Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[K4fxd]

I tried to get my students to think for themselves.

From what I can tell from your posts, I think you succeeded more often than not.

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Looking at Mars, it's atmosphere is 96% Co2.

Why is it not a sauna?

Have a guess.....

Try thinking about the density of the atmosphere, the amount of water present (in order to make it a sauna) and finally how far is it from the sun ??

Atmosphere of Mars - Wikipedia

Even the most rudimentary of searches provides you with an answer.

 

[Gregs24]

From what I can tell from your posts, I think you succeeded more often than not.

Oh so you are psychic as well now

 

[K4fxd]

Oh so you are psychic as well now

Just call me Carnac

 

[sk47]

Have a guess.....

Try thinking about the density of the atmosphere, the amount of water present (in order to make it a sauna) and finally how far is it from the sun ??

Atmosphere of Mars - Wikipedia

Even the most rudimentary of searches provides you with an answer.

Hello; Are you the same gregs who left us a few posts ago or a different gregs?

 

[sk47]

Oh so you are psychic as well now

Hello; Not needed as i have ben posting information for some time now.

 

[Burkey]

The scientific consensus was the earth is the center of the universe.

False analogy.
Clearly anyone who believed that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, let alone the universe, hadn’t done much (if any) observation. Once proper observation began, the truth was revealed. Note well that religion didn’t like the idea much.

So, it was religious dogma, being spouted by ignorant people, that permeated what was “known”. The worst part is, they’re still doing it (Spouting ignorant nonsense that is).

Actual observation and measurement proved the accepted idea to be wrong.

Guess what all of the relevant scientific fields have been doing for many decades now? That’s right, gathering data and evidence, formulating theories, testing them and then presenting the math that backs the ideas.
They’ve been overturning what the previously ignorant people (all of us) thought to be true.

Is it dogma that gives us graphs like the one below or is it the result of decades of observation, experiments and physics?

Seems to me that if it were dogma, the margin of error surrounding each gas wouldn’t exist.
In fact, if it were dogma, the scientists could just make things up. Just invent numbers out of thin air. No need for research, just fill the voids in our knowledge with whatever you prefer to believe. Right?

 

[Burkey]

Looking at Mars, it's atmosphere is 96% Co2.

Why is it not a sauna?

Because 96% of 1% is less than 4% of 100%…
Oh, and the sun is further away.
That’s the most simple version I can give you.

You really should do your research before you make ridiculous statements that further highlight just how utterly ignorant and easily persuaded you are.

A “freethinker” indeed.
(facepalms again)

 

[K4fxd]

 

[K4fxd]

These Co2 levels are more in line with what I remember learning back in the 70's

 

[Burkey]

These Co2 levels are more in line with what I remember learning back in the 70's

Nobody is disputing the veracity of the numbers. Yeah, ok, scientists will have a small degree of objection at various points, but broadly speaking, it’s a good enough representation for people like us.

Now add solar irradiance to the chart and see if you can make the correlation between temp and Co2…

Obviously you wouldn’t have forgotten that the sun is getting warmer over geologic time and the whole thing about Milankovitch cycles.

Or is it possible that you’re trying to solve the riddle by looking at only two pieces of the puzzle?

 

[Burkey]

These Co2 levels are more in line with what I remember learning back in the 70's

Here’s a different way of looking at it.
Given that the 4.5 Billion years ago, the sun was producing roughly 70% of today’s irradiance, take a look at this statement:

“During the Maunder Minimum in the middle ages, the solar irradiance went down by 0.22 per cent or 3 watt per square metre (W/sqm) in 1710 AD when the period ended.

This brought down the temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Europe, by 1-1.5 degree Celsius and led to frozen rivers, long cold winters and cold summers. This happened because of the complex impacts of decreased solar activity on the abundance of ozone in the Earth’s atmosphere and on climatic cycles such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).”

Ok, so we recognise that a change of less than 1% can cause a decent cooling of the Earth. Sweet.

Now go look at your chart and take a wild guess as to why the planet wasn’t freezing cold waaaaaay back in the Paleozoic…. Remember, the sun wasn’t even close to its current temp…

It‘s quite amazing what you can learn if you actually think about the problem you’re trying to solve.

While we’re at it, take another look at this chart and spot the reduction in solar irradiance over the time period. Historically, that would’ve been enough to trigger some cooling, yet we don’t actually see cooling… for the record, TSI is the measure of how much energy the Earth is receiving, so the distance from the sun is already accounted for.

You‘re welcome.

 

[K4fxd]

It only goes back to 1880 and stops at 2000. That is too small of a sample.

Crichton, in his book, explained this.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Bogus chart. There are no long-lived greenhouse gases. We'll all be gone in less than 8 years.

I'm sure you'll insist the green house gases live past us. Take it up with the "if a tree falls...." crowd.

 

[Burkey]

It only goes back to 1880 and stops at 2000. That is too small of a sample.

Crichton, in his book, explained this.

This response has more explanatory power than you might think.

Sponsored