It seems that ignorance, arrogance and irrational thinking go hand in hand.
http://theweek.com/article/index/208529/the-tea-party-vs-global-warming
Tea Party, Climate Change, Global Warming, Obama, Muslims, Steam, CO2…….
These people can’t maintain a coherent train of thought for more than about three words. And they wonder why they are about to get tossed out of Washington?
I don’t think they’ll ever figure out the steam pic thing. They’re just too damned dumb.
but wait….steam should be white
I wonder why the clouds in the background are dark?
Oh yeah, that is called a shadow.
but wait….steam should be white
What color is co2?
What color are the greenhouse gasses that are in the atmosphere?
my sarc tag was dropped in my original post….damn keyboard doesn’t have brackets so i used greater/less-than symbols which apparently are the same as the html designators
Actually it is not steam – it is mostly water vapour!! There is a difference.
Steve seems to think that steam, water vapor, and clouds are all the same thing.
Yes, they are all forms of H2O. They are not CO2. The C stands for the element Carbon, which is the topic of this article.
But thanks, you are doing an excellent job of proving my point. Please keep talking.
All forms of H20, but not all the same thing. You do seem to have some difficulty with this, e.g., your earlier claim that clouds are water vapor.
Steam is a transparent gas. This stuff is white. It’s not steam. It’s not carbon, but neither is it steam. You’re just as wrong as the picture caption is.
I see that you are determined to prove my point.
ChrisD says:
October 23, 2010 at 3:50 am
It’s not carbon
Please write to TheWeek, and to Grist, and tell them you agree with the Tea Party.
Please write to TheWeek, and to Grist, and tell them you agree with the Tea Party.
I agree with facts. Unlike a lot of people here, it doesn’t matter to me which side of the political fence they happen to fall on. I still think they’re facts.
I see that you are determined to prove my point.
I see that you are utterly incapable of admitting to even the smallest error.
Chris is right it is a Saturated Vapour (as opposed to an unsaturated vapour)
It really pisses physicists off when people call it steam as the just show they don’t know that water in air has 5 states (Solid, Liquid, unsaturated vapour, saturated vapour & steam) and the 3 gaseous states require different use of gas equations to work out the pressure they exert.
Chris also rightly stated that steam is transparent.
Chris is not trying to prove a point he’s trying to educate 🙂
Lastly Water Vapour is the biggest greenhouse component in our atmosphere, but nature has a way of dealing with it Rain 🙂
Since the overwhelming majority of people are not physicists, I’m afraid using the un-physical words is simply common usage.
I’m sure you’d not say ‘I broke my arm when I fell on solid water’, do you, when you tell the nurse in hospital what happened.
So it is with the common usage of ‘steam’ for what comes out of those chimneys.
As neither the quoted paper nor the denigrated tea partyists use physicist-talk, we’ve got to make do and use what they use to get the point across that it isn’t CO2 which comes out of those chimneys.
We just have to put up with it …
Viv, I think the main point is that Steve’s post is complaining that the picture doesn’t show carbon dioxide being emitted. Well, it doesn’t show steam being emitted, either. He’s just as wrong as the picture caption is.
(And this doesn’t even touch on the fact that this factory, whatever it is, most assuredly is emitting a considerable volume of real CO2. The fact that the picture doesn’t actually show it–and how could it?–is wrong doesn’t change that in any way. So I’m not sure what the point of the post is anyway. The picture caption is wrong? Well, so is Steve. In both cases, and in common parlance, BFD.)
Do a belly flop off a high dive and you’ll see just how solid liquid water is.
Steam is extremely useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam
NB. Wiki articles are beat used as an “Aide-mémoire”.
best used not beat used
This is a very common ploy in much of the media who want to deploy CO2 as some nasty , dirty pollutant.
Actually, now that I look at it again, the caption isn’t even wrong. It says that it’s a picture of a “carbon-belching factory,” which, I assure you, is exactly what it is.
So, in fact, there’s nothing wrong with either the picture or the caption. It’s only Steve’s page title that’s wrong.
Keep talking, Chris.
I really appreciate you demonstrating my point.
I really appreciate you demonstrating my point.
Well, that brings up a good question: What is your point, exactly?
Do you think that this is not a picture of a “carbon-belching factory,” as the caption states? Or what?
I have no idea what is on the other side of the heat exchanger below the stack in that picture. Do you?
A nuclear power plant generates a lot of steam, without producing much CO2.
Can you see the CO2 in your breath?
“I have no idea what is on the other side of the heat exchanger below the stack in that picture. Do you?”
And yet you are willing to assume it is only steam and accuse the report of ignorance.
Seems it might be you doing the arrogant and irrational thinking.
For all you and the report author knows, that factory may not produce any CO2.
CO2 is an invisible gas, and according to the EPA, you are putting toxic waste in the atmosphere with every breath.
A nuclear power plant generates a lot of steam
Does that look like a nuclear plant to you? Are nuclear plants commonly referred to as “factories”?
I have no idea what is on the other side of the heat exchanger
Then you also have “no idea” whether or not the picture is accurately captioned.
For all you and the report author knows….
And there’s something else you can have “no idea” about. You cannot possibly know what the authors knows or does not know.
So how much CO2 is coming out of that stack?
“For all you and the report author knows, that factory may not produce any CO2. ”
Unlike you, I wouldn’t just arrogantly assume they are incorrect.
So how much CO2 is coming out of that stack?
Why are you obsessing about the stack? The caption doesn’t say anything about the stack. It just says that this is a carbon-producing factory, which is almost certainly is.
It’s a picture of a factory. Virtually all factories produce CO2. Get over it.
So why do you think the author put this picture in the article?
Perhaps do something radical and ask the author.
I’m pretty certain already that CO2 is invisible.
Chris,
As you say most factories produce CO2.
So do govt buildings, maybe next time they will put up a picture of the White House to make their point.
Or perhaps Al Gore’s mansion.
The assumption is that co2 is coming out, an assumption which every global warmer makes, just like you did ChrisD.
You global warmers argue for the sake of arguing. It doesn’t matter to you if you are making sense. In fact, I have noticed that the more other people make sense the more you guys make noise to distract people from the sense they are making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U5RbR71oCc
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
The assumption is that co2 is coming out, an assumption which every global warmer makes, just like you did ChrisD
No. That is not an assumption. The caption identifies this as a factory. It is a fact that almost all factories emit a great deal of CO2. The only assumption is the author of the caption is not a bald-faced liar, and neither Steve nor anyone else here has even a whiff of evidence that he is.
You global warmers argue for the sake of arguing. It doesn’t matter to you if you are making sense.
You deniers deny for the sake of denying. It doesn’t matter to you whether what you’re denying is true or not.
Insofar as we know, the caption is 100% correct. No one here has provided any reason to think that it is not. The only thing that’s not accurate is the title of this post.
“I’m pretty certain already that CO2 is invisible.”
That wasn’t your questions.
That wasn’t your questions.
Nope. As far as I can rmember, nobody’s even tried to answer them.
“You’re just as wrong as the picture caption is.”
True that the caption seems to suggest that the vapour coming from the flues is carbon (dioxide?), but the caption may still be right in that this could be a factory belching Co2.
Or perhaps it is not.
Oh, it is “belching” CO2, in the form of burnt “Clean Natural Gas”. You would hard pressed to find a coal boiler setup in the western world.
It still is what it is, flagrant mis-representation and/or ignorance. Most environmentalist still think we operate like 19th Century London.
True that the caption seems to suggest that the vapour coming from the flues is carbon
You’re trying to water it down by saying ‘seems’. It does not seem. It is blatantly implicit. That’s the propaganda they are creating with the picture and with their ridicule of the Tea Party. They are saying man is causing global warming with the co2 emissions from smokestacks. There is no other message coming from the article. It is crystal clear. They imply nothing else. There never is any other implication when showing smokestacks in relation to ‘global warming’. Global warming is all about ’emissions’ from man. You didn’t catch that? You didn’t know about manmade emissions and global warming? You’ve never heard anything about that?
How vacuous of you to say something else is going on.
“You’re trying to water it down by saying ‘seems’. It does not seem. It is blatantly implicit. ”
No it isn’t. The caption says that it is a picture of a Carbon belching factory, and it likely is a factory that releases Co2 into the atmosphere.
The captions does not say that the water vapour from its flues is Co2.
http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/leeandal/celebrate_50th/1122171720/more_steam_vents.jpg/tpod.html
Caption should read: “Are these carbon belching vents contributing to global warming? Most climate hawks don’t think so.”
Chris & Brendon are way off base. As a non-scientist (even one with a college degree) I always assumed that these photos used by environmentalists, etc. were showing something terrible pouring out of those stacks. It wasn’t until I’d been reading climate related stuff for several months before I remembered that CO2 was invisible (surely somewhere in the back of my mind I knew this, but had forgotten it).
My point is that either through malice or simply an ignorance equal to my own, those using these photos have the exact intent Steven is describing. And it seems that for most people they acheive their desired end of arousing a misplaced emotional response in their readers.
What everyone needs to understand is that ChrisD and Brendon are here to make like they know something and to try and make Steve Goddards life a little more challenging running this site. What they are not getting is that they really come off as pair of (I’ll be kind) little children.
So, pointing out Steve’s errors is trying to make his life a little more challenging and acting like little cfhildren? Really?
Perhaps you could point out something that’s actually wrong with what either of us has said here. That would make your argument more convincing.
There is an old adage that goes something like this ” one does not argue with an idiot because if one does it will be hard to tell which is the idiot”.
So all you can do is toss around the “idiot” label without actually pointing to anything that was incorrect?
Geezer1 writes,
“What everyone needs to understand is that ChrisD and Brendon are here to make like they know something and to try and make Steve Goddards life a little more challenging running this site.”
ChrisD and Brendon add much value to this site, because they’re among the very few posters who show skepticism and a knowledge of science. The great majority of responses by others are empty, sarcastic attaboys. At least when ChrisD or Brendon post, it gives the jeering section new targets for abuse.