Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would I do that? Argon is abundant in the atmosphere, but like oxygen and nitrogen and unlike CO2 and methane it does not trap infrared (heat).
My point exactly - try it to see why Nye got the physics wrong in his "simple" experiment.
As for your second video above, it's flawed too.
CO2 does not block all infrared as demonstrated in the experiment, so something else is happening to mask the flames heat signature. (probably the fact that any gas under pressure will cool when released)
My point exactly - try it to see why Nye got the physics wrong in his "simple" experiment.
As for your second video above, it's flawed too.
CO2 does not block all infrared as demonstrated in the experiment, so something else is happening to mask the flames heat signature. (probably the fact that any gas under pressure will cool when released)
I have no idea how much CO2 was in the glass tube, certainly it was a lot more than what is in the atmosphere.
I got around it by exposing Inhofe as a liar and a clown. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to show our colleagues how dishonest Republican denialism really is. Republicans have to pretend fundamentalist cuecard readers are climatologists because the real science contradicts their talking points. That people lap it up so saddens me.
I got around it by exposing Inhofe as a liar and a clown. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to show our colleagues how dishonest Republican denialism really is. Republicans have to pretend fundamentalist cuecard readers are climatologists because the real science contradicts their talking points. That people lap it up so saddens me.
You didn't get around anything. You took an utterly predictable cop out by pretending that it was about Inhofe and not the 23 odd scientists who were quoted. You didn't have anything to say about their claims because it's much easier to slam Inhofe than it is to address them!
That article doesn't even refute anything that Pielke presents in his paper.
I'm just happy that human induced climate change has resulted in no increase in global drought severity, fewer tornadoes in the US, longest period on record between a major hurrican landfall in the US, lowest hurricane ACE in 40 years.
I love this part from the article (yeah a one page article)
Quote:
Slashing carbon emissions and switching to renewable energy sources are just a few of the many actions world leaders must take, according to the IPCC — but the first step is acknowledging that climate change is real, it's happening now, and it's happening because of us.
I can't help that he points out the obvious problems renewable resources have.
Quote:
Examine the chart of models vs observed changes on the page I presented..... Can you still say that models are inaccurate?
Do you even know what your chart is showing? It isn't showing whether or not the models are accurate, they are demonstrating that the models "need" additional forcing to account for the temperature change.
Irregardless, I never claimed that co2 won't induce warming. I only point out that the models continue to overshoot the warming when compared to observations.
Quote:
By starting in the present with actual conditions, Smith's group hoped to improve the model's accuracy at forecasting the near-term climate. The results looked promising at first. The model initially predicted temperatures that were cooler than those seen in conventional climate projections — a forecast that basically held true into 2008. But then the prediction's accuracy faded sharply: the dramatic warming expected after 2008 has yet to arrive (see 'Hazy view'). “It's fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” Smith says. “We don't really understand at the moment why that is.”
Greenies need to get over it.... Fact is fossils aren't going away soon. In fact, China plans to use coal for for a long time, reducing poverty is more important than green tokenism
Well, to be fair, China's coal consumption does drop by 4% of it's electricity production. Too bad that it's electricity production by 2030 will be three times higher than it is today
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.