ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

a reply to: Phage

I am not implying a specific outcome. You seem to be misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.

I am actually saying the exact opposite. Without understanding all of the variables involved, there is no way to have a statistical probability for any hypothesis.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Without understanding all of the variables involved, there is no way to have a statistical probability for any hypothesis.

I see. So the probability of getting heads is not 1:2, it...depends. And the probability of getting snake eyes is not 1:36, it...depends.

And the chances that your computer works are not determined by the principles of quantum mechanics, it...depends.

a reply to: eisegesis

Milk 2.59 a gallon gas exactly the same in Hampton Va.

a reply to: Phage

Well that depends on the coin. Does it have any defects? Is the flip starting with the coin heads or tails?

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Well that depends on the coin.

Yes. I noted that.

If the coin is weighted that's true. If it isn't the variables cancel each other out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're not going to find many "weighted" CO2 molecules. Certainly not enough to affect the odds of which direction they will emit IR radiation.

a reply to: Phage

Again you aren't understanding me. We aren't talking about the specific variable in reference being "weighted". Take that out of the equation. Now factor in every other possible variable in the model(most which are yet to be discovered/understood) and that is what I am referencing.

This has nothing to do with said matter. It has everything to do with what interacts with the matter before and after the decided outcome of the matters state.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

We aren't talking about the specific variable in reference being "weighted".

Yes, we were. We were talking specifically about the re-emission of infrared radiation by CO2.

Take that out of the equation.

You can't. Infrared is emitted either "upward" or "downward". 1:2.

ooh.. Just had a premonition that the HAARP people are on their way in here. Surely, there is meat here to grill, I think they can sense it.

I cant find the exact report I read but I did read argon and nitrogen both play a significant role in CO2's relativity to us. Some was good some was bad. It was more good than bad though (led more to reflectivity/shielding tendencies) I'll be damned if I can't find it now...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Re-emission according to you is based on no considering factors, like the other gases in the atmosphere. They do all work together

Yes. If a warm CO2 molecule bumps into an O2 molecule it transfers energy to it and warms it up. But the way that CO2 absorbs infrared and re-emits it doesn't change. If it doesn't bump into that O2 molecule, it re-emits the infrared in a random direction.

That depends, several cirrus clouds can collectively "cover" the same area as a cumulous, with vastly different effects.

The only real difference is due to optical density. The cirrus allows sunlight to reach the surface. Cumulus, not so much. At night, when there is no sunlight, it doesn't really matter. Both prevent heat from being radiated into space.

also to mention, you make it seem as molecules are just floating around waiting in the wind for another molecule friend. The ENTIRE atmosphere is made up of those buddies. They don't often collide but they certainly CONSTANTLY interact. You downplayed it as if it's like 2 clouds meeting, when really it's like two clouds met, danced, fought, and kissed and made up, ALL the time ALWAYS.

a reply to: Vector99

They don't often collide but they certainly CONSTANTLY interact.

Actually, they collide on a pretty regular basis. It's called heat transfer by conduction.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

They don't often collide but they certainly CONSTANTLY interact.

Actually, they collide on a pretty regular basis. It's called heat transfer by conduction.

I thought when they collide they become something new, and the constant of near misses causes the heat friction

a reply to: Vector99

I thought when they collide they become something new

Why did you think that? Basic chemistry says that molecules bumping into each other doesn't necessarily mean "something new" happens. If it did, there wouldn't be much oxygen (or CO2, or NO2, or CH4, or...)

and the constant of near misses causes the heat friction

If they miss, there is no "friction."

a reply to: Phage

Basic physics says they always nearly miss.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

So what are you doing about it Phage? I drive an electric vehicle, just bought an electric mower, have all high efficiency appliances, etc...

I would love to hear what you do that I don't.

I think you've bought into the doom porn - on some level. I've always thought this was an interesting part of the whole climate change discussion. People fear certain things - their choices are to investigate and accept what seems reasonable - or deny outright what they fear most. We can be very clever and coming up with explanations that will make us feel better about all sorts of things

Why all the green machines?

Oh, and you having a daughter already means your carbon footprint is MUCH larger than mine.

Your reply is a little childish - given the seriousness of the subject matter. Do you plan on not having kids? Does that make you better than people who do?

The people on this planet working hardest to affect positive change do it because they see the possibilities and they fear for our future. You try to paint a picture that demonstrates that people that have family they love is evidence that they don't actually care?

Unbelievable

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: libertytoall

Why is the science that shows that climate change is not happening not under the same scrutiny?

Is that 'science' raw and unmanipulated by those with an agenda?

Of course not. The oil companies that sponsor climate change denial DEFINITELY have everyone's best interests at heart. They wouldn't lie to us or anything right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They can't see it. Almost every claim to disproving man made global warming, models, predictions... is based on lies, easily sniffed out lies, this article being no different... but they still believe it's science that is lying. That media hypes it, even though media gives more nods to denialism than science... some days, it's enough to make you pull out your hair. Not one denier has acknowledged that the article in the OP is a lie.

a reply to: Kali74

Of course not. It is easier to laugh at perceived media misreporting of science than to actually dissect any real arguments for or against Climate science.

a reply to: Phage

Caribbean lat 14 °N or so. Sahara dessert lat about 23°N.
The Sahara is in an area just below the sub tropical line and experiences an almost permanent high pressure. That makes cloud formation very hard. It also causes a down draft from the upper atmosphere which is very dry contributing to the problem.
It should be noted that there are areas of the south Caribbean where the islands are also desert such as Aruba.

Ah..."Journalism" - so full of truth and facts...HAHAHAH!

You get what you 'pay' for.