1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Global Warming? Really?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by reason10, Apr 10, 2019.

  1. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,616
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    Clouds are just water vapor. They reflect light and they hold heat back from rising (for a while) ... do you understand what "radiation" entails? Radiation is the generation of electromagnetic waves. The sun generates radiation, the earth generates radiation but not nearly on the same scale as the sun, clouds, however, are merely water vapor, they generate static electricity (lightning), but that isn't the same as radiation.

    Wow, I can't believe how messed up your basic sciences have become. Let's try this again. When the sun's radiation is absorbed, it produces heat. When water is heated, it changes state into gas. So the energy is absorbed into the water, which then heats the water, which is how 3/4ths of the earth's surface is warmed by the sun. The earth's oceanic surface is then cooled by evaporization and condensation, a process that transfers heat from the ocean surface to the upper atmosphere.

    Here's where you are not comprehending that process: if you pour more heat into the earth's surface, it merely produces more rain, the process automatically takes off whatever heat you pour into it. It is a contained system, the water returns to the oceans in the form of rain. But not the heat, the heat dissipates into the upper atmosphere. And here's how that happens: the water molecules in the gaseous state have space to fly around until they expend their energy, once their energy is spent (aka as "cooling") they condeanse back into the liquid state. Condensation gives off more heat, so all this heat is released into the upper atmosphere. Most of this happens 6-8 miles high in the atmosphere, but gas molecules can fly as high as 700-800 miles high, it depends on how hot they are.

    By the time water vapor has cooled off to the point of returning from a gas state to a liquid state, temperatures have fallen below 212 degrees F. Invariably, those new raindrops are cooled even more because the upper atmosphere is cold; did you know that the bottom of the ocean and the top of the atmosphere (the ionosphere) are both always minus 50 degrees C? As you climb higher into the atmosphere it gets cooler and cooler. So, those raindrops are 212 degrees F when they form, but they quickly lose all their heat in the upper atmosphere, and they actually warm up as they fall, that is why rain cools the lower atmosphere, it is absorbing heat as it falls.

    You don't seem to understand the basic process... and it hasn't changed. If it ever does change, we won't be here any more... at least, not in this form.
     
  2. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,616
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    So, looking back historically, there has been different global levels of heat on the surface of the earth. Always, the earth's atmosphere handles it; it just rains more. Volcanoes and forest fires can give the atmosphere a huge boost of heat, don't forget meteors, and there was a small moon that flew into the north pole 12,000 years ago that gave us an enormous amount of heat; enough to melt the Arctic ice cap and if the Bible record is to be believed, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights... nonstop.

    Now, in the case of melting an ice cap, you've got to replace all that ice. And when water goes from a liquid state to a solid state, it releases heat. So, the process of replacing an ice cap is going to keep the global temps high for as long as it takes to replace the ice cap; which, it seems, it has taken 12,000 years so far and we still are not done. So, we have had high global temps for the past 12,000 years. The earth has two giant freezers, one at the north pole and one at the south pole, the small moon broke the freezer at the north pole, so we have been hot since that happened.

    I'm not disputing global warming; I'm preaching it. What I am disputing is the cause. We differ on what caused global warming and when the global temps shot up...
    me: A small moon struck the edge of the north pole 12,000 years ago
    you: human industry in the past 100 years

    I'm right, you are wrong... on this one.
     
  3. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,616
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    If mean sea level rose 350-400 feet - which, everybody says it did - 10,000 years ago or more... what does that mean? It means that the mean sea level TODAY is 350-400 feet higher than what it was, say, 15,000 years ago. But now look at the Arctic ice cap TODAY, all that ice reformed, hence, the mean sea level was even higher when it melted and it came back down to TODAY's level. So there is 350 feet of mean sea level that needs to refreeze at the poles before we get back to the cooler global temps. That may take a million years, who knows? We've been this warm before, but I don't think the earth was as populated with life in those times... we now have the equivalent of North America added to the inhabitable land mass, so not only is the earth warmer, but it is also producing more heat. No precedent for what is happening right now.

    But it has been happening for 12,000 years, so I rather doubt we are going to burn to a crisp in the next 12 years, the reason we had a spike in temps over the past century was increased volcanic activity and intense forest fires... and so it rained more, we had huge weather activity, and the atmosphere cooled the surface, nothing is broken. We are going into a solar minimum, so there's a little relief.

    This whole myth of an "ice age" is just a misinterpretation of the event at the north pole 12,000 years ago and a misunderstanding of what it did to our tilt on the axis as well as where land mass was situated on that axis before the small moon struck. Scientists want to believe that the north pole was always located where it is today, and they want to believe that what used to be the Arctic ice cap was - in their understanding - glaciers in North America. This is sooooooo wrong it is hilarious. All of the northern half of North America was covered with a giant ice sheet --- that's way more than a glacier it was the Arctic ice cap. Meanwhile, the same latitudes over in Asia (modern day Siberia) were tropical. No damn way did that happen with an earth set up the way it is, today. It is beyond illogical, it is flat out impossible. The sun does not strike two continents in the same latitudes and produce an ice cap on one and a tropical forest on the other... impossible. The land masses were oriented to the poles different from where they are today, North America was in the Arctic Circle and Siberia was down in the tropics.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  4. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,359
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    All masses hotter than their surroundings radiate energy because all have a certain amount of heat and heat flows from areas of higher heat to areas of lower heat. I’ll trust the observations showing that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have led to higher average temperatures over your misremembered-6th-grade-science explanation why they shouldn’t.
     
  5. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,359
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    There is no evidence of a moon hitting the Earth 12,000 years ago or the cataclysmic mass extinction that would have caused. The Bible story of Noah’s Ark is incompatible with reality. The scientists who predicted the rapid acceleration in warming 60 years ago did not base their predictions on your made-up claims but on the inevitable physical results of increasing GHG concentrations.
     
  6. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,359
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    Siberia was covered by ice sheets at the same time N. America was. Ordinarily increased volcanic activity would lead to cooler temperatures. And increased forest fires were a symptom of the warming, although they also accelerated it by filling the atmosphere with more carbon compounds.
     
  7. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,616
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    you just described convexion, not radiation. Evaporation and condensation were 6th grade (5th grade for me, I was in advanced science and math) ... convexion and radiation were high school physics.

    Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are the result of greater heat, not the cause of it. Let's break that down, shall we? 95% of "greenhouse gases" is water vapor. So 95% of the increased observation of greenhouse concentrations boils down to an observation of more rainfall. The heat evaporates the water, so it is the heat that produces the water vapor, not the other way around.

    My memory of 5th grade science is doing just fine, thank you. You crank out everything bass-ackwards and then pretend that scientists agree with you... so you must be correct. But when we look at what you are saying, it is obviously confused... which is it? Does more water vapor produce more heat? Or does more heat produce more water vapor? fer crissakes
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  8. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,616
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    wrong.

    Carolina Bay impact craters number over half a million and are arranged in perfect symmetry with heavy concentration in the center and a lot of overlap and thinning toward the edges; exactly the way a small moon would impact the earth if it broke up into over half a million pieces. The craters are ALL oriented NW to SE, perfectly parellel to each other, so they all came from the same object's trajectory, and that trajectory would have needed to be at a steep angle to the earth to leave an oblong impact crater, which would have run the moon through a long span of atmosphere, hence the reason it exploded into over half a million pieces, and hence the enormous heat from an explosion that stretched over the entire north pole. The location of the entire collection of craters perfectly forms an oval - which is what you get when one ball hits a bigger ball at a tangential angle - roughly 700 miles in diameter.

    That's a lot of evidence you are ignoring.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  9. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,616
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    completely false. Siberia was covered with tropical vegetation and about two million mammoths feeding on that vegetation.

    When you have to flat out lie to make your arguments, it should clue you to the possibility that you are wrong.
     
    • Disagree x 1
  10. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,359
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    More heat produces more water vapor, which produces more heat.

    You are incorrect. The Earth transfers heat partly by convection but mostly by radiation.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature

    Feel free to find one scientist who says a moon crashed into the Earth 12,000 years ago causing a global flood. Or acknowledge that the scientists do disagree with you.
     
  11. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,359
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    Scientists have found that the bays were formed more than 60,000 years ago and not by bolide impacts
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays#Impact_event
     
  12. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,359
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    Mammoths didn’t live in tropical climates, they lived in boreal climates, hence the “woolly” coats they evolved as an adaptation.
     

Share This Page