Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Climate Change is a Hoax


FurriesRock

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

.CO2, at the 15 micrometer wavelength,

So what do you think is warming because 15 um (micron/micrometer) photons are flying around? 

Now, CO2 does add some slight heat to the atmosphere making it a logarithmic GHG but you don't seem to understand why or how. 

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

So what do you think is warming because 15 um (micron/micrometer) photons are flying around? 

Now, CO2 does add some slight heat to the atmosphere making it a logarithmic GHG but you don't seem to understand why or how

The atmosphere.

The bolded, of course, is incorrect.

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The atmosphere.

 

The atmosphere what? And you criticized me because you "thought" I avoided one of your questions when I actually asked you to refine it! LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

The atmosphere what? And you criticized me because you "thought" I avoided one of your questions when I actually asked you to refine it! LOL!

You asked what is warming. I said the atmosphere. 

Asking "the atmosphere what" is meaningless.  But at least it's better than misunderstanding thermodynamics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The bolded, of course, is incorrect.

How so? You think 15 um photons just pile up and melt us? Tell me how you think any 15 um photons are warming the atmosphere other than convection in the Troposphere?

Edit: Just making a point not saying only convection is the only cause because I know some have to result to taking simple points out of context unless you make a disclaimer like this.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

How so? You think 15 um photons just pile up and melt us? Tell me how you think any 15 um photons are warming the atmosphere other than convection in the Troposphere?

Obviously they don't pile up and melt us. Silly question. 

One, obvious way, which we have already discussed, is radiation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

15 um IR photons are,... THE RADIATION!!! ;)

Ah, yeah. 4 am discussions and all. Absorption.

Just the fact that we have excess 15 micrometer photons in the atmosphere shows we have excess energy.

I just realized how silly that questiom was.

How does heat heat something up, I suppose, is another way to formulate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Just the fact that we have excess 15 micrometer photons in the atmosphere shows we have excess energy.

 

Again you don't understand what you are talking about. No amount of 15 um photons can warm you because at ~ 98.6 F your body temperature is hotter than 15 um IR photons so they can not be absorbed by you. It is exactly like they ARE NOT EVEN THERE!!! 

That said these 15 um IR photons do cause vibrations in CO2 molecules. More on that latter.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Again you don't understand what you are talking about. No amount of 15 um photons can warm you because at ~ 98.6 F your body temperature is hotter than 15 um IR photons so they can not be absorbed by you. It is exactly like they ARE NOT EVEN THERE!!! 

Huh. Interesting.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Huh. Interesting.

 

I always thought physics was fun because it gets strange fast even though on the Macro level everything looks more or less orderly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hawken said:

I don't know if this has been posted since it's a long thread but here it is. According to The Weather Channel founder (John Coleman)

Climate change is a hoax brought on by politicians who fund scientist to tell them what they want to hear.

 

Gee truths, we can't have that here. And what l posted about Musk's site, obviously a pack of lies, since it is on a site about electric cars and founded by a genius.

And l am sure that the gray background and font is also contributing to raging deniasm. :lol:

 

Here is another, and this does contain bad language, but unfortunately if you want to try to convince the nutters, that are in chicken with head cut off mode, since it is at a life and death level, (groan) it may be required.

He goes to Antarctica, for personal reasons and ask the scientists there about this, and they laugh, (well, they laugh in another video) (in other words they know it is BS).

But that is ok, we can't trust experts in Antartica, and silly ice core samples, but l guess we can trust senile old fools, that do nature doc,s that should have retired years ago, since they are the laughing stock of the 32,000 odd scientists, and 70% of the planet, that know it is BS.

Yes, definitely make this a musical, with a Communist, Russian anthem for openers.

B)

PS Dan Pena is a self made billionaire, so obviously another moron we can ignore.;)

Edited by tmcom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This paper presents Atmospheric Infra-Red Sounder (AIRS) surface skin temperature anomalies for the period 2003 through 2017, and compares them to station-based analyses of surface air temperature anomalies (principally the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)). The AIRS instrument flies on EOS Aqua, which was launched in 2002 and became stable in September 2002. AIRS surface temperatures are completely satellite-based and are totally independent of any surface-based measurements. We show in this paper that satellite-based surface temperatures can serve as an important validation of surface-based estimates and help to improve surface-based data sets in a way that can be extended back many decades to further scientific research. AIRS surface temperatures have better spatial coverage than those of GISTEMP, though at the global annual scale the two data sets are highly coherent. As in the surface-based analyses, 2016 was the warmest year yet.



Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS

In other words, satellite data supports ground based observations that there has been warming over recent years

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Again you don't understand what you are talking about. No amount of 15 um photons can warm you because at ~ 98.6 F your body temperature is hotter than 15 um IR photons so they can not be absorbed by you. It is exactly like they ARE NOT EVEN THERE!!! 

That said these 15 um IR photons do cause vibrations in CO2 molecules. More on that latter.

I think you're going to have to unpack the first part for me a little further.  I think you're getting too caught up in the minutiae.

Not sure where you're getting this odd idea about body temperature and IR photons being "not even there".  Because that's wrong. Interesting thought, as I said, but wrong. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699878/

Quote

Not only is FIR absorbed by the human body....

So, interesting, yes, but I think you'll have to think about the physics a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tmcom said:

Gee truths, we can't have that here. And what l posted about Musk's site, obviously a pack of lies, since it is on a site about electric cars and founded by a genius.

Refresh my memory.  Was that those 100 reasons that turned out to be bogus, i.e. Musk never said any of it?  The same 100 reasons you didn't want to discuss because they are nearly all false - except for a few that are about non-issues.

I'm ready to start that discussion any time you are.

Or am I mistaking you for somebody else?

Doug

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Refresh my memory.  Was that those 100 reasons that turned out to be bogus, i.e. Musk never said any of it?  The same 100 reasons you didn't want to discuss because they are nearly all false - except for a few that are about non-issues.

I'm ready to start that discussion any time you are.

Or am I mistaking you for somebody else?

Doug

Discuss them, lol, if you research those through the dodgy sites then sure they will all look bogus, and if you research those through the legit sites, then they won't.

But all the legit sites will of course not be valid since they are the wrong color or oil barons own the site, or the latest piece of s***t l heard from someone else, elsewhere was it was a conspiracy from the elite wealthy to send the planet down the drain and make a buck.

Doesn't matter how hard l or others here try, we are wrong for any reason and you and other.... are right.

And yes Musk owns that site, (it has his Tesla Car Logo on it) and for the last few years he has not removed it, but that is ok, you and others will come up with some crap to dismiss that piece of logic, and go back to the current live of die fairy tale.

So all l can say to you and others who buy this is,....

Believe that the planet is on a knife edge, and last year was the hottest on record, and England will be underwater in 10 years time!

This subject a religion, pffft, not true a cult waiting for the comet to pass,...with any luck.

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard that perovskite shingles will be on the market late this year - that's about three years sooner than predicted.  The costs are about 15% above the cost of conventional tar paper shingles, but you only need about 30% of your roof covered to get the power for an average residence.  What they aren't saying is that if you want a hookup to the electric company, that will take a special meter - which costs about $2500.  That all means there isn't going to be a big rush to buy perovskite shingles.

If you use about $50 a month in electricity, it takes 4 years and two months to amortize the cost of the meter.  Add another two years for the extra cost of the shingles and it will be six years and two months before you reach the break-even point.  Of course, you could start generating electricity and selling it back to the electric company, but that means roofing your whole house with perovskite shingles.  That will amortize the cost of the system in not quite four years.

Wait until you have to re-shingle your roof anyway, then convert.  That's cheaper than just going out and doing it right now.  After converting, wait until your heating system dies a natural death, then convert to electric heat and power that off perovskites.  That is about the cheapest way to convert.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Discuss them, lol, if you research those through the dodgy sites then sure they will all look bogus, and if you research those through the legit sites, then they won't.

But all the legit sites will of course not be valid since they are the wrong color or oil barons own the site, or the latest piece of s***t l heard from someone else, elsewhere was it was a conspiracy from the elite wealthy to send the planet down the drain and make a buck.

Doesn't matter how hard l or others here try, we are wrong for any reason and you and other.... are right.

Back up ideas with peer-reviewed papers.  They are owned by private publishers (mostly).  There are over 7000 at last count  The US Forest Service publishes a number of research publications related to trees.

Peer-review is the gold standard for truth in science.  The publishers have a vested interest in scientific accuracy as that determines their circulation, and thus, their profits.

 

The reason you can't come up with counter arguments is that you keep coming up with the same old ideas, some of which have been disproven for as long as twenty years.  Also, if you keep referring to sites whose job it is to mislead the public on scientific issues, you are going to get bs.  There is a relatively small window during which people can effectively argue against a new idea.  After that, it has either met the objections and stands, or it hasn't and it is retired.  Argue with referrals that have withstood the criticisms, not with ones that were discarded decades ago.

 

About Elon Musk:  I was unable to find that list of 100 items on any of his sites.  I suspect it was a fake site, designed to look like he said it.  At any rate, if it's valid, it was probably published somewhere in a print periodical.  Let's see if we can find it.

Either way, we can still address the issues, even if we can't determine the authorship.  So how about it?

 

45 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Believe that the planet is on a knife edge, and last year was the hottest on record, and England will be underwater in 10 years time!

Is the planet on a knife edge?  I really can't say that.  So far, climate change has been gradual, small incremental change.  It is accelerating and that bodes ill for the future.  If we are approaching a "tipping point" - the melt-off of the Arctic Ocean springs to mind - then we could get sudden climate change.  At the end of the Younger Dryas (c. 10,500 YBP), the climate shifted from full glacial to interglacial in forty years, with snowfall making the shift in two years.  The "wild weather" we are currently experiencing - cold snowy winters in New England and northern Europe, heavy rains along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, etc. started about 2005.  Such climate flickering has been a trait of past climate shifts.

Last year was not the hottest year on record.  That was 2016.  Temps have eased off a little since then - rising temps (1.6 to 1.8C) superimposed on normal variation.  January and February were a little warmer than November and December, but nothing to get excited about.

Will England be underwater in ten years?  I doubt it.  If EVERY temperate zone glacier on earth melted, it would raise sea levels about 18 inches.  Looks like that's going to happen, but it will take longer than ten years.  Current concern is that the Larsen C ice shelf has just been through a warmer-than-usual summer and is melting rapidly; it might raise sea levels a few centimeters - maybe.  And if EVERY glacier on earth melted, it would raise water levels a little over a hundred meters - Gainesville, Florida will still be above water.  That might happen in a couple hundred years, but it is currently beyond the planning horizon.

In short, you need to come up with a new list of disasters to worry about.  These are either not going to happen at all, or are a considerable ways in the future.

Doug

P.S.:  Last year, for the first time ever, the Bering Straight was completely ice free.  Cold deep water that normally forms on the bottom did not form.  Alaska is currently trying to assess the effects on Arctic cod.  A possibility exists of a new evaporation basin forming in the Bering Sea as a result.  That would bring warm Pacific water northward, possibly opening a new overturning current with serious climate-change potential.  Doesn't seem like it will have much effect on the Arctic Ocean, though, as currents through the Bering Strait are southbound and it's a narrow, shallow strait, unable to accommodate much water.

It is the sudden development of new evaporation basins that causes rapid climate change.  The temperature rise that started in 1976 was brought about by a new evaporation basin in the Drake Passage.  It ended in 1998 with the formation of a warm-water layer in the western Pacific that forced west-bound currents to dive beneath it, carrying heat energy into the deep ocean and curtailing surface temperature rise, causing the "hiatus (1998-2005)."

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of charts here, especially 15 minutes in which covers 17+ years of no increase, and so forth.

But this guy is a green piece dropout, so we can ignore these facts as well.

But anyone here who is open to this might find this video enlightening.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Plenty of charts here, especially 15 minutes in which covers 17+ years of no increase, and so forth.

But this guy is a green piece dropout, so we can ignore these facts as well.

But anyone here who is open to this might find this video enlightening.

B)

I looked up some background information on Patrick Moore.  For openers, he says he was a co-founder of Green Peace.  Green Peace says he wasn't.

He says he left Green Peace in 2006 because "the group had been taken over by sensationalism."  That is certainly true.  Green Peace has a history of going off on various "environmental" tangents that have nothing to do with climate change.

Moore admits that Green Peace and similar organizations did a lot of good, but have now put environment ahead of people.  I am poorly-situated to comment on that, but I do recognize that any environmental proposal that doesn't put people near the top of its priorities is going to fail.

Moore is a nuclear industry public relations consultant.  He has conducted a number of interviews (and made tapes) with the Heartland Institute, a paid environmental misinformation organization ( a shill).

He has worked with the mining industry (So have I.), the logging industry (So have I.) and PVC manufacturers (I have not.).  Moore and I both have Bachelors of Science degrees in Forest Management.  He has a Ph.D. in Ecology (Mine's in Environmental Science), though our degrees are about 30 years apart.

Patrick Moore dismisses AOC's Green New Deal.  He has a point.  Some of it jumps the gun, seeking to implement technologies that aren't even close to being ready for implementation.  But then, it's a resolution, not an act.  Passing it means very little because it doesn't fund anything, doesn't authorize anything, or - most important - doesn't DO anything.  It really is - all politics.

Moore claimed that Greenpeace "blackmail" caused The Times of London to reject an ad from his client, the BC Forest Alliance.  The Times denied ever receiving the ad and Moore changed his mind about "blackmail."

Moore was involved in a PR stunt in which he offered to drink Monsanto's Roundup to prove it was safe, but when challenged by an interviewer to do so, he replied "I'm not stupid."  Roundup has since been declared a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

Another note here:  when I used Roundup commercially back in the early 1970s, I used 1% strength, the recommended dose.  It was effective at killing weeds.  3% was considered "concentrated" and not recommended except for wick application - you had to have a special license to buy it.  Today, the homeowner can go to the store and buy 10% strength Roundup, no permit or training needed.

In 2014 Moore said he "fears a global cooling" and says that US statistics show "no global warming for nearly 18 years."  I have a question here:  how can US statistics show anything at all about GLOBAL cooling?  And in any case, I work with US data:  it's getting warmer here.  He's just plain wrong.

You can read more about Patrick Moore here:  https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick Moore is hilarious.  For instance, talking about glyphosate:

Quote

Moore: Do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer. You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you.

Interviewer: You want to drink some? We have some here.

Moore: I'd be happy to actually... Not, not really, but...

Interviewer: Not really?

Moore: I know it wouldn't hurt me.

Interviewer: If you say so, I have some glyphosate.

Moore: No, I'm not stupid.

Interviewer: OK. So you… So it's dangerous, right?

Moore: No. People try to commit suicide with it and fail, fairly regularly.

Interviewer: Tell the truth. It's dangerous.

Moore: It's not dangerous to humans. No, it's not.

Interviewer: So you are ready to drink one glass of glyphosate?

Moore: No, I'm not an idiot.

Moore: Interview me about golden rice. That's what I'm talking about.

Interviewer: Really?

Moore: OK. Then it's finished.

Interviewer: Except it's...

Moore: The interview is finished.

Interviewer: That's a good way to solve things.

Moore (getting up to leave): Yeah. You're a complete jerk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

Here is another, and this does contain bad language, but unfortunately if you want to try to convince the nutters, that are in chicken with head cut off mode, since it is at a life and death level, (groan) it may be required.

He goes to Antarctica, for personal reasons and ask the scientists there about this, and they laugh, (well, they laugh in another video) (in other words they know it is BS).

But that is ok, we can't trust experts in Antartica, and silly ice core samples, but l guess we can trust senile old fools, that do nature doc,s that should have retired years ago, since they are the laughing stock of the 32,000 odd scientists, and 70% of the planet, that know it is BS.

Yes, definitely make this a musical, with a Communist, Russian anthem for openers.

B)

PS Dan Pena is a self made billionaire, so obviously another moron we can ignore.;)

I could find no scientific qualifications for Dan Pena at all.  He is a businessman.  Yes.  He's wealthy - made his money in the wedding business.  Knows nothing at all about climate.  If you want to get rich renting out highland garb to people getting married, then by all means, listen to what he has to say.  But if you want to know why it's getting warmer, he's definitely not your man.

Doug

P.S.:  He has not even made an attempt to find out why scientists think it's getting warmer.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

So, interesting, yes, but I think you'll have to think about the physics a little more.

Read your own Paper! It says right at first they are interested in the 3 - 12 um range, and reading further they are talking about lamps that radiate at between 4 - 20 um (peak 7 - 12 um) which will warm your skin! Any IR at ~ 9.4 um or lower will warm your skin. NOT 15 um that CO2 radiates because your body is hotter than the temperature that corresponds with 15 um, your skin can not absorb that frequency as if it is not even there.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Read your own Paper! It says right at first they are interested in the 3 - 12 um range, and reading further they are talking about lamps that radiate at between 4 - 20 um (peak 7 - 12 um) which will warm your skin! Any IR at ~ 9.4 um or lower will warm your skin. NOT 15 um that CO2 radiates because your body is hotter than the temperature that corresponds with 15 um, your skin can not absorb that frequency as if it is not even there.

You've said a couple times now that the absorption doesn't happen because it's at a higher temperature. Is this some warped misunderstanding of thermodynamics?

But at least you've convinced yourself, I guess. Of course, human bodies are warmer than the atmosphere, so that was a weird example to start.  I look forward to your next weird science misunderstanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You've said a couple times now that the absorption doesn't happen because it's at a higher temperature.

Again, you need to understand the basic physics. A cold object CAN NOT warm a hot object. Here we are talking specifically about radiated heat in the form of infrared EM radiation. CO2 as a molecule with three Atoms bonded together can absorb 15 um EM IR radiation (photons with 15 um wavelength). This is a property of CO2 molecules at any temperature, but other matter that does not absorb 15 um photons then the 15 um photons just pass through or bypass that matter as if these photons were not there at all unless that matter is very cold -199 K then 15 um photons would be absorbed and warm that matter to -199 K. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.