Remember me
▼ Content

The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age



Page 2 of 2<12
02-03-2018 22:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Wake wrote:
Then let's cover it yet again - you are an ass that doesn't even know the phrase is in latin: "Argumentum ad lapidem".

Language makes no difference. It is still the same fallacy.
Wake wrote:
And this isn't a logical fallacy

It is a logical fallacy. It is based on denying the proof of identity.
Wake wrote:
since you consider a grey body to be one that you must know the emissivity of when in fact a grey body is one that doesn't ABSORB all the applied wavelengths for any number of reasons.

Emissivity affects all bodies, even ideally white and ideally black ones. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is colorblind. It is not sensitive to wavelengths. There is no term for frequency in that equation.
Wake wrote:
That a grey body EMITS 100% of it's absorbed energy

No, it doesn't. Energy can be lost from a body through conduction or convection as well. Heat occurs by conduction, convection, or radiance.
Wake wrote:
dependent upon the surrounding temperature

Heat only occurs when there is a difference of temperature.
Wake wrote:
or if the energy levels are at the radiation point.

There is no 'radiation point'.
Wake wrote:
But YOU don't know that.

I do know it. There is no such magick point. Anything above absolute zero radiates some light.
Wake wrote:
Now you simply lie about your previous argument that radio frequencies, UV or IR were not light.

Never made that argument, dummy. YOU did. I will call this argument 1.
Wake wrote:
While "light" is defined specifically as a range of electromagnetic frequencies it can be used as a definition of all electromagnetic energy for slow people as yourself.

I will call this argument 2. Welcome to your new paradox.

ALL electromagnetic energy is light.

Wake wrote:
We have asked you dozens of time to explain what you think statistical analysis is to have you claim that you explained it before.

You're a liar, dude. I explained it in my last post AGAIN to you.
Wake wrote:
You still haven't explained your idea of it because you don't know what it is.

I do know what it is. You deny mathematics.
Wake wrote:
And your moronic claims that mathematicians do not understand it makes you even more bizarre.

Never said mathematicians do not understand it. Your bigotry is not welcome here.
Wake wrote:
You claim that you cannot derive MGT is so loony that it is a laughing matter.

How many official thermometers are in the world? Stop evading this question.
Wake wrote:
Apparently your knowledge of statistical analysis has more than a few holes in it.

Who are you to judge? You don't understand statistical mathematics.
Wake wrote:
You continue to compound you proof of ignorance by claiming 1. Climate is the weather over a long period of time and 2. that is a "circular argument".

Never made such a statement. YOU did.
Wake wrote:
The actual term is "circulus in probando"

Language doesn't matter. There is no 'actual term'.
Wake wrote:
and it means to START with the answer rather than the reasoning.

Not what a circular argument is. A circular argument is a conclusion using itself as a predicate.
Go learn what 'reasoning' is.
Wake wrote:
This is not the case with people who understand English and don't try to impress people by using Latin phrases they are not familiar with in some sort of attempt to impress people.

Welcome to ANOTHER new paradox. You have two new ones in a single post!
Wake wrote:
You are not impressing anyone and making yourself look like a fool.

It is YOU that is using Latin. It is YOU that is trying to label something in Latin as the 'actual' phrase. It is YOU that is trying to impress people by using Latin.
Wake wrote:
Ahh, now you attempt to explain your understanding of statistical analysis and of course it is entirely wrong.

Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
NO ONE is attempting to use any raw data multiply.

You do.You are even attempting to do it in this post.
Wake wrote:
You DO NOT require any sort of equal spacing of raw data points.

Yes you do. The effect of location grouping must be eliminated.
Wake wrote:
You only require enough points placed in wide enough locations.

Not good enough.
Wake wrote:
Since temperature lag can be predicted with weather patterns there is absolutely no need to measure these temperatures at the same time.

You can't use temperature predictions as raw data. Weather moves. The planet moves. The weather isn't the same every day.
Wake wrote:
We do not need to use surface thermometers

Yes you do. They are the only instrument that can measure temperature. They are the only instrument in contact with the Earth.
Wake wrote:
since the readings have shown themselves to be completely spurious since the large growth in urban heat island effects or even worse

Any supposed heat island effects makes no difference to statistical analysis. It is just part of the raw data.
Wake wrote:
- official US weather service temperature measuring station placed directly in the exhaust of a building air conditioner.

Makes no difference to the analysis.
Wake wrote:
Rural thermometers have sharply differing temperatures from plowed and fallow land.

Again, it makes no difference to statistical analysis.

Once the effects of location grouping are eliminated, it's all just raw data.
Wake wrote:
In fact surface temperature readings have demonstrated wild inaccuracies over the last 100 years.

Makes no difference. Measurements must be taken at the same time. We are not talking about the past. We are talking about the capability of making the measurement NOW.
Wake wrote:
Even the wind strength changes surface thermometer readings with the urban heat island effect totally disappearing with wind speeds above 27 knots.

Makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
I could refer you to papers

Why? Idiots can write papers about anything. Even get them peer reviewed.
Wake wrote:
but since they disagree with you you called them "holy links" and discount them.

I discount any paper that doesn't come up snuff with the math.
Wake wrote:
That's because you are brilliant and the entire scientific community is composed of idiots in your book.

Never made any such statement. There's your bigotry showing again.
Wake wrote:
Again you show that you do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law and you are getting to the comical point there as well.

I do understand it. You deny it.
Wake wrote:
Satellite temperature measuring is far more accurate that surface thermometers since it measures the temperature of the entire Troposphere.

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure light. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
Using this data they can accurately measure the energy both reflective and radiated and since they can also measure the applied energy from the Sun the math works out correctly.

Reflected light is not due to temperature. You can't tell the difference between reflected light and that emitted by Planck radiance.
Wake wrote:
This has been checked ad absurdum

Using Latin to impress people again?
Wake wrote:
in so many papers

Papers are not 'checks' (unless you are writing an actual check).
Wake wrote:
that only YOU could deny them.

I'll chuck any paper that doesn't come up to snuff on the math.
Wake wrote:
The satellite sensors can measure points to square meters

They can get tighter than that. Trouble is, they only measure light.
Wake wrote:
virtually eliminating the need for statistical analysis

Satellites cannot measure even the light they see over the whole Earth instantaneously. They do not measure temperature at all.
Wake wrote:
and instead using nothing more than averaging to get MGT.

Math error.
Wake wrote:
But according to you, mathematicians do not understand math.

Never said any such thing. Your bigotry is showing again.
Wake wrote:
Only you do. But of course you don't understand math and when trying to explain it you sound a fool.

You deny mathematics.
Wake wrote:
Isn't it time for you to try to tell me about electronics engineering and programming again?

Would you like me to?
Wake wrote:
Tell me how much you know about RF or robotics and how I don't know anything about them despite having mechanisms all over the world now. Even in orbit.

I don't believe you. Credentials mean nothing here. You don't know anything about RF, since you think some kind of magickal 'point' of minimum energy is required to radiate anything. I doubt you are capable of designing a functioning robot yourself. You have trouble understanding a washing machine.
Wake wrote:
You know calling yourself an "operating engineer" doesn't make you an engineer. Operating heavy equipment or maintaining power supplies hardly qualifies you to be making the stupid claims you've been making.

I don't call myself anything. I don't depend on my credentials for my arguments. The use of credentials to support your argument is a weak predicate for that argument.
Wake wrote:
Oh wait, its time for you to claim that I believe in AGW because I don't agree with you.

So far, you have argued that CO2 does warm the Earth, and that greenhouse gases do exist. The only difference between you and other members of the Church of Global Warming is that you don't think the warming is caused by man.

Are you prepared to abandon that position? You already have a two paradoxes on these very issues.

1) Earth is warming.
2) Earth is not warming.
Which is it dude? It can only be one of them!

1) CO2 causes warming.
2) CO2 does not cause warming.
Which is it dude?

Remember, rejecting one argument from a paradox means you can never use that argument again in any form without re-establishing the paradox and throwing BOTH arguments into irrationality.

Free free to clear a paradox of yours, but you have to stick to it.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2018 22:40
Wake
★★★★★
(3401)
It isn't necessary to even talk about what you just wrote - you simply repeated your same errors again. Exactly what insanity is it of yours in which we cannot have a warm period? Either the Earth is warming or it isn't? You stupid moron. The climate has always changed and always will. You simply cannot contain yourself from spouting stupidity after stupidity.
02-03-2018 22:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Wake wrote:
Mt. Etna has been in almost continuous eruption for centuries. If this doesn't effect the local weather why would you believe that it and the other 199 active volcanoes that are known would have your dramatic global weather events? These sometimes extremely dramatic eruptions have had no measurable effects in the upper atmosphere.

Define 'upper atmosphere'.
Wake wrote:
The geological evidence for very large long term dust clouds is sketchy at best and appear to be related to meteor strikes and not volcanism.

Why would that make any difference?
Wake wrote:
These particles are not small and tend to settle out of the atmosphere very rapidly At best they can cause serious weather events for a year or two.

There is no difference between the dust stirred up by a meteorite and a volcano.
Wake wrote:
Most of the ice age animals died out not from hunger or from competition but from HEAT.
...deleted Holy Link...

Heat did not kill the animals of the ice age.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2018 23:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Boeing Marine Systems (BMS), Renton, Wash.

https://magazines.marinelink.com/Magazines/MaritimeReporter/197711/content/million-missile-firing-210883


Thanks for the reference. I didn't know that Boeing was ever in the patrol boat business.


Boeing has been in a lot of different businesses.

They've built rapid transit systems, boats, furniture, jet engines, and even operated their own airline.

The original name of the company was Pacific Aero Products. They were called the Boeing Airplane Company from 1917 until 1965, when it changed its name to the Boeing Company.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2018 23:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Wake wrote:
It isn't necessary to even talk about what you just wrote -
You'd rather discard it, eh? Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
you simply repeated your same errors again.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Exactly what insanity is it of yours in which we cannot have a warm period?
None. It's completely possible to have a warm period.
Wake wrote:
Either the Earth is warming or it isn't?
We don't know. It is not possible to know. We DO know the Sun's energy output has been remarkably stable.
Wake wrote:
You stupid moron. The climate has always changed and always will.

You are trying to define 'climate change' as 'climate change'. Sorry, it's still just a buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2018 22:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3401)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: You're a cyber bully. I don't answer to bullying.


Fine then that leaves you and litebrain as soulmates.



Wake,
I didn't know that you had a sense of humor ! You think myself and litesong are sole mates like running shoes that you can tread on ?
Gosh, not sure what he'll think of that.
I will let you know what everyone has missed, okay ? This is all pre-2013. This is when the IPCC came out with 2 reports of which one showed an atmospheric warming pause.
With the link, notice how it shows a rise in co2 ? The 2nd rise coincides with the asteroid strike 12,800 years ago. This makes the first increase interesting.
Scientists have also stated recently that the increase in co2 levels followed 800 years AFTER the last ice age started ending https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/ .

It is possible that volcanism was responsible for the initial release of co2. The northern hemisphere would've been depressed pushing magma under the Earth's crust south. This would increase the strain on other areas where the magma is pushed towards.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17611404

And I like this graph https://photos.app.goo.gl/LOm4GFbXvjMUKMKF2. It shows from 1950 to 2010 that global warming and world population paralleled each other. This could be a coincidence or industrialization and urbanization might have an impact on atmospheric conditions.

p.s., Wake, notice how I did not insult anyone or make any claims in which I did not offer an explanation or show the source of information that I have considered ? And because I am willing to consider information does not mean that I have accepted it, it only means that I have considered it.


James - I would like you to take off of your blinders and look at what you have been presenting as some sort of "evidence".

Go up top to that chart (your attached image) that you showed. The top line is growth of CO2. Firstly I've shown elsewhere that the levels of supposed CO2 as 280 are low. Water absorbs CO2 to levels of only about that level. So it should come as no surprise that air bubbles in ice show the same levels as saturated water don't you think? The small number of studies of plant stomata have shown that the atmospheric levels of CO2 are about 25% higher than that.

Now this isn't any big deal but we should look more critically at this illustration. The starting point of that curve should be 340 to 350 ppm. Now imagine the change in that top line if the stating point is at 340 ppm. And instead of a 1,500 year period (where the hell did that come from?) lets shrink it down to the middle of the little ice age - say 1750.

Suddenly all of those curves take on a completely different meaning. The CO2 increase of 30% doesn't appear to be connected to the very small difference in temperatures.

Now you have to be extremely careful with the sea ice extend because it is in square km and not a linear measure. This chart has purposely been set up to show an 8% reduction so it looks like a great deal more.

What I get frustrated about is your inability to look past the last thing you've read. An asteroid crash is unlikely to cause an extinction even unless they are like the two fairly close one's that drove the dinosaurs into extinction.

We have had extinction events all the time and you don't know it. Every single acre of land has separate species of insects and plants that come and go over relatively short periods of time such as a decade. Small changes in local weather and POP! - there goes another species of mosquito. A different species of clover arises.

Trying to make some sort of world in which nature is static is nothing less than childish.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future12408-10-2018 21:50
Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record1105-10-2018 20:22
Ice sat 2 launches2228-09-2018 01:17
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show3218-06-2018 20:14
Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump - Michael Mann127-05-2018 07:29
▲ 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