http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

This is about right

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

(05-27-2016 01:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is about right

Yep!

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

One just has to look at an apple to know that fruit is red. That's hardly bizarre.

(05-27-2016 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

One just has to look at an apple to know that fruit is red. That's hardly bizarre.

That's not an appropriate analogy.

(05-27-2016 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is about right

Yep!

What?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-27-2016 01:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

One just has to look at an apple to know that fruit is red. That's hardly bizarre.

That's not an appropriate analogy.

It sure is... you're comparing two different planets one of which is an extreme situation one is not. You do know that atmospheric CO2 on Mars is almost as high as Venus as a % of the atmosphere right?

Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

(05-27-2016 01:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

One just has to look at an apple to know that fruit is red. That's hardly bizarre.

That's not an appropriate analogy.

It sure is... you're comparing two different planets one of which is an extreme situation one is not. You do know that atmospheric CO2 on Mars is almost as high as Venus as a % of the atmosphere right?

Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying. And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric make up of Mars and Venus are. And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct? Or are you questioning that too?

(05-27-2016 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying.

What else could he have meant? Earths Atmosphere is 0.039% CO2 and that is exactly what the narrative of the climate alarmists. It's why we must "curb fossil fuel use" and "reduce our carbon footprints"

It's why people like Nye and Gore puke the phrase "the science is settled" all the dang time. This is all despite the fact that the last time Earth's CO2 was "this high" the oceans, skies, and lands were teaming with life.

If they had one ounce of scientific curiosity on this issue they would not seek to stifle debate. They would not try to convince scientifically ignorant people that Venus is a template of Earth.

Quote:And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric makeup of Mars and Venus are.

I'm impressed then, because I had to look up Mars. I know it was higher than earth but not that it was as high as Venus.

Quote:And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct?

So is water vapor. And, by the way, water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02 and there is a shaq load more of it in the atmosphere.

Ozone also has greenhouse properties and we were dying to save that (rightfully so) 20 years ago.

Quote:Or are you questioning that too?

Right... pointing out that "look at venus" is as logically sound as "you forgot Poland" is questioning the physical properties of C02.

(05-27-2016 02:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying.

What else could he have meant? Earths Atmosphere is 0.039% CO2 and that is exactly what the narrative of the climate alarmists. It's why we must "curb fossil fuel use" and "reduce our carbon footprints"

It's why people like Nye and Gore puke the phrase "the science is settled" all the dang time. This is all despite the fact that the last time Earth's CO2 was "this high" the oceans, skies, and lands were teaming with life.

If they had one ounce of scientific curiosity on this issue they would not seek to stifle debate. They would not try to convince scientifically ignorant people that Venus is a template of Earth.

Quote:And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric makeup of Mars and Venus are.

I'm impressed then, because I had to look up Mars. I know it was higher than earth but not that it was as high as Venus.

Quote:And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct?

So is water vapor. And, by the way, water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02 and there is a shaq load more of it in the atmosphere.

Ozone also has greenhouse properties and we were dying to save that (rightfully so) 20 years ago.

Quote:Or are you questioning that too?

Right... pointing out that "look at venus" is as logically sound as "you forgot Poland" is questioning the physical properties of C02.

1) Venus is much farther from the sun than Mercury
2) Venus is hotter than the hottest part of Mercury
3) Venus doesn't have another heat source such as volcanism to warm it
4) Venus's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2
5) Mercury doesn't have a significant atmosphere

And water vapor is not as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, per molecule.

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

I didnt know we had found signs of life and cars in Venus...

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

Yet those A holes on Venus keep buying record numbers of SUV's and setting their thermostats below 876 degrees F.

Al Gore has yet to sell them a single carbon credit. They won't even take his calls anymore.

#SaveVenus

(05-27-2016 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying.

What else could he have meant? Earths Atmosphere is 0.039% CO2 and that is exactly what the narrative of the climate alarmists. It's why we must "curb fossil fuel use" and "reduce our carbon footprints"

It's why people like Nye and Gore puke the phrase "the science is settled" all the dang time. This is all despite the fact that the last time Earth's CO2 was "this high" the oceans, skies, and lands were teaming with life.

If they had one ounce of scientific curiosity on this issue they would not seek to stifle debate. They would not try to convince scientifically ignorant people that Venus is a template of Earth.

Quote:And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric makeup of Mars and Venus are.

I'm impressed then, because I had to look up Mars. I know it was higher than earth but not that it was as high as Venus.

Quote:And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct?

So is water vapor. And, by the way, water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02 and there is a shaq load more of it in the atmosphere.

Ozone also has greenhouse properties and we were dying to save that (rightfully so) 20 years ago.

Quote:Or are you questioning that too?

Right... pointing out that "look at venus" is as logically sound as "you forgot Poland" is questioning the physical properties of C02.

1) Venus is much farther from the sun than Mercury
2) Venus is hotter than the hottest part of Mercury
3) Venus doesn't have another heat source such as volcanism to warm it
4) Venus's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2
5) Mercury doesn't have a significant atmosphere

And water vapor is not as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, per molecule.

Appels and oranges are both fruits... You just compared a planet with no atmosphere at all (mercury) with a planet who's atmosphere is 90 times more dense than Earth's.

Earth 1,000mb which is 133 times more dense than Mars
Venus 91,170 which is 90 times more dense than Earth

1) The Earth has had far higher concentrations of CO2 In the Past than Today
2) There were no people, cars, or factories back when there were higher concentrations of CO2 In the Past than Today
3) While we are able to examine CO2 concentrations from the past we do not have a geological record of solar activity in the past
4) Earth's Atmosphere is far thinner than that of Venus and our C02 PPM is minuscule.
5) If you shaded Venus so that the amount of solar radiation it received was about the same as earth liquid oceans would begin to form.

(05-27-2016 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying.

What else could he have meant? Earths Atmosphere is 0.039% CO2 and that is exactly what the narrative of the climate alarmists. It's why we must "curb fossil fuel use" and "reduce our carbon footprints"

It's why people like Nye and Gore puke the phrase "the science is settled" all the dang time. This is all despite the fact that the last time Earth's CO2 was "this high" the oceans, skies, and lands were teaming with life.

If they had one ounce of scientific curiosity on this issue they would not seek to stifle debate. They would not try to convince scientifically ignorant people that Venus is a template of Earth.

Quote:And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric makeup of Mars and Venus are.

I'm impressed then, because I had to look up Mars. I know it was higher than earth but not that it was as high as Venus.

Quote:And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct?

So is water vapor. And, by the way, water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02 and there is a shaq load more of it in the atmosphere.

Ozone also has greenhouse properties and we were dying to save that (rightfully so) 20 years ago.

Quote:Or are you questioning that too?

Right... pointing out that "look at venus" is as logically sound as "you forgot Poland" is questioning the physical properties of C02.

1) Venus is much farther from the sun than Mercury
2) Venus is hotter than the hottest part of Mercury
3) Venus doesn't have another heat source such as volcanism to warm it
4) Venus's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2
5) Mercury doesn't have a significant atmosphere

And water vapor is not as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, per molecule.

You can tell an agenda of talking points; because they dont handle the scrutiny of science.

The reason Venus traps the heat is not because of carbon dioxide, but due to the amount of atmosphere it has. Venus has nearly 100 times more atmospheric pressure than Earth. Its also the reason why Mars isnt sitting at 200 degrees F, even though its atmosphere ratio of CO2 mimics that of Venus.

So, if Earth's atmosphere suddenly jumped to 97% CO2, and the amount of atmospheric pressure multiplied by 90, then we would have an atmosphere like Venus and it would get damned hot. It wouldnt matter though, the pressure of the atmosphere would crush you into a pulp.

The earth has suffered through several supervolcano eruptions, which dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than an eons worth of CO2 emission from man, and yet we still dont have Venus here on Earth.

By the way, did the poles melt in 2012?

(05-27-2016 04:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying.

What else could he have meant? Earths Atmosphere is 0.039% CO2 and that is exactly what the narrative of the climate alarmists. It's why we must "curb fossil fuel use" and "reduce our carbon footprints"

It's why people like Nye and Gore puke the phrase "the science is settled" all the dang time. This is all despite the fact that the last time Earth's CO2 was "this high" the oceans, skies, and lands were teaming with life.

If they had one ounce of scientific curiosity on this issue they would not seek to stifle debate. They would not try to convince scientifically ignorant people that Venus is a template of Earth.

Quote:And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric makeup of Mars and Venus are.

I'm impressed then, because I had to look up Mars. I know it was higher than earth but not that it was as high as Venus.

Quote:And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct?

So is water vapor. And, by the way, water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02 and there is a shaq load more of it in the atmosphere.

Ozone also has greenhouse properties and we were dying to save that (rightfully so) 20 years ago.

Quote:Or are you questioning that too?

Right... pointing out that "look at venus" is as logically sound as "you forgot Poland" is questioning the physical properties of C02.

1) Venus is much farther from the sun than Mercury
2) Venus is hotter than the hottest part of Mercury
3) Venus doesn't have another heat source such as volcanism to warm it
4) Venus's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2
5) Mercury doesn't have a significant atmosphere

And water vapor is not as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, per molecule.

You can tell an agenda of talking points; because they dont handle the scrutiny of science.

The reason Venus traps the heat is not because of carbon dioxide, but due to the amount of atmosphere it has. Venus has nearly 100 times more atmospheric pressure than Earth. Its also the reason why Mars isnt sitting at 200 degrees F, even though its atmosphere ratio of CO2 mimics that of Venus.

So, if Earth's atmosphere suddenly jumped to 97% CO2, and the amount of atmospheric pressure multiplied by 90, then we would have an atmosphere like Venus and it would get damned hot. It wouldnt matter though, the pressure of the atmosphere would crush you into a pulp.

The earth has suffered through several supervolcano eruptions, which dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than an eons worth of CO2 emission from man, and yet we still dont have Venus here on Earth.

By the way, did the poles melt in 2012?

Talking points? I have no agenda. I would rather global warming not be true.

For Venus, it's both. A lot of atmosphere without greenhouse gases isn't going to make Venus hot. You'd still have the ungodly pressures though.

Everybody keeps trying to tell me about Venus and Mars. I have been into astronomy for a long time. I've viewed them through telescopes, I've read about them, etc. I know about them already.

And Mars has hardly any atmosphere, less than 1% of Earth's. It doesn't matter what it's made of, there isn't enough of it to warm Mars. I think your scrutiny doesn't measure up to that of science.

It's unlikely, probably impossible, to end up with an atmosphere like Venus's from what I've read. But you wouldn't need anywhere near that much CO2 to make it at least too hot to live comfortably. After all, the Earth already has water vapor, the CO2 is just an additional greenhouse gas, along with the other GHGs.

And just because the Earth had conditions at one time that would have made human life difficult or impossible, doesn't mean it's okay to bring it on ourselves through our own actions when it wouldn't happen otherwise.

I think we will have to pick this up some other time as I don't suspect I'll be on line much this weekend. So have a good weekend, don't drink too much (unless you want to drink too much).

(05-27-2016 04:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Venus has an atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5% nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases.

Mars has an atmosphere made of Carbon dioxide: 95% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 2.3% other gases

If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying.

What else could he have meant? Earths Atmosphere is 0.039% CO2 and that is exactly what the narrative of the climate alarmists. It's why we must "curb fossil fuel use" and "reduce our carbon footprints"

It's why people like Nye and Gore puke the phrase "the science is settled" all the dang time. This is all despite the fact that the last time Earth's CO2 was "this high" the oceans, skies, and lands were teaming with life.

If they had one ounce of scientific curiosity on this issue they would not seek to stifle debate. They would not try to convince scientifically ignorant people that Venus is a template of Earth.

Quote:And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric makeup of Mars and Venus are.

I'm impressed then, because I had to look up Mars. I know it was higher than earth but not that it was as high as Venus.

Quote:And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct?

So is water vapor. And, by the way, water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02 and there is a shaq load more of it in the atmosphere.

Ozone also has greenhouse properties and we were dying to save that (rightfully so) 20 years ago.

Quote:Or are you questioning that too?

Right... pointing out that "look at venus" is as logically sound as "you forgot Poland" is questioning the physical properties of C02.

1) Venus is much farther from the sun than Mercury
2) Venus is hotter than the hottest part of Mercury
3) Venus doesn't have another heat source such as volcanism to warm it
4) Venus's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2
5) Mercury doesn't have a significant atmosphere

And water vapor is not as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, per molecule.

Appels and oranges are both fruits... You just compared a planet with no atmosphere at all (mercury) with a planet who's atmosphere is 90 times more dense than Earth's.

Earth 1,000mb which is 133 times more dense than Mars
Venus 91,170 which is 90 times more dense than Earth

1) The Earth has had far higher concentrations of CO2 In the Past than Today
2) There were no people, cars, or factories back when there were higher concentrations of CO2 In the Past than Today
3) While we are able to examine CO2 concentrations from the past we do not have a geological record of solar activity in the past
4) Earth's Atmosphere is far thinner than that of Venus and our C02 PPM is minuscule.
5) If you shaded Venus so that the amount of solar radiation it received was about the same as earth liquid oceans would begin to form.

Liquid oceans? With what liquid?

By the way, Earth's water vapor PPM is also small, since most of the atmosphere is molecular Nitrogen and Oxygen, the percentage varying widely based on location but pretty sure it's no more than about 5% anywhere and more often closer to 1%, if that. Larger than CO2, but still small.

I am surprised. Never did I think that there are more nerds on this site than on the Big Bang Theory.

(05-27-2016 08:45 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I am surprised. Never did I think that there are more nerds on this site than on the Big Bang Theory.

Are you kidding? This site has always been Nerdvana.

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

How much do we know about Venus? Not
Much.. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is causing the high temperatures but not proven. It could also be the core of Venus and the atmospheric pressure causing the high temperature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk