Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
19-10-2015 13:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - I think we both agree that there is too much emphasis on CO2, yet I would not underestimate its priming potential for a much larger event.

As to acid rain and smog, these were merely examples of how our prior behavior has impacted our environment, including the atmosphere.

So again, I challenge you to think outside your box and consider the possibilities which M2C2 is availing to us. Simply reiterating your complaints about CO2 is hardly a response (i.e. - I agree with you on that point).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 13:39
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
But the onus is on you to show that they are linked in some way.

It is you that is making the positive claim and this requires some sort of evidence based support.


Actually, it is not my claim. It is the claim of these people:

http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.cma.gov.cn/en2014/climate/

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/NMHS/indexe_ccmr.html

https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

Even BP and Shell agree that anthropogenic climate change exists:

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

In fact, I have just stumbled across this blog:

http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2009/03/the-antarctica-nicholas-stern-climate-change-and-copenhagen/

In case your finger is tired from clicking on all these links, I have copied my favourite section here:

"Despite the fact that we have enormous regard for science and take it for granted in devices we use every day (such as the computer you are reading this blog on), we seem bent on not believing our atmospheric chemists and others like them who have worked just as hard at establishing their base of knowledge as those who led the way for transistors, semi-conductors and now nanotechnology. It's a bit like being given some very bad health news by a world leading oncologist then visiting 99 other doctors with various qualifications until one tells us that we will probably be OK and then deciding that this is the one that must be right – and it turns out his specialty isn't oncology and he might not be a doctor at all – but we believe him anyway."

- David Hone: Climate Change Advisor for Shell
19-10-2015 13:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
climate scientist wrote:
But the onus is on you to show that they are linked in some way.

It is you that is making the positive claim and this requires some sort of evidence based support.


Actually, it is not my claim. It is the claim of these people:

http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.cma.gov.cn/en2014/climate/

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/NMHS/indexe_ccmr.html

https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

Even BP and Shell agree that anthropogenic climate change exists:

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

In fact, I have just stumbled across this blog:

http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2009/03/the-antarctica-nicholas-stern-climate-change-and-copenhagen/

In case your finger is tired from clicking on all these links, I have copied my favourite section here:

"Despite the fact that we have enormous regard for science and take it for granted in devices we use every day (such as the computer you are reading this blog on), we seem bent on not believing our atmospheric chemists and others like them who have worked just as hard at establishing their base of knowledge as those who led the way for transistors, semi-conductors and now nanotechnology. It's a bit like being given some very bad health news by a world leading oncologist then visiting 99 other doctors with various qualifications until one tells us that we will probably be OK and then deciding that this is the one that must be right – and it turns out his specialty isn't oncology and he might not be a doctor at all – but we believe him anyway."

- David Hone: Climate Change Advisor for Shell


Such appeals to authority carry little weight.

If you wish to avoid sounding very like a Christian quoting learned people all of which say there is a God then you will be forced to actually show the evidence not just that others also say the same thing.

I do not know if there is a greenhouse effect or how big it is.

I take the numbers coming out of bodies such as you have quoted and come to the conclusion that there is no significant problem or threat to humanity from the worste case predictions. Which in any case can now surely be throw out as the past 18 years of the temperature not going up as they had predicted in the IPCC's report. The data we have now must put the sensitivity level well into the bottom half of the range.
19-10-2015 13:51
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - sorry, but this whole line of questioning CO2 with regards to M2C2 is about as fruitful as rehashing the debate over whether or not the Sun orbits the Earth. Wake up, you've missed so much of the conversation already!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 14:05
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
If you wish to avoid sounding very like a Christian quoting learned people all of which say there is a God then you will be forced to actually show the evidence not just that others also say the same thing.


The evidence is in the IPCC reports, which are based on peer reviewed scientific literature from around the world, and from many disciplines of science. If you doubt the IPCC process, then you are free the read the original publications, all of which are listed at the end of each chapter.

I take the numbers coming out of bodies such as you have quoted and come to the conclusion that there is no significant problem or threat to humanity from the worste case predictions. Which in any case can now surely be throw out as the past 18 years of the temperature not going up as they had predicted in the IPCC's report. The data we have now must put the sensitivity level well into the bottom half of the range.


I have never said that I think climate change will be the end of humanity, or the end of the Earth. But some humans will suffer as a result, and many animal and plant species will face extinction.

You seem to be mistaken. Only atmospheric surface temperatures show a 'pause'. There is no pause in ocean warming.

If anything, the IPCC is underestimating climate change:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/
19-10-2015 14:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote: Actually, it is not my claim. It is the claim of these people:

So you were not convinced by any science. You were convinced by a profound faith that what these churches preach is the truth, the light and the way.

There's nothing wrong with having faith. I don't understand why you can't admit that.

Similarly there's no reason you need to EVADE the simple basic questions that clarify your position:

1. Can scientists be religious?
2. Does a religion count as "science" if there is sufficient devotion?
3. Should religions receive government funding under the auspices of "science" funding?
4. How do you believe that subjective "consensus" constitutes science?
5. How do you believe that supporting "evidence" creates science?

These are just basic, straightforward questions that should not, by any means, cause you to scamper away.

climate scientist listed:
http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.cma.gov.cn/en2014/climate/

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/NMHS/indexe_ccmr.html

https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

So you have faith that their positions are based on science; it's just that you have no idea what that science is. You have reviewed no science that you understand that has convinced you that Global Warming or "the greenhouse effect" is real. You just have faith that they are, based on your faith in the above organizations, yes?

climate scientist wrote: Even BP and Shell agree that anthropogenic climate change exists:

So you believe that you speak for even BP and Shell.

So you believe that if BP and Shell agree on something that that makes all the difference in the truth value.


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
19-10-2015 14:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
The evidence is in the IPCC reports, which are based on peer reviewed scientific literature from around the world,

Supporting "evidence" has no role in science, but it plays a huge role in religion, especially yours.

"Peer reviewed" church literature is a fine thing to distribute amongst the Congregation, however nothing "peer reviewed" is required in science. No amount of subjective opinion constitutes science. The scientific method is not interested in anyone's opinion or in any amount of "supporting evidence."

climate scientist wrote: If you doubt the IPCC process, then you are free the read the original publications, all of which are listed at the end of each chapter.

There's no reason to doubt the IPCC process. It is sufficient to realize that it is not the scientific method acting on falsifiable models that predict nature. The IPCC is a religious organization that caters to the Global Warming faithful by processing religious literature. Science is just a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Two completely separate, unrelated things.

climate scientist wrote: I have never said that I think climate change will be the end of humanity,...

You never identified any science model that defines "climate."

climate scientist wrote: There is no pause in ocean warming.

This is part of your religious fantasy. As far as any human knows, the ocean could be cooling at this moment.


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
19-10-2015 15:38
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@no one in particular:

A scientist, a priest, and a marxist walk into a bar, and they're all the same person.

(wait a minute, that's not funny)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 15:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber - sorry, but this whole line of questioning CO2 with regards to M2C2 is about as fruitful as rehashing the debate over whether or not the Sun orbits the Earth. Wake up, you've missed so much of the conversation already!


I do not argue as to if CO2 does or does not cause additional warming about other gasses but if there are those who wish to argue that then they should present the evidence. Otherwise they will look like religious nuts.

Obviously the level of sensitivity is much more simple to discuss.
19-10-2015 16:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
climate scientist wrote:
If you wish to avoid sounding very like a Christian quoting learned people all of which say there is a God then you will be forced to actually show the evidence not just that others also say the same thing.


The evidence is in the IPCC reports, which are based on peer reviewed scientific literature from around the world, and from many disciplines of science. If you doubt the IPCC process, then you are free the read the original publications, all of which are listed at the end of each chapter.

I take the numbers coming out of bodies such as you have quoted and come to the conclusion that there is no significant problem or threat to humanity from the worste case predictions. Which in any case can now surely be throw out as the past 18 years of the temperature not going up as they had predicted in the IPCC's report. The data we have now must put the sensitivity level well into the bottom half of the range.


I have never said that I think climate change will be the end of humanity, or the end of the Earth. But some humans will suffer as a result, and many animal and plant species will face extinction.

You seem to be mistaken. Only atmospheric surface temperatures show a 'pause'. There is no pause in ocean warming.

If anything, the IPCC is underestimating climate change:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/


I'll start a new thread on this.
19-10-2015 17:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: A scientist, a priest, and a marxist walk into a bar,...

...but a critic, a realist and a visionary walk into the same bar. But wait! They're the same people.

So the priest says to the Marxist "I prayed to 'Climate' and saw a vision"
The scientist says "That doesn't sound very realistic."
The Marxist responds "Everybody's a critic."
The priest chimes in "We should build a strategy around ourselves."
The critic and the realist fight over which one of them is the "visionary."
The cow comes back to life and takes over as the bartender.


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
19-10-2015 21:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Into the Night

Anyone who knows anything about science, will know that correlation and causation do not always go hand in hand see:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Just because you do not see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature, it does not mean that they are not linked.


Actually, yes it does. It exactly means they are not linked.

You will have to show a correlation somewhere that would produce this pattern to show a link at all. You would also have to show the methodology of that link.
19-10-2015 21:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
climate scientist wrote:
But the onus is on you to show that they are linked in some way.

It is you that is making the positive claim and this requires some sort of evidence based support.


Actually, it is not my claim. It is the claim of these people:

http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.cma.gov.cn/en2014/climate/

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/NMHS/indexe_ccmr.html

https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

Even BP and Shell agree that anthropogenic climate change exists:

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

In fact, I have just stumbled across this blog:

http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2009/03/the-antarctica-nicholas-stern-climate-change-and-copenhagen/

In case your finger is tired from clicking on all these links, I have copied my favourite section here:

"Despite the fact that we have enormous regard for science and take it for granted in devices we use every day (such as the computer you are reading this blog on), we seem bent on not believing our atmospheric chemists and others like them who have worked just as hard at establishing their base of knowledge as those who led the way for transistors, semi-conductors and now nanotechnology. It's a bit like being given some very bad health news by a world leading oncologist then visiting 99 other doctors with various qualifications until one tells us that we will probably be OK and then deciding that this is the one that must be right – and it turns out his specialty isn't oncology and he might not be a doctor at all – but we believe him anyway."

- David Hone: Climate Change Advisor for Shell


Sorry, but this is the Data Mine. None of these links satisfy the requirements of this thread. See the first post for the rules of Data Mine.

I recommend you follow them to at least some degree anywhere you post. Following them only increases credibility.
Edited on 19-10-2015 21:32
19-10-2015 21:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
climate scientist wrote:
If you wish to avoid sounding very like a Christian quoting learned people all of which say there is a God then you will be forced to actually show the evidence not just that others also say the same thing.


The evidence is in the IPCC reports, which are based on peer reviewed scientific literature from around the world, and from many disciplines of science. If you doubt the IPCC process, then you are free the read the original publications, all of which are listed at the end of each chapter.

I take the numbers coming out of bodies such as you have quoted and come to the conclusion that there is no significant problem or threat to humanity from the worste case predictions. Which in any case can now surely be throw out as the past 18 years of the temperature not going up as they had predicted in the IPCC's report. The data we have now must put the sensitivity level well into the bottom half of the range.


I have never said that I think climate change will be the end of humanity, or the end of the Earth. But some humans will suffer as a result, and many animal and plant species will face extinction.

You seem to be mistaken. Only atmospheric surface temperatures show a 'pause'. There is no pause in ocean warming.

If anything, the IPCC is underestimating climate change:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/


Random numbers. This is the Data Mine. Please follow the requirements for presenting data as closely as possible.
19-10-2015 21:49
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
REPOSTING - i think this may have gotten lost in all the silliness here:

@Into the Night - I think we both agree that there is too much emphasis on CO2, yet I would not underestimate its priming potential for a much larger event.

As to acid rain and smog, these were merely examples of how our prior behavior has impacted our environment, including the atmosphere.

So again, I challenge you to think outside your box and consider the possibilities which M2C2 is availing to us. Simply reiterating your complaints about CO2 is hardly a response (i.e. - I agree with you on that point).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 00:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
trafn wrote:
REPOSTING - i think this may have gotten lost in all the silliness here:

@Into the Night - I think we both agree that there is too much emphasis on CO2, yet I would not underestimate its priming potential for a much larger event.

If any such potential existed, it would've already happened. You are suggesting an unstable system. There is no indication of that.
trafn wrote:
As to acid rain and smog, these were merely examples of how our prior behavior has impacted our environment, including the atmosphere.

These were regional problems, solved with regional solutions. Neither had anything to do with the kind of circular reasoning the AGW crowd (or M2C2 crowd if you prefer) has been doing.
trafn wrote:
So again, I challenge you to think outside your box and consider the possibilities which M2C2 is availing to us. Simply reiterating your complaints about CO2 is hardly a response (i.e. - I agree with you on that point).

A loaded question followed by a statement that denies it's own argument. This is unanswerable.
20-10-2015 01:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the night:

1. It is an unstable system. We're adding more CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and other GHG"s to it daily, and in increasing quantities, forcing the planet to react.

2. Babies gotta learn to crawl before walks. Smog was our crawl phase. Acid rain was our walk phase. The ozone hole was our run phase. M2C2 is our out of control phase.

3. The unanswerable is only a manifestation of your own mind's limitations. But if you prefer the security of those confines, so be it.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 09:55
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Sorry, but this is the Data Mine. None of these links satisfy the requirements of this thread. See the first post for the rules of Data Mine.


More than half the posts in this thread do not abide by your 'rules'. This is a poor response.
20-10-2015 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
climate scientist wrote:
Sorry, but this is the Data Mine. None of these links satisfy the requirements of this thread. See the first post for the rules of Data Mine.


More than half the posts in this thread do not abide by your 'rules'. This is a poor response.


More than half the posts in this thread are not presenting data. You tried to, but not in accordance with the rules. If you are going to present data in any thread, you should try to follow these rules in general if you want credibility in the data you present. Unless I know where the numbers come from and how, to me they are just random numbers. The methodology of obtaining such numbers is at least as important as the numbers themselves.

Here in the Data Mine, these rules are more strictly enforced, and I will continue to call you on them.
20-10-2015 19:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
Here in the Data Mine, these rules are more strictly enforced, and I will continue to call you on them.


This thread should have been called "IBdataMine."

10/19/2300Z 82.926°N 85.430°W -15.5°C 1007.0mb
10/19/2200Z 82.927°N 85.427°W -14.5°C 1007.3mb
10/19/2100Z 82.927°N 85.426°W -13.7°C 1007.5mb
10/19/2000Z 82.927°N 85.425°W -13.0°C 1007.5mb
10/19/1900Z 82.927°N 85.426°W -12.6°C 1007.6mb
10/19/1800Z 82.927°N 85.428°W -12.6°C 1007.7mb
10/19/1700Z 82.927°N 85.430°W -12.6°C 1007.9mb
10/19/1600Z 82.926°N 85.433°W -12.6°C 1007.9mb
10/19/1500Z 82.926°N 85.437°W -12.5°C 1008.0mb
10/19/1400Z 82.926°N 85.442°W -12.7°C 1008.2mb
10/19/1300Z 82.925°N 85.443°W -12.8°C 1008.4mb
10/19/1200Z 82.925°N 85.446°W -12.7°C 1008.5mb
10/19/1100Z 82.925°N 85.447°W -12.7°C 1008.8mb
10/19/1000Z 82.925°N 85.449°W -12.9°C 1008.8mb
10/19/0900Z 82.925°N 85.451°W -12.8°C 1008.6mb
10/19/0800Z 82.924°N 85.460°W -12.7°C 1008.5mb
10/19/0700Z 82.924°N 85.470°W -13.1°C 1008.3mb
10/19/0600Z 82.923°N 85.477°W -13.2°C 1008.1mb
10/19/0500Z 82.922°N 85.481°W -13.0°C 1007.9mb
10/19/0400Z 82.922°N 85.485°W -13.0°C 1007.9mb
10/19/0300Z 82.921°N 85.489°W -13.1°C 1008.0mb
10/19/0200Z 82.921°N 85.490°W -13.2°C 1008.0mb
10/19/0100Z 82.921°N 85.492°W -13.4°C 1007.9mb
10/19/0000Z 82.920°N 85.497°W -13.5°C 1007.8mb

Yesterday's high-Arctic Temperatures.


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
20-10-2015 19:45
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - data is not the whole story. Yes, it can be part of the story, but it's not the whole story.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 19:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
trafn wrote:
@Into the night:

1. It is an unstable system. We're adding more CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and other GHG"s to it daily, and in increasing quantities, forcing the planet to react.

First, this is a circular argument at this stage since there is no data presented to support it. Second, if the system was inherently unstable, it would have already crashed. We would not be here to discuss it.

Indeed, your use of the phrase 'forcing the planet to react' is the description of a stable system, not an unstable one.

trafn wrote:
2. Babies gotta learn to crawl before walks. Smog was our crawl phase. Acid rain was our walk phase. The ozone hole was our run phase. M2C2 is our out of control phase.


The ozone hole was a manufactured crisis that 'disappeared'. None of it conformed with the reason the ozone layer exists in the first place. BTW, the holes are still there, just as it has been for as long as there has been ozone in the atmosphere. It is there for the same reasons, which have nothing to do with CFC's or chlorinated anything.
trafn wrote:
3. The unanswerable is only a manifestation of your own mind's limitations. But if you prefer the security of those confines, so be it.

It's not a matter of security of confines. It is a matter of senselessness. A loaded question, by it's very nature, prevents answering in any sensible way.
20-10-2015 19:48
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - good one!

How about this. Here's the latest 2015 MLB Detailed Standings (all that bat swinging must heat up the atmosphere).

(SRS) · Glossary · SHARE · Embed · CSV · Export · PRE · LINK · ?
Rk Tm Lg G W L W-L% Strk R RA Rdiff SOS SRS ▾ pythWL Luck Inter Home Road ExInn 1Run vRHP vLHP ≥.500 <.500 last10 last20 last30
1 TOR AL 162 93 69 .574 L 2 5.5 4.1 1.4 0.2 1.6 102-60 -9 12-8 53-28 40-41 8-6 15-28 73-54 20-15 53-33 40-36 6-4 11-9 18-12
2 HOU AL 162 86 76 .531 L 1 4.5 3.8 0.7 0.2 0.9 93-69 -7 16-4 53-28 33-48 8-6 21-29 56-45 30-31 42-43 44-33 6-4 10-10 13-17
3 NYY AL 162 87 75 .537 L 3 4.7 4.3 0.4 0.3 0.8 88-74 -1 11-9 45-36 42-39 4-9 23-24 60-52 27-23 40-47 47-28 3-7 9-11 13-17
4 KCR AL 162 95 67 .586 W 5 4.5 4.0 0.5 0.2 0.7 90-72 5 13-7 51-30 44-37 10-6 23-17 64-40 31-27 47-43 48-24 6-4 11-9 14-16
5 STL NL 162 100 62 .617 L 3 4.0 3.2 0.8 -0.3 0.5 96-66 4 11-9 55-26 45-36 8-8 32-23 75-44 25-18 46-31 54-31 4-6 12-8 14-16
6 BAL AL 162 81 81 .500 W 5 4.4 4.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 83-79 -2 12-8 47-31 34-50 6-5 25-26 59-58 22-23 37-51 44-30 5-5 12-8 18-12
7 TEX AL 162 88 74 .543 W 1 4.6 4.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 83-79 5 11-9 43-38 45-36 5-4 27-22 53-43 35-31 48-36 40-38 5-5 13-7 18-12
8 CLE AL 161 81 80 .503 W 3 4.2 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 84-77 -3 12-8 39-41 42-39 5-4 15-18 57-49 24-31 41-46 40-34 6-4 11-9 17-13
9 TBR AL 162 80 82 .494 W 2 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 81-81 -1 14-6 42-42 38-40 2-13 26-30 50-59 30-23 46-58 34-24 6-4 11-9 14-16
10 PIT NL 162 98 64 .605 W 1 4.3 3.7 0.6 -0.3 0.3 93-69 5 13-7 53-28 45-36 12-9 36-17 78-48 20-16 42-32 56-32 6-4 12-8 19-11
11 BOS AL 162 78 84 .481 L 4 4.6 4.6 0.0 0.4 0.3 81-81 -3 13-7 43-38 35-46 7-7 20-19 57-59 21-25 44-59 34-25 6-4 10-10 17-13
12 CHC NL 162 97 65 .599 W 8 4.3 3.8 0.5 -0.3 0.2 90-72 7 10-10 49-32 48-33 13-5 34-21 77-51 20-14 44-32 53-33 8-2 15-5 22-8
13 LAA AL 162 85 77 .525 L 1 4.1 4.2 -0.1 0.3 0.2 79-83 6 8-12 49-32 36-45 5-7 35-17 60-55 25-22 38-48 47-29 7-3 13-7 19-11
14 MIN AL 162 83 79 .512 L 3 4.3 4.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 81-81 2 8-12 46-35 37-44 6-8 21-20 55-53 28-26 42-46 41-33 5-5 9-11 14-16
15 LAD NL 162 92 70 .568 W 4 4.1 3.7 0.4 -0.3 0.1 89-73 3 10-10 55-26 37-44 6-9 23-26 67-51 25-19 28-37 64-33 5-5 10-10 17-13
16 SFG NL 162 84 78 .518 L 1 4.3 3.9 0.4 -0.3 0.1 89-73 -5 13-7 47-34 37-44 6-5 19-28 62-56 22-22 29-33 55-45 5-5 10-10 15-15
17 OAK AL 162 68 94 .420 L 1 4.3 4.5 -0.2 0.3 0.1 77-85 -9 11-9 34-47 34-47 7-10 19-35 53-62 15-32 45-62 23-32 4-6 7-13 10-20
18 NYM NL 162 90 72 .556 W 1 4.2 3.8 0.4 -0.4 0.0 89-73 1 9-11 49-32 41-40 9-6 25-24 70-56 20-16 28-38 62-34 5-5 9-11 17-13
19 WSN NL 162 83 79 .512 L 1 4.3 3.9 0.4 -0.4 0.0 89-73 -6 8-12 46-35 37-44 9-2 22-22 60-63 23-16 28-37 55-42 5-5 11-9 16-14
Avg 80 80 .500 4.2 4.3 81-80 10-10 43-37 37-43 7-7 23-23 59-58 21-22 38-47 42-33 5-5 9-10 14-15
20 SEA AL 162 76 86 .469 W 1 4.0 4.5 -0.4 0.3 -0.1 74-88 2 8-12 36-45 40-41 10-13 28-29 54-54 22-32 44-58 32-28 2-8 8-12 15-15
21 ARI NL 162 79 83 .488 W 1 4.4 4.4 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 82-80 -3 11-9 39-42 40-41 9-9 20-24 60-61 19-22 32-53 47-30 6-4 11-9 15-15
22 CHW AL 162 76 86 .469 L 1 3.8 4.3 -0.5 0.3 -0.2 72-90 4 9-11 40-41 36-45 13-5 29-30 58-68 18-18 49-61 27-25 4-6 8-12 14-16
23 DET AL 161 74 87 .460 W 1 4.3 5.0 -0.7 0.3 -0.4 69-92 5 9-11 38-43 36-44 9-8 26-22 53-70 21-17 51-59 23-28 4-6 10-10 13-17
24 SDP NL 162 74 88 .457 L 3 4.0 4.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.7 72-90 2 7-13 39-42 35-46 7-5 22-21 55-67 19-21 33-50 41-38 3-7 7-13 10-20
25 MIA NL 162 71 91 .438 L 1 3.8 4.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.7 74-88 -3 7-13 41-40 30-51 6-3 23-21 57-72 14-19 33-47 38-44 6-4 10-10 18-12
26 MIL NL 162 68 94 .420 L 4 4.0 4.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.7 72-90 -4 8-12 34-47 34-47 4-5 16-16 49-74 19-20 36-61 32-33 4-6 6-14 11-19
27 CIN NL 162 64 98 .395 L 1 4.0 4.7 -0.7 -0.1 -0.8 69-93 -5 7-13 34-47 30-51 5-12 18-29 49-71 15-27 35-62 29-36 1-9 4-16 9-21
28 COL NL 162 68 94 .420 W 1 4.5 5.2 -0.7 -0.2 -0.9 71-91 -3 5-15 36-45 32-49 3-5 20-24 57-62 11-32 29-53 39-41 5-5 9-11 14-16
29 ATL NL 162 67 95 .414 W 3 3.5 4.7 -1.2 -0.2 -1.4 61-101 6 6-14 42-39 25-56 4-9 28-18 54-72 13-23 29-53 38-42 6-4 11-9 13-17
30 PHI NL 162 63 99 .389 W 1 3.9 5.0 -1.1 -0.2 -1.4 62-100 1 8-12 37-44 26-55 6-9 16-27 45-79 18-20 29-54 34-45 6-4 9-11 11-19

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to start a thread about how to properly format data?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 20-10-2015 19:49
20-10-2015 19:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Here in the Data Mine, these rules are more strictly enforced, and I will continue to call you on them.


This thread should have been called "IBdataMine."

10/19/2300Z 82.926°N 85.430°W -15.5°C 1007.0mb
10/19/2200Z 82.927°N 85.427°W -14.5°C 1007.3mb
10/19/2100Z 82.927°N 85.426°W -13.7°C 1007.5mb
10/19/2000Z 82.927°N 85.425°W -13.0°C 1007.5mb
10/19/1900Z 82.927°N 85.426°W -12.6°C 1007.6mb
10/19/1800Z 82.927°N 85.428°W -12.6°C 1007.7mb
10/19/1700Z 82.927°N 85.430°W -12.6°C 1007.9mb
10/19/1600Z 82.926°N 85.433°W -12.6°C 1007.9mb
10/19/1500Z 82.926°N 85.437°W -12.5°C 1008.0mb
10/19/1400Z 82.926°N 85.442°W -12.7°C 1008.2mb
10/19/1300Z 82.925°N 85.443°W -12.8°C 1008.4mb
10/19/1200Z 82.925°N 85.446°W -12.7°C 1008.5mb
10/19/1100Z 82.925°N 85.447°W -12.7°C 1008.8mb
10/19/1000Z 82.925°N 85.449°W -12.9°C 1008.8mb
10/19/0900Z 82.925°N 85.451°W -12.8°C 1008.6mb
10/19/0800Z 82.924°N 85.460°W -12.7°C 1008.5mb
10/19/0700Z 82.924°N 85.470°W -13.1°C 1008.3mb
10/19/0600Z 82.923°N 85.477°W -13.2°C 1008.1mb
10/19/0500Z 82.922°N 85.481°W -13.0°C 1007.9mb
10/19/0400Z 82.922°N 85.485°W -13.0°C 1007.9mb
10/19/0300Z 82.921°N 85.489°W -13.1°C 1008.0mb
10/19/0200Z 82.921°N 85.490°W -13.2°C 1008.0mb
10/19/0100Z 82.921°N 85.492°W -13.4°C 1007.9mb
10/19/0000Z 82.920°N 85.497°W -13.5°C 1007.8mb

Yesterday's high-Arctic Temperatures.


Could you please describe what this data is, how it was gathered, the instrumentation used, etc.? Is this composite data, raw data, or fudged data? Feel free to use the format I used for the Mauna Loa observatory data.

Once this is described, continuing data can reference the same information without repeating it again.
20-10-2015 19:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - data is not the whole story. Yes, it can be part of the story, but it's not the whole story.


Quite true. But this is the Data Mine. This is where data can be shown with credibility if one follows the rules as closely as possible. (That should be done anyway no matter what the thread!)
20-10-2015 19:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - data is not the whole story. Yes, it can be part of the story, but it's not the whole story.

The falsifiable model is the whole story. Data serve as bookmarks.


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
20-10-2015 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - good one!

How about this. Here's the latest 2015 MLB Detailed Standings (all that bat swinging must heat up the atmosphere).

(SRS) · Glossary · SHARE · Embed · CSV · Export · PRE · LINK · ?
Rk Tm Lg G W L W-L% Strk R RA Rdiff SOS SRS ▾ pythWL Luck Inter Home Road ExInn 1Run vRHP vLHP ≥.500 <.500 last10 last20 last30
1 TOR AL 162 93 69 .574 L 2 5.5 4.1 1.4 0.2 1.6 102-60 -9 12-8 53-28 40-41 8-6 15-28 73-54 20-15 53-33 40-36 6-4 11-9 18-12
2 HOU AL 162 86 76 .531 L 1 4.5 3.8 0.7 0.2 0.9 93-69 -7 16-4 53-28 33-48 8-6 21-29 56-45 30-31 42-43 44-33 6-4 10-10 13-17
3 NYY AL 162 87 75 .537 L 3 4.7 4.3 0.4 0.3 0.8 88-74 -1 11-9 45-36 42-39 4-9 23-24 60-52 27-23 40-47 47-28 3-7 9-11 13-17
4 KCR AL 162 95 67 .586 W 5 4.5 4.0 0.5 0.2 0.7 90-72 5 13-7 51-30 44-37 10-6 23-17 64-40 31-27 47-43 48-24 6-4 11-9 14-16
5 STL NL 162 100 62 .617 L 3 4.0 3.2 0.8 -0.3 0.5 96-66 4 11-9 55-26 45-36 8-8 32-23 75-44 25-18 46-31 54-31 4-6 12-8 14-16
6 BAL AL 162 81 81 .500 W 5 4.4 4.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 83-79 -2 12-8 47-31 34-50 6-5 25-26 59-58 22-23 37-51 44-30 5-5 12-8 18-12
7 TEX AL 162 88 74 .543 W 1 4.6 4.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 83-79 5 11-9 43-38 45-36 5-4 27-22 53-43 35-31 48-36 40-38 5-5 13-7 18-12
8 CLE AL 161 81 80 .503 W 3 4.2 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 84-77 -3 12-8 39-41 42-39 5-4 15-18 57-49 24-31 41-46 40-34 6-4 11-9 17-13
9 TBR AL 162 80 82 .494 W 2 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 81-81 -1 14-6 42-42 38-40 2-13 26-30 50-59 30-23 46-58 34-24 6-4 11-9 14-16
10 PIT NL 162 98 64 .605 W 1 4.3 3.7 0.6 -0.3 0.3 93-69 5 13-7 53-28 45-36 12-9 36-17 78-48 20-16 42-32 56-32 6-4 12-8 19-11
11 BOS AL 162 78 84 .481 L 4 4.6 4.6 0.0 0.4 0.3 81-81 -3 13-7 43-38 35-46 7-7 20-19 57-59 21-25 44-59 34-25 6-4 10-10 17-13
12 CHC NL 162 97 65 .599 W 8 4.3 3.8 0.5 -0.3 0.2 90-72 7 10-10 49-32 48-33 13-5 34-21 77-51 20-14 44-32 53-33 8-2 15-5 22-8
13 LAA AL 162 85 77 .525 L 1 4.1 4.2 -0.1 0.3 0.2 79-83 6 8-12 49-32 36-45 5-7 35-17 60-55 25-22 38-48 47-29 7-3 13-7 19-11
14 MIN AL 162 83 79 .512 L 3 4.3 4.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 81-81 2 8-12 46-35 37-44 6-8 21-20 55-53 28-26 42-46 41-33 5-5 9-11 14-16
15 LAD NL 162 92 70 .568 W 4 4.1 3.7 0.4 -0.3 0.1 89-73 3 10-10 55-26 37-44 6-9 23-26 67-51 25-19 28-37 64-33 5-5 10-10 17-13
16 SFG NL 162 84 78 .518 L 1 4.3 3.9 0.4 -0.3 0.1 89-73 -5 13-7 47-34 37-44 6-5 19-28 62-56 22-22 29-33 55-45 5-5 10-10 15-15
17 OAK AL 162 68 94 .420 L 1 4.3 4.5 -0.2 0.3 0.1 77-85 -9 11-9 34-47 34-47 7-10 19-35 53-62 15-32 45-62 23-32 4-6 7-13 10-20
18 NYM NL 162 90 72 .556 W 1 4.2 3.8 0.4 -0.4 0.0 89-73 1 9-11 49-32 41-40 9-6 25-24 70-56 20-16 28-38 62-34 5-5 9-11 17-13
19 WSN NL 162 83 79 .512 L 1 4.3 3.9 0.4 -0.4 0.0 89-73 -6 8-12 46-35 37-44 9-2 22-22 60-63 23-16 28-37 55-42 5-5 11-9 16-14
Avg 80 80 .500 4.2 4.3 81-80 10-10 43-37 37-43 7-7 23-23 59-58 21-22 38-47 42-33 5-5 9-10 14-15
20 SEA AL 162 76 86 .469 W 1 4.0 4.5 -0.4 0.3 -0.1 74-88 2 8-12 36-45 40-41 10-13 28-29 54-54 22-32 44-58 32-28 2-8 8-12 15-15
21 ARI NL 162 79 83 .488 W 1 4.4 4.4 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 82-80 -3 11-9 39-42 40-41 9-9 20-24 60-61 19-22 32-53 47-30 6-4 11-9 15-15
22 CHW AL 162 76 86 .469 L 1 3.8 4.3 -0.5 0.3 -0.2 72-90 4 9-11 40-41 36-45 13-5 29-30 58-68 18-18 49-61 27-25 4-6 8-12 14-16
23 DET AL 161 74 87 .460 W 1 4.3 5.0 -0.7 0.3 -0.4 69-92 5 9-11 38-43 36-44 9-8 26-22 53-70 21-17 51-59 23-28 4-6 10-10 13-17
24 SDP NL 162 74 88 .457 L 3 4.0 4.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.7 72-90 2 7-13 39-42 35-46 7-5 22-21 55-67 19-21 33-50 41-38 3-7 7-13 10-20
25 MIA NL 162 71 91 .438 L 1 3.8 4.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.7 74-88 -3 7-13 41-40 30-51 6-3 23-21 57-72 14-19 33-47 38-44 6-4 10-10 18-12
26 MIL NL 162 68 94 .420 L 4 4.0 4.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.7 72-90 -4 8-12 34-47 34-47 4-5 16-16 49-74 19-20 36-61 32-33 4-6 6-14 11-19
27 CIN NL 162 64 98 .395 L 1 4.0 4.7 -0.7 -0.1 -0.8 69-93 -5 7-13 34-47 30-51 5-12 18-29 49-71 15-27 35-62 29-36 1-9 4-16 9-21
28 COL NL 162 68 94 .420 W 1 4.5 5.2 -0.7 -0.2 -0.9 71-91 -3 5-15 36-45 32-49 3-5 20-24 57-62 11-32 29-53 39-41 5-5 9-11 14-16
29 ATL NL 162 67 95 .414 W 3 3.5 4.7 -1.2 -0.2 -1.4 61-101 6 6-14 42-39 25-56 4-9 28-18 54-72 13-23 29-53 38-42 6-4 11-9 13-17
30 PHI NL 162 63 99 .389 W 1 3.9 5.0 -1.1 -0.2 -1.4 62-100 1 8-12 37-44 26-55 6-9 16-27 45-79 18-20 29-54 34-45 6-4 9-11 11-19

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to start a thread about how to properly format data?


Formatting data is your choice. There is no 'right' way to format data as long as you present it with as little bias as possible. A list of numbers is fine.

What is the source of this data? Where does it come from? What instrumentation was used to gather it? Is this composite, raw, or fudged data? When was it gathered? Remember that without this information data is nothing from random numbers here. Is this even relevant to the purpose of the website?
Edited on 20-10-2015 20:01
20-10-2015 19:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - jeez, will ya luk at 'ow e' jest reems awl ovuh yor dayta!

Ah ges mah baysbal dayta wuz kwite ahlrite fur him, then!

(oops, I spoke too soon!)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 20-10-2015 20:01
20-10-2015 20:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMarxistMann - given your re-re-re-re-statement above that:

The falsifiable model is the whole story

...that must mean you admit that your assertions about M2C2 are not worth considering?

After all, you have failed to provide any falsifiable models to back them up.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 20-10-2015 20:04
20-10-2015 20:36
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
More than half the posts in this thread are not presenting data. You tried to, but not in accordance with the rules. If you are going to present data in any thread, you should try to follow these rules in general if you want credibility in the data you present. Unless I know where the numbers come from and how, to me they are just random numbers. The methodology of obtaining such numbers is at least as important as the numbers themselves.


Um... I didn't present any data. I posted some links to a whole bunch of scientific institutions that promote the existence of climate change, an article discussing the possibility that the IPCC reports might be underestimating climate change, and a blog post. No data...
20-10-2015 21:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
climate scientist wrote:
More than half the posts in this thread are not presenting data. You tried to, but not in accordance with the rules. If you are going to present data in any thread, you should try to follow these rules in general if you want credibility in the data you present. Unless I know where the numbers come from and how, to me they are just random numbers. The methodology of obtaining such numbers is at least as important as the numbers themselves.


Um... I didn't present any data. I posted some links to a whole bunch of scientific institutions that promote the existence of climate change, an article discussing the possibility that the IPCC reports might be underestimating climate change, and a blog post. No data...


I agree. No data was presented. The various opinion pieces you quoted use no data either.
20-10-2015 21:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMarxistMann - given your re-re-re-re-statement above that:

The falsifiable model is the whole story

...that must mean you admit that your assertions about M2C2 are not worth considering?

After all, you have failed to provide any falsifiable models to back them up.


He doesn't need to. He is not the one making a positive assertion. The burden of proof is clearly on those who do think M2C2 is worth considering.
20-10-2015 21:36
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I agree. No data was presented. The various opinion pieces you quoted use no data either.


So then what is the problem...
20-10-2015 21:38
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
He is not the one making a positive assertion.


IBdaMann has made a 'positive assertion' many times on this forum that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT. Yet he has yet to provide any evidence, data, or references to back this statement up.
20-10-2015 22:09
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist - ohhhhhhhh! Score one for the big CS!

Now wait, where did I misplace my falsifiable model for the GHE violating the 1st LoT.

Oh wait, I didn't misplace it cause there isn't any such thing.

Silly me!



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 22:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - point of information - science allows one to rule things in (positive assertion) as well as rule things out (negative assertion).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
climate scientist wrote:
He is not the one making a positive assertion.


IBdaMann has made a 'positive assertion' many times on this forum that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT. Yet he has yet to provide any evidence, data, or references to back this statement up.


Any model that traps energy on the surface of the Earth would violate the 1st LoT. It doesn't matter how much is trapped. To increase energy at the surface would require an energy source. Those gases commonly referred to as greenhouse gases are not energy sources. Therefore there is no way to trap energy and warm the surface that way.

Even a miniscule amount of trapping of energy by any unspecified mechanism would build a positive feedback loop that would necessarily vaporize the Earth. Such an entrapment would effectively create a perpetual motion machine (at least as long as the Earth itself lasted).

I happen to acknowledge the absorption of IR energy at certain frequencies by various gases commonly referred to as 'greenhouse' gases. However, such gases tend to cool the surface of the Earth during the day, since the energy they absorb never reaches the surface. They also tend to warm the surface during the night, as they release their absorbed energy back into the cooling atmosphere, which they won't do until that atmosphere cools (2nd LoT).

All such gases do is narrow the temperature swing of the surface from day to night. They do not add to the mean temperature. They couldn't without violating the 1st LoT since that would mean energy being added to the total system.

References to back these statements up can be found in any text properly describing thermal dynamics. Nothing need be quoted as you demand.
20-10-2015 22:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - trapping leading to vaporization is actually PART OF the LoT's. How do you think an electronic cigarettes works?

Perhaps what we are really dealing with here isn't a violation of the LoT's, but a violation of your sense of security in your concept of "The Earth." Might it just be a tad too scary for you to consider that we could indeed destroy/vaporize/kill this planet and turn it into a lifeless mass.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 22:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
climate scientist wrote:
I agree. No data was presented. The various opinion pieces you quoted use no data either.


So then what is the problem...


The problem is that you were attempting to show linkage of data by using unsupported opinion pieces. That's like saying the data is linked simply because someone said so.

You have not shown any linkage at all. The attempt to do so will require intermediate data, which you did not provide. The mechanism of linkage would also be required, which you did not provide. An opinion piece is not a mechanism. Such a mechanism would show why dataset A is related to dataset B mathematically and logically, then also show why dataset B is related to dataset C mathematically and logically.

Until you can show this, dataset A and dataset C remain unlinked.
20-10-2015 22:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - point of information - science allows one to rule things in (positive assertion) as well as rule things out (negative assertion).


Quite true, but to rule things out requires showing something else that causes a hypothesis to be ruled out (an alternative and mutually exclusive positive assertion), or the exhaustion of possibilities (the evidence of absence of evidence). The second method requires searching a closed set of evidences.

It is MUCH harder to rule things out than to rule things in.
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 01:44
Ideas of Mine3611-02-2018 20:41
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 22:56
Climate Data 800,000 years18818-11-2017 09:11
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
▲ 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 © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact