Remember me
▼ Content

If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you



Page 2 of 2<12
13-05-2019 03:54
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Ah, the pseudonymous experts who know better than the people who study climate! What a load of confused rubbish about what "real science" is.

Looking to experts and appealing to authority is exactly the correct thing for those who are not experts themselves. Presuming the experts are wrong until you yourself are entirely convinced is entirely incorrect; it becomes a means to presume anything you don't understand, can't understand and don't want to understand is wrong - which just makes you wrong. It is basic common sense that people who make a career out of studying something will know more about it than you do.

Taking the conclusions of decades of top level science based expert reports and studies seriously is not a religious act - just a normal, reasonable trust in the methods and institutions of science.

Taking it seriously is not a politically extremist act either - this issue is not innately about capitalism or communism or globalism or nanny-statism.

No world governments is required to accept it and nations entering into agreements with other nations, knowingly, for mutual benefit doesn't require giving up sovereignty - I know a lot of people concerned about global warming and none are proposing global government.

No Marxism is required to act effectively to reduce GHG driven climate change - I believe the principle solutions will come (are coming) from innovative entrepreneurs who will be selling their technology free market style around the world. But I can see why opponents of climate responsibility being a real thing want people who lean right to think otherwise; wouldn't want people who lean right to know that there is no requirement to turn socialist to face up to the climate problem, no world government agenda needed, no end to responsible free enterprise. Or for those leaning right to understand that appropriate and effective policy is entirely compatible with free markets, democracy and the rule of law.

The emissions and climate change problem is foremost about responsibility and accountability for the externalised consequences and costs of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere - and we now make more CO2 than any other substance, way more than any other kind of waste, more than concrete or steel, more than concrete and steel. The only commodity I know of that we make more of is rock aggregate, ie crushed and graded rock - and that doesn't leave us with more rock than we began with. Knowing the consequences of that CO2 dumping and other human activities on our climate system has been a long running (and previously non-partisan objective) within science agencies like the US National Science Council - because basic understandings of the absorption, emission and transmission of IR through atmospheric gases has long known of the significance of CO2 to global temperature. Such efforts coalesced in the 1980's and showed us clearly why we don't need to worry about imminent ice ages - but exactly knowing why global cooling from aerosol pollution is not a serious issue turned out not nearly so reassuring as people hoped!

Ignoring the consistent science based expert advice is dangerously irresponsible. But, hey, keep the conspiracy and incompetence rhetoric coming - people are better informed than ever, trust our long running science institutions more than you realise; your preferred misunderstandings and their apathy are no longer enough to convince them mainstream science is wrong. Views like I see here just let people see who the ignorant and irresponsible extremists really are.



Ken,
Science & Environment
CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News
A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17611404

This guy is an ice core researcher. He is an expert in his field. It used to be argued that CO2 causes global warming because it ended the last ice age.
From Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
I would suggest reading what he wrote.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

I think it was a documentary in the 1960's by French scientist Joseph Fourier that started changing public opinion. And I've just shown you that experts disagree. Also the last ice age was extended by about 1/3 of all biomass on the Earth burning.
This would also raise CO2 levels all over the world.
Research suggests toward end of Ice Age, humans witnessed fires larger than dinosaur killer, thanks to a cosmic impact
by University of Kansas
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-ice-age-human-witnessed-larger.html

Myself, Hopefully in the next couple of years I'll be working on a Natural Climate Variation model. If we don't precisely understand natural cycles then we can't really understand how we're impacting the climate except for pollution. I tend to piss them off in here because I can get nit picky about the details. With warming and cooling trends it does matter.
Check this link out, they're professionals. It's northern Europe and it was warmer when Jesus walked. https://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html
And what some other educated people say and when you consider this, NASA states that stratospheric cooling equals tropospheric warming and CFC's were banned in 1987 for depleting the ozone layer. See my thread on about the IPCC and 2013; also it doesn't show any cooling like from 1500 to 1850. The Earth it seems is rebounding from an extreme cooling event. that cooling event is never discussed.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

And this is from the University of Arizona. Scroll down to the last graph.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall11/atmo336/lectures/sec5/controversy.html
Wouldn't it be something if the Little Ice Age caused such glaciation that it changed the Earth's orbit around the Sun? Don't worry Ken. These guys in here don't understand Moment of Inertia or how displacing trillions of tons of mass could influence the Earth's spin. I think melting glaciers are causing it to slow myself which could theoretically release more heat. Just a few things for people in here to consider.

edited to clarify who I was identifying as the expert ice core researcher.
Edited on 13-05-2019 04:52
13-05-2019 04:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Ah, the pseudonymous experts who know better than the people who study climate!
Its not that we know better than people that study the climate but we are not listening to a tiny group that say they are the whole. Lets say you had 100 people studying something and 10 of them declared they were the experts and that every one of the 100 agreed with them. Would you accept that as truth or would you look at what the 100 wrote and let them tell you themselves.

YOU are allowing a tiny group tell you that everyone agrees with them, but even their own studies prove this is false.

What a load of confused rubbish about what "real science" is.
Real science use centuries old procedures that were created by scientist and their predecessors to prevent fraud.
Here is a list of articles that shows what happens when the procedures are not followed.

Looking to experts and appealing to authority is exactly the correct thing for those who are not experts themselves.
The problem is that you have a tiny group proclaiming them the ONLY authority on the subject, while the rest of the scientist are not paying them any heed.

Here is a list of peer review scientific journals. Notice that there is no climate science in the fields.

Presuming the experts are wrong until you yourself are entirely convinced is entirely incorrect;
Which is exactly what you are doing. A tiny group is telling you that there is a risk and you never question what they tell you. You should look to others to see if other experts agree.


Taking the conclusions of decades of top level science based expert reports and studies seriously is not a religious act
Its not a scientific act. In science you ALWAYS question it. In religion, you NEVER question anything and this is what alarmist insist you do. They tell you that there is no debate, its all over. THAT is religion dogma.


"this issue is not innately about capitalism or communism or globalism or nanny-statism." Then why it is that only socialist are pushing it. Every single "scientist" that is behind it is a socialist. Michael Mann, James Hansen, and almost everyone you can mention is a outspoken liberal socialist that believes we have to redistribute wealth at gun point if necessary. Since they do not have an army, they have to convince people like to you vote to give away everyone's rights.

"I know a lot of people concerned about global warming and none are proposing global government." One of the parts of the Paris accord that few people noticed was a phrase that would make it impossible to stop giving money for global warming and would allow them to rise the money we owed every year. That means that the UN would have rights to set our taxes.

No Marxism is required to act
Its not required, but EVERYONE that is pushing, is liberal socialist. They want to take away the our rights to decide things, and put it all in the name of the government. THAT is Marxism. Everyone is suppose to own it, but if you are dependent on them, then they own you.

I believe the principle solutions will come (are coming)
Its already here. No one wants it. Big business cant control it so they cant make money off it. Socialist do not want it because it doesn't put the control in their grubby little hands.

wouldn't want people who lean right to know that there is no requirement to turn socialist to face up to the climate problem, no world government agenda needed, no end to responsible free enterprise.
The problem is, everyone pushing "solutions" to it basically say one thing: "raise taxes and we will stop it". When no one has anything, then how can we not be free?

Or for those leaning right to understand that appropriate and effective policy is entirely compatible with free markets, democracy and the rule of law.
The problem isn't that any real solution wouldn't be compatible. The problem is that the "solution" they want to implement are not compatible. Their "solution" is to nationalize energy, destroy all cars, planes and trucks, and rebuild every building in the country.

Knowing the consequences of that CO2 dumping
Here lies the problem. We do NOT know the consequences of co2 "dumping". Every model that shows a risk to humanity, or even other life on earth, requires an atmospheric sensitivity to co2 increase of at least 2°c per doubling of co2. Every model with an atmospheric sensitivity to co2 increase of greater than .7°C is off by at least .3°c in 20 years.

In addition, every model that says co2 has a sensitivity of greater than .1°c per doubling can not accurately predict the past. According to every model based on co2, there is no way the Antarctica continent could have had ice on it more than 35 million years ago. According to cores drilled into the glacial deposits all around the continent, there was an ice sheet over the entire continent 40 million years ago and that is as far back as they were able to determine. They have never been able to determine when the continent froze over because its farther back than their cores can read. IF co2 is responsible for the climate change, there is no way the continent could have had an ice sheet when the co2 levels were above 1000, yet it did.

Every model is wrong.

we don't need to worry about imminent ice ages
Another fake claim by alarmist. The scientist said we were at risk of a LITTLE ice age, not a full ice age, because we are still in the ice age. We will not face a glaciation for another 5000 years.
13-05-2019 05:04
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
James___ wrote:
Ken Fabian wrote:
Ah, the pseudonymous experts who know better than the people who study climate! What a load of confused rubbish about what "real science" is.

Looking to experts and appealing to authority is exactly the correct thing for those who are not experts themselves. Presuming the experts are wrong until you yourself are entirely convinced is entirely incorrect; it becomes a means to presume anything you don't understand, can't understand and don't want to understand is wrong - which just makes you wrong. It is basic common sense that people who make a career out of studying something will know more about it than you do.

Taking the conclusions of decades of top level science based expert reports and studies seriously is not a religious act - just a normal, reasonable trust in the methods and institutions of science.

Taking it seriously is not a politically extremist act either - this issue is not innately about capitalism or communism or globalism or nanny-statism.

No world governments is required to accept it and nations entering into agreements with other nations, knowingly, for mutual benefit doesn't require giving up sovereignty - I know a lot of people concerned about global warming and none are proposing global government.

No Marxism is required to act effectively to reduce GHG driven climate change - I believe the principle solutions will come (are coming) from innovative entrepreneurs who will be selling their technology free market style around the world. But I can see why opponents of climate responsibility being a real thing want people who lean right to think otherwise; wouldn't want people who lean right to know that there is no requirement to turn socialist to face up to the climate problem, no world government agenda needed, no end to responsible free enterprise. Or for those leaning right to understand that appropriate and effective policy is entirely compatible with free markets, democracy and the rule of law.

The emissions and climate change problem is foremost about responsibility and accountability for the externalised consequences and costs of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere - and we now make more CO2 than any other substance, way more than any other kind of waste, more than concrete or steel, more than concrete and steel. The only commodity I know of that we make more of is rock aggregate, ie crushed and graded rock - and that doesn't leave us with more rock than we began with. Knowing the consequences of that CO2 dumping and other human activities on our climate system has been a long running (and previously non-partisan objective) within science agencies like the US National Science Council - because basic understandings of the absorption, emission and transmission of IR through atmospheric gases has long known of the significance of CO2 to global temperature. Such efforts coalesced in the 1980's and showed us clearly why we don't need to worry about imminent ice ages - but exactly knowing why global cooling from aerosol pollution is not a serious issue turned out not nearly so reassuring as people hoped!

Ignoring the consistent science based expert advice is dangerously irresponsible. But, hey, keep the conspiracy and incompetence rhetoric coming - people are better informed than ever, trust our long running science institutions more than you realise; your preferred misunderstandings and their apathy are no longer enough to convince them mainstream science is wrong. Views like I see here just let people see who the ignorant and irresponsible extremists really are.



Ken,
Science & Environment
CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News
A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17611404

This guy is an ice core researcher. He is an expert in his field. It used to be argued that CO2 causes global warming because it ended the last ice age.
From Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
I would suggest reading what he wrote.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

I think it was a documentary in the 1960's by French scientist Joseph Fourier that started changing public opinion. And I've just shown you that experts disagree. Also the last ice age was extended by about 1/3 of all biomass on the Earth burning.
This would also raise CO2 levels all over the world.
Research suggests toward end of Ice Age, humans witnessed fires larger than dinosaur killer, thanks to a cosmic impact
by University of Kansas
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-ice-age-human-witnessed-larger.html

Myself, Hopefully in the next couple of years I'll be working on a Natural Climate Variation model. If we don't precisely understand natural cycles then we can't really understand how we're impacting the climate except for pollution. I tend to piss them off in here because I can get nit picky about the details. With warming and cooling trends it does matter.
Check this link out, they're professionals. It's northern Europe and it was warmer when Jesus walked. https://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html
And what some other educated people say and when you consider this, NASA states that stratospheric cooling equals tropospheric warming and CFC's were banned in 1987 for depleting the ozone layer. See my thread on about the IPCC and 2013; also it doesn't show any cooling like from 1500 to 1850. The Earth it seems is rebounding from an extreme cooling event. that cooling event is never discussed.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

And this is from the University of Arizona. Scroll down to the last graph.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall11/atmo336/lectures/sec5/controversy.html
Wouldn't it be something if the Little Ice Age caused such glaciation that it changed the Earth's orbit around the Sun? Don't worry Ken. These guys in here don't understand Moment of Inertia or how displacing trillions of tons of mass could influence the Earth's spin. I think melting glaciers are causing it to slow myself which could theoretically release more heat. Just a few things for people in here to consider.

edited to clarify who I was identifying as the expert ice core researcher.


I saw where a link was not clickable and edited to make the link clickable. This post is the result of a computer error.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/n73SycV8hPABuAXd8
Attached image:


Edited on 13-05-2019 05:09
13-05-2019 05:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Ken Fabian wrote: Ah, the pseudonymous experts who know better than the people who study climate!


Ah, another scientifically illiterate Marxist licking the boots of whoever will do his thinking for him. You are only here to bark at whoever your thought-master tells you to hate. It's not like you ever had any intention of discussing science.

Ken Fabian wrote: What a load of confused rubbish about what "real science" is.

The only ones applying the "no true scotsman" fallacy to science around here are other Marxists like yourself.

Ken Fabian wrote: Looking to experts and appealing to authority is exactly the correct thing for those who are not experts themselves.

Turning to religion for answers is only one option. Learning science yourself is another option.

You are apparently so F'ed-up in the head that you 1) believe your Global Warming religion to be science and 2) you hate those who did not turn to your religion for answers but instead learned actual science themselves.

You took the moron option and now pretend to put yourself above those who know so much more than you. Well, go ahead, let's go toe to toe, mano a mano, ... your WACKY religion vs my science. I'll blow you out of the water in short order.

So, what are you waiting for? Bring it on.

Ken Fabian wrote: Presuming the experts are wrong until you yourself are entirely convinced is entirely incorrect

There are no "experts" that get to speak for science. Science speaks for itself.

You, on the other hand, need others to do your thinking for you. It must suck to be you. You obey whatever your church clergy orders you to believe. I can see why you lead a miserable, frustrating life.

And it's only going to get worse when you try to put your WACKY religion up against science. So, I'm ready whenever you are.

Ken Fabian wrote: It is basic common sense that people who make a career out of studying something will know more about it than you do.

How do you know I'm not one of those people who uses relevant science every day? Is your denial of the science I leverage based purely on religious objections? Do I rile your religious sensitivities? Remember, you haven't ever discussed science with me so on what basis are you claiming that I am somehow mistaken?

Ken Fabian wrote: Taking the conclusions of decades of top level science based expert reports and studies seriously is not a religious act

Absorbing the conclusions of decades-old religious church dogma over classic physics simply because you have been ordered to believe is absolutely an act of religious faith.


Ken Fabian wrote: Taking it seriously is not a politically extremist act either - this issue is not innately about capitalism or communism or globalism or nanny-statism.

Yes, it most certainly is. It's about destroying the global economy, ending capitalism and installing Marxist dictatorships. There are plenty of GREEDY power-hungry Marxists who don't care how many lives they must destroy to attain power. The Marxist camps will always crank out Hitlers, Chavezes, Pol Pots, Trotskys, and others who simply hate humanity and will lie to the world to get whatever they want.

Ken Fabian wrote:I know a lot of people concerned about global warming and none are proposing global government.

And their concern has them advocating for the government to punish, I mean, tax the chit out of the successful (with the money to be redistributed by the government), all in the name of "addressing Climate Change" which is nothing but religious myth.

Ken Fabian wrote: No Marxism is required to act effectively to reduce GHG driven climate change

There is no such thing as "GHG-driven Climate Change" except in Global Warming religious dogma. There is certainly no such thing in science. However, the epic global crisis preached by the Church of Global Warming always calls for Marxist solutions that strike at the heart of capitalism (go figure).

Ken Fabian wrote: - I believe the principle solutions

There's no problem to solve.


Ken Fabian wrote: wouldn't want people who lean right to know that there is no requirement to turn socialist to face up to the climate problem,

There's no problem to solve. The king is naked.

Ken Fabian wrote: The emissions and climate change problem is foremost about responsibility and accountability for the externalised consequences and costs of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere

There's no problem to solve.

But you did bring up "externalities." Would you like to talk about them? I'd love the opportunity to expose you for knowing nothing about economics either.

Hint: running to Wikipedia will not help you.


Ken Fabian wrote: - and we now make more CO2 than any other substance,

Global plant life will thank us. We need plants.

Ken Fabian wrote: way more than any other kind of waste,

So, to the best of your scientific understanding, CO2 is just "waste" and is somehow not a life essential compound?

Ken Fabian wrote: Knowing the consequences of that CO2 dumping and other human activities on our climate system ...

I found it far more enlightening to understand that "global climate" or "global climate system" is a contradiction in terms. It's how you can weed out the charlatan organizations from the truly scientific organizations. If they are studying "The global climate" then its a religious organization, not a scientific one."

IPCC anyone?


Ken Fabian wrote: ... because basic understandings of the absorption, emission and transmission of IR through atmospheric gases has long known of the significance of CO2 to global temperature.

Nope. The Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation science is very clear that no atmospheric substance has any effect whatsoever on the planet's average global temperature.

Science has already answered this question. You are welcome to verify it yourself. Some people you trusted have led you astray.

Ken Fabian wrote: Ignoring the consistent science based expert advice is dangerously irresponsible.

Believing everything you are told to believe just because some religious preacher tells you that it is "settled science" is like believing whatever you read on the internet just because it's on the internet.

You sound like you would win the gold medal if gullibility were an Olympic event.

Ken Fabian wrote: But, hey, keep the conspiracy and incompetence rhetoric coming - people are better informed than ever, trust our long running science institutions more than you realise;

The Church of Global Warming is on its deathbed. Your religion is defunct.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-05-2019 05:55
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
Nothing personal IBNotDaMann, Scientists use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to say that when solar radiation is refracted that it can stay in the atmosphere longer. Did you not see my post to you where I tried to discuss this? That's the problem. You and Isn't have no idea how varying the wavelength of solar radiation might keep it in our atmosphere longer.
Does it matter? It might not but it is a variable that needs to be considered. As my favourite ice core researcher states, it might be an intensifier. Borrowing his quote for CO2.
This is something simple for you.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html
13-05-2019 06:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
dehammer wrote:YOU are allowing a tiny group tell you that everyone agrees with them, but even their own studies prove this is false.

I previously spent a lot of time raking you over the coals but I have to extend credit to you on this post. You say a lot of things that are spot on and worth repeating.

dehammer wrote:Real science use centuries old procedures that were created by scientist and their predecessors to prevent fraud.

One of the problems with natural language is the inherent ambiguity. Into the Night is absolutely correct in pointing out that any method that shows a falsifiable model to be false is valid because no one owns the scientific method.

Having said that, there is truth in what you write to the extent that the scientific method has grown into a serious testing industry for extremely complex systems born out of our technology explosion. The understanding used to directly test falsifiable models that predict nature has become a body of doctrinal knowledge for which one must be certified today to perform that function. There is a lot to know and, as you point out, there is so much that can go wrong if the testing is not methodical and comprehensive, i.e. the wrong conclusions can easily be drawn.

I noticed your mention of the word "fraud" and it is absolutely true that fraud will be attempted whenever there is sufficient dollar-value at stake.

dehammer wrote: The problem is that you have a tiny group proclaiming them the ONLY authority on the subject, while the rest of the scientist are not paying them any heed.

There are scientists that are Catholic.
There are scientists that are Muslim.
There are scientists that are Global Warming worshipers.
There are scientists who are atheists.

If you claim that Global Warming must be TRUE because there are scientists that believe in it then you must also accept Catholicism and Islam to be TRUE for the same reason ... and all the while acknowledging that atheism is correct for the same reason as well.

@ Into the Night - what do you think of that paradox?

dehammer wrote: A tiny group is telling you that there is a risk and you never question what they tell you.

This is exactly the point. I realize you don't appreciate the characterization but this is religion, i.e. unquestioning faith in what perceived authority figures tell you to believe.

Science, on the other hand, is not subjective. There are no opinions involved. One can call up any science model and simply see what it has to say. If it is science, no one has been able to show it to be false.


dehammer wrote: Its not a scientific act. In science you ALWAYS question it. In religion, you NEVER question anything and this is what alarmist insist you do. They tell you that there is no debate, its all over. THAT is religion dogma.

{applause} Well put.

dehammer wrote: One of the parts of the Paris accord that few people noticed was a phrase that would make it impossible to stop giving money for global warming and would allow them to rise the money we owed every year. That means that the UN would have rights to set our taxes.

I have long since been a proponent of letting you Europeans tax the chit out of yourselves (for Global Warming or for whatever reason you wish) so we Americans could sit back and see how that works out for you. I'm guessing you already think that you would rather not.

dehammer wrote:Its not required, but EVERYONE that is pushing, is liberal socialist. They want to take away the our rights to decide things, and put it all in the name of the government. THAT is Marxism. Everyone is suppose to own it, but if you are dependent on them, then they own you.

{applause} Well put.

dehammer wrote: The problem is, everyone pushing "solutions" to it basically say one thing: "raise taxes and we will stop it". When no one has anything, then how can we not be free?

Exactly. Marxists push Global Warming because they are pushing Marxism ... and to do that they have to deny at every corner that they are pushing Marxism.

dehammer wrote: The problem isn't that any real solution wouldn't be compatible. The problem is that the "solution" they want to implement are not compatible. Their "solution" is to nationalize energy, destroy all cars, planes and trucks, and rebuild every building in the country.

Excellent point. If you take the next quantum leap then you arrive at the understanding that no "solution" is based on any science, and that no science ever enters the discussion. If taxes and not science are the solution then what really is the "problem"? (hint: capitalism)

dehammer wrote:Every model is wrong.

By definition they have to be. If a model deviates from science, then it will quickly be revealed to be in error. Science (Stefan-Boltzmann) quite clearly shows that atmospheric composition does not affect the average global temperature. If a model is programmed to adjust the average global temperature because of changes in atmospheric CO2 then the model will be deviating from science and will be in error to that extent.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-05-2019 06:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
James___ wrote: Nothing personal IBNotDaMann, Scientists use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to say that when solar radiation is refracted that it can stay in the atmosphere longer.

There is no such thing as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

There is the Stefan-Boltzmann law and there is the Boltzmann constant.

The Boltzmann constant is:
1.38064852 × 10^-23 joule per degree kelvin *or*
1.38064852 × 10^-16 erg per degree kelvin

Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
Radiance = Kelvins^4 * Boltzmann_Constant * Emissivity_Constant

There is nothing in black body science that says certain wavelengths somehow "linger" in an atmosphere. Stefan-Boltzmann is clear: you cannot have a decrease in radiance with an increase in temperature.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-05-2019 06:54
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
Gotta have some fun in here, just so much horse manure. This is only if you like Clint Eastwood westerns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2fg3bR2osU
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT1NJwEi6nw

edited to add; no Americans were harmed in the making of these songs.

Just for the hell of it, more socialistic music;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niv522mbtM

Clint Eastwood's westerns were called spaghetti westerns because they were made in Italy. Once again, European. Gotta love'em!!!

I forgot to mention climate change, etc. Okay, I mentioned it, not spam.
Edited on 13-05-2019 07:09
13-05-2019 07:22
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
14 minutes of time well spent.

much better than wasting that 14 minutes on thinking about climate change.
Edited on 13-05-2019 07:25
13-05-2019 08:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Ah, the pseudonymous experts who know better than the people who study climate!

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. There is global climate to study.
Ken Fabian wrote:
What a load of confused rubbish about what "real science" is.

True Scotsman fallacy. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Looking to experts and appealing to authority is exactly the correct thing for those who are not experts themselves.

No, it is assuming that they are experts or authorities at all. False authority fallacy. Science is not 'experts', studies, papers, or even scientists. It is not people at all. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Three of them are ignored by the Church of Global Warming.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Presuming the experts are wrong until you yourself are entirely convinced is entirely incorrect;

Presuming they are experts is entirely incorrect. False authority fallacy.
Ken Fabian wrote:
it becomes a means to presume anything you don't understand, can't understand and don't want to understand is wrong - which just makes you wrong.

No matter how many times you say someone is wrong, you can't just discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just discard mathematics.
Ken Fabian wrote:
It is basic common sense that people who make a career out of studying something will know more about it than you do.

If they deny these theories of science or mathematics, you bet I know more than they do.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Taking the conclusions of decades of top level science based expert reports and studies seriously is not a religious act - just a normal, reasonable trust in the methods and institutions of science.

Science is not 'reports'. It is not 'experts'. False authority fallacy.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Taking it seriously is not a politically extremist act either -

Taking what seriously? A meaningless buzzword? 'Climate change' has no meaning.
Ken Fabian wrote:
this issue is not innately about capitalism or communism or globalism or nanny-statism.

That's exactly what it is. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
Ken Fabian wrote:
No world governments is required to accept it

Karl Marx did not argue a world government. He argued for socialism.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and nations entering into agreements with other nations, knowingly, for mutual benefit doesn't require giving up sovereignty -

Karl Marx did not argue giving up sovereignty either. He argued for socialism.
Ken Fabian wrote:
I know a lot of people concerned about global warming and none are proposing global government.

No one said anyone was. You are making shit up.
Ken Fabian wrote:
No Marxism is required to act effectively to reduce GHG driven climate change -

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. There is no meaning to the phrase 'climate change'. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are attempting to create energy out of nothing.
Ken Fabian wrote:
I believe the principle solutions will come (are coming) from innovative entrepreneurs who will be selling their technology free market style around the world.

No solution needed. There is no problem.
Ken Fabian wrote:
But I can see why opponents of climate responsibility

No responsibility needed. There are thousands of climates on Earth. There is no global climate. You have no control over the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to even measure it.
Ken Fabian wrote:
being a real thing want people who lean right to think otherwise;

Since the Church of Global Warming keeps suggesting that we give the government more taxing power and more regulatory power than is constitutional authorized, it is YOU that wants to implement oligarchies.
Ken Fabian wrote:
wouldn't want people who lean right to know that there is no requirement to turn socialist to face up to the climate problem,

There is no problem. Climate is not a problem. There is no global climate.
Ken Fabian wrote:
no world government agenda needed,

No one is saying there is.
Ken Fabian wrote:
no end to responsible free enterprise.

Try English. It works better.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Or for those leaning right to understand that appropriate and effective policy is entirely compatible with free markets,

That is exactly what the Church of Global Warming wants to shut down.
Ken Fabian wrote:
democracy

The United States is not a democracy. Currently, there are no democracies anywhere in the world.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and the rule of law.

The Church of Global Warming wants to eliminate the Constitution to bring about oligarchies and dictatorships.
Ken Fabian wrote:
The emissions and climate change problem

What problem? You have no idea how much is being emitted, or whether it is natural or man emitted. The phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.
Ken Fabian wrote:
is foremost about responsibility and accountability for the externalised consequences and costs of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere -

CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It is incapable of warming Earth.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and we now make more CO2 than any other substance,

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers.
Ken Fabian wrote:
way more than any other kind of waste,

Another buzzword. Define 'waste'.
Ken Fabian wrote:
more than concrete or steel, more than concrete and steel.

Concrete and steel is not waste. Neither is CO2.
Ken Fabian wrote:
The only commodity I know of that we make more of is rock aggregate, ie crushed and graded rock - and that doesn't leave us with more rock than we began with.

Rocks are not waste either. All of these are arguments from randU fallacies. You are just making up numbers.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Knowing the consequences of that CO2 dumping

None. Absolute none. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and other human activities on our climate system

Cilmate is not a system. It simply is. There are thousands of climates on Earth. There is no global climate.
Ken Fabian wrote:
has been a long running (and previously non-partisan objective) within science agencies like the US National Science Council -

Political organizations are not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
Ken Fabian wrote:
because basic understandings of the absorption, emission and transmission of IR through atmospheric gases has long known of the significance of CO2 to global temperature.

Absorption is not warming. It doesn't matter if CO2 or anything else happens to absorb certain frequencies of infrared light.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Such efforts coalesced in the 1980's and showed us clearly why we don't need to worry about imminent ice ages -

The next ice age isn't due for thousands of years. No need to worry.
Ken Fabian wrote:
but exactly knowing why global cooling from aerosol pollution

Aerosols are not pollution.
Ken Fabian wrote:
is not a serious issue turned out not nearly so reassuring as people hoped!

It never was an issue except to religious types like you.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Ignoring the consistent science based expert advice

There is none. Science is not 'experts'. It is not 'advice'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Theories which you ignore.
Ken Fabian wrote:
is dangerously irresponsible.

Worrying about your meaningless buzzwords is pointless.
Ken Fabian wrote:
But, hey, keep the conspiracy

That is what YOU are doing.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and incompetence rhetoric coming -

That is what YOU are doing.
Ken Fabian wrote:
people are better informed than ever,

Fortunately, they are. They are beginning to see what a fundamentalist religion the Church of Global Warming really is.
Ken Fabian wrote:
trust our long running science institutions more than you realise;

Void argument fallacy. False authority fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (politics <-> science).
Ken Fabian wrote:
your preferred misunderstandings

No misunderstanding. The equations are quite simple to anyone who cares to read them.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and their apathy are no longer enough to convince them mainstream science is wrong.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Views like I see here just let people see who the ignorant and irresponsible extremists really are.

They are you.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2019 08:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
James___ wrote:
Nothing personal IBNotDaMann, Scientists use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to say that when solar radiation is refracted that it can stay in the atmosphere longer. Did you not see my post to you where I tried to discuss this? That's the problem. You and Isn't have no idea how varying the wavelength of solar radiation might keep it in our atmosphere longer.
Does it matter? It might not but it is a variable that needs to be considered. As my favourite ice core researcher states, it might be an intensifier. Borrowing his quote for CO2.
This is something simple for you.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html


The Stefan-Boltzmann law has nothing to do with refraction. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a natural constant that is part of the equation. You keep conflating the two, and try to change what the Stefan-Boltzmann law is.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2019 08:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote:YOU are allowing a tiny group tell you that everyone agrees with them, but even their own studies prove this is false.

I previously spent a lot of time raking you over the coals but I have to extend credit to you on this post. You say a lot of things that are spot on and worth repeating.

dehammer wrote:Real science use centuries old procedures that were created by scientist and their predecessors to prevent fraud.

One of the problems with natural language is the inherent ambiguity. Into the Night is absolutely correct in pointing out that any method that shows a falsifiable model to be false is valid because no one owns the scientific method.

Having said that, there is truth in what you write to the extent that the scientific method has grown into a serious testing industry for extremely complex systems born out of our technology explosion. The understanding used to directly test falsifiable models that predict nature has become a body of doctrinal knowledge for which one must be certified today to perform that function. There is a lot to know and, as you point out, there is so much that can go wrong if the testing is not methodical and comprehensive, i.e. the wrong conclusions can easily be drawn.

I noticed your mention of the word "fraud" and it is absolutely true that fraud will be attempted whenever there is sufficient dollar-value at stake.

dehammer wrote: The problem is that you have a tiny group proclaiming them the ONLY authority on the subject, while the rest of the scientist are not paying them any heed.

There are scientists that are Catholic.
There are scientists that are Muslim.
There are scientists that are Global Warming worshipers.
There are scientists who are atheists.

If you claim that Global Warming must be TRUE because there are scientists that believe in it then you must also accept Catholicism and Islam to be TRUE for the same reason ... and all the while acknowledging that atheism is correct for the same reason as well.

@ Into the Night - what do you think of that paradox?


A paradox already answered by Karl Popper and by what science is. This kind of statement is the paradox created by Francis Bacon when he tried to justify the use of supporting evidence in science to prove Christianity was science.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2019 08:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Nothing personal IBNotDaMann, Scientists use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to say that when solar radiation is refracted that it can stay in the atmosphere longer.

There is no such thing as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

There is the Stefan-Boltzmann law and there is the Boltzmann constant.

The Boltzmann constant is:
1.38064852 × 10^-23 joule per degree kelvin *or*
1.38064852 × 10^-16 erg per degree kelvin

Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
Radiance = Kelvins^4 * Boltzmann_Constant * Emissivity_Constant

There is nothing in black body science that says certain wavelengths somehow "linger" in an atmosphere. Stefan-Boltzmann is clear: you cannot have a decrease in radiance with an increase in temperature.

I've already told him this numerous times. He keeps conflating the two, all while he's trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to include all kinds of crazy terms like frequency, refraction index, etc.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2019 08:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Nothing personal IBNotDaMann, Scientists use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to say that when solar radiation is refracted that it can stay in the atmosphere longer. Did you not see my post to you where I tried to discuss this? That's the problem. You and Isn't have no idea how varying the wavelength of solar radiation might keep it in our atmosphere longer.
Does it matter? It might not but it is a variable that needs to be considered. As my favourite ice core researcher states, it might be an intensifier. Borrowing his quote for CO2.
This is something simple for you.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html


The Stefan-Boltzmann law has nothing to do with refraction. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a natural constant that is part of the equation. You keep conflating the two, and try to change what the Stefan-Boltzmann law is.


This is as stale as month old bread. it's gotten mouldy. At what point do you not understand that absorbed energy that is emitted is refracted? This is very basic.
Are you saying that snow refracts light the same as sand? Interesting thought.
13-05-2019 14:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Into the Night wrote:A paradox already answered by Karl Popper and by what science is. This kind of statement is the paradox created by Francis Bacon when he tried to justify the use of supporting evidence in science to prove Christianity was science.

I sort of like the twist of having to say that both [insert a particular theism] and atheism are simultaneously correct ... because there are scientists of that persuasion.

We need Karl Popper back. I don't mind filling in while we find a suitable replacement.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-05-2019 17:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4021)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Ah, the pseudonymous experts who know better than the people who study climate! What a load of confused rubbish about what "real science" is.

Looking to experts and appealing to authority is exactly the correct thing for those who are not experts themselves. Presuming the experts are wrong until you yourself are entirely convinced is entirely incorrect; it becomes a means to presume anything you don't understand, can't understand and don't want to understand is wrong - which just makes you wrong. It is basic common sense that people who make a career out of studying something will know more about it than you do.

Taking the conclusions of decades of top level science based expert reports and studies seriously is not a religious act - just a normal, reasonable trust in the methods and institutions of science.

Taking it seriously is not a politically extremist act either - this issue is not innately about capitalism or communism or globalism or nanny-statism.

No world governments is required to accept it and nations entering into agreements with other nations, knowingly, for mutual benefit doesn't require giving up sovereignty - I know a lot of people concerned about global warming and none are proposing global government.

No Marxism is required to act effectively to reduce GHG driven climate change - I believe the principle solutions will come (are coming) from innovative entrepreneurs who will be selling their technology free market style around the world. But I can see why opponents of climate responsibility being a real thing want people who lean right to think otherwise; wouldn't want people who lean right to know that there is no requirement to turn socialist to face up to the climate problem, no world government agenda needed, no end to responsible free enterprise. Or for those leaning right to understand that appropriate and effective policy is entirely compatible with free markets, democracy and the rule of law.

The emissions and climate change problem is foremost about responsibility and accountability for the externalised consequences and costs of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere - and we now make more CO2 than any other substance, way more than any other kind of waste, more than concrete or steel, more than concrete and steel. The only commodity I know of that we make more of is rock aggregate, ie crushed and graded rock - and that doesn't leave us with more rock than we began with. Knowing the consequences of that CO2 dumping and other human activities on our climate system has been a long running (and previously non-partisan objective) within science agencies like the US National Science Council - because basic understandings of the absorption, emission and transmission of IR through atmospheric gases has long known of the significance of CO2 to global temperature. Such efforts coalesced in the 1980's and showed us clearly why we don't need to worry about imminent ice ages - but exactly knowing why global cooling from aerosol pollution is not a serious issue turned out not nearly so reassuring as people hoped!

Ignoring the consistent science based expert advice is dangerously irresponsible. But, hey, keep the conspiracy and incompetence rhetoric coming - people are better informed than ever, trust our long running science institutions more than you realise; your preferred misunderstandings and their apathy are no longer enough to convince them mainstream science is wrong. Views like I see here just let people see who the ignorant and irresponsible extremists really are.


Well, I have worked in science for over 40 years. I know that the most important part of the argument for man-made climate change (rising levels of CO2) is not just false but laughable since it was proven false circa 1915.

I have also traced this balderdash back a VERY long way to Margaret Sanger and her cult that the only race worthy of living on this planet is the white race and all others should undergo genocide via one means or another.

Exactly WHAT do you suppose would happen in China and India were they forced to reduce their power use? It would be cataclysmic on those populations.

Even if we were to accept that man is causing man-made climate change the USA is now to the point where we could not improve unless you believed some lunatic like Ocasio-Cortez and removed all cars, all airplanes and all trucking of all sorts and allowed the population to starve to death because every 8 years these environmentalist supported scientists give us yet another deadline until the world is going to die.

Your rather creepy belief in an authority that does not have your interests in mind and instead wants your support to kill you seems a great deal less sane than it could be. As has been shown here many times - there are NO advantages at all from wind or solar power. They use virtually the same amount of power to manufacture, install and maintain as they generate.

So I suggest you LEARN about what you are advocating instead of bowing to some authority whom you think knows all about this subject.
13-05-2019 18:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Nothing personal IBNotDaMann, Scientists use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to say that when solar radiation is refracted that it can stay in the atmosphere longer. Did you not see my post to you where I tried to discuss this? That's the problem. You and Isn't have no idea how varying the wavelength of solar radiation might keep it in our atmosphere longer.
Does it matter? It might not but it is a variable that needs to be considered. As my favourite ice core researcher states, it might be an intensifier. Borrowing his quote for CO2.
This is something simple for you.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html


The Stefan-Boltzmann law has nothing to do with refraction. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a natural constant that is part of the equation. You keep conflating the two, and try to change what the Stefan-Boltzmann law is.


This is as stale as month old bread. it's gotten mouldy. At what point do you not understand that absorbed energy that is emitted is refracted? This is very basic.
Are you saying that snow refracts light the same as sand? Interesting thought.

That is not refraction.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2019 18:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:A paradox already answered by Karl Popper and by what science is. This kind of statement is the paradox created by Francis Bacon when he tried to justify the use of supporting evidence in science to prove Christianity was science.

I sort of like the twist of having to say that both [insert a particular theism] and atheism are simultaneously correct ... because there are scientists of that persuasion.

We need Karl Popper back. I don't mind filling in while we find a suitable replacement.


Heh. Feel like raising the dead? No, that would not be pretty.

Karl Popper has contributed much in philosophy and in how science is defined today. Though he has passed, his legacy will continue on. It is people like you, gfm, and me (and a few others) that keep this flame alight on these forums.

The way the Church of Global Warming likes to try to falsify the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law by using data and political consensus can only be described as a fundamentalist religion.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2019 19:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
James___ wrote:This is as stale as month old bread. it's gotten mouldy. At what point do you not understand that absorbed energy that is emitted is refracted? This is very basic.

Are you saying that snow refracts light the same as sand? Interesting thought.


Refraction and Emission are completely different phenomena, separate and distinct.

Refraction deals with angles based on refractive indices:
Index1 * Sin (Theta1) = Index2 * Sin (Theta2)

Emission (Radiance) deals with Power based on Temperature:
Radiance_Power = Kelvins^4 * Boltzmann_Constant * Emissivity_Constant


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-05-2019 01:53
Ken Fabian
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
I wonder if you guys realise how loopy your views really are? A big touch of group think here I'm thinking.

It is entirely reasonable to believe our science agencies are telling the truth - and unreasonable to assume bad faith and incompetence None of you has shown any superior abilities to assess and critique the science or the politics. I think the opposite - and almost no-one I know would agree with you. In light of decades of consistent science based expert advice it is views like those here - "it is a religion", "it is a Marxist conspiracy to force world government" that are delusional. I don't know anyone seeking to make world socialist government out of the climate problem, not even The Australian Greens.

You don't agree and don't like it but you will have to suck it up - you picked the wrong side in this; the climate problem is as real and as serious as the mainstream science says. No matter how you try and reinterpret and spin things, it isn't going to ever go away, not in the lifetimes of any person now living and well beyond. As real world impact continue, and move beyond more frequency of extreme weather events of the kind we are familiar with into events beyond all previous experience the Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking - of which you are a voluntary extremist wing - will increasingly be seen as irresponsible and contemptible.

Policy actions, including entering into international agreements is entirely reasonable in light of that. The quality of that policy action is made less effective because of the enduring failure of the conservative right to contribute in any constructive ways - going for the least cost, budget option of denying it is true in order to deny responsibility - to avoid accountability for ongoing externalised costs and potential liability for past ones.

If such policy has a leftish bent - it is because of that failure of those leaning right to treat mainstream expert advice with the seriousness it deserves and participate constructively - looks more like they wanted the extremists in charge in very misguided 'give em enough rope' style. Which might have made sense if climate science is wrong and there isn't a real climate problem. Which turned out being dangerously irresponsible as well as pre-emptively stupid in light of the science being true.
Edited on 14-05-2019 01:56
14-05-2019 02:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Ken Fabian wrote:
I wonder if you guys realise how loopy your views really are?

I wonder if there is any chance that you will realize how truly gullible you are. Talk about naive!

Ken Fabian wrote: It is entirely reasonable to believe our science agencies are telling the truth - and unreasonable to assume bad faith and incompetence

It is totally naive to believe a political organization is somehow not pursuing a political agenda.

I'm guessing by your level of confusion that politics was never fully explained to you. It would be easier to explain to you if you would first tell me how you personally understand political organizations exist to serve you and not their own agenda.

Ken Fabian wrote: None of you has shown any superior abilities to assess and critique the science or the politics.

Notice that you have never discussed any science with anyone here yet you are saying that others are somehow mistaken. How do you explain that? Let's start with what science I have gotten wrong?

Ken Fabian wrote: I think the opposite - and almost no-one I know would agree with you.

You hang out with morons, I see. That's nothing of which to be proud.

Ken Fabian wrote: In light of decades of consistent science based expert advice ... drivel deleted ...

You sure love your meaningless buzzwords. You like to string them together in lots of different ways but they still don't say anything.

There is no science supporting Global Warming. None. Without science, all that's left are people's opinions. Unfortunately for you, you lend authority to weasels who only want to ream you up the arse for the sole promise that they will do your thinking for you.

Ken Fabian wrote: You don't agree and don't like it but you will have to suck it up - you picked the wrong side in this;

So you are a coward who can be easily bullied by simple fear-mongering. What do you do when you encounter those who are not easily bullied and the only tactics that you know don't work? Do you have a Plan B?

Ken Fabian wrote: the climate problem is as real and as serious as the mainstream science says.

There is no problem to solve, least of all one involving a religious myth.

"Mainstream" applies to religions, which you apparently cannot tell from science. How embarrassing.

Ken Fabian wrote: As real world impact continue, ...

Yes, yes, ... real world impact. Fortunately people have been keeping track of those things claimed to be caused by Climate Change:

http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2786/list-caused-climate-change


Ken Fabian wrote: and move beyond more frequency of extreme weather events of the kind we are familiar with into events beyond all previous experience the Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking - of which you are a voluntary extremist wing - will increasingly be seen as irresponsible and contemptible.

Sad. You are desperate to have others believe and worship as you do.

Ken Fabian wrote: ...to avoid accountability for ongoing externalised costs and potential liability for past ones.

This will be my second invitation to discuss "externalities." Please don't keep running away.

Ken Fabian wrote: If such policy has a leftish bent - it is because of that failure of those leaning right to treat mainstream expert advice with the seriousness it deserves and participate constructively

Ahhh, that's right, blame Conservatives for the leftist bent, not the Marxist policy. You are an absolute moron.

Ken Fabian wrote: Which turned out being dangerously irresponsible as well as pre-emptively stupid in light of the science being true.

Which science would that be? You still haven't said. This is your opportunity to show that you can tell the difference between religion and science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-05-2019 02:59
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Ken, there are millions of scientists globally, why only a consensus of a couple of thousand? If climatology were sound science, and the crisis were real, you'd have millions of scientist buzzing. Most of the noise comes from politicians, most of those leaning to the left. Key thing about science, it's repeatable, predictable. As a species, this is all new to us, the 'theory' has no basis of having been observed in the past. Can't have science, if you can't repeat. You can measure temperature, you can measure CO2, but no way to observe or test how they work together outside the lab (computer simulation). Life is not a video game, and neither is science. Mostly, if this theory had any merit, you'd have a stampede of scientist wanting to do anything to fix the problem, not a fractional percent. A lot of competition and politics involved for researchers seeking funding. It's not unreasonable to expect a few thousand willing to prostitute themselves for grant money, go along with anything, to keep their research projects alive, small minority... Scientists aren't saints, they are human beings, just like anyone else, they struggle with morals and ethics, commit crimes, just like anyone else. We should be able to trust our government, our elected officials, yet corruption exists, and many commit crimes. We should be able to trust our police, but they also can be corrupt or commit crimes. Fortunately, only a small minority. 'Climate Change' has only existed on a computer screen. The only actual, real world tests of CO2, would be to either increase the level considerably, or remove a significant part. I'm with the group, who believe increasing CO2, would be a better experiment. Plants like CO2 and a warmer climate, and produce the food every living thing on this planet needs to survive. Reducing and removing CO2 is a danger to our future food supply. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere, simply to see if a theory is correct is a dangerous and costly proposal, on many levels. We've already proven, that we can survive a warmer climate, extreme weather events, natural disasters. We don't do so well, when food is scarce...
14-05-2019 03:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
Ken Fabian wrote:
I wonder if you guys realise how loopy your views really are? A big touch of group think here I'm thinking.

There is nothing loopy about theories of science or in mathematics.
Ken Fabian wrote:
It is entirely reasonable to believe our science agencies are telling the truth -

No, it isn't. The 'greenhouse gas' model violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. This law states: Ud=Q-W, where Ud is the change if energy in a system, Q is the energy put into the system, and W is the work taken out of the system. In other words, for the same Sun, the same energy is available to perform work (like trying to heat space). There is no significant energy available except from the Sun. You have to add additional energy from somewhere to heat up Earth. Where is that energy coming from?

No gas or vapor is a source of energy.

Ken Fabian wrote:
and unreasonable to assume bad faith and incompetence

Not at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You can't just discard them.
Ken Fabian wrote:
None of you has shown any superior abilities to assess and critique the science or the politics.

No need. The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law say it all, really. The 'greenhouse gas' model simply cannot work and be compatible with existing theories of science.
Ken Fabian wrote:
I think the opposite - and almost no-one I know would agree with you.

No physicist or chemist disagrees with the first law of thermodynamics.
Ken Fabian wrote:
In light of decades of consistent science based expert advice

Science is not 'experts' or 'advice'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Ken Fabian wrote:
it is views like those here - "it is a religion", "it is a Marxist conspiracy to force world government" that are delusional.

In philosophy, words like 'religion' are defined. I define it this way; so far I have had no significant challenges to it:

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. This in and of itself is not a fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. In addition, all religions have arguments extending from this initial argument.

In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Jesus Christ exists, and He is who He says He is (namely the Son of God). It is circular in nature because it is not possible to prove whether Jesus Christ exists, or whether any god or gods exist.

In the Church of Global Warming, that initial circular argument is that the Earth is warming. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and the points in time that 'warming' is occurring are not specified, so the term is meaningless, yet circular in nature. All other arguments stem from this initial argument.

The circular argument fallacy occurs when people try to perform a proof using a circular argument. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It's members try to prove the initial circular argument by claiming vague 'data' or 'consensus' or 'government blessing', usually through false authority fallacies such as what you are doing.

Ken Fabian wrote:
I don't know anyone seeking to make world socialist government out of the climate problem, not even The Australian Greens.

No one is claiming socialism must be a world government. Pay attention.
Ken Fabian wrote:
You don't agree and don't like it but you will have to suck it up - you picked the wrong side in this;

I'll take the side that the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and mathematics supports. You continue to just ignore these things.
Ken Fabian wrote:
the climate problem is as real and as serious as the mainstream science says.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science. This is a favorite buzzword of yours. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, nothing more, nothing less. It has no 'mainstream'.
Ken Fabian wrote:
No matter how you try and reinterpret and spin things,

Theories of science don't spin anything. But your religion sure tries to do so. Inversion fallacy.
Ken Fabian wrote:
it isn't going to ever go away, not in the lifetimes of any person now living and well beyond.

I don't expect the Church of Global Warming to ever go away. It's been around in one form or another for well over a century.
Ken Fabian wrote:
As real world impact continue,

None. None possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Ken Fabian wrote:
and move beyond more frequency of extreme weather events of the kind we are familiar with

None. None possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Ken Fabian wrote:
into events beyond all previous experience the Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking - of which you are a voluntary extremist wing - will increasingly be seen as irresponsible and contemptible.

Nah. It is YOU that is being irresponsible, by denying theories of science.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Policy actions, including entering into international agreements is entirely reasonable in light of that. The quality of that policy action is made less effective because of the enduring failure of the conservative right to contribute in any constructive ways - going for the least cost, budget option of denying it is true in order to deny responsibility - to avoid accountability for ongoing externalised costs and potential liability for past ones.

If such policy has a leftish bent - it is because of that failure of those leaning right to treat mainstream expert advice with the seriousness it deserves and participate constructively - looks more like they wanted the extremists in charge in very misguided 'give em enough rope' style. Which might have made sense if climate science is wrong and there isn't a real climate problem. Which turned out being dangerously irresponsible as well as pre-emptively stupid in light of the science being true.

You are not talking about science. You are confusing science with your fundamentalist religion.


The Parrot Killer
14-05-2019 03:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ken, there are millions of scientists globally, why only a consensus of a couple of thousand? If climatology were sound science, and the crisis were real, you'd have millions of scientist buzzing. Most of the noise comes from politicians, most of those leaning to the left. Key thing about science, it's repeatable, predictable. As a species, this is all new to us, the 'theory' has no basis of having been observed in the past. Can't have science, if you can't repeat. You can measure temperature, you can measure CO2, but no way to observe or test how they work together outside the lab (computer simulation). Life is not a video game, and neither is science. Mostly, if this theory had any merit, you'd have a stampede of scientist wanting to do anything to fix the problem, not a fractional percent. A lot of competition and politics involved for researchers seeking funding. It's not unreasonable to expect a few thousand willing to prostitute themselves for grant money, go along with anything, to keep their research projects alive, small minority... Scientists aren't saints, they are human beings, just like anyone else, they struggle with morals and ethics, commit crimes, just like anyone else. We should be able to trust our government, our elected officials, yet corruption exists, and many commit crimes. We should be able to trust our police, but they also can be corrupt or commit crimes.
Fortunately, only a small minority. 'Climate Change' has only existed on a computer screen. The only actual, real world tests of CO2, would be to either increase the level considerably, or remove a significant part. I'm with the group, who believe increasing CO2, would be a better experiment. Plants like CO2 and a warmer climate, and produce the food every living thing on this planet needs to survive. Reducing and removing CO2 is a danger to our future food supply. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere, simply to see if a theory is correct is a dangerous and costly proposal, on many levels. We've already proven, that we can survive a warmer climate, extreme weather events, natural disasters. We don't do so well, when food is scarce...


Most of these 'scientists' are 'climate scientists'. They are not scientists. They do not use or create any theory of science. They deny science. They have received a piece of paper from a school (they call it the education biz for a reason! There's MONEY in them thar degrees!), and are now effectively priests in the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
14-05-2019 03:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
It is entirely reasonable to believe our science agencies are telling the truth
What do you do when you have two groups telling you the opposite "truth". They cant both be true, can they?

That is the case with global warming. You have those that say it is real and those that say it isn't. So what are you suppose to do?

The answer is simple. Look at their end goal.

At one extreme, you have people that want the government to take total control over everyone's life. Who would be in control over the government? They would of course. They "know best" what everyone should have. That is what ever dictator in the world started out as. They got support by telling people they wanted what was best for EVERYONE.

Some how it is always the case that what is best for EVERYONE, is for a small group to live in luxury while the rest suffer.

On the opposite side, you have people that want the status que to continue. Yes, you do have a small group that live in luxury, but they do not force others to suffer. In fact, because it is a capitalist system, if people suffer, the people at the top lose. They only gain by people having the things they want.

In between, you have a lot of room and a lot of people that are there. A large group has been propagandized to since they were born. They have been told that there is no debate, that its all over, that unless we give the first group total power, the future will suffer. They tell you that ever scientist in the world agrees with them.

Think about that statement. Have you ever seen 98% of any group agree with anything? The first premise of science is to ALWAY question things. The first thing any real scientist is taught is to be skeptical. YET despite this being their natural base, we are told that 98% of people who never studied it suddenly decided to agree with statements they have not studied?

There is also a lot of people that refuse to accept the statements because they do not see it as possible.

Then there are those that are in the middle. We can be persuaded, IF you do it right. I like to think that the majority of Americans are in this group. The problem with us, is that you have REFUSED to do it right.

1) You insist on going off "consensus" when we are very aware of how often the "consensus" has been wrong. In my life time alone, I have seen at least 6 times when the "consensus" was wrong and a small group, sometimes, even a single person, was right. Insisting on everyone following the "consensus" for us is a negative.

2) you insist that the debate is over. I have been hearing that for 4 decades, and it has been wrong the entire time.

3) You keep altering data. I have seen NASA, NOAA and others alter the data at least 8 times in the last 30 years.

4) You refuse to use standard scientific procedures laid down by centuries of scientist and their predecessors to prevent scientific fraud. Why would you want to do things intended to prevent fraud unless you were intent on committing fraud?

and almost no-one I know would agree with you.
People have a tendency to hand out with people that agree with them on most things. The odds are, you are a liberal, so you hang out with liberals, which means they have the liberal view that global warming is man made. I hang out with veterans, which means if it is a discussion on the countries defense, we all agree. BUT if its about global warming, we run the gauntlet.

In light of decades of consistent science based expert advice
In light of decades of peer review science, glaciers are not retreating any faster than they were, seas are not rising faster, storms are actually fewer, and droughts are less intense.

Not one of the talking points that alarmist use are real, or backed up by facts.
1) When a hurricane hits the coast, you hear the media proclaim its because of mmcc. Yet the same storms were hitting the same spots centuries ago before man even found America. There was no cities there, so there was no harm. Now there are billion dollars worth buildings being destroy and they say this proves its man made.

2) subsidence causes the land to sink and they blame it on man made climate change instead of pumping water out of the ground beneath their feet.

3) You get a 2 year drought and they talk about the millions of dollars in damage in agriculture loss due to it and point to how this is the worse disaster to hit the agriculture in that area in history. They don't tell you that the history is only a few decades old.

4) California has refused to allow the Department of Interior to do control burns to get rid of the underbrush, and when it does burn it burns alot hotter and is harder to control, then they blame the climate instead of their failed policies.

you will have to suck it up - you picked the wrong side in this;
What proof do you have? Models that have consistently failed? Consensus that are fake and meaningless?

No, the problem is you have never proven that you are on the right side, so you can say we are on the wrong side.

As real world impact continue, and move beyond more frequency of extreme weather events of the kind
That's the problem. There is no increase in frequencies of extreme weather.

1) Hurricanes are slightly (statistically insignificantly) less, not more.
2) Tornados are definitely decreasing in intensity and frequency.
3) Drought are less intense and less frequent than any time in history.
4) Floods are fewer and less deadly. The only reason they do more damage is the cost of the buildings in the way. As the cost of the property goes up, so does the damage. IF you equalize the value, the damage has actually gone down over the decades as we build more resistant buildings.
5)Wild fires are only increasing in areas where they refuse to allow small fires to clear underbrush.

So what is increasing? Temperature swings? nope. Snow falls? nope. Climate related deaths? Nope, the cold kills more than the heat.

IF we give the alarmist enough rope they will hang us.
14-05-2019 03:52
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Actually, it's not the damage, or the value that's any different, just the way it's reported and paid for. The government is more involved, and quite generous with the disaster relief funds, which most would be fools to not take free money, just being passed out. More people have insurance to help with their loses, those companies also get help from the government. Just a few decades ago, people were less dependent on insurance or government relief, they fixed their own damages, or just threw in the towel, and started over. The dollar amount estimates are subjective, the actual value of what is destroyed is unknown, the future value of crops are never known, until sold. They only have an estimate on how much money the government and insurance companies will pay out.
14-05-2019 04:08
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
There have been studies (cant remember where I saw it a decade ago), where they compared the damage done AFTER they adjusted for property values. The damage went down steadily over the last (at the time of the studies) 50 years. This was due to increased knowledge on how to make structures more survivable.
14-05-2019 04:37
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
dehammer wrote:
There have been studies (cant remember where I saw it a decade ago), where they compared the damage done AFTER they adjusted for property values. The damage went down steadily over the last (at the time of the studies) 50 years. This was due to increased knowledge on how to make structures more survivable.


They don't make them like they use too down here in Florida... Now it's about quick and cheap, government+insurance=free replacement. My house was built in 1946, nothing fancy, but has held up very well pat 30 years I've lived in it. Lots of storm damages to new homes, built last 10-15 years. They use to be over cautious on the construction, people wanted homes that would last forever, pass down to their kids. Most people plan on moving, before the mortgage is paid off. The technology is more about how to get it built faster and cheaper, and still hold together, for average storm conditions. Strong storms don't blow through that often.
14-05-2019 05:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
dehammer wrote: What do you do when you have two groups telling you the opposite "truth". They cant both be true, can they?

That is the case with global warming. You have those that say it is real and those that say it isn't. So what are you suppose to do?

The answer is simple. Look at the science and read it yourself. You don't ask anyone's opinion. You get the straight scoop and then you start insisting people answer your new questions based on this new understanding. If you get a major semantic pivot in response then you know you were being deceived.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-05-2019 05:54
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
There have been studies (cant remember where I saw it a decade ago), where they compared the damage done AFTER they adjusted for property values. The damage went down steadily over the last (at the time of the studies) 50 years. This was due to increased knowledge on how to make structures more survivable.


They don't make them like they use too down here in Florida... Now it's about quick and cheap, government+insurance=free replacement. My house was built in 1946, nothing fancy, but has held up very well pat 30 years I've lived in it. Lots of storm damages to new homes, built last 10-15 years. They use to be over cautious on the construction, people wanted homes that would last forever, pass down to their kids. Most people plan on moving, before the mortgage is paid off. The technology is more about how to get it built faster and cheaper, and still hold together, for average storm conditions. Strong storms don't blow through that often.
So I guess even homes have gone the "disposable" way.

IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote: What do you do when you have two groups telling you the opposite "truth". They cant both be true, can they?

That is the case with global warming. You have those that say it is real and those that say it isn't. So what are you suppose to do?

The answer is simple. Look at the science and read it yourself. You don't ask anyone's opinion. You get the straight scoop and then you start insisting people answer your new questions based on this new understanding. If you get a major semantic pivot in response then you know you were being deceived.
Could not have said it better.
Edited on 14-05-2019 05:55
14-05-2019 17:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4021)
Ken Fabian wrote:
I wonder if you guys realise how loopy your views really are? A big touch of group think here I'm thinking.

It is entirely reasonable to believe our science agencies are telling the truth - and unreasonable to assume bad faith and incompetence None of you has shown any superior abilities to assess and critique the science or the politics. I think the opposite - and almost no-one I know would agree with you. In light of decades of consistent science based expert advice it is views like those here - "it is a religion", "it is a Marxist conspiracy to force world government" that are delusional. I don't know anyone seeking to make world socialist government out of the climate problem, not even The Australian Greens.

You don't agree and don't like it but you will have to suck it up - you picked the wrong side in this; the climate problem is as real and as serious as the mainstream science says. No matter how you try and reinterpret and spin things, it isn't going to ever go away, not in the lifetimes of any person now living and well beyond. As real world impact continue, and move beyond more frequency of extreme weather events of the kind we are familiar with into events beyond all previous experience the Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking - of which you are a voluntary extremist wing - will increasingly be seen as irresponsible and contemptible.

Policy actions, including entering into international agreements is entirely reasonable in light of that. The quality of that policy action is made less effective because of the enduring failure of the conservative right to contribute in any constructive ways - going for the least cost, budget option of denying it is true in order to deny responsibility - to avoid accountability for ongoing externalised costs and potential liability for past ones.

If such policy has a leftish bent - it is because of that failure of those leaning right to treat mainstream expert advice with the seriousness it deserves and participate constructively - looks more like they wanted the extremists in charge in very misguided 'give em enough rope' style. Which might have made sense if climate science is wrong and there isn't a real climate problem. Which turned out being dangerously irresponsible as well as pre-emptively stupid in light of the science being true.


We all here are amenable to real knowledge so why don't you tell us what your credentials are? Where were you trained and in what science. Eager to hear all of this high fallutin knowledge from "the other side".
14-05-2019 19:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
Wake wrote:
Ken Fabian wrote:
I wonder if you guys realise how loopy your views really are? A big touch of group think here I'm thinking.

It is entirely reasonable to believe our science agencies are telling the truth - and unreasonable to assume bad faith and incompetence None of you has shown any superior abilities to assess and critique the science or the politics. I think the opposite - and almost no-one I know would agree with you. In light of decades of consistent science based expert advice it is views like those here - "it is a religion", "it is a Marxist conspiracy to force world government" that are delusional. I don't know anyone seeking to make world socialist government out of the climate problem, not even The Australian Greens.

You don't agree and don't like it but you will have to suck it up - you picked the wrong side in this; the climate problem is as real and as serious as the mainstream science says. No matter how you try and reinterpret and spin things, it isn't going to ever go away, not in the lifetimes of any person now living and well beyond. As real world impact continue, and move beyond more frequency of extreme weather events of the kind we are familiar with into events beyond all previous experience the Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking - of which you are a voluntary extremist wing - will increasingly be seen as irresponsible and contemptible.

Policy actions, including entering into international agreements is entirely reasonable in light of that. The quality of that policy action is made less effective because of the enduring failure of the conservative right to contribute in any constructive ways - going for the least cost, budget option of denying it is true in order to deny responsibility - to avoid accountability for ongoing externalised costs and potential liability for past ones.

If such policy has a leftish bent - it is because of that failure of those leaning right to treat mainstream expert advice with the seriousness it deserves and participate constructively - looks more like they wanted the extremists in charge in very misguided 'give em enough rope' style. Which might have made sense if climate science is wrong and there isn't a real climate problem. Which turned out being dangerously irresponsible as well as pre-emptively stupid in light of the science being true.


We all here are amenable to real knowledge so why don't you tell us what your credentials are?

It doesn't matter, Wake. False authority fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Where were you trained

It doesn't matter, Wake. False authority fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and in what science.

It doesn't matter, Wake. False authority fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Eager to hear all of this high fallutin knowledge from "the other side".

It doesn't matter, Wake. False authority fallacy.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a degree, it is not a license, it is not a training program, it is not a title of nobility, it is not a scientist. It is not even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. There is nothing else.


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2019 05:32
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
ITN, because I believe in you, I am going to get a copy of that book that you and IBDaMann like so much by Karl Marx. It doesn't support global warming or climate change, right? I'm with you guys 100%!!!!!!!!! And I'm not doing it because I have to like you guys ordered me to or something but because I understand about the fallacies that both of you are always referring to. All I can say ITN is UDaMann!!!!
Umm, ITN can you show everyone how you write P = eбAT^4? You write it the right way!!!!!!
And when something emits radiation according to P = eбAT^4 like a radio transmitter. The transmitter follows the same rules, it emits what it absorbs because it too is a black body, right?
It sure is nice to know that all broadcast emissions are the same P = eбAT^4. Yep, my radio can't tell what it's receiving because it's all P = eбAT^4.
I sure am glad that you and IBDaMann know your stuff!!!!! You guys are simply awesome!!!!
Edited on 15-05-2019 05:32
15-05-2019 15:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
James___ wrote: ITN, because I believe in you, I am going to get a copy of that book that you and IBDaMann like so much by Karl Marx.

Great! While it could be sold in book form, it's really far too short. It's just a manifesto. You could call it up online and read it over lunch. You'll think you're reading the political organizing site of the DNC! (that's the People's Socialist, ... umm, I mean the Democrat Party here in the US).

James___ wrote: It doesn't support global warming or climate change, right?

Correct. It's the other way around. Global Warming and Climate Change support the Marxist movement.

James___ wrote: I'm with you guys 100%!!!!!!!!!

Libertarian?

James___ wrote: And I'm not doing it because I have to like you guys ordered me to or something but because I understand about the fallacies that both of you are always referring to.

I don't remember referring to any fallacies. Could you refresh my memory?

James___ wrote: Umm, ITN can you show everyone how you write P = eбAT^4? You write it the right way!!!!!!

What was wrong with my way? I feel snubbed.

James___ wrote: And when something emits radiation according to P = eбAT^4 like a radio transmitter.

I don't mean to harp on your scientific illiteracy but you are confusing black body science with basic electromagnetism (science) / electronics (engineering).

Could I get you to just accept that the two are distinctly separate?

James___ wrote: The transmitter follows the same rules, it emits what it absorbs because it too is a black body, right?

An antenna emits thermal radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann and it transmits electromagnetic energy per a modulated electrical current. The shape and material composition of the antenna factor into the transmission.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-05-2019 18:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
James___ wrote:
ITN, because I believe in you, I am going to get a copy of that book that you and IBDaMann like so much by Karl Marx.

Enjoy your read. It's a short document. You can also order books written by Karl Marx on Amazon.
James___ wrote:
It doesn't support global warming or climate change, right?

Nope. But the Church of Global Warming supports Marxism. It is just one of many techniques Marxists use to further their religion.
James___ wrote:
I'm with you guys 100%!!!!!!!!! And I'm not doing it because I have to like you guys ordered me to or something

We couldn't order you around even if we wanted to. The trick is that we don't want to. Marxists want to do that.
James___ wrote:
but because I understand about the fallacies that both of you are always referring to.

...?
James___ wrote:
All I can say ITN is UDaMann!!!!

So...to date you have said I am an American Indian living in the Everett area, a Jew that has evil plots, a women, a guy that lives in Wisconsin, and now you say I am IBdaMann??

James___ wrote:
Umm, ITN can you show everyone how you write P = eбAT^4? You write it the right way!!!!!!

Why? I don't perform for my supper. You just wrote the equation. Now you have to understand it.
James___ wrote:
And when something emits radiation according to P = eбAT^4 like a radio transmitter.

A radio transmitter emits BOTH blackbody radiance and harmonic radiance. Blackbody radiance is only part of what is emitted.
James___ wrote:
The transmitter follows the same rules, it emits what it absorbs because it too is a black body, right?

Correct. However, it is also a radio transmitter. It puts out harmonic radiance as well. That radiance is on a single narrow frequency band (we hope!).
James___ wrote:
It sure is nice to know that all broadcast emissions are the same P = eбAT^4.

That they are. But blackbody radiance is only part of what can be radiated from something.
James___ wrote:
Yep, my radio can't tell what it's receiving because it's all P = eбAT^4.

No, it's receiving because it has a tuned circuit that matches the frequency of the harmonic radiance from a transmitting antenna.
James___ wrote:
I sure am glad that you and IBDaMann know your stuff!!!!! You guys are simply awesome!!!!

That I do. So does IBDaMann.

A basic problem you have now is conflating blackbody radiance with all radiance. It is only part of what can be radiated as light. Radio transmitters also put out a narrow band of electromagnetic energy by virtue of the use of oscillators in the transmitter (even for spark gap transmission). Receivers are tuned to that same frequency band. Radiance, or the emission of electromagnetic energy by something, does not have to be solely due to blackbody radiance, but blackbody radiance is part of what is emitted by everything.

Logical sets and subsets seem to elude you. One way to look at the concept is by a deck of playing cards. Removing the jokers, there are 52 cards in a standard poker deck. They are all playing cards. They might be made of plastic or paper (the ones you buy in the drugstore are paper, the ones you see on a casino floor are generally plastic). They all have printing on them.

But...

There are four suits: spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs. There are 13 cards in each suit. They are still all playing cards, but only one fourth of them are a single suit. A suit is a subset of the deck of playing cards. The deck itself is a superset of a suit in that deck.

There are only four aces in the deck. All the rest of the cards are some other rank. Aces are a subset of a deck of playing cards. The deck itself is a superset of aces in that deck.

Half the deck has red cards, the other half black. Each color is subset of the deck of playing cards. All of them are playing cards. A suit color is a subset of a deck of playing cards. A deck of playing cards is a superset of the colors of the suits in that deck.

With electromagnetic energy (what we call light), that is simply a combination of electrostatic and electromagnetic waves traveling through space. You can generate them by a variety of ways. They all generate light. One of those ways is by blackbody radiance. This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Another way is the way things like LEDs, fireflies, glowworms, etc. do it...by harmonic emission. This is simply stuffing energy into an electron so it jumps to higher orbit, then letting it fall back again. As it falls back, a photon is emitted. This is not blackbody radiance. It is in addition to the total radiance of the LED, firefly, glowworm, etc. All of these also have blackbody radiance as well. Blackbody radiance is a subset of the ways you can produce light. Harmonic radiance is a subset of the ways you can produce light.

Basically, all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron around. You can do it by thermal energy (blackbody radiance), or you can do it by pushing electrons into higher orbit and letting them drop again (harmonic radiance), or you can to it by simply shaking electrons directly using an electronic device (radio). Each of these are subsets of the ways you can produce light.

Producing light is radiance. The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes one way (bodybody radiance), the orbital shift of an electron describes another way. Electronic oscillators describe yet another way.

All three produce light. Only ONE of them is blackbody radiance and involves the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-05-2019 19:09
15-05-2019 21:09
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
What ever you say, James Hansen.
15-05-2019 22:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
What ever you say, James Hansen.


I am not director of a climate 'science' program. I don't work at Columbia University.

Apparently you aren't paying attention.


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2019 22:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
dehammer wrote: What ever you say, James Hansen.

So now you agree with whatever he says? Well, at least you'll be correct. That's gotta count for something.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-05-2019 22:20
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
What ever you say, James Hansen.


I am not director of a climate 'science' program. I don't work at Columbia University.

Apparently you aren't paying attention.



You say you're the director of a climate science program at Columbia University?
I knew you were smart. I didn't know that you were that smart. Kudos to you UDaMann!!


p.s., Stefan-Boltzmann constant doesn't exclude what frequencies of radiation that it applies to does it? A link would be nice if there are such limitations imposed on their work.
Edited on 15-05-2019 22:30
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or1014-04-2019 13:33
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
2nd perpetual Motion Concept309-09-2018 19:16
The Argument for AGW6415-01-2018 23:52
No AGW Conspiracy?122-09-2017 09:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact