Hans Schreuder(PDF)
Based on UN IPCC dogma and according to this Australian website for children, the greenhouse effect is “caused by gases in our atmosphere (especially water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane). They trap energy from the sun’s light and reflect it back to Earth, so we just keep on getting warmer.”
As Alan Siddons points out: “You might as well believe that your image in a mirror can
burn your face”. It is palpably absurd, and yet it is an accurate depiction of the theory that the IPCC has foisted on the public – a theory that IPCC critics won’t even attack because, presumably, they believe it too.
Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object’s temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss. For instance, a polar bear is a living thermos bottle. Its internal body temperature is much the same as ours. But its surrounding fat and fur are such that – and this is remarkable – a polar bear is virtually invisible to a thermal camera.
Just like coffee in a thermos, you can’t tell how hot the inside of a polar bear is by
looking at it from the outside. But neither does coffee in a thermos get hotter because its heat is trapped. It just retains its temperature for a longer time. Otherwise, both the polar bear and the thermos would self-ignite.
In short, the earth absorbs enough energy from the sun to reach a certain temperature. Since it radiates the same amount, its temperature obviously isn’t raised by carbon dioxide absorbing some infrared – for CO2 simply releases that energy at the same pace, as satellites attest. But even if CO2 did trap thermal energy, as insulation does (creating an emission discrepancy that would be quite observable to satellites), the earth’s temperature could go no higher than what it began with. To repeat, coffee doesn’t get hotter in a thermos.”
(Related – if you haven’t already read Taken By Storm, I strongly recommend you do so. )
Does this mean there’s no such thing as a greenhouse. What about all those winter tomatoes?
Alrighty then, here’s an experiment you can do Kate…
Make sure its a sunny day….today for instance.
Get in your car.
Roll up the Windows.
Tell us if the car is still cool after an hour.
Coffee in a thermos doesn’t get hotter because NO HEAT IS BEING ADDED. But the Earth has heat added because the sun is shining on it.
More CO2 means that more of this heat cannot be re-radiated out. And while this heat is being held back, MORE heat is added.
No wonder CONS on this blog believe the sun is pumping out more heat while simultaneously pumping out less energy.
It’s interesting that Kate and the putz who wrote that article are unfamiliar with the priciples of a greenhouse. But what can one expect from CONservative ideologues.
Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object’s temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.
That statement is very misleading since it only applies to objects with no heat being added (such as a thermos bottle).
If there is a source of heat for the object, then reducing the heat loss will indeed result in an increase in temperature. Essentially, the temperature would rise until the object was again giving off as much heat as it was receiving then it would remain in equilibrium.
As an actual argument against AGW this whole document notably weak.
Regards,
John
If you put cold coffee in a thermos – say less than room temperature – and leave it sitting in the living room, it WILL get warmer, it just takes a long time.
In addition, not all the Earth’s heat is from external sources (ie. the sun), a lot of it is produced WITHING THE EARTH – Coffee doesn’t produce it’s own heat. You put a heater in a thermos of coffee, and it’s definitely going to get hotter. Faster than if it was not in a thermos.
If the atmosphere is the Earth’s thermos, and it’s composition is changing, to be fair we don’t really know what that’s doing. Could be increasing the insulation or decreasing it. The majority of scientists say it’s increasing it.
I can guarantee that the situation is NOT as simple as coffee doesn’t get hotter in a thermos. Coffee and a thermos is a poor substitute for water(salt and fresh)/ice caps/glaciers/atmosphere (all ratios of various gases)/land/trees/you see where I’m going with this right?
Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object – if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.
Think of sleeping under a blanket – is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?
The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets warmer.
For a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html
Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object’s temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.
That statement is very misleading since it only applies to objects with no heat being added (such as a thermos bottle).
If there is a source of heat for the object, then reducing the heat loss will indeed result in an increase in temperature. Essentially, the temperature would rise until the object was again giving off as much heat as it was receiving then it would remain in equilibrium.
As an actual argument against AGW this whole document notably weak.
Regards,
John
I remember reading, I think it was in a paper by Lord Monckton, about an experiment done by a German physicist early in the 20th Century. He made a pair of identical black cavities, and installed thermometers in each. One was glazed over with ordinary glass (which blocks long-wave IR), and the other was glazed with a clear pane of rock salt (which passes long-wave IR freely). He placed the apparatus out in the sunlight, and both cavities warmed to the same temperature. NO significant difference.
The conclusion was that a greenhouse works, NOT by preventing the re-radiation of heat, but by preventing the convection of heated air. Roll down the windows on your parked car, and it cools very rapidly. Leave them down an inch or so when you park, and it never gets that hot to begin with.
This would be a very easy experiment for a kid to duplicate for a science fair experiment, BTW. Of course, it might not be a winner, because it might yield politically-incorrect results.
put coffee in the thermo,measure the temperature 6 hours later
now increase the insulation ,add the coffee again the next day ,read the temp 6 hours later.
it will be higher..
Im on your side of GW ,but the posted example of the thermos is just plain wrong..
I would agree that the article is ludicrous – it has holes big enough to fly Al Gore’s private jet through.
…However, one thing that I’ve never had explained to me properly is – If the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causing the earth to heat up (because it’s preventing this same heat from escaping the earth again), why is this increased amount of CO2 not reflecting more solar radiation (away from the earth) in the first place and preventing this heat from ever reaching the ground?
I only dimly remember the “global cooling” scare of the 70’s, but didn’t it use the same premise? (the earth was freezing because all the pollution (including CO2) was reflecting back sunlight)
“Flaiming Polar Bears”: Good name for a rock band, eh!
What is more interesting is what happens as the temperatures warms due to CO2 and other stresses. All plants and animals have evolved coping mechanisms – sweat, stomatas etc. Obviously the Earth must also have developed its own processes to regulate temperature. After all, both CO2 and temperatures have been significantly higher and lower in past eras. The very fact that temperatures are now “taking a breather” despite increases in human CO2 would indicate that there are many other factors and/or counterbalances that are not fully understood.
why is this increased amount of CO2 not reflecting more solar radiation (away from the earth) in the first place and preventing this heat from ever reaching the ground?
Because of the relative wavelengths of light. CO2 is transparent to most of the incoming visible light, which is what heats the ground. The light (infrared) re-radiated from the ground is what CO2 can absorb and re-emit. More CO2 means more infrared light intercepted by the atmosphere and trapped.
If you want to block incoming light, it’s sulfer compounds in the atmosphere that do that, but the resulting acid rain is a problem.
Jim: If the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causing the earth to heat up (because it’s preventing this same heat from escaping the earth again), why is this increased amount of CO2 not reflecting more solar radiation (away from the earth) in the first place and preventing this heat from ever reaching the ground?
Because there is a change of frequencies involved. The radiation transmitted to the earth has most of its energy in the form of visible light (i.e. the maximum solar output is in the visible range). However the earth emits most of its energy in the IR spectrum. At the concentrations involved, CO2 is transparent to visible but not to IR.
Regards,
John
What does it matter if the global warming sience is wrong?
If they’re right we’ve done something to stave off the carbon problem for awhile.
If they’re wrong we have invested in things like wind, solar, hybrid vehicles and other energy saving attitudes.
Is that a bad thing?
I am a skeptic, not a denier. There is little doubt that the earth would be much cooler were there no CO2 or methane in the atmosphere. The real argument, which engages both mainstream skeptics, and actual climatologists, who are interested in the physical world, and not rhetoric and politics, and which is very much an open question, is “how much?”
As the evidence comes in, the answer more and more looks like “not all that much” since your fellow Canadia Steve McIntyre pointed out that measurements of sea temps from teh sixties were too cool, this, ironically means that the accelerated warming that had the warmy’s panties in a bunch was in fact overstated.
The fact that a microscopic drop in solar output co-incides with recent, well documented, cooling of the oceans suggests that the CO2 effect is small, but to argue that it is non-existent is just ridiculous.
that should read “science” dummy
Gerry there’s a host of things wrong with this. Here’s just a few:
“What does it matter if the global warming science is wrong? If they’re right we’ve done something to stave off the carbon problem for awhile.”
Even if they are right, the Copenhagen Consensus papers show that it is wasted effort given the more urgent priorities we have for limited funding.
“If they’re wrong we have invested in things like wind, solar, hybrid vehicles and other energy saving attitudes.
Is that a bad thing?”
Yes, because none of these things are economic on their own, and all serve to simply increase the cost of energy and hence increase energy shortage and hence poverty.
What’s worse, there is strong reason to suspect that the motives behind the AGW advocates are not honest. Namely that what they really want is an end to modern industrial society, something they’ve been campaigning for in various guises for close to two centuries. With AGW, they think they’ve finally got a big enough scarecrow to get the public to listen to them. Hence, the cooking up of a dubious theory with little fundamental science behind it and a lot of bogus but impressive looking computer generated hallucinations constituting not science but propaganda. In short, it’s just another chapter in Voltaire vs. Rousseau.
The question is not “is there a greenhouse effect” because we know there is one. You take a quick look at Mars and Venus, you can see the greenhouse effect bigtime. Mars doesn’t have one, Venus does. Earth has one as well. CO2 is a component of it. These are givens, what a Conservative like myself calls a “fact”.
Question is, which has not been well answered at all in my estimation, HOW MUCH effect does human generated CO2 have on the climate? Is it enough to warm the planet by 2 degrees in a hundred years? Is it enough to warm the planet even a little bit? Or is it a drop in the ocean and will have zero measurable effect?
To date I remain unconvinced by the Global Warmers, they don’t seem like serious people and their measurements are crap.
That ok with you, Murray?
A while back the propagandists for the warmies spent a considerable effort to produce a “refutation” of the greenhouse effect and tried to diseminate it in the blogosphere so that they could then crow over all of the people who fell for the hoax. Nobody bit beyond a few commenters on climate sites, some of whom may well have been trying to spread the hoax to help the cause, but this link is a waste of time and, in the words of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, serves only to bring ridicule on climate skeptics. It is hard enough to argue with these people without stuff like this out there.
Phantom, you have good reason to be skeptical. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly at saturation, because nearly all of the frequencies of insolation which can be absorbed by CO2 are being absorbed and reradiated by CO2 as infrared. Because of this near-saturation effect, each increment of CO2 has less impact than the previous one.
CO2 only has a significant effect if CO2 creates a positive feedback in the atmosphere for other greenhouse gases which are not at saturation, such as water vapour. However, other than computer simulations, there is no such evidence that such positive feedbacks exist. IPCC AR4 depends upon the existence of these positive feedbacks for all of its models.
Finally, any increase in the earth’s temperature must be reflected in an increase in temperature of the upper troposphere. Despite the claims made by Hansen, Jones et.al. no such increase in tropospheric temperatures has taken place.
Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object – if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.
Think of sleeping under a blanket – is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?
The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets warmer.
For a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html
“In short, it’s just another chapter in Voltaire vs. Rousseau.”
I’ll take Rousseau’s Tommy Douglas over Voltaire’s George Bush any day.
From a mechanical engineering perspective, this article has a great deal of drastic oversimplification, as do the arguments against it.
In general, if the rate of heat loss of a body is reduced, and the rate of heat addition is held constant, then the temperature of the body will increase.
This increase will usually result in a reduction of heat input, and an increase of heat output, using the classic three mechanism of convection, conduction, and radiation. At a certain point, heat goes in as fast as heat goes out, and the temperature stops changing.
In the example given, the heat loss is reduced with insulation while heat generation is held constant. The temperature will then increase until the heat loss is stabilized with the heat input. Most of the examples cited ignore the underlying assumptions: constant heat generation, variable heat loss with temperature, variable resistance to heat loss, variable resistance to heat input.
It isn’t simple. Even incredibly simple theoretical arrangments can be computationally difficult, never mind real world problems. The climate modellers claim to be able to do what they do … resists explanation.
Phantom, you have good reason to be skeptical. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly at saturation, because nearly all of the frequencies of insolation which can be absorbed by CO2 are being absorbed and reradiated by CO2 as infrared. Because of this near-saturation effect, each increment of CO2 has less impact than the previous one.
Interesting this…considering it was explained to you that CO2 is transparent to visible light (allowing it to come through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the ground), but absorbs infrared light (which the ground emits). More CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared absorbed as its radiated from the ground and prevented from radiating out to space.
And what does “CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly at saturation” mean anyway? Does this mean that so much CO2 has built up it will start condensing out, like water does? Is there an innate atmospheric carrying capacity that will not allow the atmosphere to carry more CO2?
Are you implying that we can pull coal and carbon out of the ground and burn it with impunity and not put more CO2 into the atmosphere because its “saturated”?
By the way, the atmosphere can get saturated with water. That’s what 100% humidity refers to.
Murray Rennie:
“…More CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared absorbed as its radiated from the ground and prevented from radiating out to space….”
Not true, at least in the simple sense that it appears you assume it works. The atmosphere is saturated in certain wavelengths that CO2 adsorbs and adding more CO2 only moves the probable capture point a bit lower for these wavelengths.
There are other considerations, however, such as broadening the capture spectrum of CO2 by adding more CO2, but as correctly noted by cgh, this is a diminishing returns relationship whereby each increment of CO2 broadens the band by smaller and smaller increments.
Regards, BRK
Heat flows from hot to cold. An insulating device, such as a Thermos, simply slows this down. When the respective temperatures become equal, heat flow stops.
A polar bear trapped inside a thermos bottle, so to speak, would eventually overheat and expire. This is because the polar bear, itself, is a heat source and the extra layer of insulation would trap this heat, thereby raising its temperature. But not, dare I suggest, to the point of self-igniting 🙂
Mr. Schreuder: Tsk, tsk.
There is a huge error in the first graphic at the link. Solar insolation is 1360 watts per square meter, not 343. It doesn’t change the overall conclusions (the results would be proportional), but an error like that gives ammunition to those who would discredit the results.
This entire war on global warming is not about weather, temperature, gases, polar bears or anything of that stuff. It’s about the protection money they want us to pay.
What that money can possibly do other than impoverish us is beyond explanation but that is why we need to get some ‘splainin’ done. The sun in my sky has no financial problems. What really is the money for?
I think we know what happens to the money, who gets it and how none of it will do anything about saving us from … well having to see polar bears drown, then we will be on the right track. We need to concentrate on the money!!!!
To continue to argue the science is a waste of time. They (the climate brokers and their loons) simply won’t accept facts, evidence or proof of any kind that they are wrong. They are after the wealth and destruction of the Western economies. So is Islam with their oil prices and stupid archaic religion. For that matter, so is Barrack Hussein Obama and his down-trodden, self-pitying gang of under achieving Negroes.
Our only chance is to stop with the Mr. Nice guy routine and start refusing to pay up. Stop feeling sorry for the alleged down-trodden or should we say less-motivated peoples of the world. Stop caring about a climate that we simply cannot control any more than we can control the activities of the sun or the ocean currents or the cloud formations.
We have a right to enjoy the successes of our efforts. While the rest of the world continued down the path of failure, violence, totalitarianism, communism and socialism we were smarter. We were more peaceful, cooperative and hard working. Why can’t we have what we earned and enjoy our lives without having to continually deal with the global muggers and the climate freaks.
They should all be in China where the real pollution is taking hold. We are already working on fixing ours with better technology, not forced sacrifice. China’s pollution will dwarf the USA’s. They have already passed the US in output of green house gases and other real toxic shit. Go and bug them for a generation or two and see where that gets ya.
My understanding is that CO2 absorbs infrared energy radiated from the earth and transfers this energy to the atmosphere through kinetic impacts. Very little of this energy gets re-radiated back to the earth..
As for the water vapour positive feedback caused by AGW? It has to be compared to the negative feedback caused by clouds and rainfall.When the negative is added to the possitive we find that what was first seen as a problem is no longer a problem. Upon looking deeper, that problem, increasing CO2, begins to look like the solution. If plants produce more food with increasing CO2, and we are concerned about people dieing of starvation then we need to work to produce more CO2.
“They are after the wealth and destruction of the Western economies. So is Islam with their oil prices and stupid archaic religion. For that matter, so is Barrack Hussein Obama and his down-trodden, self-pitying gang of under achieving Negroes.”
I am curious about the venomous debate on this blog in regards to global warming. It seems this statement may reveal a thinly disguised hatred haboured by some posters. Is there more to this than disliking solar panels?
When’s the next clan meeting?
Now, what would happen if you stuffed the polar bear into the Thermos? I bet that the coffee would get warmer.
And what would happen if you stuffed the Thermos into the polar bear? I bet that the polar bear would get slightly warmer, as by eating you it would be adding your body heat to its own.
Nice try at misdirection Mr Hawke. Islam IS trying to bring us down, and Obama DOES draw a huge percentage of his support from blacks who believe that their lack of advancement has nothing to do with their own efforts or lack thereof.
And now your comment-
“I’ll take Rousseau’s Tommy Douglas over Voltaire’s George Bush any day.
Do you mean the same Tommy Douglas that advocated eugenics? Funny, but I don’t recall Bush advocating forced sterilization and sequestering of those he thought to be inferior. Some hero you’ve got there Mr Hawke!
The global warming “save the planet” campaign is communism under a different name.
again a lot of speculation on incomplete science. tim in vermont, we would be quite dead without co2 in the atmosphere. no amount of co2 will increase the temp of the planet. stop thinking you are gods and have the ability to destroy the planet. we can make it dirty and kill each other of but when all is said and done the planet will still be here. at some point, millions maybe billions of years from now, the planet will be a cold, dead, dry rock. or a super nova will occur and wipe everything in this part of the universe away.
Leftists in Fort Mac claim taking crude oil from the surface soil is an environmental crime, leftists here claim spilling the same crude oil on the surface soil is an environmental crime.
Leftists think CO2 sequestration is the salvation of the planet while simultaneously claiming water sequestration requests from BigOil(if the form of water/polymer flooding) the impending destruction of mankind.
Leftists cry about the carbon dioxide BigOil puts into the environment, but say absolutely zero about the hydrogen dioxide BigOil simultaneously puts into the environment(hydrogen dioxide has a much higher specific capacity for everyone that that never bothered to learn anything in 9th grade chemistry class(which most leftists seems to have done)).
The point of the comment is that leftist hypocrisy simply has no bounds or equal…
Until I hear serious talk about developing non-fossil fuel technologies, with a real plan rather than capitalist bashing of feel goodism, I’m not interested in government collecting one more cent from me. No amount of conservation here in Canada or in Europe or US will make a bit of difference, regardless of one’s AGW views, as long as China and India continue to increase their output.
What is it about this that Stephan Dion does not want to understand?
Ed @ 4.18pm – sorry, the argument is bs, regardless of the number. Schreuder does not know what he is talking about. The dynamics do matter.
Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object – if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.
Think of sleeping under a blanket – is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?
The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets warmer.
For a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html
Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object – if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.
Think of sleeping under a blanket – is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?
The analogy of coffee in a thermos is incorrect because it leaves out the heat source. Think rather of a pot on the stove with the heat turned on: what boils faster, a pot with a lid or a pot with the lid off?
If you’ve done any cooking you know that the covered pot comes to a boil faster and boils more furiously. This is because with greater insulation, the substance in the pot is actually hotter.
The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets hotter.
And for a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html.
How much of global warming denial is all about anger and not at all about science?
Ken,
There is a lot of anger out there because of overly simplistic arguments like your own. Sure, CO2 absorbs LW IR. The amount it absorbs is dependent on a lot of factors however, for instance a colision of molecules (three body process) is required for some frequencies, and these colisions are less common in cold temps. And the direct impact of CO2 doubling is not large. The high predictions of climate sensitivity come from feedback effects that have been theorized, but not proven, and which have not been observed.
Your simple analogy of a blanket cannot possibly be extended to a chaotic system like the planet. For example, when CO2 heats air and it rises, the convection short cuts the IR slowdown that CO2 creates. What if the increased convection causes more cloud formation? Don’t try and tell me that cloud formation is understood in terms of the climate models, because it is not. Perhaps the reason the warming is not what is predicted is that increases in cloudiness are increasingly reflecting sunlight away from the surface? You don’t know the answer to this, nor does RealClimate or any other propaganda site you might refer to.
So please take your inapplicable sixth grade thermodynamics and ….
Murray Rennie, you are talking of a real greenhouse effect, where air is not allowed to circulate, essentially halting cooling by convection.
The planet Earth cools by radiation into space. If more energy is absorbed by the Earth, mostly from teh Sun, then the temperature of the earth wil;l rise by the quarter power (^^1/4) until the increased radiation (Stephan-Botlzmann) balances the incoming energy. Note I say “absorbed” as the planet’s albedo causes much of teh received energy to be reflected.
Nothing we can do on the planet’s surface can heat the planet perceptively.
At most, increases in CO2 might, and note the italics, cause a minor redsitribution of thermal patterns.
AGW is a HOAX! A SCAM!
CO2 is not pollution.
CO2 makes trees and plants grow; it is a fertilizer.
CO2 makes the world greener.
If the planet warmed 5 Centigrade, it would be good. All those northern landmasses (Canada Russia) would support teaming life and the Sahara would become green again.
If only AGW were true, we would have the power to make the planet more verdant
When’s the next clan meeting?
Posted by: Gerry Hawke at 4:47 PM
at my place on the 18th, jackass!!!!
“When’s the next clan meeting?
Posted by: Gerry Hawke at 4:47 PM
at my place on the 18th, jackass!!!!”
Cool. Should I bring a fruit salad?
“In general, if the rate of heat loss of a body is reduced, and the rate of heat addition is held constant, then the temperature of the body will increase.”
OK, let’s apply this to my 30 year old house. It is constructed of 2×4 walls with R-12 insulation. If I were to wrap my house in Styrofoam SM and increase it’s insulating value to say R-20 or R-30 it would slow down the rate of heat loss, absolutely. But the only way the inside temperature would increase is if my furnace wasn’t thermostatically controlled, hence the ‘addition of heat’ mentioned above. Frankly the whole statement is quite basic and a moot point really.
The thermos story is really a case of apples and oranges. It’s vacuum sealed, where the earth is not. The heat source is within the thermos itself, not from the outside (the sun).
Incidentally, I had the chance to wrap my house in Styrofoam last year when I had it re-sided. I declined because any energy saving payback on doing this would be decades down the road. Sure my monthly bill would be slightly lower, but the initial cash outlay is a little ridiculous. Same reason I didn’t spring for the extra $2000.00 it would have cost for a super high efficeinet furnace 4 years ago. I opted for a ‘high mid-efficient’, considering half the natural gas bill is service and administrative charges anyway. Payback is a b!tch!
Likewise with Kyoto. Why should Canada,who contributes only 2% to this ficticous phenomenon risk iminent bankruptcy for something that will do little more than make a handful of liberal arts majors feel good about ‘doing their part to save mommy earth?’
Kyoto is nothing more than the Pet Rock of the new millenium. Think P.T Barnum and K-Tel snake oil boy Ron Popiel folks.
This is a personal message for Gerry Hawke.
Gerry, I have known you for quite a few years. In that time, I believe the only thing I have ever shown you and Pat is generosity. Nor do I recall ever being impolite or insulting in you home.
This does not seem to be enough to satisfy you.
You come to my private property, and you behave like an arrogant, idiotic jerk. You throw around slurs and insult me.
What kind of person behaves like that?
Look hard into the mirror when you ask.
“you behave like an arrogant, idiotic jerk. You throw around slurs and insult me.”
The lady of hate shows herself.
“Gerry, I have known you for quite a few years. In that time, I believe the only thing I have ever shown you and Pat is generosity”
ban me so I don’t have to read this crap.
“So is Islam with their oil prices and stupid archaic religion [islam is younger than christianity]. For that matter, so is Barrack Hussein Obama and his down-trodden, self-pitying gang of under achieving Negroes.”
You people sadden and scare me.
Tim at 07:33: “Sure, CO2 absorbs LW IR. The amount it absorbs is dependent on a lot of factors however, for instance a colision of molecules (three body process) is required for some frequencies, and these colisions are less common in cold temps. And the direct impact of CO2 doubling is not large. The high predictions of climate sensitivity come from feedback effects that have been theorized, but not proven, and which have not been observed.”
Just going back to my high school physics, does this “collision of molecules” not depend on normal pressure and density of the gas (CO2)? (thats why; “these colisions are less common in cold temps”: no?)
Does the CO2 in the atmosphere not molecularly disperse with the dozen or so other gases?
It seems to me “theorized, but not proven” takes a whole new meaning here? Only in the LAB you say?
I think Kate should do a little herd thinin’, but this is her house.