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.
Not to worry as scientists are only conserned about the most abundant greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth. In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:
I've been over this with you already. Do you realize that it only requires a high school level of math and science in order to be able to understand how to interpret data charts and graphs? That is if you did well in those courses while in high school.
No one has to have advanced science degrees or years of research on their resume in order to understand the causes of Global Warming.
There are really only two things that determine the Earth's temperature, or the temperature of any object that's heated by an external source. The first is the energy that goes into it, which is primarily energy produced by the Sun and absorbed by the Earth. The second is the energy that leaves the Earth, which is primarily due to the Earth radiating it away.
What you have stated shows the problem quite clearly. People who have no scientific background do not understand that being well versed in science is not simply reading a graph. If that was the case, they would automatically confer PhDs and MDs to every high school graduate. In your mind, if you can read a graph, you are suddenly qualified to engineer a dam or a bridge, or able to perform a craniotomy for tumor. I am afraid it is a little more complicated than that; unfortunately, those with the least training are unable to understand the complexity of different areas of science.
"science" is not cutting and pasting a graph. Science is understand the basis of science is refuting the "null hypothesis". AGW is the opposite of science in that regard, as the AGW makes a claim of man-made warming, then asks that someone prove it is not true. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE.
If you are not trained in actual science, you do not understand what constitutes valid methods and statistical evaluations to determine if a study is valid.
You do not understand what constitutes a valid experimental design and common error which lead to a poor study, and thus poor results and conclusions.
What conclusions can and cannot be drawn from certain data.
Which journals have excellent editorial boards and which do not.
You do not understand what statistical analysis would be most appropriate for different sets of data.
PS- there are three means of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation. Further, one must understand what happens when IR energy contacts particles in the atmosphere and how different molecules behave differently with exposure to different bandwidths of radiation. So no- it is not as simple as you state. However, I would not expect you to know such things, as you are not well versed in a scientific field. I would, however, expect you to understand what you do not know. Unfortunately in AGW, all libs are suddenly PhDs in physicis, engineering, and chemistry, as conferred upon them by the liberal media and politicians.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 02-02-2019 at 07:27 PM..
Soon liberals will be declaring war on O2 and water, as, like CO2, they are essential for life on this planet.
Thanks for demonstrating once again that you have absolutely no understanding what Global Warming is. Also this lame politicizing of Global Warming is why there are so many non-thinking deniers simply regurgitating without any thought process what their party is trying to sell.
No duh that water, O2 and CO2 are essential for life however water and O2 are not green house gases.
CO2 is essential for keeping the earth warm, however too much man made CO2 is not good for the earth.
There are many lines of evidence which clearly show that the atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by humans. The clearest of these is simple accounting - humans are emitting CO2 at a rate twice as fast as the atmospheric increase (natural sinks are absorbing the other half). There is no question whatsoever that the CO2 increase is human-caused. This is settled science.
Not to worry as scientists are only concerned about the most abundant greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth. In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:
People who have no scientific background do not understand that being well versed in science is not reading a graph.
This makes no sense and is not what I stated at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
In your mind, if you can read a graph, you are suddenly qualified to engineer a dam or a bridge, or able to perform a craniotomy for tumor.
This is in your mind not mine. Stop ascribing your personal narratives to me.
The purpose of a graph is to convey data. That's it.
A person with a high school level of math and science have enough of a foundation to understand what's causing Global Warming.
You don't even understand what Global Warming is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
"science" is not cutting and pasting a graph.
No one ever said it was. You need work on your reading comprehension skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Science is understand the basis of science is refuting the "null hypothesis".
You clearly don't even understand what science is. Science is a process for discovering what is true from what is not true. It's a method and a process for discovering objectionable truths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
AGW is the opposite of science in that regard, as the AGW makes a claim of man-made warming, then asks that someone prove it is not true.
Nothing here is accurate. You clearly don't understand what science is nor do you know what Global Warming is.
A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
If you are not trained in actual science, you do not understand what constitutes valid methods and statistical evaluations to determine if a study is valid.
I'm sure a statistician could certainly understand the statistics and they are not trained in science.
If a person wants to understand any published study they can skip to the Methods Section and repeat the experiment if they so want.
My point is a person does not have to be a top notch scientist to understand the basic concepts of Global Warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
You do not understand what constitutes a valid experimental design and common error which lead to a poor study, and thus poor results and conclusions.
I think it's you who does not understand valid experimental design.
This makes no sense and is not what I stated at all.
This is in your mind not mine. Stop ascribing your personal narratives to me.
I appreciate the effort you are putting in with hawk. Hopefully others are benefiting from it.
But hawk isn't. You will never change his mind in 1000 years (a drop in the bucket in cosmological time scales ).
He's one of those cases where he is smart enough to know he's smart. That can really mislead him, because his politics dominates him completely. He comes up with his own brand of twisted science to fit what he believes, with his politics unwittingly being the driving force behind it. Then his self-confidence in his intelligence kicks in and does not allow him to see it in any other way. So the chances of him seeing true science in a politically charged issue like this just about zero.
I know this because of going round and round with him on a different subject matter. I eventually had to decide he's a lost cause concerning that matter.
But please carry on, there is always a chance someone else's eyes could get cracked open.
Hawkeye...There is no need to be a scientist to understand and differentiate between climate science and what you pass off as science...I've read and understood hundreds of papers published by people I rely on...Actual qualified climate scientists...Too bad that you just keep ignoring them in favor of pseudoscience.
PS- there are three means of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation.
I get it. You are new to science and are unsuccessfully trying to convince us that you understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Further, one must understand what happens when IR energy contacts particles in the atmosphere and how different molecules behave differently with exposure to different bandwidths of radiation. So no- it is not as simple as you state.
No a person does not need to understand this to understand the basics of Global Warming.
However, I would not expect you to know such things, as you are not well versed in a scientific field.
LOL! Says the guy who is new to science and pretends he's an MD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Unfortunately in AGW, all libs are suddenly PhDs in physicis [sic], engineering, and chemistry, as conferred upon them by the liberal media and politicians.
Such ignorance. It's no wonder the US has become the laughing stock of the world and why we lag behind many other countries in STEM.
Global warming has caused many of the disruptions and changes in the earth's weather patterns, that have driven unusually cold air down into some regions. A warmer atmosphere, is a more active one and it brings previously unknown weather extremes of both hot and cold, into more areas. As much of the Eastern part of the U. S. is experiencing record cold, places like Melbourne, Australia have had temperatures of 120 degrees F.
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.
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.
).
