| | | quote | Originally posted by ray b:
world wide climate is simple to explain ???
maybe to a simpleton
|
|
Look statements like
"2016 was the hottest year on record"
are specifically aimed at the people
you label as simpletons.
Then compare that to another
statement like.
"you must look at the whole record"
The 2 statements contradict one another.
and yet one of them is completely wrong
and misleading. So as a result they have
again fall back on yet another worn out
statement(s).
"It's more complex than a simpleton can understand"
When a subject can not be narrowed down to simple
terms that most people can understand, it's because
of the massive layers of complexity added to smoke
screen "simpletons" from seeing the agenda...
There is a difference between understanding the
science and Just sliding all your chips between
red and black merely following the bets of "scientists".
I get called a climate denier because "I'm not convinced"
for me the science is not settled. I have not investments,
income or skin in the energy industries. My political views
could stand just fine without AGW being a reality or not.
No scientist on either side has given me the clear proof
that AGW is or is not proven or disproven. All I know is that
if you put me in an air tight room and fill it with CO2, I would
die form asphyxiation before breaking a sweat.
I've seen a few videos where a fish tank was filled with co2
to show (cloaking) of heat from inferred detection.
Now, just put
2 thermometers into 2 mason jars,
fill one with co2 ,
put lids on both
sit them in the summer sun
side by side so we can see which on gets hotter.
Subtract the friction related heat
due to the gas expansion creating compression in the co2 jar
and the difference in temperature will tell the truth.
If the co2 jar is still hotter by even a fraction, then AGW has some merit.
If temperatures are statistically identical, then AGW is complete BS.
if the temperature is lower, we should be talking about AGC (cooling) not AGW.
Hell do the experiment. there are 66% better odds that co2 has an
effect of some sort vs none at all.
It's simple experiment to prove a simple claim
"co2 entraps heat causing a rise in temperatures"
I believe that claim only to be true only when the
co2 is in a state that allows for heat absorption.
but because of the low boiling point of co2, it is
very unlikely that is found naturally in an absorption
state with out intervention that produces extremely
low temperatures and/or compression. There are
2 thermal characteristics of co2 that make it hard
for me to see the connection between CO2 and AGW.
And if you are not aware of such characteristics then it
is you who has not fully looked into the science required
to bridge the gap between the Nature and the Claim being
made.
BTW, our atmosphere is not a jar with a lid on it. That is why
you have to account for heat caused by gas expansions causing
compression within a sealed system. Also, the fact that co2
obscures IR camera detection of a flame does not prove heat
entrapment. it merely exposes the limitations of IR cameras. Had
the camera been placed on the opposite side with the flames
between the co2 and camera it would have been a more telling
experiment because you could have witnessed the heat transfer
itself. Yet another simple experiment they have avoided so that
"simpletons" don't get confused by the facts.....
There is your challenge. I'm not a denier. I just have personal
experience that makes it hard for me to rely solely on the claim
of a "scientist". There are natural characteristics of co2 to
overcome before we reach AGW through CO2...
