Har Har Har Global warming crap

[Tero]

It does not have to emit anything.

Coke bottle link in previous post.


If I failed to explain it, here it is in someone else's words. The CO2 does not always emit, it can keep it as kinetic energy
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/ ... armA5.html

[Tero]

So for those bored with the topic, watch the cool black lady explain in her Brit English. I'm sure it's her native English. I only have trouble with mee-thane, really. I would do this experiment if I taught high school, definitely.

[mistermack]

I've never read up on the mechanism for CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas, as it's a well established fact. However,

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it is transparent to visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed.[36]

Which is what is generally given as the main mechanism in most sources. If the carbon dioxide is re-emitting the infra-red, then it's not giving up the energy as heat too readily to the nitrogen and oxygen.

The coke bottle demonstration is a bit suspect, the way that they do it. Why have water in the bottles, when we know that water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas? Those bubbles of carbon dioxide must also be increasing the humidity.
I'm sure it would still work without water, but it's not a great experiment, as it is.

[mistermack]

She's making water vapour too. Same flaw.
It probably has just a tiny effect, but it's not a good principle. Dry CO2 would be more scientific.

[Thinking Aloud]

[Tero]

She's making water vapour too. Same flaw.
It probably has just a tiny effect, but it's not a good principle. Dry CO2 would be more scientific.

It's a fine experiment to show what light does. Light and CO2 make life for mammals possible. Most people do not undestand this. They think warm at day time and cold at night is all there is to the sun warming us.

TA: needs more boobs.

[Thinking Aloud]

TA needs more boobs.

I agree.

Oh. You mean the image. Yes - I just stole it from Facebook.

[macdoc]

've never read up on the mechanism for CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas, as it's a well established fact.

will wonders never cease.

The water vapour is a magnifier and enhances the warming by C02 which on it's own is relatively small compared to others like methane or water vapor.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/environmen ... eally-play

The bite in C02 as a driver is it is cumulative.

Water vapour drops out within hours or days at most.
Methane tho 20x more potent drops out in a decade or so.

Carbon is forever...in human terms.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812 ... 8.122.html

So we already have altered the climate going forward at least 3,000 years even with the countering action of the Milankovich positioning taken into account.

Welcome to water world tho it will take a while....meanwhile the while is shortening.

[Seth]

So we already have altered the climate going forward at least 3,000 years even with the countering action of the Milankovich positioning taken into account.

Welcome to water world tho it will take a while....meanwhile the while is shortening.

So what's the big rush and panic about? Maximum sea-level rise possible is something like 20 meters, right? Big deal. Who cares? Don't live near the ocean about 200 years from now, when it will actually have happened. We certainly don't need to be rushing into economy-destroying panic responses over something that's going to take more than a century to develop.

If you're too stupid or lazy to move inland and up a few centimeters a decade then you deserve to drown...which won't happen because you'll die of old age first.

Adapt or die.

[piscator]

Adapt or die.

Shame you couldn't apply that little bit of wisdom to your flood insurance conundrum.


BTW, what was the deductible on your "Allstate flood insurance"?
I'm guessing it was $500k, which just so happens to be the NFIP max for a non-commercial claim.

[Animavore]

Adapt or die.

You mean adapt by moving off of fossil fuels and on to greener energies and preventing possible destruction?

Sure.

[Seth]

Adapt or die.

You mean adapt by moving off of fossil fuels and on to greener energies and preventing possible destruction?

Sure.

Right. No hurry though. Let's use up all the fossil fuels first, since we have the technology and infrastructure to extract, process and distribute it already. We can take the next 200 years to build safe nuke plants, tidal generators, dam all the rivers for hydropower, and carpet the Southwest with solar cells.

We don't need to do a damned thing right now, or in the next 25 years except study, plan, research and develop long-term solutions.

Then when the fossil fuels run out (which is highly unlikely in the next 2000 years) we'll be ready for the switch with minimal economic and social disruption.

Don't Panic! And don't forget to bring your towel and your guide.

[Animavore]

Adapt or die.

You mean adapt by moving off of fossil fuels and on to greener energies and preventing possible destruction?

Sure.

Right. No hurry though. Let's use up all the fossil fuels first, since we have the technology and infrastructure to extract, process and distribute it already. We can take the next 200 years to build safe nuke plants, tidal generators, dam all the rivers for hydropower, and carpet the Southwest with solar cells.

We don't need to do a damned thing right now, or in the next 25 years except study, plan, research and develop long-term solutions.

Then when the fossil fuels run out (which is highly unlikely in the next 2000 years) we'll be ready for the switch with minimal economic and social disruption.

Don't Panic! And don't forget to bring your towel and your guide.

I don't really have a problem with that except I'm not sure why using all the fossil fuels first should be part of the plan. It need only be used for as long as we need it.

ETA: That to me is like an early 20th century rail company saying they should use all the coal first before moving to diesel.

[Seth]

Adapt or die.

You mean adapt by moving off of fossil fuels and on to greener energies and preventing possible destruction?

Sure.

Right. No hurry though. Let's use up all the fossil fuels first, since we have the technology and infrastructure to extract, process and distribute it already. We can take the next 200 years to build safe nuke plants, tidal generators, dam all the rivers for hydropower, and carpet the Southwest with solar cells.

We don't need to do a damned thing right now, or in the next 25 years except study, plan, research and develop long-term solutions.

Then when the fossil fuels run out (which is highly unlikely in the next 2000 years) we'll be ready for the switch with minimal economic and social disruption.

Don't Panic! And don't forget to bring your towel and your guide.

I don't really have a problem with that except I'm not sure why using all the fossil fuels first should be part of the plan. It need only be used for as long as we need it.

The longer we use it, the less impactful the costs of the new system. The time value of money. Sure, if the new stuff comes on line early, then bank what's left for emergencies.

ETA: That to me is like an early 20th century rail company saying they should use all the coal first before moving to diesel.

Well, the idea is that if we use up ALL the fossil fuels, then we have no choice but "alternative" energy sources do we? Great motivation that.

Unfortunately, every time some ecoweenie whines about "peak oil" somebody discovers a vast new oil field somewhere on the 70 percent of the planet that hasn't been drilled yet.

Dang, that's really inconvenient for them isn't it?

[Animavore]

Well, the idea is that if we use up ALL the fossil fuels, then we have no choice but "alternative" energy sources do we? Great motivation that.

Of course if green alternatives become increasingly viable and cost productive and demand increases people might stop using fossil fuels long before that.

That's capitalism