Remember me
▼ Content

Greenman



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
10-08-2017 18:27
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
spot wrote:
I'm not the one with the credentials but didn't Surface Detail just post a link that calls Woods experiment into question?


Liars will be liars. As I said - Wood's experiment is repeated every single day of the year every year since the start of using greenhouses and what Woods reported is totally true. Greenhouses do not operate by insulating the building in a one way manner. They simply stop convection from mixing the inside with the outside air.

This was the question and that was the correct answer.
10-08-2017 19:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


And his theory was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 19:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


Why would you not mention that Arrhenius was refuted by Robert Woods in 1909?

Because he wasn't. No-one has been able to duplicate Woods' experiment, and it has been shown to have been poorly conceived. See, for example:

Failure to duplicate Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment

Now, why would you pick out an obviously flawed experiment to support your claim while ignoring the extensive experimental and theoretical evidence that refutes it? Why are you fooling yourself?


Let me explain something to you: every greenhouse on Earth reproduces Dr. Woods experiment. Arrhenius made the claim that CO2 acted as a greenhouse and that is why he called them "greenhouse gases".

But greenhouses do not work by insulating the inside from the outside but precisely as Dr. Woods explained - by shielding the inside from convective cooling. If you open the door of a greenhouse it looses all its heat. Rapidly!

How is it that you don't have the most basic knowledge of the world around you and yet try to tell us all about some moron's claims?

Oh dear, Wake, you poor, confused fool!


The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with actual greenhouses!
It is called that simply because of the way that gases such as CO2 allow energy in the form of visible light to pass through while hindering the passage of energy in the form of IR radiation. The effect is analogous to the way in which the glass of a greenhouse allows radiation to pass through but prevents heat loss by convection.


This violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

You cannot increase the temperature of the planet by reducing its radiance.

The Magick Bouncing Photon theory doesn't work.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Anything that CO2 absorbs is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, just like conduction and convection do. It is a way to COOL the surface, not heat it.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with actual greenhouses!
It is called that simply because of the way that gases such as CO2 allow energy in the form of visible light to pass through while hindering the passage of energy in the form of IR radiation. The effect is analogous to the way in which the glass of a greenhouse allows radiation to pass through but prevents heat loss by convection.


Since you are unfamiliar with the English language I'll explain something to you: Arrhenius plainly said that "is the mean temperature of the ground influenced by the heat absorbing gases in the atmosphere".

THAT IS ACTING AS AN INSULATOR YOU IGNORANT FOOL.


You are correct. It is Arrhenius attempting the Magick Blanket argument.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 19:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with actual greenhouses!
It is called that simply because of the way that gases such as CO2 allow energy in the form of visible light to pass through while hindering the passage of energy in the form of IR radiation. The effect is analogous to the way in which the glass of a greenhouse allows radiation to pass through but prevents heat loss by convection.


Since you are unfamiliar with the English language I'll explain something to you: Arrhenius plainly said that "is the mean temperature of the ground influenced by the heat absorbing gases in the atmosphere".

THAT IS ACTING AS AN INSULATOR YOU IGNORANT FOOL.

YES, BUT BY HINDERING IR RADIATION, NOT CONVECTION, YOU UTTER MORON.


The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work. I have already described why.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 00:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1663)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


And his theory was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope, Arrhenius's hypothesis was entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, which had been formulated previously.
11-08-2017 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


And his theory was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope, Arrhenius's hypothesis was entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, which had been formulated previously.


Then rather than shooting your mouth off why don't you simply quot Arrhenius' paper. This ought to be interesting because he said the same things I've been saying about water vapor.
11-08-2017 01:24
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Parrot, you make a few points that do need to be addressed.

Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the Magick Blanket argument again. No, a coat is not an energy source. YOU are.
Put that coat on a rock. The rock will not get warm.
Insulation reduces heat. It prevents things from warming up and from cooling down by decoupling heat. If you put a blanket around the Earth, the Earth will be colder, now warmer. You cut it off from the Sun.
CO2 cannot possibly account for 'global warming' not because it is a trace gas, but because it has no such magick properties as you claim.


That's right, if you put the coat on a rock, the rock wont get warm, because the coat blocks the energy source from getting the rock. The coat is just analogous to an insulator, which CO2 is. But it's not a good analogy, because as you point out, it doesn't have one of the properties that CO2 has, which gives it a magick property. It is transparent. So solar radiation passes right through it, unmolested. So a better analogy is that of a piece of glass, which separates one group of air molecules from another. It's still not exactly the same thing as CO2 in the air, but it's getting closer. If you put several pieces of glass together, to surround your rock with glass, or build a little house around it, then your rock will get hot. In fact, you couldn't stay in there long. And a lot of babies die each year because of what happens to the solar irradiation when it enters the car through the glass windows. It heats the objects which it strikes, warming the inside of the car, because the heat energy is trapped inside with the baby. Soon, the baby dies, because people can only live in so much heat.

So now we have a good example of what a Greenhouse does. It kills babies. I'm sorry, it warms whatever is inside it, because it traps the heat produced when solar radiation strikes an object. Some heat is lost due to convection, but most of the heat is trapped, so it just builds and builds over time. For example, the baby would have been fine if the parent had returned to the car after 15 minutes as planned, but when the parent finally returned 2 hours later the interior of the car had become too hot for the baby to live. And yes, we are all like that baby in the car right now.

And that is why the scientist who discovered the magick properties of CO2 proposed the Greenhouse Hypothesis. He is simply using the term Greenhouse to describe what happens inside of a Greenhouse, as an analogy for what happens to the planet because of carbon and other greenhouse gases, including water vapor.

If you want to attempt to discredit the properties of greenhouse gases by calling them a magick blanket, it won't work. Because it does have a magic quality in its transparency, so it is a magick blanket. It's what makes us all comfy on our planet as it spins its way through space and time. If you don't believe it, take a look at what the temperature was back when CO2 dropped down to around 190 ppmv. The planet was barely alive, if photosynthesis stops at 180. It was 10C colder then than it is now, on average. That was 21,000 years ago, when the earth was on the verge of coming out of the last Glacial Period.

The earth came out of that cold spell, which had last for many thousands of years, because the radiation from the sun had been gradually increasing over time, due to variations in the earth's orbit [Milankovitch Affect]. The earth started warming 27,000 years ago, so we can tell that it was a very gradual event. It took an increase in radiation 6,000 years to make a slight increase in average global temperature. From there, you can see, and actually prove the Greenhouse Affect.

If it were not for the Greenhouse Affect, our planet would be cooling now, not warming. That's because we are receiving less radiation from the sun each year due to our orbit moving us a little further away from the sun. But that has been going on for thousands of years, and if you take a look at how insolation [heat from solar radiation] varies over time, you will see that there must be something going on, because earth's average temperature just does not follow it. It does sometimes lag behind a change in insolation, but the temperature does not follow it even loosely. I'll see if I can find an insolation graph and attach it, so you can see what I'm talking about.

If you study what happened 21,000 years ago, you can see a gradual increase in CO2, as the planet warmed. Many skeptics point out that it appears that an increase in warmth from solar radiation causes an increase in CO2, somehow, and that is supposed to mean that CO2 doesn't cause warming. But that isn't really a rational reason. CO2 can easily increase during warming conditions, because the mammal population is increasing rapidly. As the animals increase, they produce CO2. That helps the plants, so they get greener, which helps the animals, so they proliferate like crazy, just because it got a little warmer.

As the CO2 gradually increases over time, the planet warms even more than it would have just from an increase in solar radiation. That further enhances animal life's ability to flourish, which gradually increases the CO2 level. It feeds on itself. And that feeding on itself is actually the basis of the Global Warming Hypothesis. It's not been proven yet, so it's not even a theory. But we can prove it, if we analyze what happened the last 21,000 years, which is a pattern that repeats itself many time during the last million years.

We can prove Global Warming easily by taking a look at things like solar radiation variation over time and how something else must be keeping the planet warm besides it. We know enough about physics to know that there are some molecules that can trap and hold heat energy. Let's start with what we know, and see if we can work out how much each of these magic molecules that can trap and hold heat affects the average global temperature. If we can derive an algorithm that accurately predicts what those magic molecules do, then we do have proof of their affect.

By the way, if you take a look at that graph I posted, it shows this period of time, and it also shows that the algorithm I derived calculated its way right through it quite accurately.

Into the Night wrote:
It isn't a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring substance.


So is shit, but you can only take so much of it.

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. It doesn't matter what the concentration is.


You say that like you know what you are talking about, but if I can prove that it does matter what the concentration is, then that proves that gas does warm the earth. Does it not?

Into the Night wrote:
No one was measuring CO2 concentration until 1958. The technique is somewhat questionable in accuracy even today.
There is no million years of climate data.
Air is permeable in snow.
Air is permeable in ice.
Big hairy deal.
Speculation. Air passes through ice and snow.


I'm thinking those guys who did all that research in ice cores from around the world would beg to differ with you on your totally bogus claim of there being no million years of climate data. Because there is. You are trying to make a big deal about the ability of air to make it back home, after being trapped in snow. But yes, we know all about air molecules' migration back to the surface. It starts as soon as the snow falls, and continues for about 5,000 years, until the ice above stops the little air molecules completely.

That is a BIG point of contention in the Skeptic corner. All that inaccurate data the church is using. And, there are some discrepancies that can be determined with the Climate Model. There are two that can be resolved, in fact. One discrepancy is in the time a group of sample is assigned to. It looks like they got their time off by a few thousands of years. That's not really a big deal. It happens because the ice doesn't become impermeable at 5,000 years on the dot each time. The time it takes varies based on how much snow fall there is. The more snow, the quicker the air gets locked in. So there is a little guesswork that went on to get the timelines straight. In fact, you will find that there were several different "gas age" timelines for the data I used from EPICA Dome C.

The other little point of contention, and I'm a little surprised you pointed it out is determining how much gas is lost initially, before whats left gets locked into the ice. Some gas is lost, so the data we get is actually an approximation. And that approximation does not coincide with what we read at Mt Killa-man-jaro or where ever we get the official reading. Fortunately, the gas lost is proportional to how much was there in the first place, and can be accounted for quite easily, as long as you have some point of reference. We do have a point of reference, even though it's not necessarily as accurate as some might expect. All we have to do is figure out what percentage of gas is lost, and add that percentage back to the samples. We now have a realistic and usable gas record.

I can tell you that there is a 20% loss of gas, after the snow initially traps the air and before it becomes locked in ice. Most of that loss is over the first 1,000 years, and then the loss tapers off. I can tell you that, because it's something I have been working on for a few years, and continue to. In fact, I did a little tweaking this morning, just to see if I could determine the losses a little more precisely. It's important that this is accurate, because it gives is a better picture of our future.

All that's necessary to do in order to calculate the loss is use the model to determine what the temperature of the planet should have been in 1950, according to the samples from that time. Then compare the error in what the model says with what the temperature actually was. I'm still working on fine tuning that aspect of the model, because there are some things to be worked out, like how much of a lag is there between increasing the heat being applied and the planet actually warming. There is some delay there. But who knows how much. That's one of the major sticking points that you guys keep beating the scientists up about. They can't predict next weeks weather, much less next years. In other words, how long do we have before it gets real hot. No one can answer that question.

Into the Night wrote:
The rate of increase is NOT 10 times. It is a fairly smooth curve. The slope of that curve does not increase by 10 times from 1958. It barely increases at all.
400ppm is not 10 times 320ppm. The rate of increase has barely changed at all.
You don't know what happened 10,000 years ago. The speculative conclusions about what the ice cores supposedly tell us is not data.


Yes, I know 400ppm is not 10 time 320ppm. I'm saying the rate of increase over the last 1,000 years is 10 time what it was 10,000 years ago. And yes, we do have data from 10,000 years ago. It's sad that you don't know what data is. But it can even be erroneous, and still be data.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
11-08-2017 02:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


And his theory was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope, Arrhenius's hypothesis was entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, which had been formulated previously.


Incorrect. Get yer history right.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 02:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Parrot, you make a few points that do need to be addressed.

Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the Magick Blanket argument again. No, a coat is not an energy source. YOU are.
Put that coat on a rock. The rock will not get warm.
Insulation reduces heat. It prevents things from warming up and from cooling down by decoupling heat. If you put a blanket around the Earth, the Earth will be colder, now warmer. You cut it off from the Sun.
CO2 cannot possibly account for 'global warming' not because it is a trace gas, but because it has no such magick properties as you claim.


That's right, if you put the coat on a rock, the rock wont get warm, because the coat blocks the energy source from getting the rock. The coat is just analogous to an insulator,

The is not analogous to an insulator. It IS an insulator. Like all insulators, the coat reduces heat.
GreenMan wrote:
which CO2 is.

CO2 is not an insulator. It conducts heat about the same as any other gas in the atmosphere (slightly better even).
GreenMan wrote:
But it's not a good analogy, because as you point out, it doesn't have one of the properties that CO2 has, which gives it a magick property.

Well, at least you used the correct spelling of magick for what you are describing.
GreenMan wrote:
It is transparent. So solar radiation passes right through it, unmolested. So a better analogy is that of a piece of glass, which separates one group of air molecules from another. It's still not exactly the same thing as CO2 in the air, but it's getting closer. If you put several pieces of glass together, to surround your rock with glass, or build a little house around it, then your rock will get hot.

The primary source of heating of the Earth's surface is not visible light, but infrared light. Most visible light is reflected.

Building a greenhouse around a rock is only cutting off convective heat.
GreenMan wrote:
Some heat is lost due to convection,

No, you are cutting OFF convection by your little greenhouse. That's what greenhouses are built for.
GreenMan wrote:
but most of the heat is trapped,

You cannot trap heat.
GreenMan wrote:
so it just builds and builds over time.

If heat is building, the hotter region is cooling faster, not slower.
GreenMan wrote:
For example, the baby would have been fine if the parent had returned to the car after 15 minutes as planned, but when the parent finally returned 2 hours later the interior of the car had become too hot for the baby to live. And yes, we are all like that baby in the car right now.

Cars get hot for the same reason as greenhouses. Convective heating is severely reduced.
GreenMan wrote:
And that is why the scientist who discovered the magick properties of CO2 proposed the Greenhouse Hypothesis.

CO2 does not cut off convective heating. CO2 is not an insulator. The atmosphere is open. There is no 'lid' that restricts convective heating.
GreenMan wrote:
He is simply using the term Greenhouse to describe what happens inside of a Greenhouse, as an analogy for what happens to the planet because of carbon and other greenhouse gases, including water vapor.

Water vapor is not an insulator either. It conducts heat even better than CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
If you want to attempt to discredit the properties of greenhouse gases by calling them a magick blanket, it won't work.

The Magick Blanket argument is an assumption of properties of CO2 that aren't there. You are assigning magick properties to it that don't exist.
GreenMan wrote:
Because it does have a magic quality in its transparency, so it is a magick blanket.

WRONG.
GreenMan wrote:
It's what makes us all comfy on our planet as it spins its way through space and time.

WRONG. The Sun and the mass of air and water does that.
GreenMan wrote:
If you don't believe it, take a look at what the temperature was back when CO2 dropped down to around 190 ppmv.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. It is not possible through any proxy either.
GreenMan wrote:
The planet was barely alive, if photosynthesis stops at 180. It was 10C colder then than it is now, on average. That was 21,000 years ago, when the earth was on the verge of coming out of the last Glacial Period.
...deleted long redundant rant...

You don't know the temperature of Earth. Not today, not 21,000 years ago.
Into the Night wrote:
It isn't a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring substance.


So is shit, but you can only take so much of it.[/quote]
Neither is a pollutant.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. It doesn't matter what the concentration is.


You say that like you know what you are talking about, but if I can prove that it does matter what the concentration is, then that proves that gas does warm the earth. Does it not?

You are describing a theory. You cannot prove a theory.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No one was measuring CO2 concentration until 1958. The technique is somewhat questionable in accuracy even today.
There is no million years of climate data.
Air is permeable in snow.
Air is permeable in ice.
Big hairy deal.
Speculation. Air passes through ice and snow.


I'm thinking those guys who did all that research in ice cores from around the world would beg to differ...deleted remaining lengthy rant...

I am sure they would. That doesn't change that they are speculating.
GreenMan wrote:
The other little point of contention, and I'm a little surprised you pointed it out is determining how much gas is lost initially, before whats left gets locked into the ice. Some gas is lost, so the data we get is actually an approximation.
...deleted lengthy rant attempting to justify an argument from randU..

The data we get isn't data..
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The rate of increase is NOT 10 times. It is a fairly smooth curve. The slope of that curve does not increase by 10 times from 1958. It barely increases at all.
400ppm is not 10 times 320ppm. The rate of increase has barely changed at all.
You don't know what happened 10,000 years ago. The speculative conclusions about what the ice cores supposedly tell us is not data.


Yes, I know 400ppm is not 10 time 320ppm. I'm saying the rate of increase over the last 1,000 years is 10 time what it was 10,000 years ago. And yes, we do have data from 10,000 years ago. It's sad that you don't know what data is. But it can even be erroneous, and still be data.


Erroneous data is not data.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 04:18
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
20 points to Greenman. But you do have a few errors in there.

1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.


As long as you are clear on that point. Let's restate it just to make sure I got it. A trace gas can and is used for photosynthesis, but a trace gas cannot be responsible for global warming. And I'm sure that nothing will change your opinion on that, not even facts, so why don't you drop out of this Climate Debate Forum, since there is nothing to debate for you. Or we could simple stand here and scream "Yet it is, No it isn't" for eternity, since your mind is closed on the subject.

Wake wrote:
But CO2 does not transfer energy via radiation in the troposphere. Conduction and convection are responsible. So CO2 has no effect because of radiation until it gets to the stratosphere and CO2 there is even more of a trace gas there than in the troposphere. So blaming CO2 for warming is a non-starter.


I'm not aware that the Greenhouse Theory says anything about CO2 transferring energy via radiation in the troposphere. The radiation passes right through it, because of its transparency. It's the heat that is reflected back from earth that the CO2 and other vapors respond to. They trap some of the heat, and then radiate it back to the air, via convection.


Wake wrote:
2. Photosynthesis cuts off almost completely at 180 ppm and reduces a great deal at 200 ppm. At the start of the 20th Century CO2 was at 280 ppm. Dangerously low. So additional CO2 is a god-send and not a danger.


If we were getting close to 200ppm, then I would agree that additional CO2 would be a god-send, because it would be colder than three feet up a well diggers butt. But it's not at 200ppm. It's twice that, as far as anyone can tell, and climbing.


Wake wrote:
In 1900 the entire world's population was less than one billion and today is over 7 billion and most do not starve to death which was not uncommon in 1900.'


Well come on now. Let's give some credit to mechanization, modernization, and better fertilization for our current ability to grow enough food for the world. You can't give all that credit to a trace gas.


Wake wrote:
3. None of this is very important because MAN was incapable of producing any measurable amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1886 when the warming period started. In fact, man could have had NO effect on the atmosphere whatsoever until WW II. But the warming trend had been in the process for 50 years.



The Industrial Revolution was in full swing by 1886, following the invention of a practical steam engine around 1700. So yes, man was capable of producing measurable amounts of CO2 back then. But yes, I agree that we didn't really get it kicked into high gear until technology began to improve in leaps and bounds, in the 20th century.


Wake wrote:
4. Air bubbles in ice sheets are almost entirely meaningless. Freeze a bottle of carbonated water and thaw it out and you'll discover that it isn't carbonated anymore. The CO2 will have transported out of the water during the freezing process.


Freezing a bottle of carbonated water isn't even close to the process that goes on as glaciers are being formed.


Wake wrote:
A more accurate method of measuring CO2 is via fossilized plant stomata. Some plants have a direct correlation between the number of stomata and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Two studies have shown that not only has CO2 exceeded 400 ppm in the past 2,000 years several times but that the changes were very rapid both rising and falling.



I gotta call BS on that study, lol. The results actually contradict some things that we can observe. For example, CO2 levels neither rise nor fall rapidly. It's always a gradual increase or decrease. There are a lot of ice core samples from around the world, and they all show the same gradual rising and falling of CO2 over time, and none of them show anywhere close to 400ppm.


Wake wrote:
So, yes, Nightmare is a nutter, but you aren't helping any scientific understanding by passing out the idea that CO2 is anything other than helpful.


I'm not passing out the idea that CO2 is anything other than helpful. I believe Michael Mann and Al Gore are busy as they can be doing that. I'm simply passing on some knowledge that I have gained, so that those who are interested in knowing what's going on can.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
11-08-2017 04:23
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
20 points to Greenman. But you do have a few errors in there.

1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.


As long as you are clear on that point. Let's restate it just to make sure I got it. A trace gas can and is used for photosynthesis, but a trace gas cannot be responsible for global warming. And I'm sure that nothing will change your opinion on that, not even facts, so why don't you drop out of this Climate Debate Forum, since there is nothing to debate for you. Or we could simple stand here and scream "Yet it is, No it isn't" for eternity, since your mind is closed on the subject.

Wake wrote:
But CO2 does not transfer energy via radiation in the troposphere. Conduction and convection are responsible. So CO2 has no effect because of radiation until it gets to the stratosphere and CO2 there is even more of a trace gas there than in the troposphere. So blaming CO2 for warming is a non-starter.


I'm not aware that the Greenhouse Theory says anything about CO2 transferring energy via radiation in the troposphere. The radiation passes right through it, because of its transparency. It's the heat that is reflected back from earth that the CO2 and other vapors respond to. They trap some of the heat, and then radiate it back to the air, via convection.


Wake wrote:
2. Photosynthesis cuts off almost completely at 180 ppm and reduces a great deal at 200 ppm. At the start of the 20th Century CO2 was at 280 ppm. Dangerously low. So additional CO2 is a god-send and not a danger.


If we were getting close to 200ppm, then I would agree that additional CO2 would be a god-send, because it would be colder than three feet up a well diggers butt. But it's not at 200ppm. It's twice that, as far as anyone can tell, and climbing.


Wake wrote:
In 1900 the entire world's population was less than one billion and today is over 7 billion and most do not starve to death which was not uncommon in 1900.'


Well come on now. Let's give some credit to mechanization, modernization, and better fertilization for our current ability to grow enough food for the world. You can't give all that credit to a trace gas.


Wake wrote:
3. None of this is very important because MAN was incapable of producing any measurable amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1886 when the warming period started. In fact, man could have had NO effect on the atmosphere whatsoever until WW II. But the warming trend had been in the process for 50 years.



The Industrial Revolution was in full swing by 1886, following the invention of a practical steam engine around 1700. So yes, man was capable of producing measurable amounts of CO2 back then. But yes, I agree that we didn't really get it kicked into high gear until technology began to improve in leaps and bounds, in the 20th century.


Wake wrote:
4. Air bubbles in ice sheets are almost entirely meaningless. Freeze a bottle of carbonated water and thaw it out and you'll discover that it isn't carbonated anymore. The CO2 will have transported out of the water during the freezing process.


Freezing a bottle of carbonated water isn't even close to the process that goes on as glaciers are being formed.


Wake wrote:
A more accurate method of measuring CO2 is via fossilized plant stomata. Some plants have a direct correlation between the number of stomata and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Two studies have shown that not only has CO2 exceeded 400 ppm in the past 2,000 years several times but that the changes were very rapid both rising and falling.



I gotta call BS on that study, lol. The results actually contradict some things that we can observe. For example, CO2 levels neither rise nor fall rapidly. It's always a gradual increase or decrease. There are a lot of ice core samples from around the world, and they all show the same gradual rising and falling of CO2 over time, and none of them show anywhere close to 400ppm.


Wake wrote:
So, yes, Nightmare is a nutter, but you aren't helping any scientific understanding by passing out the idea that CO2 is anything other than helpful.


I'm not passing out the idea that CO2 is anything other than helpful. I believe Michael Mann and Al Gore are busy as they can be doing that. I'm simply passing on some knowledge that I have gained, so that those who are interested in knowing what's going on can.


The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.
11-08-2017 06:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
The is not analogous to an insulator. It IS an insulator. Like all insulators, the coat reduces heat.
CO2 is not an insulator. It conducts heat about the same as any other gas in the atmosphere (slightly better even).


An insulator traps heat, or cold within its confines. Period. A coat warms a living body, because the body generates heat, and the coat prevents part of that heat from escaping. CO2 does the same thing. And yes, CO2 conducts heat. In order to do that, it has to be able to accept heat [warm up] and release heat [cool down]. If it can't do that, then it can't conduct heat.


Into the Night wrote:
The primary source of heating of the Earth's surface is not visible light, but infrared light. Most visible light is reflected.

Building a greenhouse around a rock is only cutting off convective heat.


Actually you are cutting of convective cooling, typically. And, though infrared radiation is the source of heat, it can't pass through opaque objects any better than visible radiation.

Into the Night wrote:
No, you are cutting OFF convection by your little greenhouse. That's what greenhouses are built for.


Sorry, had convection on the brain. Should have said conduction. Some heat is lost through conduction through the glass.

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot trap heat.


Sure you can, and I thought we were in agreement on that one. A coat traps heat, for example. And so does a molecule of CO2.

Into the Night wrote:
If heat is building, the hotter region is cooling faster, not slower.


That is totally nonsensical, retard. If anything is building, then it is getting greater, not less. Cooling is getting less hot than before. Warming is getting more hot than before. So if heat is building, the hotter region gets hotter. duh

Into the Night wrote:
Cars get hot for the same reason as greenhouses. Convective heating is severely reduced.


There you go getting heating and cooling confused again, retard. Are you a Republican or something. Do you think the sky is green?


Into the Night wrote:
CO2 does not cut off convective heating. CO2 is not an insulator. The atmosphere is open. There is no 'lid' that restricts convective heating.


And that's why it's only analogous to a glass greenhouse. CO2 warms the atmosphere through conduction, not convection.

Into the Night wrote:
Water vapor is not an insulator either. It conducts heat even better than CO2.


Yes it is. If it is a conductor of heat, it has to warm and cool. If it warms, then it is a greenhouse gas.

Into the Night wrote:
The Magick Blanket argument is an assumption of properties of CO2 that aren't there. You are assigning magick properties to it that don't exist.
WRONG.
WRONG. The Sun and the mass of air and water does that.


Those properties have been know about for over 100 years, so they aren't really magick, any more than your TV is magick. Of course, 100 years ago, the locals would have thought it was magick. See how things change over time, as we get more information.

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. It is not possible through any proxy either.
You don't know the temperature of Earth. Not today, not 21,000 years ago.


I'm thinking that you are playing with semantics. I stated previously that what they are determining with the ice core data is the temperature of the air that the snow formed in, not the surface of the earth, or even the waters of the oceans. Are you trying to bring the use of deuterium as a temperature proxy? If so, then please state your disagreement as such. And of course, I'll respond that you really need to take that up with the guys who say you can. That's not my fight at all. I'm just using the data that they provided.


Into the Night wrote:
"So is shit, but you can only take so much of it."
Neither is a pollutant.


Since when is shit not a pollutant? I'm thinking the EPA would disagree with you on that one, even with Trump as their Fuhrer and Pruitt as their yes man.

Into the Night wrote:
You are describing a theory. You cannot prove a theory.


So why can't you prove a theory? In fact, a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven already. So it goes without saying that a theory is proven. And just because some idiot brings some other hypothesis into the mix, it doesn't change it, unless that new hypothesis is proven. Simply introducing a new hypothesis doesn't disprove a theory, as you would have people to believe, with your CO2 doesn't warm the planet hypothesis [not even a valid hypothesis].

But back to the matter at hand. If you can prove that the concentration of greenhouse gases affects the average temperature of the earth then you prove or should I say validate, the Greenhouse Theory.

Into the Night wrote:
I am sure they would. That doesn't change that they are speculating.
The data we get isn't data..
Erroneous data is not data.


You need to do a little research on what data actually is. And no, they are not speculating. They are measuring values, which is not speculation. The only speculation that is being made is that those values represent actual values that were present at the time. They don't precisely reflect those values if you are talking about gases, but what they determined is close enough to be useful. But deuterium is not a gas, so we can confidently use it as a temperature proxy. From there we can speculate that the temperature recorded in the ice represents the average temperature of the planet. And we can confirm that speculation, by observing that as the average global temperature increases or decreases, so does the Antarctic air temperature.

And one more little tidbit. You use the handle Parrot Killer. That means that you think you are good at shutting up those who come in here from the Church of Global Warming. You like to shut them up and watch them leave, don't you? I'm thinking you are quite good at it. But guess what you really are. You are just another Parrot, but operating from the other church, the Church of AGW Denial. It probably won't be as easy to run me off, because I'm not a parrot. I'm providing information from my own research, not someone else's, unless it is necessary to pass their information on.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
11-08-2017 08:25
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases. That's a fact, also.

If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review. But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
11-08-2017 12:12
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(941)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases. That's a fact, also.

If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review. But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.


What sensitivity levels do you use?

How do you account for soot?

How long are the various laggs in the system and what are they in general?

How many hours did you put into this?

Does it work for other planets? If not why?
11-08-2017 13:17
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases. That's a fact, also.

If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review. But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.


The further a society drifts from the truth,
the more it will hate those that speak it.
----George Orwell.

You claim that I am referring to "Skeptic Talking Points" after you told us that Big Oil was paying me? You are a first class jr. grade idiot.

The "climate model you built"? Now that's just what we need - another egocentric moron unable to prove anything he has to say, incapable of even defining what "climate change" would be telling us he has an un-testable model that will change the universe. Did you get an "A" for that in political action class?

And since not one single "model" has ever been accurate or even so much as close tell us how you are going to test it?

We have already seen that there has been no heating not for the last 19 years now but for the last 38. Since during that time CO2 went from 380 to 412 ppm that makes your formula look like what it is - a little boys wet dream.
11-08-2017 17:17
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
[b]GreenMan wrote: You (wake-me-up) are just another Parrot.... from....the Church of AGW Denial. It probably won't be as easy to run me off... I'm providing information from my own research....

Excellent post. I hope you will be here a long time, because you will HAVE to be here a long time. AGW denier liar whiners always keep coming. Their strategies are to repeat lies & deepen lies, as AGW denier liar whiner think-tanks give them more wet ammunition. "wake-me-up" pretends to be an engineer, but the few times it used mathematics, it couldn't even get exponents right.
You haven't been here long, but many AGW denier liar whiners are also deeply racist & proud of it. Whatever skepticism they present, is often spelled, "skkkepticism". Their hard won "skkkepticism" occurs readily on this website. Even worse racism has occurred on other websites, even to major threats.
11-08-2017 18:05
James_
★★★☆☆
(590)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases. That's a fact, also.

If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review. But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.


Hi Greenman,
I think global arming is the result of more than just CO2. The link is a good read; http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

Myself I think there is a lot that has been ignored because it's not CO2. I don't think our atmosphere and environment is that simple. Hopefully people that have different opinions will allow for others to have their own opinion.
I am willing to consider it likely that CO2 is contributing to global warming but will not say it's the primary nor lone cause of climate change.
To give you an idea the melting point of CO2 is much higher than N2 or O2. This does matter when considering temperature relative to change in pressure or an increase or decrease in temperature.


Jim
11-08-2017 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The is not analogous to an insulator. It IS an insulator. Like all insulators, the coat reduces heat.
CO2 is not an insulator. It conducts heat about the same as any other gas in the atmosphere (slightly better even).


An insulator traps heat, or cold within its confines. Period.

No, it doesn't. It is not possible to trap heat.
GreenMan wrote:
A coat warms a living body, because the body generates heat, and the coat prevents part of that heat from escaping.

The body generates thermal energy. The coat reduces heat, allowing the body to lose its thermal energy at a slower rate.
GreenMan wrote:
CO2 does the same thing.

No, it doesn't. CO2 is not an insulator.
GreenMan wrote:
And yes, CO2 conducts heat.

That it does. It is not an insulator.
GreenMan wrote:
In order to do that, it has to be able to accept heat [warm up] and release heat [cool down]. If it can't do that, then it can't conduct heat.

Something that conducts heat does not have to warm up or cool down at all. You are confusing specific heat vs heat conduction.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The primary source of heating of the Earth's surface is not visible light, but infrared light. Most visible light is reflected.

Building a greenhouse around a rock is only cutting off convective heat.


Actually you are cutting of convective cooling, typically.

Cooling is heat.
GreenMan wrote:
And, though infrared radiation is the source of heat, it can't pass through opaque objects any better than visible radiation.

Yes, it can. You can see this as close as the remote on your TV. There are substances that are transparent that infrared light doesn't pass through as well.

What is opaque to you is because it is opaque to transparent light. You can't see infrared light. You can't see what is opaque or transparent to that frequency without using instruments.

Each frequency of light has different substances that are opaque or transparent. At certain radio frequencies, for example, the Earth itself is transparent. At others, air is opaque.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, you are cutting OFF convection by your little greenhouse. That's what greenhouses are built for.


Sorry, had convection on the brain. Should have said conduction. Some heat is lost through conduction through the glass.

Accepted. We all make those little mistakes. Topix provides no edit capability unfortunately!

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot trap heat.


Sure you can, and I thought we were in agreement on that one. A coat traps heat, for example. And so does a molecule of CO2.

A coat does not trap heat. It reduces it. A CO2 molecule is not an insulator. It does not act like a coat.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If heat is building, the hotter region is cooling faster, not slower.


That is totally nonsensical, retard. If anything is building, then it is getting greater, not less.

Correct.
GreenMan wrote:
Cooling is getting less hot than before. Warming is getting more hot than before. So if heat is building, the hotter region gets hotter. duh

No. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Not the thermal energy itself. If heat is building, that means more thermal energy is flowing from some hot region to some cold region. The hot region is cooling faster.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cars get hot for the same reason as greenhouses. Convective heating is severely reduced.


There you go getting heating and cooling confused again, retard. Are you a Republican or something. Do you think the sky is green?

This confusion is by you. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Cooling IS heat. It means thermal energy is flowing.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
CO2 does not cut off convective heating. CO2 is not an insulator. The atmosphere is open. There is no 'lid' that restricts convective heating.


And that's why it's only analogous to a glass greenhouse. CO2 warms the atmosphere through conduction, not convection.

CO2 can be warmed by absorbing infrared light from the surface. CO2 does warm the rest of the atmosphere (a tiny bit) around it. This is the same as the surface warming the atmosphere by conduction and convection.

Like the surface, the atmosphere is radiant in the infrared. Like the surface, the atmosphere loses energy to space. The atmosphere is generally colder than the surface. It cannot be used to heat the surface. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Warm air, including the CO2 in it, also heats by convection. This moves energy upward to cooler regions of air, further helping to cool the surface and the lower atmosphere. Convection takes place in all fluids, including air.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Water vapor is not an insulator either. It conducts heat even better than CO2.


Yes it is. If it is a conductor of heat, it has to warm and cool. If it warms, then it is a greenhouse gas.

Again confusing specific heat and heat conduction, as well as the difference between thermal energy and heat.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Magick Blanket argument is an assumption of properties of CO2 that aren't there. You are assigning magick properties to it that don't exist.
WRONG.
WRONG. The Sun and the mass of air and water does that.


Those properties have been know about for over 100 years, so they aren't really magick, any more than your TV is magick. Of course, 100 years ago, the locals would have thought it was magick. See how things change over time, as we get more information.


The specific heat of CO2 is known.

The heat conductivity of CO2 is known.

The specific heat and the heat conductivity of other atmospheric gases are known.

I suggest you go look them up. I have already provided them to you, but you just seem to ignore them.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. It is not possible through any proxy either.
You don't know the temperature of Earth. Not today, not 21,000 years ago.


I'm thinking that you are playing with semantics.

No, I am not playing.

First, a few ice cores are like a few thermometers in this model. A few thermometers is not enough to determine a global temperature. This isn't semantics, it's math. Specifically, it's that branch of mathematics known as statistical math, combined with a bit of calculus.

To understand statistical math (and to understand why statistics lose the power of prediction available elsewhere in mathematics) you must understand the mathematics of probability, and the mathematics of random numbers.

All statistical summaries must include the margin of error, or the summary doesn't make sense. This number is calculated from the possible variances, not from the data itself.

The observed possible variant of temperature is as high as 20 deg F per mile. This means a thermometer reading from a single thermometer is only as accurate +- 20 deg F of the actual temperature a mile away from the instrument.

A few ice cores are NOT capable of determining a global temperature. Not anywhere near it.

The second problem, which has already been addressed, is discussed below.
GreenMan wrote:
I stated previously that what they are determining with the ice core data is the temperature of the air that the snow formed in, not the surface of the earth, or even the waters of the oceans.
GreenMan wrote:
Are you trying to bring the use of deuterium as a temperature proxy? If so, then please state your disagreement as such. And of course, I'll respond that you really need to take that up with the guys who say you can. That's not my fight at all. I'm just using the data that they provided.

I am not trying to bring the use of deuterium as a temperature proxy.
GreenMan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
"So is shit, but you can only take so much of it."
Neither is a pollutant.


Since when is shit not a pollutant? I'm thinking the EPA would disagree with you on that one, even with Trump as their Fuhrer and Pruitt as their yes man.

The EPA is a government agency. They do not define words.

Shit is not a pollutant in and of itself because it is a natural part of the environment. Shit is food to a variety of life, including fish, bacteria, and certain insects. It also is food to plants. It is a fertilizer.

A pollutant is any substance that is concentrated enough to be toxic. This means the substance must be concentrated. It means the substance that is not a pollutant to one species is a pollutant to another.

The reason the solution to pollution is dilution is because dilution is the reduction of concentration of the substance.

So shit is not a pollutant, unless you swim in concentrations of it.

CO2 is not a pollutant unless there is so much of it that it displaces oxygen and prevents you from breathing properly. That takes place at about 15% of the atmosphere. Currently, it is at about 0.04% of the atmosphere (at least at Mauna Loa).

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are describing a theory. You cannot prove a theory.


So why can't you prove a theory?


Proofs are only available in closed systems. There are two in common use: mathematics and formal logic. Theories operate in the world of formal logic. Unfortunately, very few schools or even universities properly train people in formal logic.

If the theory is not a scientific one, it is because it is a circular argument. A circular argument cannot prove itself (other than that it exists, which is a proof by identity). Such a theory will always remain a theory.

If the theory IS a scientific one, it is because it originated from a circular argument. The only thing that makes a theory a scientific one is surviving a test for falsifiability. Since the number of tests for falsifiability is an open system, a theory may be destroyed at any time by such a test.

Supporting evidence is not used in science, since that only supports the initial circular argument in the first place. Treating a theory in this way removes it from the realm of science for the purposes of that evidence.

ALL theories begin as circular arguments. It is the test for falsifiability that takes a theory beyond the circular argument and makes it part of the body of science.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven already.

No. It has not been proven.
GreenMan wrote:
So it goes without saying that a theory is proven.

No. No theory is ever proven, whether the theory is a scientific one or not.
GreenMan wrote:
And just because some idiot brings some other hypothesis into the mix, it doesn't change it, unless that new hypothesis is proven.

WRONG. Theories are never proven.
GreenMan wrote:
Simply introducing a new hypothesis doesn't disprove a theory,

Correct. Another theory is not a test of falsifiability.
GreenMan wrote:
as you would have people to believe,

You seem confused.
GreenMan wrote:
with your CO2 doesn't warm the planet hypothesis [not even a valid hypothesis].

Not a theory at all. A void is not a theory. It is YOU that must show CO2 DOES warm the planet. A void is conservative. It does not change anything in science. It is YOU that is trying to change science, not me.
GreenMan wrote:
But back to the matter at hand. If you can prove that the concentration of greenhouse gases affects the average temperature of the earth then you prove or should I say validate, the Greenhouse Theory.

The only way to test your theory is to perform a test that is not available. Tests of falsifiability must be available, and they must produce a specific result.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am sure they would. That doesn't change that they are speculating.
The data we get isn't data..
Erroneous data is not data.


You need to do a little research on what data actually is.

I have a much higher standard of data than most people. This is because anyone can quote a bunch of numbers and call it 'data'. Anyone can quote a bunch of numbers and say what the 'data represents'.

I have already how I accept 'data' as data. Those requirements are listed in the first few posts of the Data Mine thread. These are reasonable requirements. Among them, I must know where the data comes from, how it was gathered, who gathered it and when, and the raw data itself. I do not accept inferences from data or what is 'represents'. I only accept data for what it actually is. I expect summaries of that data to be performed properly, using the rules of statistical mathematics. Among those rules is the requirement that selection of data from a population must be done by randN independent of any aspect of the data, and that the margin of error must also be calculated (which comes from the possible variances, not the data itself).

GreenMan wrote:
And no, they are not speculating.

Yes they are. As soon as they describe what the data 'represents'.
GreenMan wrote:
They are measuring values, which is not speculation.

Yes, it is. They are speculating on what the data 'means'.
GreenMan wrote:
The only speculation that is being made is that those values represent actual values that were present at the time.

Bingo.
GreenMan wrote:
They don't precisely reflect those values if you are talking about gases, but what they determined is close enough to be useful.

Useful for what?
GreenMan wrote:
But deuterium is not a gas, so we can confidently use it as a temperature proxy.

Deuterium may be a solid, liquid, or gas; just like any other material.
GreenMan wrote:
From there we can speculate that the temperature recorded in the ice represents the average temperature of the planet.

WRONG. Statistics and the problems with speculation describe why.
GreenMan wrote:
And we can confirm that speculation, by observing that as the average global temperature increases or decreases, so does the Antarctic air temperature.

You cannot confirm a speculation. It is also not possible to determine the global temperature or of any continent.
GreenMan wrote:
And one more little tidbit. You use the handle Parrot Killer.

Actually, it's a subhandle. My handle is Into the Night.
GreenMan wrote:
That means that you think you are good at shutting up those who come in here from the Church of Global Warming.

No, it means I am good at pointing out the doctrine of those who come in here from the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
You like to shut them up and watch them leave, don't you?

Some have, some have converted, others just continue to parrot their scripture and doctrine from the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking you are quite good at it.

Why? Do you feel like leaving or are you converting?
GreenMan wrote:
But guess what you really are. You are just another Parrot, but operating from the other church, the Church of AGW Denial.

Inversion fallacy.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. The use of existing theories of science or the use of logic or mathematics to expose the problems with the Church of Global Warming is not a circular argument.

GreenMan wrote:
It probably won't be as easy to run me off, because I'm not a parrot.

In some ways, true. You certainly have some unique viewpoints. It is not the usual quoting Church of Global Warming scripture routine like some fundamentalist does.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm providing information from my own research, not someone else's, unless it is necessary to pass their information on.

The only reason you find it necessary to 'pass their information along' is because of your basic belief in the Church of Global Warming. This is the parroting part of your viewpoint. Fortunately, it is minimal.

People who depend on the Holy Link for their arguments are weak minded. They cannot present their own arguments, they must depend on the arguments of others. Those others are not here to answer for their arguments. You at least present a lot of your own arguments. I commend you for that.

For that reason, you are not a parrot.

I do hope, however, that I can show you why your viewpoint disagrees with existing theories of science. Once you understand the science behind your proposed experiments, you will be able to conduct those experiments armed with a far better understanding of what you are trying to do and the kind of results similar experiments have produced and why.

Some of this has to do with learning a bit of philosophy (another subject that is taught woefully badly at universities today), and formal logic.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 20:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what a 'fact' is. Learn the difference between a 'fact' and an 'argument'. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
GreenMan wrote:
That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Models are not a proof.
GreenMan wrote:
That's a fact, also.

Not a fact. An argument.
GreenMan wrote:
If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review.

Didn't you just do that?
GreenMan wrote:
But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.

The first thing you should research is the difference between a 'fact' and an 'argument'.

A 'fact' has a specific meaning in formal logic. So does an 'argument'.

A 'fact' is simply an agreed upon predicate to a conversation. It is a shorthand for that conversation. If any single member in that conversation does not accept that predicate, the 'fact' is no longer a fact. It is an 'argument'.

A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth, because there isn't a Universal Truth.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 20:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases. That's a fact, also.

If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review. But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.


The further a society drifts from the truth,
the more it will hate those that speak it.
----George Orwell.

You claim that I am referring to "Skeptic Talking Points" after you told us that Big Oil was paying me? You are a first class jr. grade idiot.

The "climate model you built"? Now that's just what we need - another egocentric moron unable to prove anything he has to say, incapable of even defining what "climate change" would be telling us he has an un-testable model that will change the universe. Did you get an "A" for that in political action class?

And since not one single "model" has ever been accurate or even so much as close tell us how you are going to test it?

We have already seen that there has been no heating not for the last 19 years now but for the last 38. Since during that time CO2 went from 380 to 412 ppm that makes your formula look like what it is - a little boys wet dream.


There has been plenty of heating. Day and night cause heating. Seasonal changes cause heating. Heating is just moving thermal energy around.

We don't know that the temperature of the Earth is. We do know that solar output has been pretty constant, so we know the temperature of the Earth is pretty constant too.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases. That's a fact, also.

If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review. But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.


Hi Greenman,
I think global arming is the result of more than just CO2. The link is a good read; http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

Myself I think there is a lot that has been ignored because it's not CO2. I don't think our atmosphere and environment is that simple. Hopefully people that have different opinions will allow for others to have their own opinion.
I am willing to consider it likely that CO2 is contributing to global warming but will not say it's the primary nor lone cause of climate change.

Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. Using 'climate change' is a circular definition.
James_ wrote:
To give you an idea the melting point of CO2 is much higher than N2 or O2. This does matter when considering temperature relative to change in pressure or an increase or decrease in temperature.

Only if you are trying to make liquid CO2.

Fortunately, weather temperatures rarely get that low.



The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 21:06
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
James_ wrote: I think global arming....

In the back of his mind, James is thinkin' about North Korea....maybe ISIS....
Edited on 11-08-2017 21:07
12-08-2017 04:35
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what a 'fact' is. Learn the difference between a 'fact' and an 'argument'. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
GreenMan wrote:
That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Models are not a proof.
GreenMan wrote:
That's a fact, also.

Not a fact. An argument.
GreenMan wrote:
If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review.

Didn't you just do that?
GreenMan wrote:
But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.

The first thing you should research is the difference between a 'fact' and an 'argument'.

A 'fact' has a specific meaning in formal logic. So does an 'argument'.

A 'fact' is simply an agreed upon predicate to a conversation. It is a shorthand for that conversation. If any single member in that conversation does not accept that predicate, the 'fact' is no longer a fact. It is an 'argument'.

A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth, because there isn't a Universal Truth.


Wow Professor Parrot Face, that was the most severe lashing I've had in a while. Is it ok to call you professor, Professor? That is what you are, isn't it? So what are you doing in here? Maybe working on getting more grant money for your science department?

You have beyond a doubt demonstrated your knowledge, but you don't really show that much intelligence, so I think I'm going to stand my ground for now. You see, if you were intelligent [which you think you are], then you wouldn't believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. People that believe that think with their emotion, rather than their brain. They don't want to know that what they are doing is destroying the future of humanity, so they ignore the evidence that says otherwise. It's an emotional response, not a rational one. People who are more inclined to make emotional decisions are not usually considered intelligent.

But the verdict isn't out yet Professor. You get the benefit of the doubt for now, so you have some time to prove that you have an open mind, and aren't just some educated idiot that managed to land a teaching job at a university because his daddy is huge donor. Some people learn by understanding what is being said, while others learn by memorizing what is being said. I do envy those guys with memories like that, but even though they are walking talking reference books with tons of information about everything, they can't seem to use any of that information to solve a problem. And right now, to be honest with you, I think that you might just be one of those kinds of people, all spit shined and polished up.

Now I have spent a lot of time working on understanding what is going on with our climate, just to see if those brainiac climate scientists know what they are talking about. Because if it's like they say, then humanity is in trouble. For real, this ain't no fire drill. I say that with certainty, because it is certain. I went the extra mile, and developed an algorithm that proves it. You can scoff at my work for not being based on good data, or because I didn't go to an ivy league university for my education, but that doesn't really do anyone any good. Not even you. Because in the end, all that matters is did we do the right thing when given the opportunity. And you are currently not doing the right thing. In fact, you probably know that we are in trouble, too, but think it's ok because the real trouble is a few generations away.

If you want a battle that actually helps people, and allows you to still beat up on the Church of Global Warming, then just open your mind to what is really going on. The CGW is proposing that we tax carbon. That will force people into cutting back on using so much carbon [yes, I know we don't use carbon directly], and will also totally ruin our economy. Imagine what $5/gallon gas would do, for example. Or what if our electric bills suddenly increased 1000%? I don't know about you, but I would be off grid in a heartbeat, and walking to town. I suppose I would just sleep in a ditch, because I live 10 miles from work, like everyone else in our modern commuter world.

And in spite of people like you, it's coming, whether we need it or not, or if it will fix anything or not. What we will be doing is basically hamstringing ourselves with taxes to reduce our emissions, and it's still going to keep getting hotter with each passing decade. So people will be even more incapable of doing anything on their own, to get through the destruction. Yes, I said destruction, because that is what will eventually happen, if the world continues to warm even at the current rate [which is about 0.2C/decade]. People will eventually be fighting over what remains of our planet, and then the winners will get to die anyway, because it's just going to keep getting hotter. Well, that is according to that 97% of Climate Scientists, that you disagree with. And according to the calculations that I have been able to work out.

Could you please tell me again who it is that you are? And what makes you think that anyone would or should take your word over the majority of climate scientists' word?

And if you get that one right, I would like you to take a look at my Climate Calculator [Since I can't use the word Model, without pissing you off] and see if you want to stay on the losing side. In fact, I could use a little help in figuring out a few more things, if you turn out to be intelligent enough to overcome your emotional desire to continue fighting against the future of humanity.

Who knows, you might even realize that you are a Survivalist, equipped with the knowledge people need so they can figure out what to do.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
12-08-2017 10:21
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(941)
RE: Greeman creating a model of the atmosphere;

What sensitivity levels do you use?

How do you account for soot?

How long are the various laggs in the system and what are they in general?

How many hours did you put into this?

Does it work for other planets? If not why?

I assume you have missed the first time I posted this, easy done on this forum full of nutters.

I ask these things because I am always interested in finding actual climate scientists. To get decent answers.

Edited on 12-08-2017 10:22
12-08-2017 10:28
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Tim the plumber wrote:

What sensitivity levels do you use?


N/A
Tim the plumber wrote:

How do you account for soot?


The affect of soot can been seen in recent history. The earth's average temperature was dropping in the 60s, and began to rise again in the 80s, following the Clean Air Act. It does reflect a lot of energy back out in to space, but I don't think it was an issue before we figured out how to burn things to make energy.

I do however account for dust, by subtracting from total insolation based on how much dust is present. And it does make a difference in what the average temperature is.
Tim the plumber wrote:

How long are the various laggs in the system and what are they in general?


I did a coarse lag measurement by offsetting the model's output from the temperature, and found that the peaks lined up pretty close with an offset of 1,500 years. So it stands to reason that there is about a 1,500 year lag between an increase in heat and an increase in temperature that corresponds to that increase in heat. But it doesn't really mean that the same lag time is valid with as rapid an increase in GHGs as we have experienced in the last 100 years. I think that if more heat is applied that a more rapid heating would be expected.
Tim the plumber wrote:

How many hours did you put into this?


Initially I put a little over 6 months full time into it. I was laid off in a bad economy and had plenty of time on my hands, so I spent most days working on it, all day long.
Tim the plumber wrote:

Does it work for other planets? If not why?[/color]


It stands to reason that as long as there are greenhouse gases present in other planets' atmospheres then it would work.

I'm not sure if water vapor is necessary for the greenhouse affect to work, even though water vapor is the best greenhouse gas, supposedly. On earth, it appears to be a neutral force, because clouds block so much energy. I didn't use any kind of water vapor forcing in the model, and it works fine without it, supporting the notion that it's a neutral force. I suspect that water vapor might be what causes a more rapid drop in average temperature following an Inter-glacial Peak Event, than the model calculates. That is a repeating error in the model that can be easily seen. It could be that there is less water vapor in the air when the planet is going through a cooling spell, thus reducing the greenhouse affect a little.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
12-08-2017 13:26
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(941)
Why would the lag be less for a more rapid warming?

and

How do you allow for the effect of soot on glacial ice reducing the albedo of it?

And then

The effect of atmospheric dust is a definate factor with historic volcanoes. Humans using fossil fuels is only one of the things that can put lots of soot/dust into the air. Burning of forrests can do it as well.
12-08-2017 13:30
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

What sensitivity levels do you use?


N/A
Tim the plumber wrote:

How do you account for soot?


The affect of soot can been seen in recent history. The earth's average temperature was dropping in the 60s, and began to rise again in the 80s, following the Clean Air Act. It does reflect a lot of energy back out in to space, but I don't think it was an issue before we figured out how to burn things to make energy.

I do however account for dust, by subtracting from total insolation based on how much dust is present. And it does make a difference in what the average temperature is.
Tim the plumber wrote:

How long are the various laggs in the system and what are they in general?


I did a coarse lag measurement by offsetting the model's output from the temperature, and found that the peaks lined up pretty close with an offset of 1,500 years. So it stands to reason that there is about a 1,500 year lag between an increase in heat and an increase in temperature that corresponds to that increase in heat. But it doesn't really mean that the same lag time is valid with as rapid an increase in GHGs as we have experienced in the last 100 years. I think that if more heat is applied that a more rapid heating would be expected.
Tim the plumber wrote:

How many hours did you put into this?


Initially I put a little over 6 months full time into it. I was laid off in a bad economy and had plenty of time on my hands, so I spent most days working on it, all day long.
Tim the plumber wrote:

Does it work for other planets? If not why?[/color]


It stands to reason that as long as there are greenhouse gases present in other planets' atmospheres then it would work.

I'm not sure if water vapor is necessary for the greenhouse affect to work, even though water vapor is the best greenhouse gas, supposedly. On earth, it appears to be a neutral force, because clouds block so much energy. I didn't use any kind of water vapor forcing in the model, and it works fine without it, supporting the notion that it's a neutral force. I suspect that water vapor might be what causes a more rapid drop in average temperature following an Inter-glacial Peak Event, than the model calculates. That is a repeating error in the model that can be easily seen. It could be that there is less water vapor in the air when the planet is going through a cooling spell, thus reducing the greenhouse affect a little.


They ought to hire you at NASA. You can invent the world around you almost as good as they can.

But fact Trump ignorance. From 1886 until 1979 CO2 rose 17% and the mean global temperature rose (according to NOAA) 0.4 degrees.

From 1979 until NOW CO2 has risen 24% and plainly showing on Dr. Spencer's charts from the NOAA weather satellites it has risen NONE.

But you can write your fictional accounts not only of history but of the future. It's called "Science Fiction" and it contains no science.

And I'm done with you: play with a pig and all you do is get mud on yourself.
Edited on 12-08-2017 13:53
12-08-2017 19:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what a 'fact' is. Learn the difference between a 'fact' and an 'argument'. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
GreenMan wrote:
That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Models are not a proof.
GreenMan wrote:
That's a fact, also.

Not a fact. An argument.
GreenMan wrote:
If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review.

Didn't you just do that?
GreenMan wrote:
But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.

The first thing you should research is the difference between a 'fact' and an 'argument'.

A 'fact' has a specific meaning in formal logic. So does an 'argument'.

A 'fact' is simply an agreed upon predicate to a conversation. It is a shorthand for that conversation. If any single member in that conversation does not accept that predicate, the 'fact' is no longer a fact. It is an 'argument'.

A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth, because there isn't a Universal Truth.


Wow Professor Parrot Face, that was the most severe lashing I've had in a while. Is it ok to call you professor, Professor?

If you feel you need to. People call me a lot of things. Meh.
GreenMan wrote:
That is what you are, isn't it? So what are you doing in here? Maybe working on getting more grant money for your science department?

I don't depend on government money for my living.
GreenMan wrote:
You have beyond a doubt demonstrated your knowledge, but you don't really show that much intelligence, so I think I'm going to stand my ground for now.

Spoken like a True Believer.
GreenMan wrote:
You see, if you were intelligent [which you think you are], then you wouldn't believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

It's not. CO2 is not an insulator. CO2 is not a Magick Mirror for photons.
GreenMan wrote:
People that believe that think with their emotion, rather than their brain.

Emotions are part of the brain, stupid.

Now you continue your emotional arguments to support the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
They don't want to know that what they are doing is destroying the future of humanity, so they ignore the evidence that says otherwise.

Emotional argument. Nothing is being destroyed. Nothing is about to be destroyed by 'global warming'.
GreenMan wrote:
It's an emotional response, not a rational one. People who are more inclined to make emotional decisions are not usually considered intelligent.

Emotional argument...and falsified. There are intelligent people that have emotions.
GreenMan wrote:
But the verdict isn't out yet Professor.

Are you beginning to doubt your Religion? Nah. this is just a condescending attitude. Emotional argument.
GreenMan wrote:
You get the benefit of the doubt for now, so you have some time to prove that you have an open mind,

An 'open mind' to you is one that joins the Church of Global Warming. No thanks. I will happily remain an Outsider.
GreenMan wrote:
and aren't just some educated idiot that managed to land a teaching job at a university because his daddy is huge donor.

I don't work at a university. There is a world outside of universities, you know. You sound like a professional student to me.
GreenMan wrote:
Some people learn by understanding what is being said, while others learn by memorizing what is being said.

You have memorized the mantras and doctrine of the Church of Global Warming quite well.
GreenMan wrote:
I do envy those guys with memories like that, but even though they are walking talking reference books with tons of information about everything, they can't seem to use any of that information to solve a problem. And right now, to be honest with you, I think that you might just be one of those kinds of people, all spit shined and polished up.

Since you don't understand what is being said, due to your religion, you can't see how what I do for a living solves problems.
GreenMan wrote:
Now I have spent a lot of time working on understanding what is going on with our climate,

No, you have spent a lot of time becoming indoctrinated.
GreenMan wrote:
just to see if those brainiac climate scientists know what they are talking about.

They don't. They are not even scientists, despite the title. They do not use or create any science.
GreenMan wrote:
Because if it's like they say, then humanity is in trouble.

As far as 'global warming' is concerned, that is the least of humanities troubles.
GreenMan wrote:
For real, this ain't no fire drill.

Yes it is. There is no 'fire'.
GreenMan wrote:
I say that with certainty, because it is certain.

Circular argument (one of the shortest forms I've seen in a while!).
GreenMan wrote:
I went the extra mile, and developed an algorithm that proves it.

Algorithms are not a proof.
GreenMan wrote:
You can scoff at my work for not being based on good data,

Okay. I have and and I will continue to do so.
GreenMan wrote:
or because I didn't go to an ivy league university for my education,

Neither did I. I have never hired anyone that did. They tend to be too arrogant.
GreenMan wrote:
but that doesn't really do anyone any good. Not even you. Because in the end, all that matters is did we do the right thing when given the opportunity.

What? Stand around and chant that the world is ending?
GreenMan wrote:
And you are currently not doing the right thing.

I have better things to do.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, you probably know that we are in trouble, too,

Nope. Not at all.
GreenMan wrote:
but think it's ok because the real trouble is a few generations away.

Nope. not at all.
GreenMan wrote:
If you want a battle that actually helps people, and allows you to still beat up on the Church of Global Warming, then just open your mind to what is really going on.

Joining your religion does not help people. I help people for a living.
GreenMan wrote:
The CGW is proposing that we tax carbon.

This is already known. It is yet another indication of where the Church of Global Warming stems from: The Church of Karl Marx.
GreenMan wrote:
That will force people into cutting back on using so much carbon [yes, I know we don't use carbon directly], and will also totally ruin our economy.

A ruined economy can no longer be taxed. This is why Marxism fails. It can only survive as long as it has money to steal from others.
GreenMan wrote:
Imagine what $5/gallon gas would do, for example.

Create a black market.
GreenMan wrote:
Or what if our electric bills suddenly increased 1000%?

People would just use generators.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't know about you, but I would be off grid in a heartbeat, and walking to town.

Enjoy your walk. You'll have no need to walk to down. It's economy has been destroyed.
GreenMan wrote:
I suppose I would just sleep in a ditch, because I live 10 miles from work, like everyone else in our modern commuter world.

You could just sleep in a ditch. You have nowhere to commute to. You have no job anymore.
GreenMan wrote:
And in spite of people like you, it's coming, whether we need it or not, or if it will fix anything or not.

Don't think so. Most people in this country are waking up to your bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:
What we will be doing is basically hamstringing ourselves with taxes to reduce our emissions,

Don't think so.
GreenMan wrote:
and it's still going to keep getting hotter with each passing decade.

Your chicken entrails tell you this, do they?
GreenMan wrote:
So people will be even more incapable of doing anything on their own, to get through the destruction.

Emotional argument. People have entire economies and even nations starting with nothing before. They didn't use Marxist ideals to do it.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I said destruction, because that is what will eventually happen, if the world continues to warm even at the current rate [which is about 0.2C/decade]. People will eventually be fighting over what remains of our planet, and then the winners will get to die anyway, because it's just going to keep getting hotter.

ooooooo. That means it will take a hundred years of your bullshit to show people how wrong you are.
GreenMan wrote:
Well, that is according to that 97% of Climate Scientists, that you disagree with.

I really don't care what this number is. Climate 'scientists' are not using or creating science. They are nothing but priests for the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
And according to the calculations that I have been able to work out.

Not interested.
GreenMan wrote:
Could you please tell me again who it is that you are? And what makes you think that anyone would or should take your word over the majority of climate scientists' word?

It doesn't matter who I am. You are attempting Bulverism.

My arguments are based on mathematics, logic, philosophy, and existing theories of science. That's all I need.

GreenMan wrote:
And if you get that one right, I would like you to take a look at my Climate Calculator [Since I can't use the word Model, without pissing you off] and see if you want to stay on the losing side. In fact, I could use a little help in figuring out a few more things, if you turn out to be intelligent enough to overcome your emotional desire to continue fighting against the future of humanity.

Not interested. You are again making an emotional argument.
GreenMan wrote:
Who knows, you might even realize that you are a Survivalist, equipped with the knowledge people need so they can figure out what to do.

Emotional argument. Attempting to label someone a survivalist (as in the illiterate paranoid type) because you don't understand that the free market is immortal. You can't kill it.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2017 19:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

What sensitivity levels do you use?


N/A
Tim the plumber wrote:

How do you account for soot?


The affect of soot can been seen in recent history. The earth's average temperature was dropping in the 60s, and began to rise again in the 80s, following the Clean Air Act. It does reflect a lot of energy back out in to space, but I don't think it was an issue before we figured out how to burn things to make energy.

I do however account for dust, by subtracting from total insolation based on how much dust is present. And it does make a difference in what the average temperature is.
Tim the plumber wrote:

How long are the various laggs in the system and what are they in general?


I did a coarse lag measurement by offsetting the model's output from the temperature, and found that the peaks lined up pretty close with an offset of 1,500 years. So it stands to reason that there is about a 1,500 year lag between an increase in heat and an increase in temperature that corresponds to that increase in heat. But it doesn't really mean that the same lag time is valid with as rapid an increase in GHGs as we have experienced in the last 100 years. I think that if more heat is applied that a more rapid heating would be expected.
Tim the plumber wrote:

How many hours did you put into this?


Initially I put a little over 6 months full time into it. I was laid off in a bad economy and had plenty of time on my hands, so I spent most days working on it, all day long.
Tim the plumber wrote:

Does it work for other planets? If not why?[/color]


It stands to reason that as long as there are greenhouse gases present in other planets' atmospheres then it would work.

I'm not sure if water vapor is necessary for the greenhouse affect to work, even though water vapor is the best greenhouse gas, supposedly. On earth, it appears to be a neutral force, because clouds block so much energy. I didn't use any kind of water vapor forcing in the model, and it works fine without it, supporting the notion that it's a neutral force. I suspect that water vapor might be what causes a more rapid drop in average temperature following an Inter-glacial Peak Event, than the model calculates. That is a repeating error in the model that can be easily seen. It could be that there is less water vapor in the air when the planet is going through a cooling spell, thus reducing the greenhouse affect a little.


They ought to hire you at NASA. You can invent the world around you almost as good as they can.

Since NASA has been re-tasked back to space exploration, do you think they are still hiring 'global warming' priests?
Wake wrote:
But fact Trump ignorance. From 1886 until 1979 CO2 rose 17% and the mean global temperature rose (according to NOAA) 0.4 degrees.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to this degree of accuracy.
Wake wrote:
From 1979 until NOW CO2 has risen 24% and plainly showing on Dr. Spencer's charts from the NOAA weather satellites it has risen NONE.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
Wake wrote:
But you can write your fictional accounts not only of history but of the future. It's called "Science Fiction" and it contains no science.

Is there a Math Fiction? That seems to be what you are doing.
Wake wrote:
And I'm done with you: play with a pig and all you do is get mud on yourself.

Unless your pig is clean.


You have stated that you are going to ignore people over and over, but you don't. If you are going to take that attitude for real, you would already have left the forum.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 03:18
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Why would the lag be less for a more rapid warming?

and

How do you allow for the effect of soot on glacial ice reducing the albedo of it?

And then

The effect of atmospheric dust is a definate factor with historic volcanoes. Humans using fossil fuels is only one of the things that can put lots of soot/dust into the air. Burning of forrests can do it as well.


Consider how long it would take a pot of water to boil if you turned the stove on at a low temperature. Now consider how long it would take that same pot of water to boil if you turned the stove on at a high temperature. The water will boil quicker, will it not?

You could be right about soot needing to be in the equation, because we know that it does affect the climate some. But I don't know of a soot record that goes back long enough to include. If you can find the data, I can include it in the algorithm. It would be interesting to see if it gets the model's output a little closer.

Nah, nix that notion. I doubt a soot record would be useful, since soot dissipates rather quickly. So even if the earth did have a major fire, and all of North America burned up, the skies would be clear in a few years. So it wouldn't have much of an affect in the long run. And that model is using 1,000 year averages, so soot would have little or no affect, unless it could hang around for hundreds of years, like dust does.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 03:36
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:

They ought to hire you at NASA. You can invent the world around you almost as good as they can.

But fact Trump ignorance. From 1886 until 1979 CO2 rose 17% and the mean global temperature rose (according to NOAA) 0.4 degrees.

From 1979 until NOW CO2 has risen 24% and plainly showing on Dr. Spencer's charts from the NOAA weather satellites it has risen NONE.

But you can write your fictional accounts not only of history but of the future. It's called "Science Fiction" and it contains no science.

And I'm done with you: play with a pig and all you do is get mud on yourself.


Does this mean you want your ring back? Or that you are just tired of slinging mud, and that we can maintain our relationship without all the mud?

If you are saying that the global average temperature hasn't risen any since 1979, then you are even dumber than I originally thought [which makes you pretty dumb, because I put at at just above the IQ of a rock].

Let's talk about that chart that Dr. Spencer generated, that according to you shows no increase in global average temperature since 1979, when data collection via satellite began.



It looks to me like we go from -0.2 in 1979 to 0.5 above average. That's a difference of about 0.7C rise since 1979. Or you can take the 1980 average if you want to, which is about 0.0 and start from there. We still clearly see a 0.5C rise. So how is it that you missed that, oh enlightened one?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 04:15
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

They ought to hire you at NASA. You can invent the world around you almost as good as they can.

But fact Trump ignorance. From 1886 until 1979 CO2 rose 17% and the mean global temperature rose (according to NOAA) 0.4 degrees.

From 1979 until NOW CO2 has risen 24% and plainly showing on Dr. Spencer's charts from the NOAA weather satellites it has risen NONE.

But you can write your fictional accounts not only of history but of the future. It's called "Science Fiction" and it contains no science.

And I'm done with you: play with a pig and all you do is get mud on yourself.


Does this mean you want your ring back? Or that you are just tired of slinging mud, and that we can maintain our relationship without all the mud?

If you are saying that the global average temperature hasn't risen any since 1979, then you are even dumber than I originally thought [which makes you pretty dumb, because I put at at just above the IQ of a rock].

Let's talk about that chart that Dr. Spencer generated, that according to you shows no increase in global average temperature since 1979, when data collection via satellite began.



It looks to me like we go from -0.2 in 1979 to 0.5 above average. That's a difference of about 0.7C rise since 1979. Or you can take the 1980 average if you want to, which is about 0.0 and start from there. We still clearly see a 0.5C rise. So how is it that you missed that, oh enlightened one?


And now the mathematician in you raises it's head. Maybe some day he will be able to use statistics rather than invention.

I guess what you're saying is that NASA and NOAA don't know what they're talking about when they present their chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Edited on 13-08-2017 04:17
13-08-2017 06:01
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

They ought to hire you at NASA. You can invent the world around you almost as good as they can.

But fact Trump ignorance. From 1886 until 1979 CO2 rose 17% and the mean global temperature rose (according to NOAA) 0.4 degrees.

From 1979 until NOW CO2 has risen 24% and plainly showing on Dr. Spencer's charts from the NOAA weather satellites it has risen NONE.

But you can write your fictional accounts not only of history but of the future. It's called "Science Fiction" and it contains no science.

And I'm done with you: play with a pig and all you do is get mud on yourself.


Does this mean you want your ring back? Or that you are just tired of slinging mud, and that we can maintain our relationship without all the mud?

If you are saying that the global average temperature hasn't risen any since 1979, then you are even dumber than I originally thought [which makes you pretty dumb, because I put at at just above the IQ of a rock].

Let's talk about that chart that Dr. Spencer generated, that according to you shows no increase in global average temperature since 1979, when data collection via satellite began.



It looks to me like we go from -0.2 in 1979 to 0.5 above average. That's a difference of about 0.7C rise since 1979. Or you can take the 1980 average if you want to, which is about 0.0 and start from there. We still clearly see a 0.5C rise. So how is it that you missed that, oh enlightened one?


And now the mathematician in you raises it's head. Maybe some day he will be able to use statistics rather than invention.

I guess what you're saying is that NASA and NOAA don't know what they're talking about when they present their chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg


I suppose you got me there, because I have no idea what you are referring to, related to the graph you presented.

That graph does show a slightly higher increase, but I'm not going to say they don't know what they are talking about, because of that. I'm just going to conclude that they were using two different measuring devices and got slightly different results because of that. To me, that's no big deal, because I'm not trying to make the case that NASA or NOAA don't know what they are talking about. That would be you and your fellow parots, or should I just call you guys Church of AGW Denial missionaries?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 08:12
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you don't know any facts. You don't recognize high school physics. And you believe that if you repeat something a thousand times it will be true.


Well actually, I do know one fact, and that one fact I know trumps all of your opinions. One of your opinions is that CO2 does not warm the planet. From there, you think you can justify all the rest of your opinions, that are based on other people's efforts, not your own. You merely repeat "Skeptic Talking Points," as if repeating them 1,000 times makes them true. Another of your opinions is that there is no danger in the CO2 levels of our planet climbing, so we should do nothing to reverse the trend in CO2 increase, which we are adding to.

But you know what my one fact is? Oh you couldn't guess what it is in a million years, because you have been ignoring it, for ignorance sake. That Climate Model I built. Well, that's a fact. I did build a Climate Model that uses an algorithm [funny as hell, an Al Gore ithm] repeated hundreds of times, for each set of data obtained from ice cores, for 800,000 years. And you know what. That model accurately calculates what the average temperature of the planet should have been for the time those samples were frozen. That's a fact, Jack.

That model proves beyond a doubt that the CO2, CH4, N20 concentrations in the air do aid in the heating of the planet's surface air. And it provides the affect ratios of each of the gases, as well as the dust that's in the air. Those ratios are useful in determining what to expect in the future, based on current concentrations of greenhouse gases. That's a fact, also.

If you would care to take a look at the model, I will be glad to provide it for your review. But until then, simply throwing rocks at it for not making sense to you is just childish, and a waste of everyone's time. If you want to debate something, do a little research into the subject first. Then shoot your stupid mouth off.


The further a society drifts from the truth,
the more it will hate those that speak it.
----George Orwell.

You claim that I am referring to "Skeptic Talking Points" after you told us that Big Oil was paying me? You are a first class jr. grade idiot.

The "climate model you built"? Now that's just what we need - another egocentric moron unable to prove anything he has to say, incapable of even defining what "climate change" would be telling us he has an un-testable model that will change the universe. Did you get an "A" for that in political action class?

And since not one single "model" has ever been accurate or even so much as close tell us how you are going to test it?

We have already seen that there has been no heating not for the last 19 years now but for the last 38. Since during that time CO2 went from 380 to 412 ppm that makes your formula look like what it is - a little boys wet dream.


Are you sure it doesn't make it look like a little girl's wet dream? Or how about a sleezy blonde's wet dream? I bet they have good ones. I'm aware that no one has been able to build a climate model that accurately calculates the earth's past climate, which is one of the Church of AGW Denial missionaries' talking points. If you can't calculate the past accurately, then how can you predict the future, either? And that my fine feathered friend is why I built a model that could calculate the earth's past climate. I tested it on the earth's past climate. And it works out very closely to what really happened. See?

That model accurately calculates what the climate should have been like for 800,000 years, and the largest error is just 3.4C. But I didn't say anything about it changing the universe. It's only intention is to show how greenhouse gases affect the climate of our planet, and indicate how much change we can expect due to the current levels.

You have already demonstrated your inability to read a graph, so I don't expect you to concede just yet. But your side of the argument is getting dimmer and dimmer. You guys will fade away eventually.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 08:30
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:

Emotional argument. Attempting to label someone a survivalist (as in the illiterate paranoid type) because you don't understand that the free market is immortal. You can't kill it.


Wasn't labeling anyone an "illiterate paranoid type." Though some survivalists are, not all are. Some are actually rational people, who just know what kind of situation we are in [but not for the lack of Church of AGW Denial missionaries like you trying to convince them otherwise].

And of course, there are those who want something awful to happen, so they can feel good about being prepared, also. They are no worse than those of you who are preaching the good book from their "don't worry be happy" religion.

Time is on my side, my other feathered friend [who kills the others who don't have the same color feathers]. Because you know what dipweed, its going to continue getting hotter and hotter each year. And people like me are going to be wearing educated idiots like you out, as long as there is any kind of debate still going on. That is, unless you decide that you have had enough of the disgrace that you can tolerate, and leave your religion's ministry. Maybe you can find work at a used car lot.

Here you go Professor Parrot Face, please explain why the climate of our planet is not responding to a reduction in insolation for the last 10,000 years.

You can check the internet for more graphs that show the affect of the Milankovitch Effect, and see if there is any doubt that we are losing a little insolation with each passing year. We should be cooling, if the sun was the only variable in our climate control system.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 09:59
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(941)
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Why would the lag be less for a more rapid warming?

and

How do you allow for the effect of soot on glacial ice reducing the albedo of it?

And then

The effect of atmospheric dust is a definate factor with historic volcanoes. Humans using fossil fuels is only one of the things that can put lots of soot/dust into the air. Burning of forrests can do it as well.


Consider how long it would take a pot of water to boil if you turned the stove on at a low temperature. Now consider how long it would take that same pot of water to boil if you turned the stove on at a high temperature. The water will boil quicker, will it not?

You could be right about soot needing to be in the equation, because we know that it does affect the climate some. But I don't know of a soot record that goes back long enough to include. If you can find the data, I can include it in the algorithm. It would be interesting to see if it gets the model's output a little closer.

Nah, nix that notion. I doubt a soot record would be useful, since soot dissipates rather quickly. So even if the earth did have a major fire, and all of North America burned up, the skies would be clear in a few years. So it wouldn't have much of an affect in the long run. And that model is using 1,000 year averages, so soot would have little or no affect, unless it could hang around for hundreds of years, like dust does.


So what model are you using for the vertical circulation of the oceans?

Can you, to show that you do actually understand the basics as opposed t may here, explain why the pot on the stove boils after a particular time using maths with proper physics, high school stuff. Just to show that you do have a clue like.
13-08-2017 15:26
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

They ought to hire you at NASA. You can invent the world around you almost as good as they can.

But fact Trump ignorance. From 1886 until 1979 CO2 rose 17% and the mean global temperature rose (according to NOAA) 0.4 degrees.

From 1979 until NOW CO2 has risen 24% and plainly showing on Dr. Spencer's charts from the NOAA weather satellites it has risen NONE.

But you can write your fictional accounts not only of history but of the future. It's called "Science Fiction" and it contains no science.

And I'm done with you: play with a pig and all you do is get mud on yourself.


Does this mean you want your ring back? Or that you are just tired of slinging mud, and that we can maintain our relationship without all the mud?

If you are saying that the global average temperature hasn't risen any since 1979, then you are even dumber than I originally thought [which makes you pretty dumb, because I put at at just above the IQ of a rock].

Let's talk about that chart that Dr. Spencer generated, that according to you shows no increase in global average temperature since 1979, when data collection via satellite began.



It looks to me like we go from -0.2 in 1979 to 0.5 above average. That's a difference of about 0.7C rise since 1979. Or you can take the 1980 average if you want to, which is about 0.0 and start from there. We still clearly see a 0.5C rise. So how is it that you missed that, oh enlightened one?


And now the mathematician in you raises it's head. Maybe some day he will be able to use statistics rather than invention.

I guess what you're saying is that NASA and NOAA don't know what they're talking about when they present their chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg


I suppose you got me there, because I have no idea what you are referring to, related to the graph you presented.

That graph does show a slightly higher increase, but I'm not going to say they don't know what they are talking about, because of that. I'm just going to conclude that they were using two different measuring devices and got slightly different results because of that. To me, that's no big deal, because I'm not trying to make the case that NASA or NOAA don't know what they are talking about. That would be you and your fellow parots, or should I just call you guys Church of AGW Denial missionaries?


You are either stupid or a liar - which is it? The statistical average of the satellite reports are zero. Got that Mr. Mathematics? Zero. And because it's rising near the end means absolutely nothing since the normal chaotic weather patterns normally run between five and ten years. The NASA chart shows a clear increase of ONE degree that we all know never occurred.

Since any sort of engineer would be able to discern that either you are lying about being some sort of engineer or you're lying about understanding anything at all about AGW. So what is it?
14-08-2017 03:23
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
You are either stupid or a liar - which is it? The statistical average of the satellite reports are zero. Got that Mr. Mathematics? Zero. And because it's rising near the end means absolutely nothing since the normal chaotic weather patterns normally run between five and ten years. The NASA chart shows a clear increase of ONE degree that we all know never occurred.

Since any sort of engineer would be able to discern that either you are lying about being some sort of engineer or you're lying about understanding anything at all about AGW. So what is it?


Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not stupid enough to try to tell other people that there is no increase in the global average temperature based on this chart.

Anybody can see that there has been an increase. What you are talking about is that Dr Spenser determined that there is no statistical increase from 1998 and 2016. And that is even though there was a slight increase in 2016. That is all eplained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
There has however been a measured 0.16C rise in temperature per decade since those satellite readings were available, which is also close to what NOAA's land and sea based data shows. Yes, the land and sea based data does not agree, but it is close enough to be useful in determining warming trends. It's getting hotter, you idiot.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
14-08-2017 03:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Tim the plumber wrote:
So what model are you using for the vertical circulation of the oceans?

Can you, to show that you do actually understand the basics as opposed t may here, explain why the pot on the stove boils after a particular time using maths with proper physics, high school stuff. Just to show that you do have a clue like.


They didn't teach thermal dynamics at the high school I went to, so it will be a little difficult to produce the math that proves water heats quicker when more heat is applied, in high school terms. And besides that, it's an observation that anyone makes as they are learning how to cook. Unfortunately, it doesn't work the same on you air conditioning knob, so turning the thermostat down to 65 won't cool your house any quicker. That'll just make it get colder, eventually. But turning the thermostat to 90 will make it get warmer quicker, if you are using a heat pump, because that will make the heat strips kick in.

But anyway, I didn't include anything in my model to account for oceanic circulation. The data for that is not available, because we have no idea what the ocean currents looked like a few thousand years ago, much less a few hundred thousand. There is a lot of reason to believe that they have even stopped, during the coldest part of the last Glacial Event. And they will probably stop again. If they do stop, that will have no affect on the average global temperature, though it will have a dramatic affect on individual regions of the world. The equatorial regions for example, will vaporize, and North America and Europe will become like the North Pole. Nah, just kidding. Not quite that extreme, but it will be something like that. Because the heat from the oceans will just stay there, and we currently get a lot of warmth from those currents that bring it our way. That will stop, if those currents stop. Africa gets warmer, but we got cooler. It balances out.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. About everything in the oceans would die, because then it would be a huge stagnant pond.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate Greenman:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
GreenMan's Climate Model2918-10-2017 20:24
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact