  • Options
    #98
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    Citrus, before I get into a point by point response, I would like to talk a little about a psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance and creationism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1]

    It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4]

    A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]

    Now, why do creationist continue to believe rubbish about the earth being 8 thousand years old when there is an abundance of evidence that it is not?

    Are the creationists completely stupid? No they're not. Are they mad? No. They're the best kind of people; not too clever and not too thick. "normal" people. And in America, though you might expect them to be dumb poor white trash, they're actually the suburban middle-class. Nice houses, jobs that pay very well, nice cars, good lives. They're no more stupid than Ireland's upper-middle-class, and just as "educated". No more stupid than the teachers I had at school, or the parish priest.

    When you argue with a creationist, they first respond with semi-plausible little exceptions to your explanations - they will feel quite confident. When you tear these explanations down, especially when you use examples that make perfect sense to them, they start to panic a little - that's the beginning of the dissonance - they're emotionally aware that their explanation is contradictory. Then they do the cognitive dissonance smile icon10.png.........It's not a happy smile, it's an angry teeth bared smile. They may then try to ridicule you.......They are trying to show they're relax, laughing, "your ideas are foolish". There's more than a little aggression in that smile - the eyes are ever so jumpy.

    Then they display smugness and condescension.......But the smugness isn't out of confidence, and neither is the condescension - it's the absolute opposite it's anger and panic. The ridicule is nervous laughter. They'll try defenses like "Well all my church believe in creationism, and they all have great jobs, some even teach, and are wealthier than the atheists, we are the superior people, so it must be true" Of course they don't believe this. They know their friend the teacher is as thick as a brick, and only got the job because they were someone's daughter. And the same with the rest of their congregation. They all have their jobs and wealth because they excluded everyone who wasn't like them - didn't believe in the same fairy tales etc. You're a kid and you think everyone who teaches at a university is really clever - you go there, and after a time it dawns on you they may not be - some are really stupid. Often got their jobs because of their social class and family connections.

    Then their defense of creationism becomes completely absurd. This is effectively like a psychotic episode for a schizophrenic. The dissonance is so much reality starts to melt. They say things about that sound absolutely stupid.

    But they're not being stupid. They're having an episode - an episode of cognitive dissonance. They're not crazy either, the craziness will wear off. But for the moment they're complete irrational. They'll say absurd things about the function of greenhouses, that make them sound they don't even understand how a pane of glass works.

    They'll keep clutching at straws. "Well how do we have chickens if the first chicken wasn't around to lay the first egg?....explain that to me?"

    They become giddy. Alternating between snarls and fake smiles - they're hopping on the verge of violence. They'll decide you are being evil..........That's right, he's evil.............Because good people believe in creationism, and bad people don't, they work for the devil and they're trying to convince the good people with lies that creationism isn't true. He must be working for an oil company, because the devil owns all the oil companies.

    They get angrier - the world is swimming around their heads, the lies seem to have a magical power......the lies seem to have an evil magic, they're causing so much distress, so much confusion. The world is melting and spinning. Have to stop the lies to stop the world spinning, to make reality solid again.

    But the lies are not magical. There's no Satanic sorcery at play.

    The lies are just not lies.


  • Options
    #99
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lbeard wrote: »
    DJ, if you didn't have windows and a ceiling on your greenhouse, the warm air would escape, and cold air could enter and mix with the greenhouse air.
    You still haven't explained where the heat differential comes from in the first place.
    Lbeard wrote: »
    The air outside the greenhouse is getting just as much energy as the air in the greenhouse. Just the air outside can move more - that's how you get wind, clouds, rain, weather.
    Weather has more to do with uneven heating of the Earth's surface by the sun.
    Lbeard wrote: »
    How did you think a greenhouse worked?
    The air in the greenhouse is not heated directly by the sun to any significant degree - how could it be when it's transparent?

    Opaque surfaces, which absorb sunlight, are heated, and these in turn heat the air by conduction and convection. Because the air cannot escape, the warm surfaces can heat the air in the greenhouse to a higher temperature than the air outside the greenhouse. Another contributor is the fact that glass is virtually opaque to infrared, so thermal radiation within the greenhouse cannot escape.


  • Options
    #100
    citrus burst
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭citrus burst


    Lbeard wrote: »
    Citrus, before I get into a point by point response, I would like to talk a little about a psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance and creationism.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    The lies are just not lies.
    I'm just interested in seeing how you think gases like O2 and N contribute directly to the heating of a planet.


  • Options
    #101
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You still haven't explained where the heat differential comes from in the first place.

    You're clutching at straws, DJ.
    Weather has more to do with uneven heating of the Earth's surface by the sun.
    The air in the greenhouse is not heated directly by the sun to any significant degree - how could it be when it's transparent?

    So now the air is transparent. Sure if it's transparent there must be no Greenhouse Effect at all.
    Opaque surfaces, which absorb sunlight, are heated, and these in turn heat the air by conduction and convection. Because the air cannot escape, the warm surfaces can heat the air in the greenhouse to a higher temperature than the air outside the greenhouse. Another contributor is the fact that glass is virtually opaque to infrared, so thermal radiation within the greenhouse cannot escape.

    More clutching at straws and contradictions. Magical infrared again, and the glass is opaque on one side, and transparent on the other. And the air in the greenhouse is no longer transparent to radiation.

    And in the end of the day we're just talking rubbish about back garden greenhouses, not the Greenhouse Effect, because DJ, in his straw clutching is hoping to catch me out. A diversion - he as well be going on about how a flash lamp works.. "If there are chickens, where is the chicken that laid the first egg?", "If we're descended from monkeys, how come there are monkeys still around?", "How can something as complex as the human eye be designed by chance?"

    Cognitive dissonance, DJ.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lbeard wrote: »
    So now the air is transparent.
    You're actually going to argue that air is not transparent? You can see air, can you?
    Lbeard wrote: »
    Magical infrared again, and the glass is opaque on one side, and transparent on the other.
    I never said any such thing.
    Lbeard wrote: »
    And the air in the greenhouse is no longer transparent to radiation.
    Again, I never said any such thing.
    Lbeard wrote: »
    And in the end of the day we're just talking rubbish about back garden greenhouses, not the Greenhouse Effect, because DJ, in his straw clutching is hoping to catch me out.
    The connection is obvious, I would have thought. You have claimed repeatedly that the sun heats the atmosphere - it doesn't to any significant degree. The sun heats the Earth's surface, which heats the atmosphere through conduction/convection and radiates heat in the infrared.

    Unless of course you want to explain how the sun heats the atmosphere?


  • Options
    #103
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    citrus burst wrote: »
    Not all atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases. O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases. H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 are greenhouse gases.

    If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.

    That is not what happens Citrus, because it would break the laws of physics.

    Thermal equilibrium, Citrus..........Thermal equilibrium.

    When a claim breaks the laws of physics, the only way you can believe it is through cognitive dissonance.

    Quantum spectral effects have no effect on thermal equilibrium either. They never have - unless you set up equipment in a lab wrong, and don't really know what you're doing. Again.....And this has occurred, even in other areas of science - cognitive dissonance can make you find the answer you want, and not the one that is reality.

    And it's more interesting in the atmosphere, as the atmosphere tries to reach more of an energy equilibrium. The clouds are cold, but they have more potential energy than the water vapors near the ground - they are cold because their kinetic energy has become potential energy.

    I know the scientific paper that gave CH4 its' vaunted "greenhouse" gas status - and the temperature in this case is individual molecules in the upper atmosphere (but gases are made of individual molecules anyway). I know where the kranks got "24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2" it's not science it's krank nonsense. It's in a UN report on climate change, which gets cited in other climate science papers, but it is just nonsense.

    Man made climate change, is as scientific as a Scientology. Or a creationist "science" museum, where they have Adam and Eve playing with the dinosaurs.


    It's an apocalyptic UFO cult....it wouldn't be unfair to say it's above chemitrails, some of the chemitrails loopiness having worked its' way in.


  • Options
    #104
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    What have I just spent the last 3/4 hour reading? :eek:
    (Sorry that's probably my least constructive post on boards. But, what the hell have I just read?)


  • Options
    #105
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You're actually going to argue that air is not transparent? You can see air, can you?

    You want the air transparent, then you want it opaque. You need the sun to heat the atmosphere, and then you don't want the sun to heat the atmosphere.

    DJ do you even know the fundamentals of the theory you're trying to defend?
    Unless of course you want to explain how the sun heats the atmosphere?

    Okay, DJ, have you ever wondered why the sky is blue? It's a heating effect you can actually see with the naked eye.

    Or another one DJ....You know how people who go skiing get lovely tans and even sunburn?

    I'll explain. It's not the sun reflecting off the piste.....because if you're on snow at sea level you will not get a tan.........At high altitudes there is less atmospheric gases....more high energy sun light gets through. So you can burn. If you go well above the atmosphere, the sun light is very strong (there's no atmosphere to absorb it), it would literally cook you like a chicken if you were exposed to it.

    How does the snow not melt at higher altitudes then if the sunlight is stronger up there? DJ I hear you thinking................Because there's less atmosphere, there's less atmosphere to get warm and melt the snow, and the light reflects off the snow and bounces up, and out into outer space.


  • Options
    #106
    citrus burst
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭citrus burst


    Lbeard wrote: »
    If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.

    That is not what happens Citrus, because it would break the laws of physics.

    Thermal equilibrium, Citrus..........Thermal equilibrium.
    I think you are looking at this in the wrong way. Keeping everything else consistent (i.e distance from the sun, planet size), which do you think would be hotter, a planet with an atmosphere made up only of CO2 or one with only N2 and why?


    Lbeard wrote: »
    Quantum spectral effects have no effect on thermal equilibrium either. They never have - unless you set up equipment in a lab wrong, and don't really know what you're doing. Again.....And this has occurred, even in other areas of science - cognitive dissonance can make you find the answer you want, and not the one that is reality.
    Vibrational spectroscopy is used to determine the temperature of a gas.


  • Options
    #107
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Lbeard wrote: »
    If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.

    That is not what happens Citrus, because it would break the laws of physics.

    Thermal equilibrium, Citrus..........Thermal equilibrium.
    The more of that adsorbing species present the more energy it can capture to share. Adding blackcurrant juice to water doesn't make the water itself block more light, it's just the juice doing that.

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic
    Insane Troll Logic is the kind of logic that just can't be argued with because it's so demented, so lost in its own insanity. Any attempts to correct it would be met with more gibberish. It is logic failure that crosses over into parody or Poe's Law. A character says something so blatantly illogical that it has to be deliberate on the part of the writer.


  • Options
    #108
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lbeard wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Unless of course you want to explain how the sun heats the atmosphere?
    Okay, DJ, have you ever wondered why the sky is blue? It's a heating effect you can actually see with the naked eye.

    Or another one DJ....You know how people who go skiing get lovely tans and even sunburn?

    I'll explain. It's not the sun reflecting off the piste.....because if you're on snow at sea level you will not get a tan.........At high altitudes there is less atmospheric gases....more high energy sun light gets through. So you can burn. If you go well above the atmosphere, the sun light is very strong (there's no atmosphere to absorb it), it would literally cook you like a chicken if you were exposed to it.

    How does the snow not melt at higher altitudes then if the sunlight is stronger up there? DJ I hear you thinking................Because there's less atmosphere, there's less atmosphere to get warm and melt the snow, and the light reflects off the snow and bounces up, and out into outer space.
    That's a very long-winded way of not answering a question


  • Options
    #109
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    LBeard wrote:
    Preferably a peer-reviewed paper that explains the mechanism?
    You don't look at peer reviewed papers for the fundamentals, pick up a standard textbook. Have a read IPCC v4: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf and then compare it to the kind of highschool physics you seem to be relying on.
    LBeard wrote:
    There must be a precise mechanism that makes a difference. This is chemistry and physics, not biology where there a zillions of mechanisms we don't understand. The precise mechanism that differentiates CO2 from methane in global warming......What is it?
    Methane breaks down after a few years, CO2 does not.
    LBeard wrote:
    Is the absorption being interpreted correctly as having a thermal effect?
    Light absorption is not a thermal effect. Your statement makes no sense. This is Physics 101.
    LBEARD wrote:
    Clouds are made of ice particles, they're not actually a gas
    All clouds are not made of ice. Whether its a gas or not is irrelevant to the issue.
    LBEARD wrote:
    Your explanation, I'm not going to say is completely incorrect, and it's an explanation lots of people use. Unfortunately it's mangled. When a molecule absorbs radiation, its' electrons move to a higher energy level - it doesn't vibrate. Explaining heat in terms of atoms vibrating is misleading.
    This is utterly wrong. You appear to have confused electronic, vibrational and rotational transitions. Later you also confuse vibrational transitions with thermal effects.
    LBEARD wrote:
    Temperature is a measure of particle momentum
    Temperature is a measure of the average thermal energy of a substance. It is definetly not a measure of particle momentum, and temperature is not clearly defined for all systems. Pick up a standard undergraduate university physics book. Young & Freedman is a good place to start.
    LBEARD wrote:
    The kinetic energy of a single atom can be referred to as its' temperature.
    You could refer to that as temperature, but you would be wrong.
    LBEARD wrote:
    . It was just rubbish nonsensical claim after nonsensical claim.
    Considering your inability to understand basic physics your comment is meaningless.
    LBEARD wrote:
    If O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases, then they would have to magically remain cold while H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 got hot.
    No, if they are not greenhouse gases they just need to be transparent (i.e not absorbed) to the particular radiation of interest.

    This person is a pure crank and should be blocked to stop this pointless nonsense. The irony of the crank posting about Cognitive dissonance is not lost on me.


  • Options
    #110
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jernal wrote: »
    What have I just spent the last 3/4 hour reading? :eek:
    (Sorry that's probably my least constructive post on boards. But, what the hell have I just read?)

    It kind of reminds me of the anecdote of the scientist and the old woman:
    A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"


  • Options
    #111
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It kind of reminds me of the anecdote of the scientist and the old woman:
    Underneath the world there's a ton of turtles. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Lbeard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    Methane breaks down after a few years, CO2 does not.

    Is that true?...Really?.....So plants do not absorb CO2? (and release CO2 on decomposition?)...The seas don't absorb it either - so organic life in the sea has nothing to eat? Once CO2 is in the atmosphere it stays there?.....That's real krank science, isn't it? The implicit claim that "natural" CO2 is good, and cycled out of the atmosphere, whereas "unnatural" CO2, ie man made CO2, magically stays, increasing year on year and bring us closer to a man made apocalypse.

    IRWolfie. I know precisely how both Methane and CO2 behave in the atmosphere. Do you know how or why methane would break down in the first place?

    Light absorption is not a thermal effect. Your statement makes no sense. This is Physics 101.

    No I am correct. Absorption on the spectral lines of molecules and atoms does not have a thermal effect, as it does not give the atoms and molecules momentum (there is a case when the frequency of the incident light is slight higher or lower than the spectral lines of the atoms, it will be absorbed but only if the momentum of the atoms, doppler shifts the light, when the light is emitted, it will change the momentum of the atoms - but there has been no net creation of energy in the process - energy is conserved.)

    This is utterly wrong. You appear to have confused electronic, vibrational and rotational transitions. Later you also confuse vibrational transitions with thermal effects.

    Sorry, I have no idea what you're on about. I could try to piece together what's going on in your imagination, but it's probably the Laws of Physics for the land of Narnia. Or is it Star Trek physics - beam me up Scotty.
    Temperature is a measure of the average thermal energy of a substance. It is definetly not a measure of particle momentum, and temperature is not clearly defined for all systems. Pick up a standard undergraduate university physics book. Young & Freedman is a good place to start.

    Please don't give me nonsense about undergraduate university physics texts.

    You think CO2 has some magical power to stay in the atmosphere, when the the carbon cycle is in science books aimed at children. Don't give me the university texts, you need to start with the children's books and work your way up.

    This person is a pure crank and should be blocked to stop this pointless nonsense.

    That's what they said about Galileo. "Oh course you have to be a loony not to know the sun orbits the earth. Lock up this dangerous mad man. Stop this nonsense, shut his mouth. What he's saying is ridiculous. The Sun orbits Rome, God makes it so. What he is saying is a sinful heresy, we must shut his mouth or God will punish us....God will make average temperatures rise by 2 degrees.....Shut him up or God will punish us with run away temperatures....Shut his mouth, I'm afraid ...I'm afraid....reality is melting, God does exist, the earth orbits Rome.....I'm afraid.....God will punish us, run away temperatures. "
    The irony of the crank posting about Cognitive dissonance is not lost on me.

    No, you, and everyone else who has disagreed with me are exhibiting classic signs of cognitive dissonance.

    I've been called a Crank, and Insane troll. I was shut up for a few days, locked up in the Loony bin. Okay I will admit to being a thoroughly unpleasant person - that is truthful - even my mother hates me. But the reason you are so hopped up is not because you think I'm crazy. Or making up lies.

    With cognitive dissonance, the person experiencing it wants to get away from the information making them feel unpleasant - that's why you want me banned - shut up for good. If I was "wrong" about any other scientific fact, you wouldn't have a problem. If I had krank ideas about Special Relativity, or cold fusion, chemitrails, you wouldn't demand I be shut up. But this subject frightens you. And you'd feel a real fool if you had to face up to the fact you'd been believing fairy and ghost stories.

    You want me shut up, because you're afraid what I'm saying is true.

    Fear is a terrible thing. And sometimes the truth is terrible too.

    I'm sorry. In a perfect world we all be happy and nice to each other, and there would be no fear. The world is just not perfect. Nature isn't even in harmony - it's dissonant.


  • Options
    #113
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lbeard wrote: »
    You want me shut up, because you're afraid what I'm saying is true.
    You've actually said very little. You've demanded plenty of explaining from others, but have done precious little yourself.

    For example, you've yet to offer any physical explanation for your claim that heating of the atmosphere by the sun is significant relative to heating of the Earth's surface.


  • Options
    #114
    Owdetojoy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 19 ✭Owdetojoy


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    We own the nitrogen cycle. Humans fix more nitrogen than any other species.
    We are responsible for most of the ozone hole.

    You can argue about the CO2 from us vs. nature, but if you take into account desertification and desertification and changing the vegetation in most arable and many grassland areas andthe draining of bogs and clearing land by burning it's clear we are involved in other ways besides industrial emissions.

    Even if you argue that the underlying cycle is natural we are the storm surge at high tide.

    Yes volcanoes could out do us, but volcanoes can create mass extinctions so not really saying much,

    Yes I agree. The destruction of mother earth by humans is the worry, not the production of co2. CO2 is an essential gas for life and growth of plants. In facts pristine forests are being mowed down to grow palm oil which is said to be green and to displace fossil fuel, when in fact fossil fuel is being used to plant and grow the palm.


  • Options
    #115
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Owdetojoy wrote: »
    Yes I agree. The destruction of mother earth by humans is the worry, not the production of co2. CO2 is an essential gas for life and growth of plants. In facts pristine forests are being mowed down to grow palm oil which is said to be green and to displace fossil fuel, when in fact fossil fuel is being used to plant and grow the palm.
    There's also the bit that draining swamps for palm oil releases as much CO2 as the palm oil might save in a century


  • Options
    #116
    Owdetojoy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 19 ✭Owdetojoy


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    There's also the bit that draining swamps for palm oil releases as much CO2 as the palm oil might save in a century

    Ya, it seems to be a case of react, do something, whether it actually can do some good is beside the point. Strangely those who agree with the warming theory seem to always be left wing socialists and those who disagree with the idea of man made climate change seem to be mostly conservative and right of centre. I can't figure out why that should be so.


Advertisement