Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

goward4u wrote:
Bill Clinton for one.

I take it that you believe everything Bill Clinton says?
DM Schwartz





Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:52 am    Post subject: Re: simple experiments Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
Quote:

peter_puck's assertion that "Yes they have done these experiments", is made without prior knowledge of an experiment.


Peter_Pucks assertion is made with the knowledge developed during a BSc degree in. chemistry. I took a course in Spectroscopy which deals solely with the interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter at certain wavelengths. It is a very well developed field. Go watch CSI, they use it every few episodes.


Sorry Peter....I forgot all about spectroscopic analysis, chalk it up to too many years working on computers and not sticking with science. It explains what wavelengths molecule absorb and reflect.

I wonder, would that mean that the entire atmosphere needs to be considered and not just H2O, CO2, CH4....

I've been trying to google a link to somewhere that shows and spectroscopic analysis of all atmospheric gases. It would help build a better picture of what happens. A lot just talk about trace gases like CO2, CH4, N20.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:03 am    Post subject: Re: simple experiments Reply with quote

DM Schwartz wrote:
I wonder, would that mean that the entire atmosphere needs to be considered and not just H2O, CO2, CH4....

The two major gases, nitrogen and oxygen, do not absorb infrared radiation (because they are non-polar). Other minor gases could play a role.
DM Schwartz





Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:26 am    Post subject: Re: simple experiments Reply with quote

gc wrote:
DM Schwartz wrote:
I wonder, would that mean that the entire atmosphere needs to be considered and not just H2O, CO2, CH4....

The two major gases, nitrogen and oxygen, do not absorb infrared radiation (because they are non-polar). Other minor gases could play a role.


I know they don't absorb infrared but do they reflect it? I've been trying to find info, but google can be daunting sometimes. I'll have to reference back to some of my old science books I guess.

If N2 and O2 can reflect infrared back down, then to would play a role? yes? no?
Blue Meanie





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
Reputation: 54.7
votes: 3
Location: B.C.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Blue Meanie wrote:
Speaking as a recent convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the solution to global warming is painfully obvious. Forget about CO2 emmisions, carbon capture and the like. We really need more pirates! :wink:

So you've been touched by his noodly appendages? Did it turn you into a pirate? :lol:

-Mac

Arrgh, Billy. 'Tis the pirates life for me..
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Meanie wrote:
Arrgh, Billy. 'Tis the pirates life for me..

I just felt the level of CO2 drop... It's a miracle!!

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:51 pm    Post subject: Re: simple experiments Reply with quote

DM Schwartz wrote:
I know they don't absorb infrared but do they reflect it? I've been trying to find info, but google can be daunting sometimes. I'll have to reference back to some of my old science books I guess.

If N2 and O2 can reflect infrared back down, then to would play a role? yes? no?

As far as I know, none of the gases in the atmosphere reflect infrared light.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As far as I know, none of the gases in the atmosphere reflect infrared light.


Water-vapour in the form of clouds is thought to have this property, IIRC.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Water-vapour in the form of clouds is thought to have this property, IIRC.

I thought water vapour (in the form of clouds) was the main GHG...

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Water-vapour in the form of clouds is thought to have this property, IIRC.

Well, clouds aren't a gas :wink:

I would imagine that clouds would reflect the light entering the atmosphere as well.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

I wonder, would that mean that the entire atmosphere needs to be considered and not just H2O, CO2, CH4....

I've been trying to google a link to somewhere that shows and spectroscopic analysis of all atmospheric gases. It would help build a better picture of what happens. A lot just talk about trace gases like CO2, CH4, N20.


Not really. Most of the atmosphere is Oxgyen and Nitrogen whose properties are well known. Even if they did have really interesting properties , I don't think humans have had much of an impact (or could) on the the percentage of Nitrogen in the air.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of coincidences, both of the IPs you use regularly are in Detroit, Michigan, peter_puck. How unusual.

You still haven't said who pays for your research, p_p. For someone who is so insistent that Dr. Ball should drop his pants, you seem strangely reluctant to do so yourself...

-Mac
Quote:


Why is it a coincidence that "both the IPS you use regularly are in Detroit, Michigan" ?
(you are wrong BTW-if you mean to imply I am posting from Detroit Michigan)

What is curious is why you would care where I post from. Are you that short of strawmen ?

I don't remember saying I do "research".....and I don't in the context you are refering to.
My work in no way relates to global warming Even if it did, this is a very small forum full of a bunch people who will never change their minds :-). If I am some secret agent of your Climate Cult, I could find better places to post.










Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
Why is it a coincidence that "both the IPS you use regularly are in Detroit, Michigan" ?
(you are wrong BTW-if you mean to imply I am posting from Detroit Michigan)

Thanks for reminding me. I meant to correct that as I see it's actually Windsor, ON. IP locators are far from precise.

peter_puck wrote:
What is curious is why you would care where I post from. Are you that short of strawmen ?

I asked a question which I labeled as being an aside. I don't normally use "strawmen" as part of a debate although I sometimes will use analogies which could resemble strawmen. It sounds like you're getting a bit desperate if you're engaging in such ad hominem remarks.

peter_puck wrote:
I don't remember saying I do "research".....and I don't in the context you are refering to.

You said you worked in a lab... and you still haven't answered the question which you demand Dr. Ball answer. Double standard? Not really since Dr. Ball is very public in his skepticism whereas you're all but anonymous behind a pseudonym. For all we know, you could be a 400 lb internet addict who only moves to eat or to defecate and your alleged employment in a lab could be unbridled imagination... yet you attack Dr. Ball's credibility...

peter_puck wrote:
My work in no way relates to global warming Even if it did, this is a very small forum full of a bunch people who will never change their minds :-). If I am some secret agent of your Climate Cult, I could find better places to post.

I was actually being rather deliberate in running your IP through an IP locater (there are several available online if anyone is curious). That's the kind of tactic which desmogblog and other cultists use to intimidate people who disagree with them. I notice your traffic here diminished remarkably. That might seem a bit Machiavellian... oh well!!

I was planning to post a message explaining that (plus a private message to you in case you weren't checking in) but this should suffice.

In case you get the impression I don't "approve" of your critical view, check your "reputation points" and you'll see that I've donated positively to you some time ago. The last thing I want to do is stifle debate but let's make sure it is actually debate rather than simply ad hominem attacks like accusing others of not understanding the scientific process or cherrypicking points to destroy them while ignoring larger questions completely.

-Mac
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

peter_puck wrote:
I don't remember saying I do "research".....and I don't in the context you are refering to.

You said you worked in a lab... and you still haven't answered the question which you demand Dr. Ball answer. Double standard? Not really since Dr. Ball is very public in his skepticism whereas you're all but anonymous behind a pseudonym.



I have answered that my employer has no real interest in the Global Warming debate. I don't think it matters if I am involved with pee testing welfare receipients or working on automotive paint. If you want me to post my employers name on here, it ain't (intentional) gonna happen.


Quote:

For all we know, you could be a 400 lb internet addict who only moves to eat or to defecate and your alleged employment in a lab could be unbridled imagination... yet you attack Dr. Ball's credibility...


and you could be a 400 lb internet addict who only moves to eat. I miss your point.

Go read the first paragraph of this article by Dr Ball

http://www.orato.com/e-buzz/20.....hard-facts

In this paragaph he states

1) He was Canada's first Phd in Climatology
2) His Phd was a Doctor of Science (There is a big difference between a Phd and Dr of Science)
3) For 32 years he was a Professor of Climatology

Can you tell me that paragraph was not dishonest ?

1) He was Canada's first Phd in Climatology
There is a list here......
http://people.uleth.ca/~dan.jo.....da.htm#top

2) For 32 years he was a Professor of Climatology ....
got his Phd in the early 80's .. you do the math. Go ask the where taught if they ever had any Professors of Climatology. (he was a Geography professor).
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:56 pm    Post subject: water vapour Reply with quote

Quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FF_Canuck wrote:
Water-vapour in the form of clouds is thought to have this property, IIRC.

Well, clouds aren't a gas

I would imagine that clouds would reflect the light entering the atmosphere as well.




Quote:

FF_Canuck wrote:
Water-vapour in the form of clouds is thought to have this property, IIRC.

Well, clouds aren't a gas

I would imagine that clouds would reflect the light entering the atmosphere as well.


THIS is what the real debate is about.

Carbon dioxide by itself cannot come anywhere close to doing the damage the extreme global warming crowd predicts.

Its the interaction with water vapour and other factors that create the differences between climate models.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 6

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Just what is the experimental basis of global warming?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB